Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

[Cozarkian]

That's an utterly ridiculous assertion. He followed a kid from one end to the other end of a neighborhood in a truck, got out of the car with a flashlight and loaded gun (he claims he forgot he had) to chase the kid further and you are comparing that to a women being raped because she was minding her business doing what most people do.

Utterly ridiculous. You have to be wiser than that.

If Zimmerman follows a suspected criminal into a dark alley and is attacked with deadly force, he is no more guilty than a women in skimpy clothing walking down a dark alley and being attacked. We don't hold victims legally responsible for legal actions that may have prompted criminal attacks against them.

The Zimmerman case isn't as clear cut, because there are questions as to whether Zimmerman may have initiated the fight beyond just following Martin, but some people seem to want to condemn Zimmerman solely for his perfectly legal, albeit stupid, action in following Martin despite the 911 operator's urging that such action wasn't needed.

 

[Sc0rp]

Those are all arguments to placed before the finder of fact, but your opinions and conclusions are not definitive on the issue. Zimmerman, for example, could argue that the press before NBC only made people wonder whether he was racist, but the NBC edits pushed people over the edge into firmly believing he was a racist based on his own comments.

Also, isn't a little inconsistent to claim the NBC comments couldn't have caused damage since they weren't the first reported comments but that his statements during trial, which took place after the NBC edits, did damage himself?

Finally, I'd like to give special attention to this portion of your statement:



That's kind of like blaming the women for being raped because she went clubbing down town in skimpy clothing. If you don't think Zimmerman was innocent because you think he actually started the fight and was hoping for a chance to kill Martin, then I'll just say the jury disagreed, but you shouldn't condemn him for leaving the truck without considering Martin's actions.

Actually, my arguments WERE placed before the finder of fact during the NBC case.

Zimmerman was already believed to be a racist before NBC made a single broadcast. He is a pariah based on things that happened before NBC aired a single thing about him and his own behavior. People aren't focusing on what NBC said amongst the people hate Zimmerman. They are focusing on his antics, things he said and things he did. NBC doesn't really factor into that in any major way.

Also, it isn't like blaming a woman for getting raped for going clubbing at all. If anything fits that analogy it would be blaming Trayvons hoody for why Zimmerman left his truck and ran after him.

Bottom line, Zimmermans reputation and name were already razed before NBC aired a single thing about him.

It would be like a woman that's 5 months pregnant deciding to sleep with a bunch of guys and then wanting to sue the richest guy that she slept with for child support even though she met him after she was already pregnant.

 

[Sc0rp]

If Zimmerman follows a suspected criminal into a dark alley and is attacked with deadly force, he is no more guilty than a women in skimpy clothing walking down a dark alley and being attacked. We don't hold victims legally responsible for legal actions that may have prompted criminal attacks against them.

The Zimmerman case isn't as clear cut, because there are questions as to whether Zimmerman may have initiated the fight beyond just following Martin, but some people seem to want to condemn Zimmerman solely for his perfectly legal, albeit stupid, action in following Martin despite the 911 operator's urging that such action wasn't needed.

What makes Trayvon a suspected criminal? Walking down the street is not against the law.

Look, it is NOT a criminal act for Trayvon to use force to defend himself if he believes that Zimmerman may use unlawful force upon him. Especially if Zimmerman had actually used unlawful force.

 

[Sc0rp]

Are you as positive as you were that Judge Lester would not be recused? Or Judge Nelson's decision on Crump's deposition not being over turned? Or that GZ would be convicted.

I'm going to wait to see what the 5th DCA decides on the appeal.

Quote me saying that judge Lester would not be recused. I'll wait.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Quote me saying that judge Lester would not be recused. I'll wait.

Was I posting to you or did you just make a Freudian slip and you're actually emperus???

 

[Sc0rp]

I suspect much of what you've posted will be used by GZ's lawyers when they put forth their appeal to the 5th DCA in the near future.

I also suspect should the 5th DCA overruled Judge Nelson's decision the defense will request that she recuse herself from the case and should she refuse appeal that to the 5th DCA as well.

Too bad that he's incredibly wrong. It's stupid backwards logic that could only be proven if you can somehow read the minds of thousands of people. And even then, there were things that Zimmerman factually said in the unedited tape that would be stronger evidence of him being racist than NBC's use of sound bytes.

