Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[spidey07]

Do you always jump people for trying to keep an open mind?
BTW the witnesses only saw the end or after the fight started. I think a lot of people would determine guilt on who started the altercation, which we have to take Z's word for.

Don't forget the girlfriends statements which reinforce Martin was the one who confronted and initiated the altercation = Martin started it.

She actually helped reinforce zimmerman's story.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Do you always jump people for trying to keep an open mind?
BTW the witnesses only saw the end or after the fight started. I think a lot of people would determine guilt on who started the altercation, which we have to take Z's word for.

Are you kidding me? That's all I've done, for weeks and weeks... when this first started I was pretty much the only one saying ok everybody we need to wait until we hear more... the media distorts things... we don't know the details.. etc etc etc...

Meanwhile the fab 5 lynch mob have done nothing but look for some way that zimmerman is guilty.


I like DVC and appreciate his input, but he definitely does NOT have an open mind about this situation.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

How much damage has that family and lawyer caused an innocent man in the name of "justice"? Justice was served that night, you don't viciously attack people, you may get dead and the law protects the victim.

Damn straight he should make them suffer for their damages. The laws were made to prevent this kind of public lynching and it appears they are working exactly as intended - protect the victim.

The family has done nothing legally actionable. What you're calling for is a frivolous lawsuit brought against a family who have lost their son to a violent death, based on their engaging in constitutionally protected free speech.

I didn't know Kentucky Republicans were in favor of frivolous litigation - what a world . . .

 

[a777pilot]

The family has done nothing legally actionable. What you're calling for is a frivolous lawsuit brought against a family who have lost their son to a violent death, based on their engaging in constitutionally protected free speech.

I didn't know Kentucky Republicans were in favor of frivolous litigation - what a world . . .

I agree with Don. The Martin family has, to my knowledge, done nothing that is actionable, legally.

If anyone is in the law suit cross hairs it would be the so called News organizations, but they will screem.....freedom of the press.....and walk.

 

[soundforbjt]

Don't forget the girlfriends statements which reinforce Martin was the one who confronted and initiated the altercation = Martin started it.

She actually helped reinforce zimmerman's story.

Actually, her statements went completely against Z's father's in an interview on Hannity. Rage on though.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I agree with Don. The Maring family has to my knowledge done nothing that is actionable, legally.

If anyone is in the law suit cross hairs it would be the so called News organizations, but they will screem.....freedom of the press.....and walk.

I dunno... some of those audio recordings are very clearly manipulated, in ways where I'm not convinced it couldn't be construed as slander.

Particularly the ones where they specifically enhance only the .25 second period to get a hard K sound to portray zimmerman as a racist.

 

[spidey07]

Actually, her statements went completely against Z's father's in an interview on Hannity. Rage on though.

Does her statements say Martin initiated contact?

Yes or no.

 

[HumblePie]

The family has done nothing legally actionable. What you're calling for is a frivolous lawsuit brought against a family who have lost their son to a violent death, based on their engaging in constitutionally protected free speech.

I didn't know Kentucky Republicans were in favor of frivolous litigation - what a world . . .

Slander and Libel are not protected forms of free speech.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

DVC your credibility as an attorney gets lower and lower with each post where you try to inject your seemingly biased opinions.

As an attorney who has supposedly dealt defending something similar to this, you should know that this case has an overwhelming amount of evidence compared to most cases.

We have the shooter, the weapon, (edit: 4) credible witnesses who saw the same thing, numerous 911 calls with recordings that back eyewitness accounts, fresh wounds on zimmerman that match all accounts, the body of the supposed attacker, lie detector tests, numerous recorded testimony the night of the attack..

I mean seriously... The only thing you could ask for is an HD 3d movie of the attack itself.

Now, there might not be evidence that supports your predetermined conclusion, but that wouldn't be a very ethical thing to present to all of us, would it?

Calling the evidence in this case "overwhelming" reflects a fairly remarkable suspension of disbelief on your part. You have knitted together scraps of hearsay, seemingly murky and/or inconsistent eye/earwitness statements, and your own supposition into a unified front of exculpatory evidence, when in reality it is totally unclear to the public (including both of us) whether the totality of the evidence supports such a conclusion.

I did not say I believed Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder - I said I thought a hypothetical person could reasonably conclude that he should be held responsible for Mr. Martin's death based on his actions the night of the shooting, because he had ample opportunity to simply stay in his car and mind his own business, and instead he got into a physical altercation that led to the death of an unarmed young man.

