• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

George Zimmerman Files Defamation Suit Against NBC

George Zimmerman, who is still awaiting trial on second degree murder charges in the Trayvon Martin shooting, has filed a defamation suit against NBC Universal and two individuals related to an incident in March when NBC aired a version of Zimmerman’s conversation with 911 operators that was deceptively edited to make it appear that Zimmerman was following Martin solely because he was black:

George Zimmerman,accused of second-degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin earlier this year, filed suit against NBCUniversal on Thursday, alleging that news reports that edited his voice on a 911 tape constituted defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The suit, filed in circuit court in Seminole County, Fla., asked for a jury trial. A spokeswoman for NBCUniversal said in response to the suit: “We strongly disagree with the accusations made in the complaint. There was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly. We intend to vigorously defend our position in court.”

The edits of a 911 audio recording — which removed an intervening question from the operator directly asking Mr. Zimmerman what race Mr. Martin was — aired three times on NBC’s “Today” show: first on March 20, in a report by Lilia Luciano; on March 22, in another report by Ms. Luciano; and again on March 27, in a report by Ron Allen. The killing of Mr. Martin, on the night of Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., spurred a national debate about self-defense, crime and race.

In Ms. Luciano’s first report, Mr. Zimmerman’s words to the 911 operator were: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.” In fact, Mr. Zimmerman told the operator: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” When the dispatcher said, “O.K., and this guy — is he white, black or Hispanic?” Mr. Zimmerman then said, “He looks black.”

The suit charges that journalists at NBC News intentionally edited Mr. Zimmerman’s statements to make him appear to be a “racist, predatory villain.”

When the omissions were noticed at the end of March, NBC News conducted an investigation and concluded that the edits were mistakes, not deliberate distortions. Ms. Luciano subsequently left the network, as did a producer who worked with her. Mr. Allen remains at the network.

NBC ended up firing two of the three people involved in this incident and issuing what they called an apology to Zimmerman, but neither of those actions constitute defenses to a defamation claim. At the very least, it’s rather clear that the NBC producers and reporter involved in this incident edited the 911 recording in a manner that made it appear, incorrectly, that Zimmerman was obsessed with Martin’s race on the night of the shooting. Consider, for example, this excerpt from the 911 tape, which is included in the Complaint filed this week:

Zimmerman: Hey we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Here is what NBC broadcast on March 19:

Zimmerman: There is a real suspicious guy. Ah, this guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that.

Zimmerman: OK.

In the original and accurate tape, Zimmerman mentioned that Martin was black in response to a specific question from the 911 dispatcher, information you’d expect the dispatcher to ask someone calling 911 so that they could pass sufficient identifying information along to the police officers that were being sent to the scene. In the NBC version, it seems as though Zimmerman volunteered the information about Martin’s race out of the blue, something which potentially would make it seem like he was pursuing Martin solely based on race.

The next day, a second report aired on Today that included yet another edit of the 911 conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that.

Then, on March 22 another Today report by featured these edited portions of the call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: Yeah, a dark hoodie.

Finally, a March 27 Today report included just the first purported sentence, omitted all of the intervening 25 words.

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

In addition to this, NBC aired a report claiming that at another point in the call, Zimmermann used a racial epithet to refer to Martin, but this portion of the tape is so garbled that it’s not at all clear what Zimmerman is saying and, subsequently, there’s been no evidence presented to indicate that there was any kind of racial motivation on Zimermann’s part in this entire tragic incident. At the very least, though, it is clear that the NBC reporters and producers involved in this affair edited the 911 tape in a manner designed to create a false impression of what it was the Zimmerman actually said that night in February as well as the impression that his actions were motivated primarily by racism.  In addition to the problems that this creates for Zimmerman regarding pre-trial publicity, problems that the trial court will have to be careful to avoid when jury selection begins, it seems pretty clear that the facts alleged here, none of which are really in dispute, are more than sufficient to give rise to a defamation claim. Additionally, given the amount of editing that had to be done to the 911 tape to make it come out the way it did on the NBC broadcasts and that fact that the Zimmerman/Martin case was already racially charged, it beggars belief to accept the argument that these were innocent mistakes on the part of the people involved. They were very clearly deliberate and done with little or no regard for what the consequences might be for Mr. Zimmerman’s reputation or his right to a fair trial.

