home

George Zimmerman Sues NBC and Reporters

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 04:13:31 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, NBC (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

George Zimmerman has filed his defamation lawsuit against NBC and three reporters for their false editing of his non-emergency call to police to report Trayvon Martin. The reporters are Ron Allen, Lilia Lucianno and Jeff Burnside. Luciano and Burnside were since fired. The complaint is here and a website for the case is here.

On Thursday, December 6, 2012, George Zimmerman filed a legal complaint against NBCUniversal Media, LLC and three individuals who were employed by NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Inc. during the time relevant to the complaint: Ron Allen, Lilia Rodriguez Luciano, and Jeff Burnside. The 24-page complaint alleges “NBC News saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so set about to create the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain.” The complaint, filed in Seminole County, demands a trial by jury, and demands damages sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

The complaint was filed in the Seminole County Circuit Court. His lawyers are Mark O'Mara and The Beasley Law Firm in Philadelphia. [More...]

On the about page of the website, it says:

This GZvNBC.com website will share many of the same goals outlined in the article entitled “Why Social Media for George Zimmerman” on the GZLegalCase.com website, especially the goal of Disputing Misinformation. However, in the case of the GZvNBC.com website, we intend on disputing misinformation with the same publicity and vigor that it was originally spread by NBC. (my emphasis)

For background:

< Does Oklahoma Have Standing To Challenge ACA Tax Credits? | Washington's Marijuana Law Now In Effect, Amendment 64 Certified >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    George Zimmerman Sues NBC and Reporters | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    In His Own Words (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Cylinder on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    George Zimmerman has released a statement regarding his civil action:

    On the night of February 26, 2012, after enduring a prolonged physical attack from Trayvon Martin, screaming for help countless times and receiving no help, and all the while in fear for my life, I shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense. I did not shoot to take his life, I shot to save my own.

    [snip]

    However, in the days and weeks following the shooting a story was promoted that I am a racist and a murderer. These untruths spread through the community, the government, and the nation, amplified by a media frenzy seeking ratings over truth. This was no more apparent than when NBC repeatedly edited the recording of a call I made, intentionally misrepresenting me as a racist. Unfortunately, their plan worked, truth suffered that day, and my family and I have suffered every day since. That is why I am filing a lawsuit against NBC. The details of the complaint can be found on a website created by my legal team: www.gzvnbc.com.
    Did George Zimmerman release that statement (none / 0) (#19)
    by Payaso on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:53:14 AM EST
    or did someone else release it in his name?

    Parent
    I hope he gets a bundle (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:09:16 AM EST
    I am so sick of the media being irresponsible and making up the story they want to tell rather than just sticking to the truth.  

    I am reminded of (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    the Atlanta Olympics bombing, and what Richard Jewell went through.  Link.
    The media were quick to jump on Jewell as the "prime suspect," although they were certainly aided and abetted by the leaks from the FBI.
    Richard Jewell won several settlements from various media companies.
     

    Parent
    Another motive here, maybe (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    I think Beasley took the case for its strategic value to the criminal case. The hatred most of the public have for Big Media is mind numbing. (and, rightfully so IMO.)

    "David vs. Goliath"

    If I remember my Bible correctly, David usually wins, right?

    p.s. I would be very interested in Beasley's approach to jury selection.....if it comes to that. (In the civil case, I mean)

    Is it possible (none / 0) (#61)
    by Dimensional on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    for NBC to drag the issue out until a trial, hypothesizing that the self-defense hearing yields a decision to go to trial?

    Seems like from what I've seen of similar lawsuits that these can go on a very long time.

    Parent

    Welcome to America, ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 05:31:43 PM EST
    ... where everyone can claim to be a victim of someone or something, and Andy Warhol's standing rule about fame is the unwritten law of the land.

    What happened in the media this particular instance was indeed very regrettable, but it should not be used by anyone to obfuscate the fact that (a) Trayvon Martin is still dead, and (b) George Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

    It's now the province of Florida criminal court and probably a trial jury to ultimately determine whether the actual circumstances surrounding that fateful encounter are enough to either legally exonerate the defendant, or convict and imprison him.

    Thankfully, it's not the place of the media and the general public to decide Zimmerman's fate. Because quite frankly, when it comes to sensationalized cases such as this, my money is on neither one being able to find the open end of a paper bag using illustrated directions.

    Aloha.

    Why, that wasn't false editing, at all (none / 0) (#2)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    as it's entirely true that the editing created a falsehood.

    Legal question:  Does defamation require evidence of intent?  I.e., why this charge instead of libel?

    That said, the obfuscation by NBC as to whether the editing happened, how it happened, etc., will not help the network's case.  A settlement will be made; the Zimmermans need money.

    Defamation is a legal category (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    that traditionally included both libel (written) and slander (spoken).  I don't know anything about Florida state law, but it may be that they have combined the two (libel and slander) into a single tort (civil wrong) cause of action, and just call it "defamation."  The context of television actually illustrates why that might make sense in the modern world.

    Parent
    Thanks, Peter (none / 0) (#15)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:44:21 AM EST
    and I agree that the ye olde distinctions between libel and slander are blurred with new technologies.

    Parent
    Jury Trial? (none / 0) (#3)
    by RickyJim on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    I know that in the criminal case it has been said that Zimmerman can't get a fair trial since it will be hard to find an unbiased, unafraid jury.  Apparently the plaintiffs don't fear a jury biased against Zimmerman.

    I didn't read (none / 0) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    all the documents, but the question I have is, who is funding Z's lawsuit? Civil suits, with rare exceptions, require upfront payment. Unless the outcome is virtually guaranteed, contingency payment plans are almost never offered, nor accepted, by lawyers. And, a suit against a deep-pocket defendant like NBC can easily run into many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Just wondering........