I think your comments about what is "ethical" are silly and self-serving. It is true the law has to presume people are innocent until proven guilty, but that does not prevent individual citizens from "ethically" concluding otherwise based on their own interpretation of the evidence - I imagine, for example, you yourself believe OJ Simpson is guilty of double murder, despite the court's conclusion to the contrary.

There appears to be meaningful inculpatory evidence here which you have chosen to ignore as "unethical," but that just demonstrates your own bias. Certainly if one can "ethically" consider a "voice test"/lie detector which would be inadmissible in any court in the United States, it's not unethical to consider the voice analysis experts (who have been permitted to testify on many occasions in courts across the country) who have staked their reputation on the conclusion that the screaming voice is not Mr. Zimmerman's, for example.

Ultimately, it seems to me that in order to decide whether this was reasonable self-defense, a neutral fact finder would have to make his judgment based on whether he believes Mr. Zimmerman's account. The rest of the evidence is equivocal regarding who instigated the fight between Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman. The prosecutors and court may well decide that the evidence is simply insufficient to prove that he was not acting in self-defense, and thus refrain from taking him to trial, but again, that doesn't mean it would be per se unreasonable for someone else to conclude otherwise.

 

[airdata]

Does her statements say Martin initiated contact?

Yes or no.

Zimmerman initiated contact the second he left his car. And then in the heat of the moment he chose murder over telling the guy kicking his ass in a fight to get the f off him or he'd shoot him.

He chose to murder. He pulled the trigger.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Are you kidding me? That's all I've done, for weeks and weeks... when this first started I was pretty much the only one saying ok everybody we need to wait until we hear more... the media distorts things... we don't know the details.. etc etc etc...

Meanwhile the fab 5 lynch mob have done nothing but look for some way that zimmerman is guilty.


I like DVC and appreciate his input, but he definitely does NOT have an open mind about this situation.

:biggrin:

 

[soundforbjt]

Does her statements say Martin initiated contact?

Yes or no.

Contact, yes, he asked the first question according to her, but what she said what not was Z's father claimed was said and she does not say that TM started the altercation. No one knows that to be the truth, all we have is Z's claims that TM started it, which is exactly what you'd expect him to say under the circumstances.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Slander and Libel are not protected forms of free speech.

They have engaged in neither to the best of my knowledge. If you or Spidey have examples where they have, please provide them and I will explain whether or not they are defamatory. I would find it surprising if they have, simply because they don't know one way or another what actually occurred. In order for a statement to be defamatory, it has to be a statement of then-existing fact (not opinion) that is provably false at the time it's made.

I find it interesting that people who purport to stand for "free speech" when the speaker is, say, Dr. Laura or Sarah Palin, start bastardizing legal concepts they don't understand, like libel and slander, to attempt to foreclose the free speech rights of others because they don't like what's being said.

 

[spidey07]

Calling the evidence in this case "overwhelming" reflects a fairly remarkable suspension of disbelief on your part. You have knitted together scraps of hearsay, seemingly murky and/or inconsistent eye/earwitness statements, and your own supposition into a unified front of exculpatory evidence, when in reality it is totally unclear to the public (including both of us) whether the totality of the evidence supports such a conclusion.

I did not say I believed Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder - I said I thought a hypothetical person could reasonably conclude that he should be held responsible for Mr. Martin's death based on his actions the night of the shooting, because he had ample opportunity to simply stay in his car and mind his own business, and instead he got into a physical altercation that led to the death of an unarmed young man.

I think your comments about what is "ethical" are silly and self-serving. It is true the law has to presume people are innocent until proven guilty, but that does not prevent individual citizens from "ethically" concluding otherwise based on their own interpretation of the evidence - I imagine, for example, you yourself believe OJ Simpson is guilty of double murder, for example, despite the court's conclusion to the contrary.

There appears to be meaningful inculpatory evidence here which you have chosen to ignore as "unethical," but that just demonstrates your own bias. Certainly if one can "ethically" consider a "voice test"/lie detector which would be inadmissible in any court in the United States, it's not unethical to consider the voice analysis experts (who have been permitted to testify on many occasions in courts across the country) who have staked their reputation on the conclusion that the screaming voice is not Mr. Zimmerman's, for example.

Your bias is clearly showing again as you spout off the media version of events instead of the evidence that martin attacked zimmerman as he was returning to his truck.

