It does not preclude the filing of a suit. However, Zimmerman will have a self-defense immunity hearing (IT IS NOT SYG!) prior to the trial commencing. He will have to hire a lawyer and spend money to defend himself in that hearing. He will need to provide sufficient facts, through a preponderance of the evidence (more convincing facts than the other party has - basically 51%-49%), to prove that he acted in self defense. If he can do that, and convince the judge, the case will be tossed. The court will then award attorney fess and expenses to Zimmerman.
ETA: The not guilty verdict, while useful, may not, in and of itself, provide sufficient evidence in that hearing. As a matter of law, the verdict was reached based on a reasonable doubt that the State disproved Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. [That's sort of a double negative] But it does not meet the preponderance of evidence requirement.
I don't read it that way.
Per the statute quoted, he is immune. Yes, the suit could be filed and he will have to go through an immunity hearing. However, as the ONLY way the jury could find a man who admits to shooting and killing another to be not guilty is that the force was justified. That's the end of the immunity hearing other than to award costs to Zimmerman. He can also counter sue for further damages anyone who tries to bring such a suit. It should be quite a costly affair for any who chose to attack him in that way.
I don't see it going to any procedure where "preponderance" of evidence comes into play as the immunity statute is clear:
"776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 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"
AND
"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; "
As the statute clearly states such a person is IMMUNE from civil action, once the hearing is held, the suit should be dismissed and costs awarded to Zimmerman.
The only threats I see him facing (legally) is the potential for the corrupt federal "justice" system to attempt to charge him with violating TM's civil rights. However, again, as he admitted to killing TM and a jury found him not guilty (therefore justified), such an action would be difficult......but that hasn't ever seemed to stop the fed from trying to appease the race baiters.