    The Beasley Firm has the resources (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:16:30 PM EST
    to fund their own litigation, when they smell a large verdict or settlement.  They are top notch.  If they are taking this case, as I'll bet they are, on a contingency, and covering the costs themselves, they have made a careful professional judgment that it's a probable big-dollar winner.

    Parent
    Ah, that's what I thought (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:27:47 PM EST
    .....thanks.

    And, FWIW, I think this lawsuit will also prove quite beneficial in George's criminal case. Nothing like a "small fry" getting screwed over by the giant, impersonal media goliath to stir up the sympathy factor.

    My congratulations to Z's Team, they do appear to be the "top notch" firm, as you stated.


    Parent

    Wiki - (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dimensional on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 06:00:27 PM EST
    IANAL, but perhaps GZ will run into problems proving his point due to statements by his former co-worker which show some possible ethnic harassment (documented in discovery) and his statements on his old MySpace, etc. How is NBC responsible since they responded by firing the employees named in the complaint?

    Wikipedia states:  In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libellous.[citation needed] Proving adverse public character statements to be true is often the best defence against a prosecution for libel or defamation.

    The FEDS investigated and found no evidence of.. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cashmere on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 06:17:50 PM EST
    Zimmerman being a racist.  What more do you want?

    Parent
    That won't be a problem (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:08:24 AM EST
    If you listen to the man's statement, he didn't think Zimmerman was making fun of him for ethnic reasons.

    He is Witness 22, a former co-worker. He said he felt bullied because Zimmerman called him stupid and made fun of him to other co-workers. Zimmerman never threatened him or raised his voice -- he just mocked him. Also it happened a long time ago. He was middle-eastern and said George adopted the voice of a middle-eastern cartoon character when talking about him, but he didn't think George was picking on his nationality. He thought it was because he was the new guy.

    NBC is responsible because it didn't happen once, but many times, and it went uncorrected. Not to mention, their excuse at the time was lame -- the time constraints of morning news. As Reuters reported,

    The Today show's editorial control policies - which include a script editor, senior producer oversight, and in most cases legal and standards department reviews of material to be broadcast - missed the selective editing of the call, said the NBC executive.

    Executives have vowed to take rigorous steps to formalize editorial safeguards in the news division following the incident, one of the sources said.

    This will be about the amount of money NBC agrees to pay, not whether it is liable.

    Parent

    True - however - (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dimensional on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    Would not NBC defend itself in various ways using case discovery as well as Zimmerman's own words?

    NBC will certainly expend significant resources (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:21:37 PM EST
    to defend itself.  Media organization have to do that; they have almost no choice but to fight defamation cases. In the end, however, they may settle. Almost certainly, Beasley made efforts on Zimmerman's behalf to get a settlement without suing, which were presumably rebuffed by NBC.

    Parent
    NBC will settle (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    they admitted they were wrong, they fired employees over it and it's factually documented in the transcripts -- all of which I've provided links for.

    These cases rarely go to trial.

    Parent

    I think so too (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by bmaz on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:12:13 PM EST
    The reason the complaint was filed is that they are still too far apart on damages, so they are going to dance for a while.

    Parent
    well put Bmaz (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:10:42 AM EST
    NBC will probably get off fairly easy because Zimmerman needs the money sooner rather than later for his defense costs.

    Parent
    We'll never know for sure how much (none / 0) (#18)
    by Payaso on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:49:38 AM EST
    because you can bet the settlement will include a non-disclosure agreement.

    Parent
    Everybody knows the expression, (none / 0) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:15:04 AM EST
    "He who pays the fiddler calls the tune." And, it's no mystery as to who the "fiddler" is here. While, technically, George Zimmerman is the plaintiff, the Beasley firm has shown, by reputation, and by the actions they've taken so far, to be the financial, and strategic, "brains behind the operation."  (and, please don't mis-interpret that as a pejorative, it's not meant to be.)

    Finally, and from personal experience, I hope Zimmerman allows the Beasleys the latitude to do their job, and not be the type of plaintiff who epitomizes the other old saying, "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."


    Parent

    Glad to see this move. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Tamta on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:24:13 AM EST


    Deposing Zimmerman? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Michael Masinter on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:11:14 AM EST
    Unlike the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure permit defendants to depose plaintiffs almost immediately; the only limit is a reasonable notice requirement.  Perhaps Zimmerman's counsel will seek to characterize the case as complex, or will on some other ground seek a protective order or stay, but having chosen to file suit now rather than later (the statute of limitations is two years), it's hard to see how he can escape the obligation to submit to a deposition if NBC or any of the defendants so chooses.  And it's even harder to see how submitting to a civil deposition facilitates his defense of the criminal case.

    Zimmerman can invoke the fifth amendment to avoid submitting to a deposition, but in doing so he would risk dismissal or sanctions under a Florida cases holding that "a plaintiff seeking affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the defendant's discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant's defenses."  The court could dismiss without prejudice or abate the litigation pending conclusion of the criminal case and, if it results in a conviction, appeals, but it's hard to see how Zimmerman can proceed in any way while asserting the fifth amendment to avoid a deposition.

    Zimmerman has given numerous (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:51:14 PM EST
    statements to police and an hour long interview to Sean Hannity. It's pretty obvious he intends to testify at his immunity hearing and at trial, if he doesn't get the case tossed at the immunity hearing. I doubt his lawyers would mind a deposition in the NBC case.

    Parent
    Obvious? (none / 0) (#54)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    I don't think Zimmerman will testify. If he does, I think his cross will be as big a disaster for him as Dee Dee's will be for the prosecution.

    Why do you say it's 'pretty obvious' that he intends to testify?