Also, you can't have a judge recuse themselves simply because you don't like their judgement or rulings. This is the same judge that ruled in Zimmermans favor in several key junctures in the criminal trial, so she's not biased. It goes without saying that she probably wouldn't have granted him immunity but that's because she's not anyone's fool.

 

[Sc0rp]

Was I posting to you or did you just make a Freudian slip and you're actually emperus???

You didn't quote anyone, so I assumed that it was a general accusation. Also, you still don't seem to know what a Freudian slip is.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No doubt, you forgot who you were posting as and told on yourself.

As I said, I'm going to wait to see what the 5th DCA has to say.

 

[emperus]

Are you as positive as you were that Judge Lester would not be recused? Or Judge Nelson's decision on Crump's deposition not being over turned? Or that GZ would be convicted.

I'm going to wait to see what the 5th DCA decides on the appeal.

Tell me where I said anything about Crump? I could care less about that.

The lester ruling was a 2-1 ruling. And amongst the 2 it was a decidedly close call. I disagree with the ruling and am sure it wouldn't have been reversed with a larger panel. Also removing Lester was a good de facto position for the court. Let's see what happens when it's NBC. I don't agree with the ruling but don't mind it.

Although many of the allegations in Zimmerman's motion, standing alone, do not meet the legal sufficiency test,​

1 and while this is admittedly a close call, upon careful review we find that the allegations, taken together, meet the threshold test of legal sufficiency. Accordingly, we direct the trial judge to enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge.​

​

​

​

And you all know how I feel about the Zimmerman jury and the prosecution's case.​

​

​

​

 

[Sc0rp]

No doubt, you forgot who you were posting as and told on yourself.

As I said, I'm going to wait to see what the 5th DCA has to say.

We've been over this before. Believe what you wish.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Uh huh, sure thing sc0rp/emperus/aridata.

 

[Sc0rp]

Uh huh, sure thing sc0rp/emperus/aridata.

Uh huh

 

[emperus]

If Zimmerman follows a suspected criminal into a dark alley and is attacked with deadly force, he is no more guilty than a women in skimpy clothing walking down a dark alley and being attacked. We don't hold victims legally responsible for legal actions that may have prompted criminal attacks against them.

The Zimmerman case isn't as clear cut, because there are questions as to whether Zimmerman may have initiated the fight beyond just following Martin, but some people seem to want to condemn Zimmerman solely for his perfectly legal, albeit stupid, action in following Martin despite the 911 operator's urging that such action wasn't needed.

If TM had a gun and he had turned around in that alley and shot GZ he most like would have gotten off. GZ followed him clear across the neighborhood almost to his doorstep.

TO equate that to a women minding her business walking home is again asinine.

 

[Cozarkian]

Actually, my arguments WERE placed before the finder of fact during the NBC case.

Fair enough, I still contend the wrong standard was used to judge those facts, although I haven't done sufficient analysis to determine whether the result should have been different.

What makes Trayvon a suspected criminal?

I was typing from Zimmerman's point of view. It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to follow someone he believed to a suspected criminal.

Look, it is NOT a criminal act for Trayvon to use force to defend himself if he believes that Zimmerman may use unlawful force upon him. Especially if Zimmerman had actually used unlawful force.

I never said it was, and I don't have a problem with contending Zimmerman was guilty based on what may or may not have happened after he left the truck and started following Trayvon. It's the implication that leaving the truck itself to follow Trayvon makes him guilty that I reject.

Bottom line, Zimmermans reputation and name were already razed before NBC aired a single thing about him.

It would be like a woman that's 5 months pregnant deciding to sleep with a bunch of guys and then wanting to sue the richest guy that she slept with for child support even though she met him after she was already pregnant.

Razed is way too strong a word. Some people suspected him of racism, yes, but there were others that thought the cry of racism was ridiculous. If the NBC edits made a large number of the latter people change their mind, then he was still defamed.

Your pregnant women hypothetical seems a bit of a stretch. If the media latched onto a story about a pregnant women who had been on dates with five men but only sued the richest man, there might be some suspicion she slept with them all. If the media then edited her statements to make it falsely appear that she was confirming she slept with them all and chose the one to sue based upon his wealth, when in fact she contended she only slept with one them, that could still be defamation.

