Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

[Cozarkian]

The Court's Order, which I am reading for the first time, is at http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2014-06/274341540-30065331.pdf. I will say that if the court is right about the law (and I have no reason to doubt it is), there is at least a very strong argument in favor of the notion that he is a public figure. While the Order is not a thing of great artistic beauty, it seems legally solid and reasonably thorough. Based on that I would put the likelihood of a successful appeal at less than 50%. We shall see . . .

Thanks for linking the record.

As indicated in the recital of facts, the very first national publication on stated that race is the 600 pound elephant in the room because Martin was black and Zimmerman was white. The next day, the first national television report introduced the story as having serious racial overtones.

Clearly, the distinguishing characteristic that put this story in the national media was Zimmerman's role as an alleged racist. NBC's edited broadcast is alleged to have defamed him as racist. The law should not require a higher burden of proof on those facts.

Look at it this way:

If Zimmerman were black, there would have been no racial overtones, so the national media wouldn't have covered it and he wouldn't be a public figure. If NBC had made that broadcast under those circumstances, a negligence standard would apply. Of course, then a claim of defamation would seem stupid because most people are likely to believe a black guy is racist against blacks.

Since Zimmerman wasn't black, there is a much more substantial risk that misleading statements would make people believe he is racist. Further, because the case was being portrayed as potentially a hate crime, Zimmerman was at even greater risk of potential defamation than other non-black persons. Given this, the logical rule should be that NBC has to take more care to avoid making a misleading broadcast that suggests Zimmerman made racist comments.

As for the legal analysis, without reading the cited cases, it appears the court failed to properly consider element "(3) whether the publication or broadcast at issue was germane to the plaintiff's role in the controversy." Zimmerman's role was in the vigilante/stand your ground aspect of the case. He had no role in the racial controversy aspect, which was fabricated by the media. Thus, NBC's broadcast was not germane to the plaintiff's role and he should not have been considered a public figure for purposes of those comments.

 

[Sc0rp]

Thanks for linking the record.

As indicated in the recital of facts, the very first national publication on stated that race is the 600 pound elephant in the room because Martin was black and Zimmerman was white. The next day, the first national television report introduced the story as having serious racial overtones.

Clearly, the distinguishing characteristic that put this story in the national media was Zimmerman's role as an alleged racist. NBC's edited broadcast is alleged to have defamed him as racist. The law should not require a higher burden of proof on those facts.

Look at it this way:

If Zimmerman were black, there would have been no racial overtones, so the national media wouldn't have covered it and he wouldn't be a public figure. If NBC had made that broadcast under those circumstances, a negligence standard would apply. Of course, then a claim of defamation would seem stupid because most people are likely to believe a black guy is racist against blacks.

Since Zimmerman wasn't black, there is a much more substantial risk that misleading statements would make people believe he is racist. Further, because the case was being portrayed as potentially a hate crime, Zimmerman was at even greater risk of potential defamation than other non-black persons. Given this, the logical rule should be that NBC has to take more care to avoid making a misleading broadcast that suggests Zimmerman made racist comments.

As for the legal analysis, without reading the cited cases, it appears the court failed to properly consider element "(3) whether the publication or broadcast at issue was germane to the plaintiff's role in the controversy." Zimmerman's role was in the vigilante/stand your ground aspect of the case. He had no role in the racial controversy aspect, which was fabricated by the media. Thus, NBC's broadcast was not germane to the plaintiff's role and he should not have been considered a public figure for purposes of those comments.

Race really got on the map when Frank Taafe got on TV and wouldn't shut up about blacks in context to the conversation concerning Zimmermans motives. And Zimmerman did address the racial aspect of the case while he was actively trying to engage the controversy.

The judge listed the elements and addressed them in her order. It would be helpful to read the actual order.

 

[emperus]

Now this I agree with. Zimmerman is far from the sharpest tool in the shed.