    It will be nice if NBC's deposition finally gets some straight answers about what was happening during that police call. I won't be holding my breath.

    Parent

    Hanniity's Not Counsel For NBC (none / 0) (#66)
    by Michael Masinter on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 03:14:26 PM EST
    Sean Hannity predictably fed Zimmerman softball questions. O'Mara wisely has kept his client away all other (potentially hostile) media interviews.  I doubt that NBC's counsel will model her examination of Zimmerman on Sean Hannity's approach.  The scope of the civil deposition is much broader than the scope of cross to which Zimmerman would be exposed were he to testify in the immunity hearing or trial.  Why would O'Mara take that risk?

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#82)
    by Tamta on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    "Unlike the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure permit defendants to depose plaintiffs almost immediately"

    Perhaps West and O'Mara seek to use the opportunity of the civil discovery process to investigate and establish facts regarding the actual genesis of this mis-edit of the NEN call.

     In thinking back to this, it is possible that another's hands were involved. Establishing that could be very relevant to the Zimmerman defense agenda.

    Parent

    Being tarred as a racist is a big deal (none / 0) (#24)
    by David in Cal on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    I'm glad to see a lawsuit seeking big damages for a false accusation of racism. In today's climate, it's terrible to have a reputation as a racist. IMHO it's comparable to being considered a communist 60 years ago.

    Disagree with the coments in this thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    This case is a dead loser.

    It will settle for nuisance value.

    See Times v. Sullivan, et al.

    Hard to imagine success (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Dimensional on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    if the guideline is intentional infliction of injury. The editing was unfortunate and unfair, but intentional injury seems hard to prove.

    Parent
    Intentionally reckless? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Tamta on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:49:55 PM EST
    The airing was repetitive.

    Parent
    At best (none / 0) (#26)
    by bmaz on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:20:56 AM EST
    NYT v. Sullivan could affect the defamation count, although I think the conduct and repetitive nature of it after notice, is enough to get it to a jury.  

    Irrespective of that, however, Sullivan is not a defense to Count II for intentional infliction.

    Parent

    And Jon Turley agrees is a legit claim (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by bmaz on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:29:00 AM EST
    Here is the link. A pretty good fleshing out of the whats and whys that led me to say the facts overcome NYT v. Sullivan.

    Parent
    You think the Intentional Infliction ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    ... case is a winner?  For big money?

    Parent
    Intentional infliction (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    is subsumed in the Times v. Sullivan analysis.

    It is a reckless disregard standard.

    Unlike you apparently, I have nothing but disrespect for the legal analysis of Jonathan Turley.


    Parent

    Run hot and cold on Turley (none / 0) (#30)
    by bmaz on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:07:26 PM EST
    But I think he is right here. I think NBC's actions were more than outrageous and more than meet the minimal standard.

    As to Yman's question on damages, don't know how big they would be, maybe pretty big, maybe not. I doubt that a firm like Beasley would sign on if they didn't see a promising damage case though.

    Parent

    It'll settle (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    but not for millions.

    And mostly based on nuisance and publicity value - not the merits.

    I think the case falls at summary judgment at worst.

    Reckless disregard (no one is going to argue actual malice right?) is a very high standard, beyond the fact that everyone is assuming that Zimmerman really is not a racist and can't be proven to be one.

    That's a big assumption.

    Parent

    it is not a big assumption (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    according to all of the discovery produced. Please don't spread that stuff here.

    Parent
    I disagree with the post and your comment (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:25:10 PM EST
    This post here is very much against my principles because of the idea that because you don't like what a media outlet writes about you you can cow them by suits. That's pretty important to me.

    The issue Zimmerman is putting in play WITH HIS suit is that he has been defamed, so he says, because he was labelled a racist.

    There is no presumption of innoncence in this case. There are no presumptions at all.

    It is your opinion that the evidence supports the argument that Zimmerman is not a racist.

    You are of course entitled to your opinion but THAT is a key issue in the case Zimmerman has brought here.

    HE puts it in play.

    If you don;t want to talk about that I think you need to refrain from posting about THIS case.

    Because that is what THIS case is about in large part.

    Parent

    BTD -- This is not about an opinion piece.. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Cashmere on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    MSNBC did not simply write an opinion piece.  MSNBC repeatedly played a "doctored" tape that clearly implied racism on Zimmerman's part.

    No discovery evidence revealed has indicated Zimmerman is a racist.  

    Yet you are floating the idea that he is.  Hmm... the feds did not find Zimmerman to be racist, yet that doesn't mean he is not (your apparent opinion).

    So, in your "opinon", you apparently do not want to be held accountable as a journalist, blogger, etc., for throwing unknowns out there as truths.  Do you realize how many public opinions re: this case have been influenced by MSNBC's irresponsible action(s)?  

    If I were vindictive I would state that your understanding of this case ia as poor as your ability to pick College Football games.

    Parent

    Defamation Raises Different Issues (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Michael Masinter on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 05:44:24 PM EST
    Although the discovery evidence does not appear to reveal that Zimmerman is a racist, that has little bearing on his defamation claim.  Being a racist is not a crime; neither the state nor the FBI investigates racial attitudes save in connection with an alleged underlying criminal act.  Whether Zimmerman can prove by clear and convincing evidence that NBC made false statements of fact about him with reckless disregard for their apparent falsity is a very different question from whether the released discovery provides any support for NBC's characterization.

    In any event, as I noted upthread, unless Zimmerman's criminal defense team is prepared to let him be deposed before the conclusion of the criminal case, the civil case is unlikely to proceed beyond pleadings.