However, while the facts are on Zimmerman’s side here there are several unresolved questions that will guide the future of this case.

First, there’s the question of what damages Zimmerman has suffered here. NBC will no doubt argue that given the fact that Zimmerman was already the subject of a national story in which he was accused of shooting another man, he didn’t have much of a reputation to damage to begin with. Indeed, in most cases, it’s next to impossible for people charged with or convicted of a crime to maintain defamation actions because of the damage that their reputations have already suffered. However, it’s worth noting that Zimmerman was not formally charged until several weeks after the NBC reports aired and, more importantly, to date he hasn’t been charged with any bias related crimes at all. The Justice Department jumped into this case rather early to determine if Federal civil rights charges might be appropriate and the FBI spent much time down in Zimmerman’s neighborhood investigating but, to date, no charges have been filed and they are unlikely to be filed until at least after the state criminal proceedings have been completed. At the time the NBC reports were aired, Zimmerman had not been charged with any crime at all so the argument that he could not have suffered any reputational damage doesn’t seem to hold up.

The second question is what Zimmerman’s burden of proof would be in this case. In an ordinary defamation case involving private parties, the fact that the statement is false and has caused damage to the reputation of the party bringing the suit is generally sufficient to make out a prima facie case. However, beginning with New York Times v.  Sullivan, the Supreme Court has carved out a First Amendment exception to defamation that requires a Plaintiff who is considered a public figure has to prove that the person making the defamatory statements acted with actual malice, meaning essentially that they must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that to prove not only that the statements were factually untrue, but that they were made with the knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard as to their truth. In all honesty, I would argue that this malice is something that a reasonable jury can infer from the facts alleged. You’ve got the original 911 tape and you’ve got the heavily edited versions that NBC aired, and they are totally different. It strikes me that there isn’t much of a reasonable journalistic explanation for what they did other than sensationalism and blatant disregard for Zimmerman.

Finally, of course, there’s the outcome of the criminal trial itself. This civil lawsuit quite obviously was filed in order to toll the running of any applicable statute of limitations, and it’s clear that the civil case will not advance far at all before the criminal trial is resolved. If Zimmerman ends up being convicted, then it’s going to be difficult for him to maintain this claim with any credibility. If he’s acquitted, though, and there’s a better than even chance that this will happen, this case will most assuredly go forward and NBC will have to make the choice of either defending the indefensible or settling.

George Zimmermann v. NBC Universal et al

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Pylon says:

    If editing tapes and videos to give a false impression (how is Zimmerman going to prove that was the intent) then one Mitt Romney may have some legal problems in the future.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  2. @Pylon:

    Intent can be inferred from actions. And the discovery process in this case is going to be very fun.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  3. David K. says:

    NBC was wrong to do this.
    Zimmerman was wrong to murder an innocent man.
    Lets hope they both get punished appropriate for their crimes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8

  4. @David K.:

    Zimmerman hasn’t been convicted of murdering anyone.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6

  5. Bernieyeball says:

    @Doug Mataconis: Zimmerman hasn’t been convicted of murdering anyone.

    Where do you think we are? The United States of America?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  6. Rafer Janders says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Zimmerman hasn’t been convicted of murdering anyone.

    Neither was OJ Simpson. Do you think OJ never murdered anyone?

    The fact that the State of Florida has not yet been able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty of murder does not mean that ordinary people, judging the facts as they see them, can’t form their own opinion as to whether he is or is not innocent, and then express their opinion. Which you know, but are just being tiresomely pedantic about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

  7. Rafer Janders says:

    Zimmerman is an idiot. In a criminal case, the prosecution can’t get to Zimmerman. But as the plaintiff in a civil suit, he’s now opened himself up to depositions and discovery by the defense, enabling them to go on a fishing expedition into his life, including his racial attitudes. I’d say I don’t know what he’s thinking if I didn’t already know he’s not the brightest bulb in the box.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

  8. John Burgess says:

    @Rafer Janders: I think the problem here is that “ordinary people” are judging by what they’ve learned from the media. There were no surviving eye witnesses other than Zimmerman, after all.