 

[Cozarkian]

If TM had a gun and he had turned around in that alley and shot GZ he most like would have gotten off. GZ followed him clear across the neighborhood almost to his doorstep.

If the only facts were that a person left the truck and started following him, no, I think TM would be in jail for murder. If the jury believed there were other relevant facts, such as GZ calling out threats or racial slurs and reaching for what may have been a gun, then yes, TM would likely have been found not guilty.

 

[Sc0rp]

Fair enough, I still contend the wrong standard was used to judge those facts, although I haven't done sufficient analysis to determine whether the result should have been different.



I was typing from Zimmerman's point of view. It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to follow someone he believed to a suspected criminal.



I never said it was, and I don't have a problem with contending Zimmerman was guilty based on what may or may not have happened after he left the truck and started following Trayvon. It's the implication that leaving the truck itself to follow Trayvon makes him guilty that I reject.



Razed is way too strong a word. Some people suspected him of racism, yes, but there were others that thought the cry of racism was ridiculous. If the NBC edits made a large number of the latter people change their mind, then he was still defamed.

Your pregnant women hypothetical seems a bit of a stretch. If the media latched onto a story about a pregnant women who had been on dates with five men but only sued the richest man, there might be some suspicion she slept with them all. If the media then edited her statements to make it falsely appear that she was confirming she slept with them all and chose the one to sue based upon his wealth, when in fact she contended she only slept with one them, that could still be defamation.

Zimmermans point of view and behavior were defective. That's the point. He had the point of view that Trayvon was a suspect of a crime, but he didn't see anything to justify that point of view or make his behavior of leaving his truck to run after Trayvon seem reasonable in any way.

Zimmermans rep was razed by the time NBC broadcast. Yeah some of the usual folk raised questions about whether or not he was racist just as they do today. However, consider that his family was in full defensive mode on whether he was racist or not before NBC aired a single thing about him. People were calling him racist before NBC did a single story about him.

Fine, I'll reword the analogy even though it is abundantly clear that he's trying NBC because he thinks they have the most money. Just as his parents are suing Roseanne even though their address is easy to find in the white pages and they already fled town long before she made that tweet.

1) woman is already pregnant. Essentially she's already been impregnated by a man who is either undesirable or she can't reach for some reason.
2) she has sex with other guys after already being pregnant.
3) one of those men doesn't wear a condom.
4) she tries to sue that guy for child support even though she was already pregnant when they had sex for the first time.
5) the fact that he didn't wear a condom is irrelevant. She was already pregnant.

Being pregnant = Zimmermans reputation
Not wearing a condom = airing something that MIGHT hurt Zimmermans reputation in a vacuum.

The NBC sound bytes didn't make a large group of anything believe Zimmerman was a racist. The "f-ing ****s!" Part and the part about "these a-holes, they always get away" combined with him getting out of the truck to chase a black teen that he didn't see doing anything wrong, is what made him look like a racist. Nobody that's calling him racist is even really talking about him saying 'he's black'. That's silly talk to say otherwise.

 

[Sc0rp]

If the only facts were that a person left the truck and started following him, no, I think TM would be in jail for murder. If the jury believed there were other relevant facts, such as GZ calling out threats or racial slurs and reaching for what may have been a gun, then yes, TM would likely have been found not guilty.

Um no he wouldn't.

I posted a case earlier where a guy walked up to a teen and his dad sitting in a car, said 'you good' then reached for his waistband. The teen shot him dead. The man he shot was unarmed. He was acquitted.

In this case, Zimmerman followed Trayvon for several blocks and left his truck to specifically follow Trayvon after Trayvon turned to leave. Then when Trayvon asked him what his deal was, Zimmerman reached for something behind his back. Had Trayvon pulled out a gun and killed Zimmerman in mid-reach, then Trayvon would have most likely been acquitted.

Repeat after me: I THOUGHT HE WAS REACHING FOR A WEAPON! I HAD TO DEFEND MYSELF!

Conversely, I posted another case where a guy shoots another guy in the neck and body that was walking away from an argument, killing him. There were witnesses and the dead fellows own children saw the whole thing. That guys defense? He thought the guy was going to go get a gun.

