Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

[Zebo]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...e-zimmerman-911-call-zimmerman-trayvon-martin

Explains it, but it's in the pdf linked to previously.

No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Jaskalas]

Judge says... if you protect black men, the media can tell the public you hate black men.

WTF IS THIS SHIT?!

Judge Nelson... same Judge from the criminal trial. Well that does explain it...

 

[fskimospy]

Judge says... if you protect black men, the media can tell the public you hate black men.

WTF IS THIS SHIT?!

Judge Nelson... same Judge from the criminal trial. Well that does explain it...

No, the judge says that if you insert yourself in a public debate then you are a public figure in that debate. Pretty straightforward.

 

[HumblePie]

No, the judge says that if you insert yourself in a public debate then you are a public figure in that debate. Pretty straightforward.

Only if that interpretation meets the litmus qualification for being recognized as a limited public persona, but that would only make it for that scenario and not something over a year later in a completely unrelated incident.

 

[HumblePie]

Judge says... if you protect black men, the media can tell the public you hate black men.

WTF IS THIS SHIT?!

Judge Nelson... same Judge from the criminal trial. Well that does explain it...

Well she also stated this as part of the reasoning...

She went on to describe Zimmerman as having "pursued a course of conduct that ultimately led to the death of (Trayvon) Martin."

Because she still believes that Zimmerman actions were the direct cause of Martin's death despite the actual evidence presented and the verdict delivered by the jury. Thus tossing out the motion for a hearing is more likely her vindictive rub back at Zimmerman.

 

[Cozarkian]

I understand that, but the court (again, according to Humble) seems to have thrown the case out before any evidence was allowed to be shown to support malice.

Did Zimmerman actually bring a motion to continue the hearing to allow time for discovery of factual issues pertaining to malice?

No, the judge says that if you insert yourself in a public debate then you are a public figure in that debate. Pretty straightforward.

10 seconds of fame should not make one a public figure for years to come. When Zimmerman's name hit media for killing Trayvon Martin, I highly doubt anyone in the world thought "Hey, I know that guy, he's the guy that protested about a white guy being set free after shooting a black homeless man."

Seriously, if I join a protest following Donald Sterling's racist comments, does that make me a public figure for race relations if get in fight with a black guy next year?

Because she still believes that Zimmerman actions were the direct cause of Martin's death despite the actual evidence presented and the verdict delivered by the jury. Thus tossing out the motion for a hearing is more likely her vindictive rub back at Zimmerman.

There isn't really a dispute that Zimmerman's actions caused TM's death. The criminal case was about whether that was justified. If you join a neighborhood watch, carry a gun, follow a guy you think is committing a crime, and end up shooting him, you absolutely can be sucked into being a limited public figure regarding vigilante justice. However, racial defamation is not germane to that issue, so the Judge should have found he was not a public figure based on the third element of the test the court outlined, which the court failed to analyze.

 

[Sc0rp]

Ironic how Zimmerman's defense of a helpless black man against abusive white police is used to help prove the case that news media portraying him as racist was not slander. :hmm:

More like his touting, after the shooting, that he was trying to defend a helpless black man from the son of a police officer, but he made almost NO mention of said black man and focused solely on criticizing the police not following protocol in handling the case when he was protesting. Especially in the face of nobody that was actually involved in helping that black guy ever actually saw or met Zimmerman at any of their events or protests. Especially not that black mans daughter.

Fact is, Zimmerman never did ANYTHING for that black guy. His whole motivation was to criticize the police because Zimmerman knows better. That's it.

Oh, and then it is ironic that he chided the police for failing to follow proper procedure, yet them not following proper procedure is what got him cleanly off the hook for a prison sentence.

 

[Sc0rp]

Did Zimmerman actually bring a motion to continue the hearing to allow time for discovery of factual issues pertaining to malice?



10 seconds of fame should not make one a public figure for years to come. When Zimmerman's name hit media for killing Trayvon Martin, I highly doubt anyone in the world thought "Hey, I know that guy, he's the guy that protested about a white guy being set free after shooting a black homeless man."

Seriously, if I join a protest following Donald Sterling's racist comments, does that make me a public figure for race relations if get in fight with a black guy next year?



