Well, that’s it. George Zimmerman has his legal victory. Late in the night on Saturday, July 13, 2013, George officially survived a brutal and malicious legal assault backed by the full power of a State government intent on hanging a life sentence on an innocent man on the sole basis of emotional appeal and racial politics.

George Zimmerman, not guilty

George Zimmerman, not guilty

The moment the non-guilty verdict was read brought to mind that earlier moment, in the early evening of February 26, 2012, when George Zimmerman fired a single, defensive round from his licensed sidearm into his attacker. Because of thats action, and solely because of it, Zimmerman survived the brutal and malicious physical assault backed by the full power of a vicious “wannabe thug” seething with hatred, ill-will, and spite towards this “creepy-ass cracker”.

I don’t care what gym owner Adam Pollock or anyone else has to say about George Zimmerman being “soft”. To my eye Zimmerman has proven himself to be one tough son-of-a-gun. When push came to shove and everything was at stake, there was no quit in him, anywhere.

In truth this is not the end of Zimmerman’s travails with the consequences wrought by that winter night’s ambush. Today there remain several serious threats lurking just out of the light of campfire. Of these, the greatest remains the continuing death threats against George Zimmerman in particular, and his family in general. That danger, however, falls outside the realm of legal analysis, and so outside our purview.

That leaves at least three substantive and serious threats facing the Zimmerman’s that seem appropriate for this forum:

(1) Federal Government Seeking Civil Rights Action

Unsatisfied with Zimmerman’s just acquittal in a Florida trial court, racial agitators and their mainstream media sycophants are now seeking to have their government bring Federal criminal charges against Zimmerman. Such charges would claim that Zimmerman violated the civil rights of a 17-year-old black “child” whose cell phone data suggests an interest in pot smoking, gun dealing, street fighting, and burglary (although presumably the charging document would stop with the word “child”).

An initial assessment suggests that the basis for any such Federal civil rights action is just as specious as were the second degree murder charges against Zimmerman. The fact that the State criminal charges proved laughably inadequate for a criminal conviction did not keep Zimmerman from having to endure a trial on those charges, however, one wonders if any more prosecutorial maturity can be expected of the Holder Department of Justice.

In the coming days I will take a closer look at both the legal substance and procedure for the bringing of possible Federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, and share that analysis with all of you here.

(2) Threat of Civil Suit for Wrongful Death Against Zimmerman

Those of you who were around and attentive during the OJ Simpson trials will recall that although he was found not guilty at the criminal trial he was nevertheless found legally liable for the 1992 killing of his wife, Nicole Simpson. (In preparation for the unfavorable civil verdict Simpson moved essentially all of his assets to Florida, which provides considerable protection against creditors, including judgment holders, for certain assets, such as one’s multi-million dollar home.) It is possible, then, that the Martin family and advisors may seek to take a similar action against George Zimmerman, particularly if they perceived that Zimmerman himself will be successful in suing NBC and others who maliciously defamed him following the events of February 26.

The difficulty they face in this regard is Florida statute 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.  Generally speaking, this statute provides that “a person who uses force as permitted [in lawful self-defense] is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.” Confusion arises, however, because the statute does not set froth any particular procedure for when immunity can be sought, the threshold for qualifying, and the manner in which it is bestowed. In the absence of such guidance the Florida courts themselves have had to create the necessary procedure. Within the next few days I will post on how the courts resolved this difficulty, and how the now established procedures will be applied in the case of George Zimmerman.

(3) Shellie Zimmerman Faces Perjury Charges, August 21

George Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie, has been charged with perjury by the same gang of State prosecutors who excreted the second degree murder affidavit of probable cause against her husband.

An initial review of the facts suggests that this perjury charge–just like the overcharging on second degree murder and the malicious denial of courtroom access to George Zimmerman’s parents–was intended to break Zimmerman’s will and, failing that, disrupt his defense. Professor Jacobson has already begun excellent coverage on this issue–Next up: Florida v. Shellie Zimmerman–and so to defer ongoing coverage the matter to him.

OK, that’s it for today. Don’t forget, albeit all (or, at least, nearly all) my Zimmerman coverage will likely remain here on Legal Insurrection for the time being (at the Professor’s discretion, of course), other self-defense law matters, as well as news about my book, “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” (now available in Kindle format), my self-defense law seminars, and so forth, will be covered primarily over at my own blog, The Law of Self Defense.


–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense, #LOSD2

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available at www.lawofselfdefense.com and also at Amazon.com as either a hardcopy or in Kindle version.

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense and using #LOSD2, on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.