He did know his CCW rights though. He knew the exact moment where it was 100% perfectly legal to pull out his weapon and defend himself by placing a round directly into the thug's heart.

When are you going to get tired of this internet persona? It's sad that you come on here and spew your nonsense to feel good about yourself. Your voice isn't even authentic, you sound like Spidey-lite.

Again. You guys are defending a psychopath. His wife divorced him, his attorney fired him, his friend Taffee doesn't believe him anymore, his now current g/f had him arrested and he went back to her. I hope, at least he's paying you, so you can at least argue losing your self respect was worth something..

 

[JackBurton]

Race really got on the map when Frank Taafe got on TV and wouldn't shut up about blacks in context to the conversation concerning Zimmermans motives. And Zimmerman did address the racial aspect of the case while he was actively trying to engage the controversy.

The judge listed the elements and addressed them in her order. It would be helpful to read the actual order.

Sc0rp, how many break-ins were reported in Zimmerman's neighborhood before the incident?

 

[Venix]

1) I read the article.

You said that "all they cut out is what the operator said," a blatantly false statement. Either you didn't read the article, didn't understand what you read, or you're a liar. Which is it?

2) the sound bites they used had no effect on his image which was already in the garbage.

So what? An incompetent attempt at defamation is still defamation. It's unacceptable even if it might not be legally actionable.

Like all thinking people, I'm simply disgusted by NBC's blatant attempt to mislead instead of reporting the facts without bias. I couldn't care less about Zimmerman, Trayvon, or any of the dimwits with an unhealthy emotional attachment to the case.

 

[Sc0rp]

Sc0rp, how many break-ins were reported in Zimmerman's neighborhood before the incident?

Records showed that the crime rate in that neighborhood was NORMAL before the shooting. Did you watch the trial because it was part of Serino's testimony. My neighborhood had way more crime at one point and I wouldn't leave my home or truck to pursue or follow someone simply because they are walking down the public street.

It is useful to have a checklist for stuff like this.

1) are they on MY property?
2) are they running away with MY property?
3) Do I KNOW they are doing something wrong (like crawling into a window, beating a hooker in front of my house or tampering with something I know isn't theirs)

If none of those three things are going on, I stay inside of my house and probably watch from there. If I feel the need to engage or interact with someone, I establish communication verbally. If I chase someone off my property, the chase ends at my property line unless they are running off with my property.

On top of that, Zimmermans little stunt did NOTHING to reduce crime in the neighborhood. It was hot for a few weeks because of the cameras, but after the cameras went away, the crime came back to the levels it was at before the shooting.

That neighborhood needed much better lighting and better locks on their patio doors more than it ever needed George Zimmerman on patrol with a gun.

Also, look at what happened to the property values that went through the floor. Thanks George.

 

[Sc0rp]

You said that "all they cut out is what the operator said," a blatantly false statement. Either you didn't read the article, didn't understand what you read, or you're a liar. Which is it?



So what? An incompetent attempt at defamation is still defamation. It's unacceptable even if it might not be legally actionable.

Like all thinking people, I'm simply disgusted by NBC's blatant attempt to mislead instead of reporting the facts without bias. I couldn't care less about Zimmerman, Trayvon, or any of the dimwits with an unhealthy emotional attachment to the case.

1) all they really cut out was what the operator said. That's the gist of Zimmerman complaint. He's saying that cutting out the operator changes the context of what he said. You can argue semantics all you want but the fact remains that this is common in the media to the point that it is laughable that anyone is getting their jimmies rustled over it.

2) none of this matters anyway because if you read the judges ruling, you'd see that Zimmerman was ALREADY seen as a racist before NBC showed up. His name was ALREADY ruined before NBC showed up. He already received death threats before NBC showed up. He already went into hiding before NBC showed up. Pretty much everything that he's blaming on NBC had already happened before NBC showed up and NBC's broadcasts didn't change any of that. You can't legally sue a man for child support because he had sex with you after you've already been knocked up. Zimmerman can not collect any money from NBC unless he proves that NBC is directly responsible for his claimed plight, which he can't because all that stuff happened before NBC's first broadcast.

