Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

[HumblePie]

I already stated how the evidence was tainted. Look, I tire of going in these circles with you. This is the point where I just sit here and look at you.

Note, there was plenty of evidence in the Zimmerman trial if you read the discovery and in the dunn trial both witnesses and the forensic evidence say the door on the truck was closed. That's why all the debris and bullet fragments were inside of the truck and there were no bullet holes on the rear panel of the truck from the first volley even though bullets passed through the boys body.

Lol, because the cop was the one discovering all the 911 calls made prior to the murder by Nichole?

Because the cop somehow got various blood evidence on various pieces of items owned by OJ?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/evidence.html

You really are grasping at straws.

There wasn't forensic evidence that proved the door was closed either in the Dunn case. Nothing the prosecution presented proved that at all. Were you even paying attention to that trial?

You are completely delusional when it comes to the evidence presented in these cases aren't you? You have a serious case of confirmation bias going on.

 

[WackyDan]

Oh, he also thinks NBC defamed Zimmerman when they made their first broadcast long after his reputation was already rubble. As though Zimmerman had a great reputation or worthwhile earning potential before the shooting... -_-

That is not material to his suit.

 

[HumblePie]

You crazy..

First OJ confessed because the Enquirer says he hid... lol. Now you're trying to dictate which jury acquittals matter and which don't and we are allowed to question...

Just admit you know not what you speak of and keep it moving.

You really like to use logic fallacies for arguments? Just because the Enquirer reported it doesn't make it only tabloid trash. It wasn't the only source of that information. Nor the original source. The Enquirer, while it does report mostly trash shit, doesn't only report trash as your are making your argument to be. Nor was my source for that story the Enquirer.

Sc0rp stated that OJ never admitted it to anyone or told anyone. There are several sources that state he did admit it to them. He never qualified his statement in stating OJ admitted them through something like an affidavit or notarized document. Nor was I making that claim either. I said he has admitted it to others. Others have claimed he has admitted it to them. Even Kato went on the news a couple years back talking about a few things he left out of his initial testimony because he was originally scared of OJ.

 

[Sc0rp]

That is not material to his suit.

Actually it is material to the suit. Anytime you sue someone for damages, the facts of whether or not they caused your damages are always material to your lawsuit.

 

[Sc0rp]

Lol, because the cop was the one discovering all the 911 calls made prior to the murder by Nichole?

Because the cop somehow got various blood evidence on various pieces of items owned by OJ?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/evidence.html

You really are grasping at straws.

There wasn't forensic evidence that proved the door was closed either in the Dunn case. Nothing the prosecution presented proved that at all. Were you even paying attention to that trial?

You are completely delusional when it comes to the evidence presented in these cases aren't you? You have a serious case of confirmation bias going on.

Jesus, now we are arguing about a case from almost twenty years ago.

Dude, you're the delusional one here on this. Like I said, I'm sitting here and staring at you. o_o

 

[fskimospy]

That is not material to his suit.

As ScOrp said, that's basically the prerequisite for any lawsuit existing at all. If you can't show injury your lawsuit will be immediately dismissed.

 

[Orignal Earl]

You really like to use logic fallacies for arguments? Just because the Enquirer reported it doesn't make it only tabloid trash. It wasn't the only source of that information. Nor the original source. The Enquirer, while it does report mostly trash shit, doesn't only report trash as your are making your argument to be. Nor was my source for that story the Enquirer.

Sc0rp stated that OJ never admitted it to anyone or told anyone. There are several sources that state he did admit it to them. He never qualified his statement in stating OJ admitted them through something like an affidavit or notarized document. Nor was I making that claim either. I said he has admitted it to others. Others have claimed he has admitted it to them. Even Kato went on the news a couple years back talking about a few things he left out of his initial testimony because he was originally scared of OJ.

Oprah's representatives moved quickly to quash rumors that the talk show queen is conducting an interview with O.J. Simpson in which he confesses to murder.