There isn't really a dispute that Zimmerman's actions caused TM's death. The criminal case was about whether that was justified. If you join a neighborhood watch, carry a gun, follow a guy you think is committing a crime, and end up shooting him, you absolutely can be sucked into being a limited public figure regarding vigilante justice. However, racial defamation is not germane to that issue, so the Judge should have found he was not a public figure based on the third element of the test the court outlined, which the court failed to analyze.

Zimmerman was already called a racist in the media. Also, NBC's broadcast didn't specifically say he was a racist, they cut out what the operator said. The subject matter of the error is irrelivent here. Even if NBC said Zimmerman were racist in that broadcast, that is a credible conclusion to come to as anything else. I could see if they flat out altered his words to make words that he didn't actually say, but he actually said those words and they aren't even very important words as other things he said would be more likely to make people think he's a racist than even NBC's sounds bites would. I find it funny that the sound bites are such a big deal to people when, if NBC wasn't end to make him look racist, all they would have to do is play 'these A-Holes, they always get away' and 'F-ing ****s!' Over and over without even touching the 'he looks black' or 'he's black' part. Also, this WAS a high profile murder trial with lasting implications both socially and legally. Everyone involved that put themselves out there is a public figure. This is not ten minutes of fame. The sheer number of reports on the subject, people involved and ammount of time that this mess is still going on demonstrates that.

Same logic for the 'F-ing ****s!' Part. Zimmerman claims he didn't say that, but to a casual listener, you can't tell WHAT he said and are permitted to have an opinion on what he said there. He shouldn't have said it AT ALL because it sounds like he has contempt for the person that he was running after and later shot and killed. Zimmerman has some significant impulse control problems or something.

 

[Sc0rp]

Is it going to appeal? That takes money.

Zimmerman's lawyer says he wants to appeal, but Zimmerman has resumed his online antics very recently which is... Odd... Considering that he could be giving the court fuel to deny his appeal request.

 

[HumblePie]

There isn't really a dispute that Zimmerman's actions caused TM's death. The criminal case was about whether that was justified.

Unless you talking about actually pulling the trigger then no. Trying to conflate any other action taken by Zimmerman as a direct cause that led to the death of Trayvon is not true. This was tested in court and found not true.

The dispute was his actions prior to Trayvon confronting him after he left his truck. She (Judge Nelson by her own words), and many others (many on this forum) believe those actions of doing the duty of a neighborhood watch volunteer were what directly led to Trayvon's death. Her statement of opinion that I quoted above is an insinuation of such a belief that actions other than pulling the trigger were what led to Trayvons death. Which is stupid to say, because you might as well say Zimmerman being born was what ultimately led to the death of Trayvon. There is a line that is drawn, and that was at the time Zimmerman decided to pull the trigger in self defense. Everything prior is not a direct nor even really an indirect relational causation to the effect of Trayvon's death. Unless of course one of his action prior to the actual self defense shooting was revealed to be evidence that was something other than a self defense shooting. It's the same line of reasoning of because a woman is wearing a short skirt, that is what led to her being raped. Her actions to make herself look attractive to men got her raped. It's a bogus and crap argument.

If you join a neighborhood watch, carry a gun, follow a guy you think is committing a crime, and end up shooting him, you absolutely can be sucked into being a limited public figure regarding vigilante justice. However, racial defamation is not germane to that issue, so the Judge should have found he was not a public figure based on the third element of the test the court outlined, which the court failed to analyze.

Yep.

 

[Venix]

Normal means that it follows the trends of the rest of the city.

Ah. So if crime in a neighborhood increases ten-fold, the crime rate is still considered "NORMAL" (capitalized, even!) as long as the rest of the city experiences a similar crime wave. That's hilariously stupid.

 

[Sc0rp]

Judge says... if you protect black men, the media can tell the public you hate black men.

WTF IS THIS SHIT?!

Judge Nelson... same Judge from the criminal trial. Well that does explain it...

But he didn't actually protect or do anything for anyone, he focused on criticizing the police for not following procedure.