You imply "got into a physical altercation" as if zimmerman somehow caused, was responsible for or started the physical altercation. Martin viciously attacked zimmerman, as backed up by multiple sources of evidence including physical.

You simply cannot viciously attack somebody, that is wrong. And if one does viciously attack another as Martin did, they may get dead. We shouldn't be blaming the victim here, but it's apparent you will continue to do so despite all the evidence.

 

[HumblePie]

They have engaged in neither to the best of my knowledge. If you or Spidey have examples where they have, please provide them and I will explain whether or not they are defamatory. I would find it surprising if they have, simply because they don't know one way or another what actually occurred. In order for a statement to be defamatory, it has to be a statement of then-existing fact (not opinion) that is provably false at the time it's made.

I find it interesting that people who purport to stand for "free speech" when the speaker is, say, Dr. Laura or Sarah Palin, start bastardizing legal concepts they don't understand, like libel and slander, to attempt to foreclose the free speech rights of others because they don't like what's being said.

Showing pictures of a fat zimmerman and initially referring to him as a fat adult that would never be over powered by a child like theirs. They knew he was skinny. They knew their child was bigger than him. Yet they initially told the media the opposite and provided older pictures to "prove" their claim despite the fact they knew otherwise.


That is just one example. I can dig up more if I took the time I think.


Oh calling him a convicted felon, when he is not they were told he was not, to the media to gain more sympathy despite knowing he was not a felon could also be construed as slander. Just remembered that as well. I know there are a few more than that though.

 

[spidey07]

I think the biggest cause for libel/slander is making him out to be a racist which is clearly not true.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Your bias is clearly showing again as you spout off the media version of events instead of the evidence that martin attacked zimmerman as he was returning to his truck.

You imply "got into a physical altercation" as if zimmerman somehow caused, was responsible for or started the physical altercation. Martin viciously attacked zimmerman, as backed up by multiple sources of evidence including physical.

You simply cannot viciously attack somebody, that is wrong. And if one does viciously attack another as Martin did, they may get dead. We shouldn't be blaming the victim here, but it's apparent you will continue to do so despite all the evidence.

The only evidence that Mr. Martin initiated the attack is Mr. Zimmerman's own account. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but he has an obvious incentive to tell the story in a self-serving way.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Showing pictures of a fat zimmerman and initially referring to him as a fat adult that would never be over powered by a child like theirs. They knew he was skinny. They knew their child was bigger than him. Yet they initially told the media the opposite and provided older pictures to "prove" their claim despite the fact they knew otherwise.

That is just one example. I can dig up more if I took the time I think.

Oh calling him a convicted felon, when he is not they were told he was not, to the media to gain more sympathy despite knowing he was not a felon could also be construed as slander. Just remembered that as well. I know there are a few more than that though.

You're going to have to give me citations, not your paraphrases. I have not seen the parents do or say any of these things (they may well have - I just haven't seen it).

Even if they said everything you claim, the only thing you have mentioned that could potentially be defamatory is the assertion that Mr. Zimmerman was a convicted felon, and in fact it is as yet unclear whether he was, at least at some point, a convicted felon (though it is my understanding he was never convicted, and instead put into a pretrial diversion program). Assuming it was defamatory, he would have to show that their statements, as differentiated from all the other media coverage of the case, were what caused him loss of reputation - that would be difficult but conceivably possible.

 

[spidey07]

Lessons to be learned? Carry quality defense ammunition (9mm is obviously just fine), chambered and ready to fire. Because it's best if you kill the guy. Dead men tell no tales.

 

[a777pilot]

Zimmerman initiated contact the second he left his car. And then in the heat of the moment he chose murder over telling the guy kicking his ass in a fight to get the f off him or he'd shoot him.

He chose to murder. He pulled the trigger.

You need a legal dictionary.

 

[soundforbjt]

Showing pictures of a fat zimmerman and initially referring to him as a fat adult that would never be over powered by a child like theirs. They knew he was skinny. They knew their child was bigger than him. Yet they initially told the media the opposite and provided older pictures to "prove" their claim despite the fact they knew otherwise.


That is just one example. I can dig up more if I took the time I think.


Oh calling him a convicted felon, when he is not they were told he was not, to the media to gain more sympathy despite knowing he was not a felon could also be construed as slander. Just remembered that as well. I know there are a few more than that though.

The only available pics of Z at the time the story broke were his arrest photos. Z is not skinny. Skinny at his height would be around 130.

I doubt by looking at the police video that he's 170, I'd put him at 180 or more.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think the biggest cause for libel/slander is making him out to be a racist which is clearly not true.