    Parent

    IANAL, and perhaps you are.. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Cashmere on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    Just speaking my mind re: this issue.  However, doesn't the fact that NBC spliced the recorded NEN call in a manner that Zimmerman stated something racist when he actually did not show something a bit devious by those that did the splicing? I am so perplexed by anyone who sides wih NBC on this (not stating that you are siding with NBC).  To me this is different than a journalist stating an opinion or mistating a fact (both are bad of course if based upon lies), as this was taking an actual piece of evidence and manipulating it to imply something that was not there at all.  This simple splice incensed millions.. not just in Sanford, not just in Florida, not just in the US, but around the world.  This is unacceptable.

    I see your point re: the deposition.  Likely this will be settled out of court.

    Parent

    more interesting (none / 0) (#114)
    by LeaNder on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    when he actually did not show something a bit devious by those that did the splicing?

    more interesting, but beyond traceable evidence is the question, had Trayvon been white had he drawn GZ's attention? Had he given him the impression, he was on drugs? Had he looked like a potential burglar?

    Parent

    This thread is about how NBC (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cashmere on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    altered the NEN tape and the suit that has resulted as such.

    Your "wondering" about whether Zimmerman would have reacted differently if Martin was white has no bearing on the civil suit and NBC's actions.

    Parent

    If Zimmerman was African American (none / 0) (#118)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    would a 17 year old black guy come back to kick Zimmmerman's butt for watching him as if he was a potential burglar? (Not that we know that happened, but IF it did, was Martin being racist?)

    "If Martin was white" is meaningless conjecture unless you are trying to revert to the original media narrative that caused the problem this thread is about: "Racist white man chases down and murders innocent little African American kid coming home from the store..." That meme will likely be disproved in court, but many people will continue to attempt to define this tragedy in terms of racism.


    Parent

    Precisely (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    This post and the comments herein demonstrate a misinderstanding of the issues on this civil case brought by Zimmerman.

    Parent
    I respectfully disagree BTD (none / 0) (#65)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    The prosectuion cannot prove this was a racially biased crime, but the underlying possibility of racism and racial profiling, which the media and the Martins' attorney & PR team were quick to capitalize on, will certainly impact the jury on the criminal case.

    By NOT officially claiming Zimmerman is racist, the prosecuters can lead the jury to believe racism was a factor.  That's not a good way to find the truth here, because if Martin did actually came back to kick Zimmerman's butt for "profiling" him, then Zimmerman is legally and ethically justified in defending his life by shooting his attacker.


    Parent

    It seems to me (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dimensional on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:16:38 PM EST
    that despite NBC and ABC mistakes in reporting, that the central issue is that George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed minor in questionable circumstances.

    He may have good cause to sue NBC, but the fact remains that he shot and killed an unarmed minor under circumstances that are still somewhat questionable despite the physical evidence.

    I say questionable only because there is clearly more than one way to discern and to interpret the evidence and the various statements by Zimmerman himself as well as witnesses.

    The very crux of the problem in my opinion is that there isn't quite enough evidence or a witness with enough contact during the event to completely clear Zimmerman or to clearly show his guilt. His early credibility problems with his donations and the slightly different stories he presents cripple his claims for self-defense and must be considered.

    Even if the NBC / ABC fiascos could be wiped away, the case would remain controversial. Judge Nelson and / or a jury of Zimmerman's peers truly have their work cut out for them. Even if this had gone to a grand jury, it would have been a difficult decision there if people are honestly dropping all their preconceptions and ideologies and looking at every bit of evidence presented. IANAL, so perhaps my perception is way off, but looking at all the evidence and statements is like looking at six of one and a half dozen of the other!

    Parent

    That is not the key issue in the lawsuit (none / 0) (#92)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:22:19 PM EST
    I find your post to be completely erroneous.  The lawsuit is about a totally different issue than the criminal charges.  

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#93)
    by Dimensional on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    I meant to go full circle back to the civil suit. In that vein, I would think that the criminal suit does have some bearing on the civil suit. at least for the purpose of NBC's defense. Seems like one of their methods could be to drag heels and see what happens in April during the immunity hearing. If Zimmerman wins, then NBC might be more likely to settle in a big way. If that doesn't work out for Zimmerman, then it seems likely that NBC could then drag their heels until the jury hearing. And so on. Just a thought. I'm not sure why a powerful corporation would cave in easily to one individual with a criminal charge that is clouded by uncertainty.

    Parent
    The bottom line is that (none / 0) (#117)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    if NBC has to pay a lot for this mistake, they ( other news reporters) might choose NOT to fake the news in order to manipulate public opinion in the future.

    Parent
    because if ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by LeaNder on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    because if Martin did actually came back to kick Zimmerman's butt

    if Trayvon Martin did so, there are problems with the really easily traceable time, even more if we add the up the end of GZ's NEN call and the start of the 911 call that records the screams, and add the scenario GZ gives in his reenactment.

    If GZ tells the truth these little time details should fall into place much more easily than they do.

    Parent

    Federal Jurisdiction (none / 0) (#59)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:40:37 PM EST
    Being a racist is not a crime; neither the state nor the FBI investigates racial attitudes save in connection with an alleged underlying criminal act.

    Because Zimmerman is not a law enforcement officer, the only way to make this homicide a federal civil rights case would be to show racial motivation. The FBI tried very hard, and failed.


    Parent

    You need to check your facts (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    I'm picking football games at a 55% clip.

    But your accuracy on that is equivalent to your accuracy on the legal and factualissues onvolved oin this case (not the criminal case.)

    Neither you nor Jeralyn are on the right page on this.


    Parent

    There is no disclosed evidence (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:45:10 PM EST
    Zimmerman is a racist. If you haven't read all the pleadings and discovery you might not know that. But those of us who have read it, do know it.

    This lawsuit is not about whether GZ is a racist, but NBC's false editing of his statements to make it appear that he reported Trayvon Martin to the non-emergency police number because of his race.