 

[Sc0rp]

Ah. So if crime in a neighborhood increases ten-fold, the crime rate is still considered "NORMAL" (capitalized, even!) as long as the rest of the city experiences a similar crime wave. That's hilariously stupid.

IF the crime in the CITY increases 10 fold and the crime rate in the neighborhood, predictably, follows the same pattern, then that would be normal. The ever-changing status of the CITY sets the STANDARD for what is normal or not. It would be abnormal for the crime to increase ten fold in the neighborhood while crime in the rest of the city stays the same or goes down.

But you know what? She police department and other residents of RATL say that the crime rate was normal. Take your bleating up with them.

You are litterally trying to argue semantics while trying to apply stupid logic simply because you can't wrap your head around a simple concept. Please go away.

 

[Sc0rp]

Unless you talking about actually pulling the trigger then no. Trying to conflate any other action taken by Zimmerman as a direct cause that led to the death of Trayvon is not true. This was tested in court and found not true.

The dispute was his actions prior to Trayvon confronting him after he left his truck. She (Judge Nelson by her own words), and many others (many on this forum) believe those actions of doing the duty of a neighborhood watch volunteer were what directly led to Trayvon's death. Her statement of opinion that I quoted above is an insinuation of such a belief that actions other than pulling the trigger were what led to Trayvons death. Which is stupid to say, because you might as well say Zimmerman being born was what ultimately led to the death of Trayvon. There is a line that is drawn, and that was at the time Zimmerman decided to pull the trigger in self defense. Everything prior is not a direct nor even really an indirect relational causation to the effect of Trayvon's death. Unless of course one of his action prior to the actual self defense shooting was revealed to be evidence that was something other than a self defense shooting. It's the same line of reasoning of because a woman is wearing a short skirt, that is what led to her being raped. Her actions to make herself look attractive to men got her raped. It's a bogus and crap argument.



Yep.

Zimmermans pro-active and flat out reckless behavior initiated a chain of events that resulted in Trayvons death. Zimmerman was the first one to actually commit escalatory behavior directed at the other. Personally, if someone got out of their truck and followed me like that, their chances of getting shot that evening would go waaaaay up. I don't see why you guys have a problem understanding this.

 

[Cozarkian]

Zimmerman was already called a racist in the media.

What's your point? Is there a legal principle that says its okay to defame someone who has already been defamed by others? I suppose that might go toward damages, but as far as I am aware, it wouldn't affect liability.

Also, NBC's broadcast didn't specifically say he was a racist, they cut out what the operator said. ... Even if NBC said Zimmerman were racist in that broadcast, that is a credible conclusion to come to as anything else. I could see if they flat out altered his words to make words that he didn't actually say, but he actually said those words and they aren't even very important words as other things he said would be more likely to make people think he's a racist than even NBC's sounds bites would.

All of that addresses a different subject - whether the statements were defamatory. I haven't drawn a specific conclusion on that, but as of the moment, having done little to no analysis on the actual statements, I am leaning toward Zimmerman doesn't deserve crap. However, on the question as to whether he was a public figure, the court was wrong.

The subject matter of the error is irrelivent here.

The court seems to disagree, since it specifically stated that whether the subject matter of the alleged defamatory statements is germane to the issue for which the plaintiff took voluntary action is a factor that must be considered.

I find it funny that the sound bites are such a big deal to people when, if NBC wasn't end to make him look racist, all they would have to do is play 'these A-Holes, they always get away' and 'F-ing ****s!' Over and over without even touching the 'he looks black' or 'he's black' part.

Of course, if NBC wanted to make him look racist while trying to avoid making the defamation so obvious that they would have no defense in court, they might have done exactly what they did. Or, more directly, if two employees wanted to make him look racist and were hoping to keep their job, they might have done exactly what they did.

Also, this WAS a high profile murder trial with lasting implications both socially and legally. Everyone involved that put themselves out there is a public figure. This is not ten minutes of fame. The sheer number of reports on the subject, people involved and ammount of time that this mess is still going on demonstrates that.

First, I actually disagree that Zimmerman "put himself out there" to the public on this issue. He didn't voluntarily inject himself into a public dispute, he voluntarily injected himself into a private neighborhood concern that was later transformed to a public dispute.