    And if the “ordinary people’s” perception were poisoned by the media, does that make their “wisdom” correct? Shall we just skip the trial part and hang people we don’t like? Who needs the Constitution after all… all that stuff about rights to fair trials, due process… who needs it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

  9. KariQ says:

    I could be off base here, but I’m thinking that all Zimmerman is seeing at this point is dollar signs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

  10. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Why would this nimrod open himself up to discovery in a civil action when he has an unresolved criminal matter that is directly related?

    More importantly, why would his attorneys allow him to do so?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  11. HarvardLaw92 says:

    The Beasley Firm …

    Nevermind

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  12. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Maybe Zimmerman’s thinking that he’s been lied about and falsely portrayed as a psycho racist nutjob who stalked and murdered an innocent child from day one by a significant portion of the media, and he’s taking this chance to get a bit of justice out of one of the worst.

    BTW, how many have seen the only-now-released photos of Zimmerman’s face from the night of the shooting? He literally had the snot beaten out of him — nose busted and mashed to hell, blood all over his face.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 17

  13. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    All well and good, but he has two years from first publication to assert his claim.

    Meanwhile, he has a pending criminal matter before another court. NBC can, and will, sift through his life with a fine toothed comb in discovery, and as the old saying goes, turn over enough rocks and you’ll eventually find something. NBC has the money to turn over a LOT of rocks.

    Even better? All of that material is potentially admissible in his criminal trial. This was a stupid move on the part of him and his attorneys. But as I noted above, he’s hired bottom feeders, so it’s not surprising.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

  14. jukeboxgrad says:

    rafer:

    as the plaintiff in a civil suit, he’s now opened himself up to depositions and discovery by the defense, enabling them to go on a fishing expedition into his life, including his racial attitudes.

    HarvardLaw92:

    Why would this nimrod open himself up to discovery in a civil action when he has an unresolved criminal matter that is directly related?

    I think what you two said is the key point. In defamation, truth is an absolute defense. It’s perfectly fine for me to tell the world that you’re a racist if I’m prepared to prove that the accusation is true.

    There is also a question of opinion vs. fact. Opinions are not defamation. If NBC was telling the world that Z is a racist, were they expressing an opinion or a fact? They could argue that it was just an opinion.

    I can’t believe that Z really intends to pursue this case very far. This move is just to incite wingnuts to send him a few bucks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

  15. Pylon says:

    Dougie, I’m not the person you want to debate about law. You can only draw an inference from an action if it’s the only reasonable conclusion. And zimmerman bears the onus of proof on that score.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  16. Pylon says:

    Interestingly, Zimmerman’s pleadings that allege misleading editing? They have deleted the portion of the transcript where he says either “coon” or “goon”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

  17. anjin-san says:

    Zimmerman is an idiot.

    An idiot who thought he was a cowboy, who moronically put himself in a position where he got his ass kicked by a skinny kid. Dumb, dangerous, and a wuss.

    No wonder he is Jenos hero.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

  18. Tom Roff says:

    GZ has already won this. And he will soon be a very rich man. NBC will settle for 50M or more. Then come the book deals – and movie deals… and then the biggie – he gets to sue FL for charging him in the 1st place/ FL’s SYG law allows civil suits for cases exactly like this. FL will even have to cover ALL his legal expenses from day 1.

    Sooooooooooooo SO SWEET!!

    LOL

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 21

  19. Tom Roff says:
  20. Tom Roff says:
  21. Tom Roff says:

    Ooooooops!

    Another black witness:
    http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1112/discovery9/sa_dawson_w51.pdf

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10

  22. Bernieyeball says:

    @John Burgess: Shall we just skip the trial part and hang people we don’t like? Who needs the Constitution after all… all that stuff about rights to fair trials, due process… who needs it?

    Indeed. Who needs any of this?
    Of course what the vigilantes among us seem to forget is that if Citizen Zimmerman can be deprived of due process then so can they.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  23. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    Well, thanks for the emotionally driven layman’s perspective, I guess.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  24. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Not to burst your bubble though, but he can’t sue the State of Florida.