Let me walk you through this.

Defamation requires that the speaker makes a statement of then-existing fact about the plaintiff which is provably false at the time it is made, while the speaker knows it is false or is acting with reckless disregard for its falsity, and the statement is one which tends to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the community. Generally (there are certain limited categories of strict-liability defamation), the plaintiff has to prove that he suffered damages as a result of the statement.

Even if the Martins had openly said (to the best of my knowledge they have not) that George Zimmerman is a bigot and singled their son out due to his race, those would be statements of opinion, not fact, and constitutionally protected as free speech. On the other hand, if they said, "George Zimmerman is a member of the Nazi party," that would be defamatory and actionable (unless it was true). I have not seen them say anything actionable. If you have evidence that they have I'd be interested to read it. Otherwise I will take your posts as completely mean-spirited, cruel efforts to hurt two parents who have already been through something no parent should ever have to suffer - the violent death of their child.

 

[HumblePie]

Let me walk you through this.

Defamation requires that the speaker makes a statement of then-existing fact about the plaintiff which is provably false at the time it is made, while the speaker knows it is false or is acting with reckless disregard for its falsity, and the statement is one which tends to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the community. Generally (there are certain limited categories of strict-liability defamation), the plaintiff has to prove that he suffered damages as a result of the statement.

Even if the Martins had openly said (to the best of my knowledge they have not) that George Zimmerman is a bigot and singled their son out due to his race, those would be statements of opinion, not fact, and constitutionally protected as free speech. On the other hand, if they said, "George Zimmerman is a member of the Nazi party," that would be defamatory and actionable (unless it was true). I have not seen them say anything actionable. If you have evidence that they have I'd be interested to read it. Otherwise I will take your posts as completely mean-spirited, cruel efforts to hurt two parents who have already been through something no parent should ever have to suffer - the violent death of their child.

Actually calling him racist, which they done, is considered inflamatory when there was no evidence for calling him racist and plenty that proved he wasn't. Such as sponsoring black kids, working for a black homeless man against the SPD, and having many friends in a neighborhood that is predominately black while doing volunteer work for that community. No one pays people on neighborhood watch.

That evidence was easily obtained at the time of their claims of him being racist. Those claims have certainly damaged his reputation as well. Thus slander.



However, I'm going to give you something to chew on against what you've claimed. Slander, defamation, and libel don't have to have the requirement that the person making defamation remarks know they are completely false while making them. Those remarks just have to be false at the time of the claim.

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

How to prove libel

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"

Which means claiming he is racist at the time and that he attacked their son for racially motivated reasons which were proven false are still actionable defamation claims. The hard part of proving defamation is not that the claim was made, but proving that damage was done. It is pretty clear there is damage to Zimmerman from the claims of him shooting Trayvon Martin for racial motivations, especially when the Investigators initially told them they had no evidence to that.




Want another defamation done by the parents? They have stated multiple times Zimmerman was let go the initial night because of who he know. That his father got in touch with Wolfe the lead prosecutor and had all charges dropped. From which Wolfe has stated that never happened. Even HE is pissed at the parents for doing that bullshit. Another actionable defamation claim right there.

 

[Pens1566]

Let me walk you through this.

Defamation requires that the speaker makes a statement of then-existing fact about the plaintiff which is provably false at the time it is made, while the speaker knows it is false or is acting with reckless disregard for its falsity, and the statement is one which tends to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the community. Generally (there are certain limited categories of strict-liability defamation), the plaintiff has to prove that he suffered damages as a result of the statement.

Even if the Martins had openly said (to the best of my knowledge they have not) that George Zimmerman is a bigot and singled their son out due to his race, those would be statements of opinion, not fact, and constitutionally protected as free speech. On the other hand, if they said, "George Zimmerman is a member of the Nazi party," that would be defamatory and actionable (unless it was true). I have not seen them say anything actionable. If you have evidence that they have I'd be interested to read it. Otherwise I will take your posts as completely mean-spirited, cruel efforts to hurt two parents who have already been through something no parent should ever have to suffer - the violent death of their child.

You could have just posted the last sentence. It's spidey after all ...

 

[spidey07]

Crisis centers in the area are gearing up for level 3, the same as when a hurricane is coming.

There will be no charges filed and there will be riots and looting. Good of the SP to let zimmerman know so he can get safe. You don't give a "suspect" 72 hours to get away if you're going to arrest him.