I know this sounds crazy, but consider the following:

86.011 Jurisdiction of trial court.--The circuit and county courts have jurisdiction within their respective jurisdictional amounts to declare rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or procedure is open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is demanded. The court's declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect and such declaration has the force and effect of a final judgment. The court may render declaratory judgments on the existence, or nonexistence:

(1) Of any immunity, power, privilege, or right; or

(2) Of any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such immunity, power, privilege, or right does or may depend, whether such immunity, power, privilege, or right now exists or will arise in the future. Any person seeking a declaratory judgment may also demand additional, alternative, coercive, subsequent, or supplemental relief in the same... action.

Background: Basically, there are two types of civil actions. One, which is the most common, is for $$ damages and the other, which is VERY rare, is for declaratory action.

Declaratory action asks the court to determine the rights and/or responsibilities of the parties at the request of one or both of the parties. Actual damages need not even be incurred yet; they must be only reasonably plausible. Here, Z has an undetermined wrongful death liability for an undeterminable amount "hanging over his head".

The aggressive solution to this IMO is to "steal T's parent's thunder" by suing them!

The complaint/petition, in most basic terms would say:

I shot T. I was prosecuted and found not guilty. Florida's stand your ground statute precludes civil liability in my situation. Please agree with me and rule that Z's parents have no right to sue me or collect any damages from me.

If I were Z's lawyer, I would file the declaratory action and serve it with a motion for summary judgment (and if permissible a notice of hearing including the date and time for about 45 days out). The matter could be determined at that one hearing. Z would stipulate to all the facts and allege that there is only one possible conclusion as a matter of law. IMO, there would be no need for lengthy, prolonged discovery (depositions, interrogatories, etc.) and the matter could (should) be resolved relatively quickly. The loser could then appeal.

Otherwise, we could easily see a lawsuit that drags on for a couple years...


(Let me know when you first hear of this being discussed in the media.)

I've heard about the immunity from a civil thing... Zimmerman's attorney had stated earlier, before the verdict, that he would pursue this.... 😟

What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?"

Yes, but as a defense, not as an offensive "weapon". Z would have to wait to be sued, which would be delayed by his ongoing litigation against whichever network that allegedly defamed him.

It's locked in the back of white bronco...

That is a Constitutional Right that applies to criminal cases.

Seriously man ,

The Yellow Pen,

HOW??

Interesting rfenster.

Enough hoodrat pieces of garbage already wanna off him. Bad PR too.

*shrug*

Suing is the new american way

This will not succeed. It isn't even the same thing or what I wrote about. I don't think Z should sue T's parents for $$, just "freedom".

"Hoodrat pieces of garbage"- well, at least we know what you think of them.

Look, Z can't get any worse PR than he already has from those who would off him. What I am proposing is an anti-lawsuit law suit- where z does not even ask for $$ and could end the whole civil-lawsuit-threat crap real quick. Suing the new American way? Sadly, no. It's been the way for >200 years.

That's all fine and good...and Ima gonna let you finish...BUT...this isn't ANYTHING to do with Stand Your Ground...Z waived that.


The talking heads...misinformed and political left leaning stooges are interjecting that into this.

Robert my piece of garbage statement was directed only at those who have been threatening him

I think Zs attnys would disagree with you dmv.

My friend, you are totally clueless. He only waived for the criminal proceeding. See:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted... is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
...
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

Understood. No offense intended.

No offense taken.

I have an undeniable ammount of azzhole in my personality, didn't want you thinking it was excessive!

Robert...where is Stand Your Ground in that???

Its not there.

According to Zs attny he will file and win immunity based on stand your ground if the civil crap starts.

Maybe he is wrong.

*shrug*

If the Martins are denied the right for a Civil suit under Stand Your Ground, I can already see the media, President and his flunkies, attacking the law as "racist". Of course the brain dead voters who do whatever the media and President tells them to do will defeat any and all such laws. Once that's done, anyone who defends themselves from an attacker will be screwed.