• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Immunity from Civil Liability Law

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
In the United States federal regulations require that in order to label coffee as "decaffeinated" that coffee must have had its caffeine level reduced by no less than 97.5 percent.

Example: Panamanian coffee is about 1.36% caffeine by weight normally. This and many other arabica coffees are about 98.64% caffeine free even before anything is done to lower the caffeine content..

When 97% of the caffeine has been removed only .0408 % of the coffee weight is caffeine. About 4/100ths of 1%. At this level it is labeled "decaffeinated. How roasters label their products is another matter. Suppose two roasters roast Panama coffee that originally came from the same lot, and were decaffeinated together in the same vat. One roaster labels his decaf. "97.5% Caffeine Removed." The other says his is "99+% Caffeine Free." Which roaster is not telling the truth?

The answer is: They are both right. They are both essentially saying the same thing.

Decaf should range somewhere in the 2-4 milligrams of caffeine per cup range.

Currently used solvents for decaffeinating coffee include, H2O (water), CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Meth. Chloride, Ethyl Acetate. Note: A relatively new method called Swiss Water Decaffeinated uses "flavor-charged" water in the decaffeinating process. (No, I don't know what this means.) I usually OC when I stop at 7-11 to get my non-decaf coffee.

It was a colorful example Nuc:banghead: It's like when I say I don't chew my terbacky twice...it doesn't mean stick the plug back in my mouth:banghead: ot I ain't got a dog in this fight:banghead: or my fat Aunt's Butt:banghead: or the horse you rode in on:banghead:
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The Defamation suit is already filed against NBC for their special editing of the 911 call to make Zimmerman look like a racist.

I hope he screws NBC out of $100 Million. Maybe then the "media" will start reporting the facts and not their personal spews as happened in this case.

100 million is a drop in the bucket to NBC. It will not change their mode of operation in the least. It will help GZ get his life back on track though.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
He will need the 100M to help him provide security for himself and his family.

The prejudice criminals are showing there ugly faces with threats of killing.

And the DOJ is making threats of legal actions which I would equate to a threat against his life, since any jail time for Mr.Z would surely be a death sentence.

I doubt the DOJ threats will ever be a reality but I feel they need to be lump together with all the other viola threats. Maybe more so since the DOJ is suppose to serve and protect and not threaten innocent folks with incarceration and possible death. Viola,viola,viola.

My .02

Best regards,

CCJ
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
He will need the 100M to help him provide security for himself and his family.

The prejudice criminals are showing there ugly faces with threats of killing.

And the DOJ is making threats of legal actions which I would equate to a threat against his life, since any jail time for Mr.Z would surely be a death sentence.

I doubt the DOJ threats will ever be a reality but I feel they need to be lump together with all the other viola threats. Maybe more so since the DOJ is suppose to serve and protect and not threaten innocent folks with incarceration and possible death. Viola,viola,viola.

My .02

Best regards,

CCJ
Worse than that, the DOJ is actively soliciting ideas from the public on how they can better harass and further prosecute Zimmerman. It's unconscionable.

It’s Come To This – The Federal Dept. of Justice asking for Tips to Help Prosecute George Zimmerman – DOJ/CRS Sets Up Email National Hotline

TFred
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
It was a colorful example Nuc:banghead: It's like when I say I don't chew my terbacky twice...it doesn't mean stick the plug back in my mouth:banghead: ot I ain't got a dog in this fight:banghead: or my fat Aunt's Butt:banghead: or the horse you rode in on:banghead:

Figured, just couldn't resist.:cool:
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I objected to the proposed legislation a couple of years ago when people were talking about some kind of immunity statute in Virginia. With the Zimmerman case, you can see why. As a practical matter, it doesn't make a rat's arse worth of difference in actual litigation. All it gets you is the right to put on a motion in which you disclose all your evidence ahead of trial and ask the judge to rule on your motion and dismiss the action against you. It doesn't mean you can't be charged with a crime, nor sued civilly. In order to have a law that would do that, your claim of self-defense would have to be taken at face value just because you say so, and that ain't gonna happen, because then we would never have anyone charged with murder ever again. And people who are injured have a Constitutional right "to redress of grievances", which means they can file suit if they want to.