Second, if he did "put himself out there" it wasn't on a public issue of hate crime/racism, it was on a public issue of defending one's neighborhood. Thus, he can only be an involuntary public figure for that issue.

 

[TerryMathews]

Zimmermans pro-active and flat out reckless behavior initiated a chain of events that resulted in Trayvons death. Zimmerman was the first one to actually commit escalatory behavior directed at the other. Personally, if someone got out of their truck and followed me like that, their chances of getting shot that evening would go waaaaay up. I don't see why you guys have a problem understanding this.

Has no bearing on Zimmerman's eligibility to sue NBA, Dari.

As we discussed ad nauseum, it was certainly possible that both men had an equal right to self defense that night Florida law allows for it implicitly.

In that case, the spoils go to the victor.

 

[Venix]

IF the crime in the CITY increases 10 fold and the crime rate in the neighborhood, predictably, follows the same pattern, then that would be normal. The ever-changing status of the CITY sets the STANDARD for what is normal or not. It would be abnormal for the crime to increase ten fold in the neighborhood while crime in the rest of the city stays the same or goes down.

I appreciate the way you always double down on stupid. It's amusing.

I could question why you believe that "normal" implies a comparison between neighborhood and city rather than x-mile radius, county, state, or the same city in past years, but I digress. You're simply a liar:

"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. ...My neighborhood had way more crime at one point"

The only possible interpretation of that response is "the neighborhood did not have a crime problem." That's why you capitalized "normal." That's why you said your neighborhood had more crime. That's why you responded with "Bingo" to the interview with a guy who claimed the neighborhood was safe.

I still don't understand why you're so averse to admitting a mistake that you'd rather look like a drooling idiot with Kindergarten-level communication skills.

 

[Sc0rp]

Has no bearing on Zimmerman's eligibility to sue NBA, Dari.

As we discussed ad nauseum, it was certainly possible that both men had an equal right to self defense that night Florida law allows for it implicitly.

In that case, the spoils go to the victor.

Zimmerman has no eligibility to sue because NBC isn't responsible for any of his damages. He was already hated and believed to be a racist before NBC came along.

Also, there is a provision in florida's self defense law that stipulates that your right to use deadly force is strongly hamstrung if you provoke someone else to use force upon you first.

 

[Sc0rp]

What's your point? Is there a legal principle that says its okay to defame someone who has already been defamed by others? I suppose that might go toward damages, but as far as I am aware, it wouldn't affect liability.



All of that addresses a different subject - whether the statements were defamatory. I haven't drawn a specific conclusion on that, but as of the moment, having done little to no analysis on the actual statements, I am leaning toward Zimmerman doesn't deserve crap. However, on the question as to whether he was a public figure, the court was wrong.



The court seems to disagree, since it specifically stated that whether the subject matter of the alleged defamatory statements is germane to the issue for which the plaintiff took voluntary action is a factor that must be considered.



Of course, if NBC wanted to make him look racist while trying to avoid making the defamation so obvious that they would have no defense in court, they might have done exactly what they did. Or, more directly, if two employees wanted to make him look racist and were hoping to keep their job, they might have done exactly what they did.



First, I actually disagree that Zimmerman "put himself out there" to the public on this issue. He didn't voluntarily inject himself into a public dispute, he voluntarily injected himself into a private neighborhood concern that was later transformed to a public dispute.

Second, if he did "put himself out there" it wasn't on a public issue of hate crime/racism, it was on a public issue of defending one's neighborhood. Thus, he can only be an involuntary public figure for that issue.

1) it isn't defamation if you are already hated. If you are already wrecked, you can't claim that someone wrecked you after the fact.

2) you can't claim damages if you were already damaged before they came along. Especially if you were already damaged by your own behavior or a perception of your behavior.

3) it doesn't have to be a public issue of hate crime or racism. The question is whether he is a public figure. We can all agree that OJ Simpson was a public figure because he played football, right? He was FAMOUS for playing football. If someone came along before his trial and used a sound byte that makes him look like a murderer, he has NO case, no matter how 'doctored' the audio is because he was already known for SOMETHING before his murder allegations and his reputation was ALREADY ruined.

