• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

zimmerman attorneys quickly set sights to make NBC pay

Lord of Planar said:
Probable.

Why not Settle for several million instead of possible not win.
Click to expand...

In my shoes, and without the millions in my reach, I would not settle on a matter of principle.

Otherwise, they are paying to preserve what lite credibility they have remaining.
 
SMTA said:
The verdict.

Spin again.
Click to expand...

LMAO... OJ's criminal trial verdict was not guilty... yet his civil he was guilty.

Is there spin there? No.

Did TM feel threatened? Obviously. No spin there either.
 
Occam's Razor said:
LMAO... OJ's criminal trial verdict was not guilty... yet his civil he was guilty.

Is there spin there? No.

Did TM feel threatened? Obviously. No spin there either.
Click to expand...

After the not guilty verdict, FL law allows no civil action.

Oopsie!
 
I hope that is true. I never could understand being tried twice for the same offense, no matter what they call it.
SMTA said:
After a not guilty in a criminal action, FL allows no subsequent civil action.
Click to expand...
 
Occam's Razor said:
LMAO... OJ's criminal trial verdict was not guilty... yet his civil he was guilty.

Is there spin there? No.

Did TM feel threatened? Obviously. No spin there either.
Click to expand...
Totally different situations/States.
 
captainawesome said:
The state has no authority to remove the right to civil jury trial under the federal constitution.
Click to expand...

State civil action, not federal.

Federal won't happen anyway.
 
SMTA said:
State civil action, not federal.

Federal won't happen anyway.
Click to expand...

Ah you don't know what criminal vs civil or state vs federal mean.

They would sue in state civil court.
 
SMTA said:
Citation
Click to expand...

Don't know the bill of rights?

**U.S. ConstitutionMAIN PAGEANNOTATIONS

SEVENTH AMENDMENT

TextLearn more

AMENDMENT VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/seventh_amendment
 
captainawesome said:
Don't know the bill of rights?

**U.S. ConstitutionMAIN PAGEANNOTATIONS

SEVENTH AMENDMENT

TextLearn more

AMENDMENT VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Seventh Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

Nope.

Trial by jury.

Spin again.
 
captainawesome said:
Right so when they sue they get a trial and a jury.
Click to expand...

Wrong again:

The underlying rationale of the Seventh Amendment was to preserve the historic line separating the province of the jury from that of the judge in civil cases. Although the line separating questions of law from questions of fact is often blurred, the basic functions of judges and juries are clear. Judges are charged with the responsibility of resolving issues concerning the admissibility of evidence and instructing jurors regarding the pertinent laws governing the case. Judges are also permitted to comment on the evidence, highlight important issues, and otherwise express their opinions in open court as long as each factual question is ultimately submitted to the jury. However, a judge may not interject her personal opinions or observations to such an extent that they impair a litigant's right to a fair trial (Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802 [2nd Cir. 1996]).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom