gut;1492686 wrote:That's Zimmerman's lawyer acknowledging they need to SEEK immunity. You don't seem to be grasping that concept - SYG is not assumed, it's an affirmative defense that requires a special hearing. Also, the burden of proof in being granted immunity shifts to Zimmerman. This is absolutely not a slam dunk.
I grasp it just fine. I just finished stating that my initial post was probably poorly worded.
Unless the judge presiding over the hearing chooses to completely ignore the law and established precedent, it's a slam dunk.
gut;1492686 wrote:SYG applying to a civil case...I'm not even sure why you are making this argument. I never stated it's not relevant to civil immunity (in fact, I've said otherwise - although you probably got confused when I wasn't clear I was referring specifically to Zimmerman). Where you seem to be confused is A) that immunity is not assumed and B) it may not apply or be granted in Zimmerman's case.
See above. It will be granted.
Confused? That's pretty funny. I've already explained twice how the miscommunication occurred.
gut;1492686 wrote:And for like the 5th time, if the Martin's go down that road, then one way or another Zimmerman WILL have to testify, which probably means much more to them than the money.
Unlikely, since they're already on record stating that "all they ever wanted" was for the case to go to trial. They got their wish.