    No one cited the presumption of innocence as to racism. He isn't charged with a hate crime, and the state's theory is that he improperly profiled Martin as a criminal. There is no mention of race in the charges.

    Zimmerman did not put race in play, the Martin family lawyers and public relations team did, and the media was too anxious to go along.

    If you approve of the false editing of quotes of the kind that was done here, and minimize it as unfavorable reporting, then yes, we disagree.

    I suggest you familiarize yourself with the discovery, the pleadings, and the transcripts, all of which I have detailed at length, with links to actual documents, before claiming something written here is opinion vs. fact.

    Parent

    With all due respect (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:32:44 PM EST
    You are misunderstanding the legal and factual issues in this case.

    Parent
    Excus eme Jeralyn (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    Zimmerman put it in play in THIS civil suit.

    That is my point.

    Parent

    Cow the media? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:32:42 AM EST
    Editing that tape was not on the same level as the media writing about someone. Just as media images promoted Martin as a young boy, not a potentially dangerous 17 year old, the edited 911 tape not only portrayed Zimmerman as a racist, but convinced many of his guilt in the shooting. In fact, lots of people didn't investigate any farther after hearing that tape; they still rely on what they think he said on that call.

    If I were Zimmerman's attorneys in this case, I'd demand viewership data from cable providers before and after the tape aired as part of discovery. If NBC's viewer numbers spiked upward, then clearly that edited tape was a financial boost to the network. I watch the news to get information, not to be manipulated into believing something that the media outlets think will make me come back for more.

    Today's media has way too much sway over public opinion. Lawsuits like this are a very useful check on their potential to abuse that power. They'll probably settle, and we won't know how much the damages are, but hopefully it'll be enough to ensure that next time they do the job of reporting the news, not generating ratings.

    Parent

    You'd lose the case in a hreatbeat (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:38:38 PM EST
    with that strategy. Viership will show little exposure to those reports.

    Parent
    Well, what sticks in many people's minds (none / 0) (#64)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    from the media coverage is the picture of that poor little boy, and the 911 tape that NBC edited. Both those media falsehoods tend to sway people toward believing Zimmerman is guilty of murder, when he may simply have used poor judgement in carrying a gun into a standoff-likely situation, then had to use it to protect his life.


    Parent
    If Z. had not had a gun (none / 0) (#94)
    by Amiss on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32:11 AM EST
    Things may not have escalated to the point that T.M. felt he needed to defend his life by a man that he did not know following him through a neighborhood with a gun. Everyone here should know IANAL.

    Parent
    Escalation (2.00 / 1) (#95)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    There is no evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun before he decided to 'defend'.

    If he had known, maybe he would have gone home.

    Parent

    Of course there isn't (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    One of the big advantages of having only one party alive to tell their story.

    Parent
    Gun! (none / 0) (#103)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    One of the big advantages of having only one party alive to tell their story.

    If Zimmerman drew his gun before he was on the ground, Martin had an opportunity to tell W-6.

    As we have been discussing on the forum, it would have been irresponsible of Martin not to warn the potential good Samaritan that there was a gun involved.

    Parent

    "Opportunity" - heh (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    there are 9arguably) many things done that night were "irresponsible" ... but according to W-6, neither Martin or Zimmerman acknowledged his demand for them to stop fighting, other than (possibly) one of them continuing to yell "Help!", so:

    1.  There's no way to know if Martin even heard W-6,

    2. someone involved in such a struggle might have more immediate concerns than potential harm to someone nearby, and

    3.  by that logic, Zimmerman was "irresponsible" in failing to warn the Good Samaritan that he had a gun.  Oh, ... that's right.  He forgot he was carrying a gun while following the "suspicious" stranger.

    BTW - No one said Zimmerman had to have drawn his gun for Martin to be aware of it, although that it certainly one possibility.

    Parent
    Being Heard (none / 0) (#107)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    There's no way to know if Martin even heard W-6

    If Martin was calling for help, I think he would be alert for someone responding to the call.

    The defense doesn't have the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even in the immunity hearing, the defense's burden is preponderance of the evidence.

    W-6 spoke three times, asking what was happening, telling the combatants to stop, and saying he was calling 911. He spoke loudly enough for W-1 to hear him, on the other side of the backyards, over the rain and screaming. I think it is more likely than not that Martin heard him.

    Parent

    W-1 heard him (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:31:53 PM EST
    Then again, not that surprising, ... given that W-1 wasn't in the middle of a life-or-death struggle and either screaming or inches away from someone screaming.

    Parent
    I do not believe.. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cashmere on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    anything is known about whether Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun before the altercation started.

    Regardless, I don't see how that has any bearing at all on the civil suit.  The civil suit is not based upon whether or not Zimmerman is guilty, it is about how NBC may have damaged Zimmerman's reputation, from my understanding.  IANAL either.

    Parent

    What We Know (none / 0) (#104)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    We know that W-6 asked what was going on (corroborated by W-1) and Martin did not answer that the man underneath him had a gun.

    Parent
    That Zimmerman was 'following' (none / 0) (#97)
    by Tamta on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    Trayvon is an assumption. He observed Trayvon off of the street and not walking on the sidewalk, reported what he thought to be suspicious behavior, asked for an officer to be sent right away, and then got out of his vehicle to attempt to obtain a more precise answer for the NEN operator's question of what direction Trayvon was headed contemporaneously to the question being asked not contemporaneous to when Trayvon left  Zimmerman's  vehicle after coming towards him and circling it. Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon and there is nothing to suggest that he was 'searching' for Trayvon after losing sight of him and being told that it was not necessary to follow him.

     

    Parent

    The sequence was (none / 0) (#99)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    1. Zimmerman in his car, interrupts his attempt to give the dispatcher directions, with "S**t he's running." His later claim that Martin emerged from the cut through, circled the car, and returned to the darkness of the cut through seems to coincide with this time.

    2. Zimmerman exits his vehicle and follows Martin at least part way into the darkness of the cut through.  

    3. 14 seconds after the car exit, the dispatcher asks if Z is following the suspect, and the answer is "yes".  The dispatcher tells him "we don't need you to do that" and Z says "okay".  

    4. According to his own accounts, Zimmerman keeps going straight past the T to Retreat View Circle (to get a house number which he decided not to give to the dispatcher) where the call ends 1 minute and 37 seconds after the "OK".  

    5. Z heads back to his car and you know the rest.

    Some have argued that by not returning to the car right away when he said "okay" Zimmerman is guilty of something.  So far I think it is no more than reckless endangerment to himself (not a crime).

    Parent
    Thanks for the clarifications. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Tamta on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    Your re-cap is correct. He does interrupt the call to get out of the vehicle. Because there is not evidence that Zimmerman was not returning to his vehicle, I consider following being used in the sense of pursuing an assumption still.

    Parent
    Not an assumption (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 06:15:25 PM EST
    We know (based on Zimmerman's own words) that he was following Martin for some period of time.  Whether he was still following him after the operator suggested "we do not need you to do that" depends on whether you believe that he got out of his vehicle to look for a street sign (because he couldn't remember the street he was on), despite the fact that:

    1. he lived in the development for years, was a member of the neighborhood watch, and there were only 3 streets in the entire development, and

    2. he stated he left his vehicle to look for a street sign, but after he left his vehicle he told the operator he was following Martin.


    Parent
    It had to be a house address. (none / 0) (#101)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 06:32:23 PM EST
    The only way I have made sense out of Zimmerman's story was that when he said OK, he decided that he was going to give the dispatcher a house address on RVC in order that the cops would meet him there instead of where his car was.  Perhaps he also thought he might get a glimpse of Martin too, but we will probably never know.  When he got to RVC, he changed his mind for some reason and decided that he would wait in his car until the police arrived at the development and called him.

    Parent
    Maybe he'll make that argument (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:44:17 PM EST
    But in his statement to police he said:

    "As the dispatcher was asking me for an exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness and circled my vehicle. I could not hear if he said anything. The suspect once again disappeared between the back of some houses. The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign."

    Parent

    Zimmerman on the Stand (none / 0) (#105)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    he will be confronted with plenty of stuff like that.  What you quoted contradicts the walk through where he says he went into the cut through after existing the car instead of looking around Twin Trees Lane for its street sign.  That is why the defense will first see if it can get charges dismissed on the basis of false charging and other prosecutorial misconduct.

    Parent
    Get charges dismissed? Not gonna happen. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:31:07 PM EST


    Parent
    What is the evidence to suggest that (none / 0) (#110)
    by Tamta on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:05:35 PM EST
    he was not on the way back to his vehicle? That may allow for another intent behind his 'following' of Martin. I should have been a bit more specific in my definition of following, distinguishing it from pursuing rather than going in the same direction with a different intent.  

    Parent
    He said he was following Martin ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 04:25:32 PM EST
    ... when he responded to the operator.  From the time he exited his car until (at the very least) the operator told him "We don't need you to do that (follow him)", he was - by his own words - following Martin.  Since he had exited his car at the beginning of this time, I think it's safe to say he wasn't returning to his car at that point.  He may have been returning to his car later, but it's a question of whether you believe him.

    Parent
    I do not disagree with what you are saying (none / 0) (#113)
    by Tamta on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:10:55 PM EST
    necessarily here and your citing Zimmerman's acknowledgment in his own words to what the NEN operator actually says, should not be construed as the operator "realizing"  that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin", as Angela Corey attempts to put forth in her affidavit for probable cause.  I hope I am not sounding like I am trying to skew the issue here. I am trying to be more specific about why I took issue with the 'following' remarks. I think that Corey unfairly skewed that by insinuating that the NEN operator was specifically observing a pursuit instead of verifying Zimmerman 'following'  when it was she who was framing it as a pursuit by saying what the operator was thinking.

    Parent
    It would be interesting . . . (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dimensional on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:12:25 PM EST
     . . . to see how the case would have played out had the reporting been entirely fair and balanced.

    Life is strange, though, and it's quite possible we would have ended up exactly where we are today. Some opinions have shifted, but there are many many people who still adhere to whatever opinion they've had from the outset. I think humans form opinions based as much on their ideology and their own psychological make-up as much as what the media spoon feeds us.

    I do think it's a shame that FL law allows cases to be played out in the media even though it gives us something to discuss!

    Parent

    FBI (none / 0) (#56)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    Are you not aware that the FBI tried to find evidence that Zimmerman is racist, interviewing people he hadn't spoken to in years, and came up empty?

    I think that creates a pretty big presumption.

    Parent

    Don't know legal, but... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Lora on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:31:47 PM EST
    It is obvious that George Zimmerman has had to hide out because of public perception that he is a racist whose racism led him to shoot a Black teen.

    It is also obvious that the edited tape contributed to the public perception that he is a racist, whereas the unedited tape was neutral.

    Seems to me damage has been done and he should collect.

    Parent

    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:37:18 PM EST
    The news coverage in question had little to do with the perception of Zimmerman.

    The death of a unarmed black teen had a lot to do with it.

    Parent

    The death of an unarmed black teen (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by vml68 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    The death of a unarmed black teen had a lot to do with it

    is not quite a rarity. And yet, most of those cases don't get the media coverage that this tragedy did.
    The initial media coverage was all about the "racist white" man killing an unarmed "black child". Atleast, that is the impression I got. If I were not keeping up with the Zimmerman case on TL, I would probably still be under that impression.