The rumor raced around the Internet after the Daily Mail picked up a National Enquirer report that Simpson will admit to killing his late wife Nicole in a jailhouse interview.

But representatives for Harpo, Oprah's company, flatly told the Hollywood Reporter, "that's not true."

However, it's no secret that Oprah has been pining to do exactly this kind of interview. During an appearance at a cable convention earlier this month, she said that her dream is to have Simpson confess to her.

"And I am going to make that happen people," she said. "I don't just want the interview. I want the interview on the condition that you are ready, Mr. Simpson."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/oprah-oj-simpson-confessi_n_883066.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It

 

[Sc0rp]

You really like to use logic fallacies for arguments? Just because the Enquirer reported it doesn't make it only tabloid trash. It wasn't the only source of that information. Nor the original source. The Enquirer, while it does report mostly trash shit, doesn't only report trash as your are making your argument to be. Nor was my source for that story the Enquirer.

Sc0rp stated that OJ never admitted it to anyone or told anyone. There are several sources that state he did admit it to them. He never qualified his statement in stating OJ admitted them through something like an affidavit or notarized document. Nor was I making that claim either. I said he has admitted it to others. Others have claimed he has admitted it to them. Even Kato went on the news a couple years back talking about a few things he left out of his initial testimony because he was originally scared of OJ.

OJ never admitted that he killed someone. The fact is that the enquirer is not a reliable source for anything. 'News' from them is about as reliable as all that 'news' from techblogs that apple was going to make touch screen macs running vanilla osx or that they were going to make an iWatch or a video game console or that they were going to allow flash on their iOS devices or that they were going to port itunes over to android. All of those things had 'insider sources' and you see what happened.

The only reliable news that they have ever presented has been stuff that other rags have already reported on at the time.

 

[HumblePie]

Jesus, now we are arguing about a case from almost twenty years ago.

Dude, you're the delusional one here on this. Like I said, I'm sitting here and staring at you. o_o

LOL, you are the one that brought it up in the first place trying to make a comparison just like you are the one that started re-arguing the details of the zimmerman trial and then complaining when people are taking up your argument.

 

[HumblePie]

As ScOrp said, that's basically the prerequisite for any lawsuit existing at all. If you can't show injury your lawsuit will be immediately dismissed.

What his current "reputation" at the time is not material because that doesn't mean additional harm couldn't have been done. Like WackyDan said, current reputation before airing is not material. What matters is if harm is done by their actions or not.

 

[fskimospy]

What his current "reputation" at the time is not material because that doesn't mean additional harm couldn't have been done. Like WackyDan said, current reputation before airing is not material. What matters is if harm is done by their actions or not.

Right, and his current reputation on the issue at the time would clearly matter as to whether or not harm were done. This should be obvious to everyone.

If you were the Grand Dragon of the KKK and someone made up a story about you being mean to a black guy you would be very hard pressed to prove any kind of damages.

 

[Sc0rp]

LOL, you are the one that brought it up in the first place trying to make a comparison just like you are the one that started re-arguing the details of the zimmerman trial and then complaining when people are taking up your argument.

Um, I was responding to what was said of the OJ trial. Only time I brought up OJ was to point out that he was acquitted almost 20 years ago and people still call him a murderer, then someone (possibly you) wanted to talk about his trial and blahblahblah.

 

[HumblePie]

Um, I was responding to what was said of the OJ trial. Only time I brought up OJ was to point out that he was acquitted almost 20 years ago and people still call him a murderer, then someone (possibly you) wanted to talk about his trial and blahblahblah.

You pointing out that people want to call OJ a murderer after being acquitted is the same as you calling Zimmerman a murder after being acquitted but went full retard in comparing the evidence. OJ's case had a mountain of evidence for murder against him in the trial. Prosecution for Zimmerman had squat. If anyone else had been on trial like the OJ case with that much evidence, they would be in jail for murder. Many murders are solved with far less material evidence as that which was presented in the OJ case.