No charges filed, no arrest, no nothing. The dead dude didn't lay a finger on him.

You don't have to actually threaten someone or lay a finger on them for them to view you as a threat and use force to defend themselves, even deadly force. Especially in Florida. Hope everyone remembers to wear their body armor the next time they go to Disney world.

 

[Cozarkian]

Then when Trayvon asked him what his deal was, Zimmerman reached for something behind his back.

You just added facts beyond leaving his truck and following him.

And your pregnancy statement is overstated. Some people thought Zimmerman was already pregnant, others didn't know, and others thought he wasn't already pregnant. Then the media allegedly edits his words to make it sound like he was admitting to being pregnant. That would have a potential impact on the opinions of those who were not yet convinced he was already pregnant.

He needs to prove he wasn't already pregnant and that the edits made additional people falsely believe he was. He may not be able to do that. But he shouldn't have to show actual malice.

 

[Sc0rp]

You just added facts beyond leaving his truck and following him.

And your pregnancy statement is overstated. Some people thought Zimmerman was already pregnant, others didn't know, and others thought he wasn't already pregnant. Then the media allegedly edits his words to make it sound like he was admitting to being pregnant. That would have a potential impact on the opinions of those who were not yet convinced he was already pregnant.

He needs to prove he wasn't already pregnant and that the edits made additional people falsely believe he was. He may not be able to do that. But he shouldn't have to show actual malice.

I didn't add facts.

Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon said "is there a problem homie?" And instead of answering the question, he reached (in the area where he keeps his gun) for his phone. Then Trayvon punched him. :/

Start watching this video at the 9:50 mark

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

Now, did I make it up? Or did I base my statement on what Zimmerman said?

Also, you're wrong about the tape. Zimmerman would have to prove that NBC was directly responsible for his damages. Seeing as he was already hated and already on the run, the answer to that is no. It is pretty much impossible to prove why things continued to snowball after they already snowballed. If someone asked me why I don't like Zimmerman, I would never mention the NBC tape. Pretty much nobody would unless you pay someone to say it was over NBC's broadcast and that would be lying.

Bottom line, NBC is not responsible for his wrecked reputation. He should have thought about that before he decided to be a big goddamn hero.

Also, going back to the link I posted earlier, sounds familiar...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_GsnIMERdfU

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Wow, just more of the tired ole sc0rp/emperus/airdata argument that can never be proven to be true as there's zero evidence to back it up.

GZ was acquitted on all charges and will appeal Judge Nelson's ruling on the lawsuit against NBC, nothing you can say will change these facts.

 

[Sc0rp]

Wow, just more of the tired ole sc0rp/emperus/airdata argument that can never be proven to be true as there's zero evidence to back it up.

GZ was acquitted on all charges and will appeal Judge Nelson's ruling on the lawsuit against NBC, nothing you can say will change these facts.

I'm guessing that you didn't watch the video I linked, did you? Zimmerman admits flat out that he reached for something. Not that I believe much of what he had to say.

Don't care if Zimmerman was acquitted. He's still wrong. Also, I'm telling you that Zimmerman has no case and a snowballs chance in hell of overturning Nelsons ruling and nothing can change that because NBC didn't create Zimmermans damages.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What can you prove? What could the police or the prosecution prove?

They never had any evidence that refuted his claim that it was self defense.........period!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

PS sc0rp/emperus/airdata you can tell me all you want until you're blue in the face but I will be waiting for the 5th DCA's ruling on the appeal.

 

[Sc0rp]

What can you prove? What could the police or the prosecution prove?

They never had any evidence that refuted his claim that it was self defense.........period!

They had plenty of evidence, they didn't use it. Also there is plenty of evidence that refutes his claims. Even in the video, he lied about where the fight ended up and you can tell that he lied because he sat there and stared at the actual location long and hard.

 

[Sc0rp]

PS sc0rp/emperus/airdata you can tell me all you want until you're blue in the face but I will be waiting for the 5th DCA's ruling on the appeal.

Well, I'm not the one that's trying to say people are posting from multiple accounts and I'm not the one that's in full denial mode like you are.

You keep saying that you'll wait for an appeal, but I don't see you shutting up and doing what you said you'd do.