So why not have such a statute? Because we already have the same mechanism now as we'd have after such a statute were passed. You can already file a plea in bar asserting your affirmative defense of self-defense/defense of others in either a criminal or civil case. A plea in bar is an evidentiary motion that reduces the entire litigation down to a single issue of fact which, if proved, would constitute a complete bar to the action. As a matter of practical trial strategy, however, one ought almost never do that. You're much better off allowing the other side to flesh out their case in discovery and at trial and see where their weaknesses are, rather than to go on the offensive right off the bat. You might know something or have evidence available that they don't know about and won't be clever enough to ask for. Keep in mind that the plaintiff, whether the Commonwealth in a criminal case, or an estate or next of kin in a civil case, has to prove a case and has to be able to win; all the defendant has to do is "not lose". Filing a plea in bar puts the defendant in the position of having to prove a case; he has the burden of proof and persuasion as to his plea, and has to win. If he loses in that motion, it may deprive him of his defense at trial (the judge can overrule the plea with prejudice).
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Welllll I think the chances of a civil lawsuit just got flushed down the drain. Jeantel opened up to Piers Morgan. It seems TM thought GZ was a police officer and wanted to give him a ass whuppin. I can see why the prosecution kept this girl a secret for so long, they have to be cringing now.

The big question considering that Trayvon was 17, in light of the discovery that Trayvon targeted him, can GZ successfully sue the parents for his injuries?

Plus did the prosecution know this truth, and can they be held civilly liable?
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Welllll I think the chances of a civil lawsuit just got flushed down the drain. Jeantel opened up to Piers Morgan. It seems TM thought GZ was a police officer and wanted to give him a ass whuppin. I can see why the prosecution kept this girl a secret for so long, they have to be cringing now.

The big question considering that Trayvon was 17, in light of the discovery that Trayvon targeted him, can GZ successfully sue the parents for his injuries?

Plus did the prosecution know this truth, and can they be held civilly liable?
Where did you hear this? I've watched Piers' interview with her and I didn't hear her say anything like that.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Where did you hear this? I've watched Piers' interview with her and I didn't hear her say anything like that.

I believe it was cut from the interview, it was part of the convo between them. I read it off the transcript that a site had posted. I'll have to dig back for it. I went back later to try to find it and it had been removed.

I did copy it though.

MORGAN: It means he thought it was a police or a security guard?

JEANTEL: Yeah, he acting like the police. And then he keep telling me that the man is still watching him. So, if it was a security guard or a policeman, they would come up to Trayvon and say, ‘Do you have a problem? Do you need help?’ You know, like normal people.

Look quick before it gets scrubbed, cut portion of video on this link http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/jeantel-admits-trayvon-whooped-zimmermans-a/
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Welllll I think the chances of a civil lawsuit just got flushed down the drain. Jeantel opened up to Piers Morgan. It seems TM thought GZ was a police officer and wanted to give him a ass whuppin. I can see why the prosecution kept this girl a secret for so long, they have to be cringing now.

The big question considering that Trayvon was 17, in light of the discovery that Trayvon targeted him, can GZ successfully sue the parents for his injuries?

Plus did the prosecution know this truth, and can they be held civilly liable?

Well, civil discovery rules are much broader than criminal ... do the feds really want that to happen?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Well, civil discovery rules are much broader than criminal ... do the feds really want that to happen?

Right now I would think the feds want as much distance between this case as possible. They have their usual constituents on their back, but then by poll numbers 70% of the population agrees with the jury. And as Jeantel keeps running her mouth that number is bound to rise. Things are not going so well for the chosen one. Turns out his son was drugged out violent thug.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Piers really got his a$$ handed to him in that interview, I mean there is only so much cutting you can do until you end up with blank air space. It seems Piers crew is about as stupid as the prosecution was in doing their homework.

You can bet Fox is drooling to get her for a interview. If she reveals this much with a progressive just think what a Fox staff member could do with her. TM's parents should have paid her to keep her big mouth shut.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Looks like the Feds are thumbing their nose at Florida's immunity law anyway. If it doesn't go their way, just charge him with a Civil Rights violation.

He's not getting his gun back either!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rmans-gun--Florida-law-says-returned-him.html

The U.S. Department of Justice, overseen by Attorney General Eric Holder, has ordered the Sanford, Florida police department to keep possession of all the evidence from George Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial - including the exonerated neighborhood watch volunteer's gun.
Sanford police confirmed on Thursday that the DOJ asked the agency not to return any pieces of evidence to their owners. Zimmerman was expected to get his firearm back by month's end.
The development is a sign that the criminal section of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is seriously investigating Zimmerman to determine if federal civil rights charges should be filed.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I hope Z has his taxes in order.

Next the IRS will try to break his balls. The G is getting desperate to put this guy away.

Best regards.

CCJ
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I hope Z has his taxes in order.

Next the IRS will try to break his balls. The G is getting desperate to put this guy away.

Best regards.

CCJ

It's amusing how fickle we can be. This is the same thing the Feds did to the cops in the Rodney King beating and I thought they deserved it.

I can't say I really care much for Zimmerman but I also don't think he deserves this.
 
Last edited:
Top