That is the huge defining difference between why people call OJ a murderer still after all these years (beyond the fact he keeps dropping "rumors" about him being the murderer ever few years) compared to Zimmerman.

 

[HumblePie]

Right, and his current reputation on the issue at the time would clearly matter as to whether or not harm were done. This should be obvious to everyone.

If you were the Grand Dragon of the KKK and someone made up a story about you being mean to a black guy you would be very hard pressed to prove any kind of damages.

Not unless a specific was named and that specific person tried to materially harm you. Current rep doesn't mean anything especially in light of actions taken by others that posed a potential harm to Zimmerman after the airing and because of the airing.

For example, I could try to say that a death of a recent black man was the direct result of a specific KKK member. If I lied, said that over the news, and those in the black community that saw that report tried to kill that KKK person, that would be an easy example of the rep of the person at the time not mattering to the harm caused by the defamation.

 

[Sc0rp]

What his current "reputation" at the time is not material because that doesn't mean additional harm couldn't have been done. Like WackyDan said, current reputation before airing is not material. What matters is if harm is done by their actions or not.

His current reputation is a result of the negative press that he received BEFORE NBC aired a single show and Zimmerman's behavior and statements before the shooting, during the shooting, after the shooting, during the trial and after the acquittal. NBC's sound bytes had no real effect or cause of any of that.

People hear that Zimmerman left his truck and ran after someone that he eventually killed. An overwhelming majority of the people that oppose him see something diametrically wrong with the behavior of him leaving his truck to run after someone into a figurative dark alley under those circumstances. Then there's the fact that everything he says out of his mouth gives off serious 'I'm lying to your face' vibes. Then he came out of the acquittal and suddenly he's a boxer and is chumming it up at Kal-Tek's headquarters and generally being a giant douche online. Then there are the get rich quick schemes and lastly his supporters and his family all over the Internet from day one.

Is it any wonder as to why there was way more outrage at Zimmermans antics and the antics of his circle than with Michael Dunn, a man who shot up a whole car of unarmed black teens? The night of the shooting, Zimmerman needed to sit down and keep his mouth shut and after being acquitted, he needed to shut up and go away.

 

[Sc0rp]

You pointing out that people want to call OJ a murderer after being acquitted is the same as you calling Zimmerman a murder after being acquitted but went full retard in comparing the evidence. OJ's case had a mountain of evidence for murder against him in the trial. Prosecution for Zimmerman had squat. If anyone else had been on trial like the OJ case with that much evidence, they would be in jail for murder. Many murders are solved with far less material evidence as that which was presented in the OJ case.

That is the huge defining difference between why people call OJ a murderer still after all these years (beyond the fact he keeps dropping "rumors" about him being the murderer ever few years) compared to Zimmerman.

Calling OJ a murderer after he was acquitted IS the same as calling Zimmerman a murderer. You weren't there! You DONT know for a fact OJ committed a murder, but you are entitled to believe what you wish and you're not obligated to give OJ the benefit of the doubt or any comfort. NOBODY is obligated to believe Zimmerman didn't commit a murder and NOBODY is obligated to believe a single thing he says or give him the benefit of the doubt or any comfort. A few of the witnesses that were there still call him a murderer to this day including Mr Menalo (I'm sure that's not how his name is spelled) who was the first witness he spoke to after Trayvon was shot. Even Frank Taafe has seemingly turned against Zimmerman.

TL;dr

People are equally entitled to the belief that Zimmerman and OJ are murderers.

 

[HumblePie]

Calling OJ a murderer after he was acquitted IS the same as calling Zimmerman a murderer. You weren't there! You DONT know for a fact OJ committed a murder, but you are entitled to believe what you wish and you're not obligated to give OJ the benefit of the doubt or any comfort. NOBODY is obligated to believe Zimmerman didn't commit a murder and NOBODY is obligated to believe a single thing he says or give him the benefit of the doubt or any comfort. A few of the witnesses that were there still call him a murderer to this day including Mr Menalo (I'm sure that's not how his name is spelled) who was the first witness he spoke to after Trayvon was shot. Even Frank Taafe has seemingly turned against Zimmerman.