    Parent

    Absolutely -- me as well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cashmere on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    BTD is WAY off on this point.

    And BTD... 55% is not very good in terms of predicting college football wins.

    Parent

    People were fired (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Lora on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:06:26 PM EST

    The edited tape was a big deal.  It is unreasonable to suppose it had no influence.  How much influence is up for grabs, perhaps, but it certainly didn't help the public to think of Zimmerman's actions as other than racially motivated.  After watching the news with the edited tape, who would not think that there were elements of racism involved in Zimmerman's actions?


    Parent
    Perceptions (none / 0) (#60)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    The news coverage in question had little to do with the perception of Zimmerman.

    I'm guessing you also think news coverage of the Duke lacrosse case had little to do with public perceptions of the lacrosse players.

    Parent

    It mattered (none / 0) (#80)
    by Lora on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    CNS news May 4, 2012:

    Ben Shapiro, a best-selling author and syndicated columnist, told CNSNews.com, "Of course, NBC should apologize, but such apologies do not suffice. This happened more than once and it was repeated. The impression left was that this was a racially motivated killing."

    "That coverage drove the entire debate surrounding Martin and Zimmerman, and drove it away from an evidence-based debate into a politically-charged one that lost sight of the fact that the Martin family and Zimmerman both deserved objective justice," said Shaprio.  "[NBC News President] Steve Capus should resign. This was shameful, and the buck stops at the top."



    Parent
    Agree... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cashmere on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    100%

    Parent
    How is it a BIG assumption? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cashmere on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    How is it a BIG assumption when no evidence thus far has proven Zimmerman to be a racist?

    Parent
    BTD: false "facts" (none / 0) (#39)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    I'm a former newspaper journalist and ex-blogger. I know only too well that someone can silence another by threatening to sue. But something has to be done to rein in writers who do little or nothing to check on facts.

    And this was more than just not checking... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cashmere on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:28:30 PM EST
    facts.  This was editing a tape in a manner that provided a false narrative of what was said in a conversation.  When the NEN tape was played after NBC altered it, nationwide fury erupted.  I was not aware of the case at all until I heard one of the NBC reports where they played the "doctored" tape.  I was immediately upset and considered Zimmerman's actions racist at the time.  Had I not followed up on the case, I likely never would have known that the tape was altered and my opinion likely would still be that Zimmerman was a racist (this is not my opinion now).  

    I am very tired of the media and bloggers manipulating facts, evidence, etc., to support their agenda.  This is one of the reasons I appreciate Jeralyn's site and her posts so much.  I cannot always say the same for BTD.

    Parent

    "something" (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    requires adherence to the law.

    This post and the comments herein are misinformed.

    Parent

    You BTD are the one who is misinformed... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cashmere on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    I suggest you do as Jeralyn suggested above and review the discovery and facts known thus far in this case.

    Parent
    Reaching a different conclusion ... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:57:28 PM EST
    ... does not make you "misinformed".

    Parent
    BTD stated posters on this thread are mininformed. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cashmere on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:05:08 PM EST
    I just turned it back on him (or her).

    We have both reached different conclusions.   However, as BTD is also claiming Jeralyn is "misinformed", after all of her posts re: these cases, and her diligence in providing accurate information, well, I anticipae BTD is more misinformed that Jeralyn or other posters who have been carefully following TL re: this.

    BTD also suggested that perhaps Jeralyn should refrain from posting re: this case above (at lease that was my understanding of BTD's post).  All I can say is WOW....  

    Parent

    In what way is BTD "misinformed"? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    Because he reaches a different conclusion than other posters (even Jeralyn) does not make him "misinformed".

    Are you suggesting he is mistaken re: the facts (which ones?) or the law?  because I would venture a guess that he is better informed on the law of defamation than 99% of the posters here.

    Parent

    You are misinformed (none / 0) (#71)
    by bmaz on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:43:28 PM EST


    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:54:23 PM EST
    There's no judge assigned yet, so you can't be relying on body language ...

    Parent
    BTD stated Jeralyn and posters on this thread are (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cashmere on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    misinformed.

    Read his posts.

    Your comment to me was that reaching a different conclusion does not make one misinformed.  When I stated BTD was misinformed, it was in response to BTD already stating Jeralyn and posters are misinformed....  

    I simply stated that my reaching a different conculsion (or other posters) does not make me misinformed either.

    Do you really think BTD is more informed re: this case than Jeralyn?  That is laughable.

    Parent

    I'm not asking you ... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:04:10 PM EST
    ... about what BTD said.  I'm asking about what you said.

    But I understand why you wouldn't want to answer and choose to deflect with straw arguments ...

    Parent

    BTW - You did more than that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:09:08 PM EST
    When I stated BTD was misinformed, it was in response to BTD already stating Jeralyn and posters are misinformed....  

    I simply stated that my reaching a different conculsion (or other posters) does not make me misinformed either.

    You also suggested that BTD was manipulating the facts, evidence, etc. to support his agenda.

    I am very tired of the media and bloggers manipulating facts, evidence, etc., to support their agenda.  This is one of the reasons I appreciate Jeralyn's site and her posts so much.  I cannot always say the same for BTD.

    I'm asking you - what facts are being misrepresented or in what way (specifically) is he "misinformed"?

    Parent

    I did not state BTD was manipulating the facts.... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cashmere on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:28:06 PM EST
    My comment was in reference to NBC and other media outlets, bloggers, that do this.  It was a "general" statement, but specifically re: NBC and the splicing of the tape.