You don't even need to read the judgement. The tape was released on march 19th, at that time Zimmerman was already being lambasted as a racist, in hiding and his friends and family were in the media claiming that he wasn't a racist. Remember Joe Oliver?

 

[alzan]

Go back to CTH and Stormfront with your Trash arguments.

If the police find something with yellow metal and clear crystals, they'll say gold and diamonds. It could be brass and glass like I said, the police are not jewelry appraisers. Trayvon said that the stuff belonged to a friend of his, he didn't say he didn't know who it belonged to. I have a whole drawer full of screwdrivers, guess I'm a master thief now.

You don't sweep things under the rug by writing reports on it. The point is that the items didn't match any that was reported stolen and they didn't know whether it was valuable or not because they never tested it.

I don't have to prove that your assertions are assertions. You're the one making the claims, you have the burden of proof.

You'll never get proof from SA; he just posts threads for shock value. His number one goal is to drive up his post count by getting other members to respond multiple times to his "thug4eva" and other such drivel posts. He has nothing of real value to contribute.

 

[Sc0rp]

You'll never get proof from SA; he just posts threads for shock value. His number one goal is to drive up his post count by getting other members to respond multiple times to his "thug4eva" and other such drivel posts. He has nothing of real value to contribute.

Yeah, I see. I'll just ignore him.

 

[JackBurton]

Records showed that the crime rate in that neighborhood was NORMAL before the shooting. Did you watch the trial because it was part of Serino's testimony. My neighborhood had way more crime at one point and I wouldn't leave my home or truck to pursue or follow someone simply because they are walking down the public street.

It is useful to have a checklist for stuff like this.

1) are they on MY property?
2) are they running away with MY property?
3) Do I KNOW they are doing something wrong (like crawling into a window, beating a hooker in front of my house or tampering with something I know isn't theirs)

If none of those three things are going on, I stay inside of my house and probably watch from there. If I feel the need to engage or interact with someone, I establish communication verbally. If I chase someone off my property, the chase ends at my property line unless they are running off with my property.

On top of that, Zimmermans little stunt did NOTHING to reduce crime in the neighborhood. It was hot for a few weeks because of the cameras, but after the cameras went away, the crime came back to the levels it was at before the shooting.

That neighborhood needed much better lighting and better locks on their patio doors more than it ever needed George Zimmerman on patrol with a gun.

Also, look at what happened to the property values that went through the floor. Thanks George.

So what is "normal?" Do neighborhoods normally institute a neighborhood watch in safe areas? Do they also form a patrol in safe neighborhoods?

 

[Venix]

So what is "normal?" Do neighborhoods normally institute a neighborhood watch in safe areas? Do they also form a patrol in safe neighborhoods?

I wouldn't trust anything that guy says. Practically everything he posts is factually incorrect.

In fact, Sanford, FL is ranked a 5 out of 100 by Neighborhood Scout, meaning it's more dangerous than 95% of US cities.

Additionally, The Miami Herald found that police were dispatched to Zimmerman's neighborhood 402 times in the year before Trayvon Martin's death. That's far from normal.

 

[Sc0rp]

So what is "normal?" Do neighborhoods normally institute a neighborhood watch in safe areas? Do they also form a patrol in safe neighborhoods?

Neighborhood watches DO setup in safe areas and patrol in safe neighborhoods. ANYONE can form a neighborhood watch if they want to form one even if there is NO crime. Zimmerman formed the NHW in his neighborhood and was one of two people on it.

Normal crime rate? Ask the police. They said the crime rate was normal and unremarkable and judging from the police reports, it is no different from crime just about anywhere else in Sanford. I think you have some mental image that resembles a Charles Bronson film or something.

 

[Sc0rp]

I wouldn't trust anything that guy says. Practically everything he posts is factually incorrect.

In fact, Sanford, FL is ranked a 5 out of 100 by Neighborhood Scout, meaning it's more dangerous than 95% of US cities.

Additionally, The Miami Herald found that police were dispatched to Zimmerman's neighborhood 402 times in the year before Trayvon Martin's death. That's far from normal.

I said that the crime rate in that neighborhood was normal. If the crime rate is of Sanford FL is so high, then the bar is not that high to meet the normal standard.

I guess you don't understand what normal means. Normal does not mean exemplary or perfect. It means that it is in line with what would be expected.

I've actually been factually right on many things I've said, but you don't want to agree with what I'm saying so you assign your own values to the statements that I make. I said the crime rate was normal, so in YOUR mind, it MUST be the safest place in the world, which is not what I claimed or stated. But fine. Hold on a bit...

Ok, here's the crime rate and index for Chicago.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/

Notice that Chicago's index is higher, meaning, that by your estimate, it should be a bit safer than Sanford, right? But look at the violent crime chart... It's significantly higher. What happened?

The crime index encompasses all crime, not just violent crime.

Here's Washington DC. It has the exact same crime index as Sanford Florida.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/

Your chances of being a victim of violent crime is twice as high in DC as it is in Sanford. Wonder why that is? Crime index encompasses all crime, not just violent crime.

Ever been to talahasse Florida?

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/tallahassee/crime/

Crime rate similar to Sanford and that's the state capital. Now, if a neighborhood in talahasse Florida had the same crime rate as another neighborhood in talahasse Florida, would you say that is a NORMAL or an ADNORMAL crime rate considering that they are both in talahasse Florida? I'll let you think on that a bit.

Also, I'm going to need an actual source on the 402 calls claim. Your article links to a Miami herald article that does not exist anymore. Mathematically speaking, in order to meet that claim, nearly each residence would have to call the police nearly 2 times in one year on seperate occasions or the police would have to be called at least once a day for about 13 months which is the period in which the article claims it was spanning. I know for a fact that some of the residents called the police on Zimmerman due to his antics and Zimmerman himself called several times over irrelevancies, but the 402 figure does not sound right at all.

Like I said before, the neighborhood needed better lighting and locks for the doors much more than it needed Zimmerman with a gun.

Look at this video... It was recorded exactly one year after the shooting at the approximate time of the shooting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n-h0GmjHSkA

Notice something about it? ITS DARK! One thing that helps reduce crime (like burglaries) is to have proper lighting. Flood lights are not expensive. But instead of thinking of flood lights and advising people to get them, Detective Zimmerman was on the case. The NHW coordinator told them they should use a simple device to secure their doors, instead of spearheading an initiative to get everyone to better secure their homes, Detective Zimmerman was on the case. There are over 200 homes in that neighborhood, yet almost NOBODY knew who Zimmerman was. Why? Because detective Zimmerman was on the case. He doesn't need to actually get to know the people in the neighborhood, he just needs to drive to his target with his gun.

If the crime in the neighborhood were so bad, you'd think people would actually do something to PREVENT crime instead of having Zimmerman just riding around while armed looking for trouble. The man formed a 'neighborhood watch' that had two members and didn't actually follow or observe any of the NHW guidelines. And you guys actually think he was doing something that helped ANYTHING?

No need to buy flood lights, an alarm system or better locks. Zimmeman f'ina pa-trol wit his gun!

His patrol was nothing more than Zimmerman playtime.

 

[werepossum]

I said that the crime rate in that neighborhood was normal. If the crime rate is of Sanford FL is so high, then the bar is not that high to meet the normal standard.

I guess you don't understand what normal means. Normal does not mean exemplary or perfect. It means that it is in line with what would be expected.

I've actually been factually right on many things I've said, but you don't want to agree with what I'm saying so you assign your own values to the statements that I make. I said the crime rate was normal, so in YOUR mind, it MUST be the safest place in the world, which is not what I claimed or stated. But fine. Hold on a bit...

Ok, here's the crime rate and index for Chicago.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/

Notice that Chicago's index is higher, meaning, that by your estimate, it should be a bit safer than Sanford, right? But look at the violent crime chart... It's significantly higher. What happened?

The crime index encompasses all crime, not just violent crime.

Here's Washington DC. It has the exact same crime index as Sanford Florida.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime/

Your chances of being a victim of violent crime is twice as high in DC as it is in Sanford. Wonder why that is? Crime index encompasses all crime, not just violent crime.

Ever been to talahasse Florida?

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/tallahassee/crime/

Crime rate similar to Sanford and that's the state capital. Now, if a neighborhood in talahasse Florida had the same crime rate as another city in talahasse Florida, would you say that is a NORMAL or an ADNORMAL crime rate considering that they are both in talahasse Florida? I'll let you think on that a bit.

Also, I'm going to need an actual source on the 402 calls claim. Your article links to a Miami herald article that does not exist anymore. Mathematically speaking, in order to meet that claim, nearly each residence would have to call the police nearly 2 times in one year on seperate occasions or the police would have to be called at least once a day for about 13 months which is the period in which the article claims it was spanning. I know for a fact that some of the residents called the police on Zimmerman due to his antics and Zimmerman himself called several times over irrelevancies, but the 402 figure does not sound right at all.

Like I said before, the neighborhood needed better lighting and locks for the doors much more than it needed Zimmerman with a gun.

Well, of course the crime rate's going to be higher in the capital - it's full of politicians!

 

[Sc0rp]

Well, of course the crime rate's going to be higher in the capital - it's full of politicians!

Touché. Don't forget the lawyers.

 

[Venix]

I said that the crime rate in that neighborhood was normal. If the crime rate is of Sanford FL is so high, then the bar is not that high to meet the normal standard.

"How many break-ins were reported in Zimmerman's neighborhood before the incident?"
"Records showed that the crime rate in that neighborhood was NORMAL before the shooting."

Anyone who's not brain dead understands the obvious implications of that response--that the neighborhood was not experiencing a crime problem. Is admitting a mistake so difficult for you that you'd rather look like a liar or a buffoon who can't effectively communicate?

In any case, Sanford experienced a significant increase in burglaries from 2009-2012. The Retreat at Twin Lakes suffered catastrophic losses to property values and a long string of foreclosures, accompanied by a marked increase in property crime. Its residents formed the neighborhood watch in response to a crime spree that included five burglaries in three months.

You are literally the only person I've ever seen dispute these facts. I'm impressed by your dedication to inaccuracy.

 

[Sc0rp]

"How many break-ins were reported in Zimmerman's neighborhood before the incident?"
"Records showed that the crime rate in that neighborhood was NORMAL before the shooting."

Anyone who's not brain dead understands the obvious implications of that response--that the neighborhood was not experiencing a crime problem. Is admitting a mistake so difficult for you that you'd rather look like a liar or a buffoon who can't effectively communicate?

In any case, Sanford experienced a significant increase in burglaries from 2009-2012. The Retreat at Twin Lakes suffered catastrophic losses to property values and a long string of foreclosures, accompanied by a marked increase in property crime. Its residents formed the neighborhood watch in response to a crime spree that included five burglaries in three months.

You are literally the only person I've ever seen dispute these facts. I'm impressed by your dedication to inaccuracy.

You're brain dead then. I Said that the crime rate in the community was NORMAL, not that there was no crime. You haven't submitted anything to indicate that the neighborhood had an abnormal crime rate. Normal means that it follows the trends of the rest of the city. You're just upset that I was correct and want to argue semantics. You'd only have a point if I said that the neighborhood had NO crime, which I NEVER CLAIMED. The expectations that you are placing on my statement are the same as you arguing that I was saying there was NO crime.

You say I'm disputing facts? Quote me saying that there were no break ins? Quote me saying that there weren't five break ins in three months? Quote me making any of the claims that you're attacking me on! My ability to communicate works just fine, your logic and reading comprehension skills are clearly insufficient.

In case you're having trouble figuring out the proper definition of the word I used.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Normal+definition

Not only that but I based my normal statement off the unchallenged testimony of serino who testified under oath that the crime rate in the neighborhood was unremarkable. I'd post a link to the testimony, but it is like three hours long and the video is not hard to look up.

Also, another thing is that the residents in the neighborhood didn't do BASIC things to prevent crime. In fact, I'd bet that a lot of residents weren't even aware that there was a 'crime problem' because if there were, there would be more than two people in the NHW. You can go back to watching Charles Bronson films now.

P.s., you're one to cry about property values here. Zimmerman deciding to get out of his truck did wonders for the property values in the neighborhood, right?

I don't like him for the same reason why I don't like you. Neither of you guys think. Good day.

 

[emperus]

"How many break-ins were reported in Zimmerman's neighborhood before the incident?"
"Records showed that the crime rate in that neighborhood was NORMAL before the shooting."

Anyone who's not brain dead understands the obvious implications of that response--that the neighborhood was not experiencing a crime problem. Is admitting a mistake so difficult for you that you'd rather look like a liar or a buffoon who can't effectively communicate?

In any case, Sanford experienced a significant increase in burglaries from 2009-2012. The Retreat at Twin Lakes suffered catastrophic losses to property values and a long string of foreclosures, accompanied by a marked increase in property crime. Its residents formed the neighborhood watch in response to a crime spree that included five burglaries in three months.

You are literally the only person I've ever seen dispute these facts. I'm impressed by your dedication to inaccuracy.

Actually, this is from someone who lived in the neighborhood.

For the first time, Manalo tells of a situation that happened in November 2011 where George Zimmerman pulled a gun on a UPS delivery man. Manalo also stated that the Retreat at Twin Lakes was not a high crime area, and that justice was not served. He believes Zimmerman should have been found guilty. Very revealing is that Manalo also said during the interview, that Zimmerman lied during his re-enactment when saying he asked him to help restrain Trayvon and that he allegedly spread –out Trayvon’s arms

http://blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/jonathan-manalo-zimmerman-witness-writes-book/

 

[HumblePie]

I am no First Amendment attorney, but I find it curious that this opinion would have dismissed the case based, at least in large part, on the notion of Zimmerman being a public figure - I would certainly not consider him one for purposes of a defamation claim.

I have always felt the greatest deficiency of the case was damages, since it seems unlikely to me that NBC's editing (which was certainly irresponsible) caused Zimmerman any harm. He was already a highly controversial figure (he was, after all, an admitted killer and on trial for the murder of a minor), vilified by many, when they aired their story, and frankly I don't think the editing materially affected anyone's perception of Zimmerman in a way that caused him any damages. What probably did harm him was the false portrayal of Martin by the media as a skinny 13-year-old honor student, but that is not actionable by Zimmerman.

I am amused, if unsurprised, that people are still predicting a life of wealth and privilege for Zimmerman despite all the evidence to the contrary. The NBC case, even if it's successful, will at best earn him enough money to pay off his criminal lawyers. No publisher will give him a significant advance on a book, and if he publishes one it won't sell. If any publisher thought otherwise, the book would have emerged by now. I would be surprised if Zimmerman ever achieves becoming middle class, much less wealthy.

As you noted, here is the official high court description for a public figure.

The court noted two differences: (1) Public officials and public figures have greater access to the media in order to counter defamatory statements; and (2) public officials and public figures to a certain extent seek out public acclaim and assume the risk of greater public scrutiny

Zimmerman at the time of the alleged defamation by NBC was not a public figure according to the litmus test already provided by the cases Times Vs Sullivan, and Gertz vs Robert Welch.

He was neither had access to media to defend himself with prior nor at the time of the defamation. He was not holding a public office either. He was a private individual and doesn't have to prove malice, but prove harm was done with the statements. Proof that harm was done can be seen in this thread and all across the nation as people are still sending him death threats for racism of the mis-characterization done by NBCs statements in the media.

I have a big feeling this will be overturned on appeals.

 

[Sc0rp]

Actually, this is from someone who lived in the neighborhood.



http://blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/jonathan-manalo-zimmerman-witness-writes-book/

Bingo. Tho I felt that police officer testifying that the crime rate was normal when showed a crime report for the neighborhood should have held weight with him.

 

[fskimospy]

As you noted, here is the official high court description for a public figure.

The court noted two differences: (1) Public officials and public figures have greater access to the media in order to counter defamatory statements; and (2) public officials and public figures to a certain extent seek out public acclaim and assume the risk of greater public scrutiny

Zimmerman at the time of the alleged defamation by NBC was not a public figure according to the litmus test already provided by the cases Times Vs Sullivan, and Gertz vs Robert Welch.

He was neither had access to media to defend himself with prior nor at the time of the defamation. He was not holding a public office either. He was a private individual and doesn't have to prove malice, but prove harm was done with the statements. Proof that harm was done can be seen in this thread and all across the nation as people are still sending him death threats for racism of the mis-characterization done by NBCs statements in the media.

I have a big feeling this will be overturned on appeals.

Seems like the court made a pretty compelling case for him being a public figure.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2014-06/274341540-30065331.pdf

 

[emperus]

As for the legal analysis, without reading the cited cases, it appears the court failed to properly consider element "(3) whether the publication or broadcast at issue was germane to the plaintiff's role in the controversy." Zimmerman's role was in the vigilante/stand your ground aspect of the case. He had no role in the racial controversy aspect, which was fabricated by the media. Thus, NBC's broadcast was not germane to the plaintiff's role and he should not have been considered a public figure for purposes of those comments.

Doesn't seem like you read the full brief.

 

[HumblePie]

Seems like the court made a pretty compelling case for him being a public figure.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2014-06/274341540-30065331.pdf

Doesn't matter. The litmus standard has already been set. The court ruled improperly to that standard. It happens. It will be overturned on appeals when a court that understands the litmus standard as already set by higher courts apply that standard to this case.

 

[Sc0rp]

I have a big feeling this will be overturned on appeals.

Doubtful.

And even if they get the matter of him being a public figure overturned by some miracle, they STILL have to prove that NBC has directly cause Zimmerman's plight/damages.

Zimmerman's name was already hated before NBC made their first story about Zimmerman. People were already calling Zimmerman a racist before NBC made a single story about Zimmerman.

1) If a woman gets knocked up by some guy, she can't turn around and have another guy charged with child support simply because she hooked up with him after she was already knocked up. Even if he lied about wearing a condom. Y'know, because babies aren't made that way.

2) If you get in an auto accident and total your car, you can't turn around and sue someone for the whole value of your car if they scratch the pain on your car after it has already been completely totaled by your bad driving.

3) if you burn your own house down because you forget to turn the stove off or something, you can't sue someone for damages to your house if they decide to flick a lit cigar onto the smoldering remains of your house that was already burned to the ground before they got there.

There are so many analogies about something being ruined and someone else not being responsible for it being ruined. Unless NBC has a time machine or something, they are NOT responsible for an ounce of Zimmerman's problems.

Unless Zimmerman's lawyer can somehow prove that NBC caused his damages before they actually made a single story about him, Zimmerman's case will remain dismissed.

Heres a hint: Zimmermans lawyer can't prove that.

 

[emperus]

Doesn't matter. The litmus standard has already been set. The court ruled improperly to that standard. It happens. It will be overturned on appeals when a court that understands the litmus standard as already set by higher courts apply that standard to this case.

Lol. Reading your posts on Law is like peeking into the mind of a crazy person. Dr. Engineer Humble Pie. Esq. B.A, MBA, B. Arch, MD, RN, DDA, PhD and esp. BS.