 

[Sc0rp]

I appreciate the way you always double down on stupid. It's amusing.

I could question why you believe that "normal" implies a comparison between neighborhood and city rather than x-mile radius, county, state, or the same city in past years, but I digress. You're simply a liar:

"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. ...My neighborhood had way more crime at one point"

The only possible interpretation of that response is "the neighborhood did not have a crime problem." That's why you capitalized "normal." That's why you said your neighborhood had more crime. That's why you responded with "Bingo" to the interview with a guy who claimed the neighborhood was safe.

I still don't understand why you're so averse to admitting a mistake that you'd rather look like a drooling idiot with Kindergarten-level communication skills.

Ok, you're an idiot.

I said that records show that the crime rate in RATL was normal and my neighborhood had more crime at one point. Both of my statements are true.

Ok look, what do YOU think would be a NORMAL ammount of crime in a neighborhood in SANFORD FLORIDA? Take a look at Sanford's crime data and tell me what crime rate you'd expect to see in Sanford. Whatever one would expect to see in Sanford Florida is NORMAL for Sanford Florida.

You seem to think that a NORMAL amount of crime is 0 crime , which is dumb. (because you keep insisting that the only way to interpret what I said is to believe that I said there was 0 crime, which I DIDN'T say)

You keep accusing me of making a mistake, but I didn't make a mistake at all, you obviously suck at BASIC reading comprehension and don't want to admit that you're making a strawman attack against what I said.

Tell you what, make a flow chart showing your thought process, I'll get my redline ready.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I noticed that GZ's lawyer has stated that they will appeal the ruling dismissing the lawsuit, guess we'll have to wait to see what the 5th DCA does.

I do have to wonder if the 5th DCA overrules the ruling if they will also require Judge Nelson to recuse herself due to bias.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I noticed that GZ's lawyer has stated that they will appeal the ruling dismissing the lawsuit, guess we'll have to wait to see what the 5th DCA does.

I do have to wonder if the 5th DCA overrules the ruling if they will also require Judge Nelson to recuse herself due to bias.

I don't believe it would be within their authority to do that - that would be a matter for the chief judge at her level. Certainly Zimmerman could bring a motion for her to recuse herself - that would be heard first by her, then by the chief judge, and if denied that could be appealed separately (assuming it works the same way as the jurisdictions where I have practiced).

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't believe it would be within their authority to do that - that would be a matter for the chief judge at her level. Certainly Zimmerman could bring a motion for her to recuse herself - that would be heard first by her, then by the chief judge, and if denied that could be appealed separately (assuming it works the same way as the jurisdictions where I have practiced).

As always, thanks for your input.

Hope you enjoy your 4th of July holiday.

 

[TerryMathews]

Also, there is a provision in florida's self defense law that stipulates that your right to use deadly force is strongly hamstrung if you provoke someone else to use force upon you first.

The only one I'm aware of involves illegal acts like assault. If you're aware of a different one link it otherwise stop misrepresenting that statute as though it "hamstrings" someone over having an argument.

 

[Sc0rp]

The only one I'm aware of involves illegal acts like assault. If you're aware of a different one link it otherwise stop misrepresenting that statute as though it "hamstrings" someone over having an argument.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

Read (2).

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

If Trayvon survived and said that Zimmermans reckless and escalatory behavior caused him to use force defend himself from Zimmerman, then Zimmerman would be in deep doo doo as it could be argued that under that provision he did not meet the legal requirements set forth in the rest of the statute.

Of course, Zimmerman would be in even deeper doo doo if TM said that GZ tried to detain him and was trying to keep him from retreating home after the initial confrontation. I think it is odd that the flow of the altercation moved so far in the direction of Trayvons home.

This case:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_128

Demonstrates that when a person of unknown intent simply reaches for some unknown object under the right conditions it can be seen as threatening enough to justify initiating DEADLY FORCE upon the person hat reached.

In this case:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_36

Huse was shot and killed in front of his kids as he was walking AWAY from an argument. No charges were filed. Why? Because the shooter claimed that he thought Huse was going to get a gun IIRC.