    I disagree with BTD as he (I keep saying he, but perhaps it is she), seems to think that what NBC did is not wrong and they should not be sued for it (or that Zimmerman will lose or not get much of a settlement... who knows).

    I meant that I am VERY tired of the manipulation that happens with media. BTD does not think threats of lawsuits should be used to silence the media (and I agree, unless there is a valid reason for a lawsuit, as I believe there is here).  The media should not have carte blanche to report in a misleading fashion, or to flat out lie.

    You can ready Jeralyn's posts and database of the discovery to educate yourself.  

    Parent

    I suppose my comment about BTD at the end... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cashmere on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:33:18 PM EST
    stating that I cannot always say the same for BTD, is what was misconstrued.  

    In this case, I think Jeralyn has a better understanding and has spent much more time providing unbiased information than BTD has.  This is what I meant.

    Above, BTD stated that it is a big assumption to assume Zimmerman is not a racist.  Based on the discovery, the fact that this is not being tried as a hate crime, and that the Feds have determined through their investigation that Zimmerman is not a racist, then BTD's statement is not factual.  This is much more BTD's opinion than based on any evidence that is known at this time.

    Parent

    "Misconstrued" - heh (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    I disagree with BTD as he (I keep saying he, but perhaps it is she), seems to think that what NBC did is not wrong and they should not be sued for it (or that Zimmerman will lose or not get much of a settlement... who knows).

    He's saying no such thing, which I presume is the reason for your qualifier ("seems to think").  He (BTD is a "he") is direct and to the point.  No need to try to read between the lines.

    Above, BTD stated that it is a big assumption to assume Zimmerman is not a racist.  Based on the discovery, the fact that this is not being tried as a hate crime, and that the Feds have determined through their investigation that Zimmerman is not a racist, then BTD's statement is not factual.  This is much more BTD's opinion than based on any evidence that is known at this time.

    What do you mean "not factual"?  It's his conclusion which, by definition, are "not factual".  This conclusion is no less "factual" than yours.  Moreover, BTD is not saying that Zimmerman is a racist ... he's saying:

    1.  the mere fact that the DOJ investigators found no evidence to support the theory that Zimmerman is racist (or was motivated by racial bias or animus that night) does not establish that he isn't/wasn't.  

    2.  By suing NBC for defamation, he puts the issue in controversy and invites the defendants to further investigate the issue.  Moreover, the types of information that would be relevant and potentially admissible in a civil suit are far broader than could be used against him as a criminal defendant.

    But at least we're clear that you weren't suggesting that BTD was manipulating facts or evidence to support an agenda.

    BTW - I don't need to "educate" myself re: Jeralyn's posts - I've already read them.

    Parent

    IANAL... Perhaps you are (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cashmere on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    I am an engineer...  so I likely see the world very differently than lawyers do.

    I will not argue with you further re: the merits of these cases as I clearly have no legal expertise.

    I do stand by my "opinion" that many in the media take clear liberties in manipulating what is reported to further an agenda and this is why I hope NBC is held accountable in this case.

    Parent

    Thanks bmaz for the advice... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cashmere on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:00:29 AM EST
    appreciated.

    further comments about BTD (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:31:46 AM EST
    will be deleted. He and his views are not the topic, the lawsuit against NBC is the topic.

    Here are our comment rules on the Zimmerman case in case you haven't read them in a while.

    FWIW, bmaz (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    You violated, just here, about seven of the first ten "rules" as stated by Jeralyn. I would've been deleted after the first one as have virtually every comment I've attempted to post. No matter how careful, how considered, or how judicious I am in separating facts from opinions, I hit "Post," she hits "Delete."

    Now, I realize this is her site and she can do anything she wants. But to see you, and all the rest that share your snobbish views, running wild with your, obviously, majority opinion does hurt, and does offend those very few of us who are left trying to participate in the conversation.

    If it's an echo chamber you want, you've got it.

    Of Rules and Echo Chambers (none / 0) (#87)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    You violated, just here, about seven of the first ten "rules" as stated by Jeralyn.

    At most two.

    No personal insults or attacks on me, TalkLeft or anyone commenting here.

    No potentially libelous comments, including calling anyone a racist or a liar

    I'm not aware that accusing someone of trolling on the internet has ever been held to be actionable defamation, so that one seems farfetched.

    On the first, maybe Bmaz skates by because he uses the verb 'trolling'. The noun/verb distinction seems to matter. For example it's permissible to observe that someone like Benjamin Crump has told a remarkable number of lies. We just can't say he's a 'liar'.

    If it's an echo chamber you want, you've got it.

    This blog, and the associated forum, are the only sites I know of with extensive discussion of the Zimmerman case that aren't echo chambers for one side or the other. If you know of one, please tell me.


    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    Not an echo chambers for one side or the other?

    Jeralyn's own words from this very thread:

    No personal insults

    "Yman's tripe"
    "obtuse trolling"
    "mental circle jerk"
    "he try(s) to act superior"

    This is acceptable discourse?

    In spite of that, I would like nothing better
    Than to engage you, or anyone else, in a calm, rational, non-partisan manner, on this, or any other subject. However, since this isn't an open thread  we'd have to find another time and place.

    Just say the word, next open thread, I'll discuss this issue with you for as long as you like.

    Parent

    Open Thread (none / 0) (#89)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:36:12 PM EST
    Just say the word, next open thread, I'll discuss this issue with you for as long as you like.

    Thank you.

    I've said what I have to say.

    Parent

    GZ's mother comments on media (none / 0) (#91)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:41:03 PM EST
    Gladys Zimmerman and her son Robert were interviewed today on Univision. My Spanish isn't good enough to translate, but when asked how she felt about what NBC and other media did, she said she was thinking about how they were all lying.

    George Zimmerman Sues NBC and Reporters | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment