He's broke.

what would it be beside a rehash of the trial? Anyone seen the best seller by Casey Anthony?

you forget about the media lawsuits. There is the NBC edited audiotape scandal, the CNN social security number issue and they will pick and choose media types for libel suits.

And iirc, Florida law says if you found not guilty, you cant be sued.

I don't know about the Martins being able to sue Zmmerman, but nowadays it seems as if anyone can file a lawsuit - doesn't mean they'd win though.

Profits from his friend's book are being held in trust already. Presumably to protect the assets when GZ'S is sued for wrongful death. It won't work, but it will make it slightly harder to get the money. It's called something like "assumed assets" or "potential future assets." Hell, they can garnish his wages for the rest of his life.

And he's doing all right. Some estimates have him being made a millionaire off of this already. In fact, his wife is facing prosecution for perjury because she lied about assets during the bail hearing.

Ironically, there is every possibility that George will walk away scot-free, while his wife will probably do some time for perjury.

O'Mara even recently begged that more donations be sent in because they were almost gone. As for profits from the book, I don't believe for a minute that they have been put in an an account for Zimmerman. Osterman never even consulted Zimmerman on the book to begin with, and if the profits were to go to him then why haven't they all the way along? Zimmerman's BFF used his story to write a book to profit for himself. Only since the trial has this idea come up that they intend to save all the profits and give them to Zimmerman so they don't look like users profiting off of their buddy.

The only way it makes sense to sue in a civil court is that if he's not found guilty to keep him from profiting off of the incident by interviews or book profits or whatever. And somewhere the Martin family would have to come up with the money to sue. I takes a LOT of money to pursue any civil case.

Thanks. I guess that answers the OP's question then.

about their finances and to hide George's 2nd valid passport from the court. Zimmerman may soon be facing charges of conspiracy to commit perjury and perhaps conspiracy to defraud the State. Hope this is more than just wishful thinking on my part.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/trayvon-martin-wrongful-death-suit_n_3022300.html

The HOA can't claim self-defense. In FL, if a shooting is ruled justified, the shooter has civil immunity from being successfully sued by anyone over the shooting.

I don't see that the HOA did anything wrong. Z was acting against Neighborhood Watch protocol and not at the direction of the HOA. He was acting on his own, so the HOA wasn't responsible.

The HOA can't claim self-defense. In FL, if a shooting is ruled justified, the shooter has civil immunity from being successfully sued by anyone over the shooting.

Do you have a link to the law for this?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=-%3E2012-%3EChapter%20776

Zimmerman waived the pre-trial hearing that would have determined if the above applied.

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/05/zimmerman-foregoes-self-defense/

of the HOA at the time of the incident. If he routinely operated as the armed head of the Neighborhood Watch, then it was the responsibility of the HOA to put a hault to that.

can ever make. And take his parents, the enablers, home too.

He won't live a happy life. No matter what it looks like on the surface, he will not be a happy man no matter what happens with this case.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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; or

(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
-------------
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2)?The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b)?The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c)?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d)?The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4)?A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b)?“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c)?“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
------------
Here is the civil immunity law : 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, 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.

(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(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).
------------------
776.031 deals with deadly force to protect property or protect family members.

And I hate to say where I think this criminal suit is gonna end up. But, Civil Law is different. Correct me if I'm wrong please, and I confess I get confused reading legalese. But the burden of proof has a more lenient standard, I believe. Right?

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).

If he walks completely, then the Martins can't touch him. The Martins would end up having to pay Z legal costs that resulted from their suit, as well as any other expenses he may claim from it.

However, I am not a lawyer and there may be some aspect or interpretation that I have wrong.

Personally, I am very unhappy with Z. He violated CCW training he when left the safety of his vehicle. TM wasn't an angel. He was a troubled 17 year old. But he didn't have a police record yet and still had a chance to outgrow his infatuation with being a gangsta wannabe. Now that is closed to him - forever.

had numerous run ins with the law and his life has been a slow escalation until that fateful night in Florida. Assaulted a cop, assaulted a women and overall gives the impression of a guy who had a problem keeping his emotions and hands to himself even after he grew into adulthood. And yet from your perspective his main transgression is that he violated CCW training and the truly troubled life was that of Trayvon.

Interesting

but it would seem that a large factor would depend on whether or not a not guilty verdict automatically can be construed as supporting a self defense claim. Again, I'm no lawyer but a jury can potentially reach a not guilty verdict for reasons other than self defense such as a lack of evidence but can also say that they are not sure that the defendant was justified in the use of force.

Has anyone in Florida tested this law by filing a case after a verdict has been reached? I can see where this would be an open and shut case if I walked into my home and shot a robber that came towards me. Why should his family be able to sue me? But the problem with this case is that it falls cleanly in the shadows.

from this THEIRS.

Whether he is convicted or not, they should do so, so that no money is made from this crime.

Under FL Statute 776.032, if GZ's self defense is found to be lawful then he has immunity from civil action. Additionally there is 'collateral estoppel', which means that once the court has decided the issue it is binding on the parties involved in the event of subsequent cases.

I say "most likely no" because there is some gray area on whether or not collateral estoppel is binding across the criminal and civil realms. However, statute 776.032 makes it clear that the state's intent is to make it binding across these realms. In short, if GZ walks, he will be free from any civil suits.

I saw that the Martin family sued and settled with the HOA. I imagine that the insurance carrier just paid up the policy limits