TL;dr

People are equally entitled to the belief that Zimmerman and OJ are murderers.

Sigh, not even in the same ballpark. How you can even conflate this is beyond asinine.

 

[Sc0rp]

Sigh, not even in the same ballpark. How you can even conflate this is beyond asinine.

You are basically saying that other people's opinions and beliefs are worth less than yours. There's a word for people like that.

 

[emperus]

You really like to use logic fallacies for arguments? Just because the Enquirer reported it doesn't make it only tabloid trash. It wasn't the only source of that information. Nor the original source. The Enquirer, while it does report mostly trash shit, doesn't only report trash as your are making your argument to be. Nor was my source for that story the Enquirer.

1.) You sound like someone who just learned a new word "logical fallacy" and is trying to use it as much as possible (whether properly or not).
2.) You do know that the Enquirer was the original source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Brown-murder-Oprah-TV-interview-planned.html

oh really?

Where have you been living for the past few years?

Above is the link you posted. Below is proof that as usual given enough rope(just a little this time) you'll have no problem making yourself look foolish. But I'm sure you'll continue to argue that OJ Simpson confessed.. lol.

Oprah's representatives moved quickly to quash rumors that the talk show queen is conducting an interview with O.J. Simpson in which he confesses to murder.
The rumor raced around the Internet after the Daily Mail picked up a National Enquirer report that Simpson will admit to killing his late wife Nicole in a jailhouse interview.
But representatives for Harpo, Oprah's company, flatly told the Hollywood Reporter, "that's not true."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/oprah-oj-simpson-confessi_n_883066.html

 

[Cozarkian]

His current reputation is a result of the negative press that he received BEFORE NBC aired a single show and Zimmerman's behavior and statements before the shooting, during the shooting, after the shooting, during the trial and after the acquittal. NBC's sound bytes had no real effect or cause of any of that.

... Then there's the fact that everything he says out of his mouth gives off serious 'I'm lying to your face' vibes. Then he came out of the acquittal and suddenly he's a boxer and is chumming it up at Kal-Tek's headquarters and generally being a giant douche online. Then there are the get rich quick schemes and lastly his supporters and his family all over the Internet from day one.

Is it any wonder as to why there was way more outrage at Zimmermans antics and the antics of his circle than with Michael Dunn, a man who shot up a whole car of unarmed black teens? The night of the shooting, Zimmerman needed to sit down and keep his mouth shut and after being acquitted, he needed to shut up and go away.

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

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

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

People hear that Zimmerman left his truck and ran after someone that he eventually killed. An overwhelming majority of the people that oppose him see something diametrically wrong with the behavior of him leaving his truck to run after someone into a figurative dark alley under those circumstances.

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

 

[Sc0rp]

1.) You sound like someone who just learned a new word "logical fallacy" and is not really sure how to use it.
2.) You do know that the Enquirer was the original source.



Above is the link you posted. Below is proof that as usual given enough rope(just a little this time) you'll have no problem making yourself look foolish. But I'm sure you'll continue to argue that OJ Simpson confessed.. lol.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/23/oprah-oj-simpson-confessi_n_883066.html

He doesn't care about the facts surrounding the article. He just wants an excuse to say that it is ok to call OJ a murderer after he was acquitted yet still demand that nobody call Zimmerman a murderer even though both beliefs are valid.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Zimmerman, for example, could argue that the press before NBC only made people wonder whether he was racist, but the NBC edits pushed people over the edge into firmly believing he was a racist based on his own comments.

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

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

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

 

[emperus]

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

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

Utterly ridiculous. You have to be wiser than that.

 

[emperus]

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

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

None of that even if accepted (very implausible) gets over the hurdle that he is a limited public figure.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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

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