    I presume you are basing your assertion on § 776.032 (3), Fla. Stat. (2005). I would suggest rereading it, or preferably finding an attorney who is willing to explain it to you. I’m not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

  25. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Maybe HaryadLawWannabe would work better for you:

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as prov

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10

  26. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Still running from this? LOL

    http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1112/discovery9/sa_dawson_w51.pdf

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  27. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    Yea, I read that too. The section creates a true immunity, not an affirmative defense. Under Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008),as applied to the entire state of Florida by the FSC in Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010), Zimmerman has to raise the issue pre-trial in a motion for declaration of immunity and/or dismissal. This kicks off an evidentiary hearing where Zimmerman must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he qualifies for the immunity. If he does, the trial simply stops.

    If he doesn’t, the criminal trial goes forward.

    § 776.032 (3) only establishes that Zimmerman would be able to seek reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred in the defense of the case stemming from any civil action brought against him related to his conduct under SYG. No such civil suit, that I am aware of anyway, has been filed, and the section pointedly does not apply to criminal matters.

    Now, if you’re through playing armchair attorney, let the adults handle this one, ok?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  28. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    You clearly don’t get it. In civil discovery, NBC will be able to pursue ANYTHING that it feels is exculpatory. ANYTHING that it thinks will help it defend itself. It can pore over his entire life with a microscope, talk to anybody it likes going back to his early childhood, dig through pretty much whatever records it likes, and Zimmerman will be ordered by a court to comply in producing it.

    Anything that NBC discovers is potentially admissible in his criminal trial. Zimmerman, in this filing, just effectively drafted NBC’s extremely deep pockets to help the Florida prosecutor put him in jail.

    It was a colossally stupid move.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  29. Rafer Janders says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Zimmerman hasn’t been convicted of murdering anyone.

    You know who’s also never been convicted of murdering anyone? Osama bin Laden.

    Guess I shouldn’t call him a murderer either, or else risk a chiding from you and your hyper-legalistic sense of proportion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3

  30. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Rafer Janders: OK, Rafer, let’s set aside legal technicalities and definitions. Please explain, in your own words, why you think of Zimmerman as a “murderer.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12

  31. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: (Zimmerman is) An idiot who thought he was a cowboy, who moronically put himself in a position where he got his ass kicked by a skinny kid. Dumb, dangerous, and a wuss.

    No wonder he is Jenos hero.

    Oh, look, the jackhole speaks out his ass again.

    Zimmerman’s no hero. But it’s worth noting (if, unlike you, you’re interested in the truth) that so far, Zimmerman’s statements have been remarkably consistent both with themselves and the facts that have emerged. This is unlike the theories and outright fabrications put out by those trying to demonize him, which have grown more and more and more complicated as they try to reconcile themselves to those facts. From those who said he “stalked” Martin to how he was totally uninjured to one of the authors here who said he chased Martin with his gun drawn, the anti-Zimmerman people have concocted some truly epic fabrications to rationalize the initial “Zimmerman murdered an innocent child” spin that started falling apart almost immediately.

    But the myth can’t be allowed to die, can it? Too many people are invested in that fantasy to let little things like facts slow them down.

    @HarvardLaw92: No one ever said Zimmerman was a genius or a legal scholar. Your argument isn’t that Zimmerman is guilty, but not acting in his own best interests here. You might be right, but that doesn’t mean a damned thing about his guilt or innocence. Hell, Zimmerman’s already shown that he doesn’t have the best judgment as to his legal interests.

    But that doesn’t mean he murdered Martin.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

  32. anjin-san says:

    But the myth can’t be allowed to die, can it

    Ah yes, the myth. That Zimmerman was driving around with a gun, breaking every rule neighborhood watch has, and that he was following a kid who was walking home from buying candy at the store. That he was told to back off, but he kept on going. That the end result what that kid ended up on a slab at the morgue.

    It’s something you obviously identify with. A guy gets his ass kicked, so he shoots the other guy dead. A revenge fantasy played out in real life. The kind of stuff cowards daydream about.

    And you never get tired of being this boob’s champion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

  33. Mister Manners says:

    @anjin-san:
    “That Zimmerman was driving around with a gun”

    legally possessed, to protect himself from any thugs that he might report to the police for investigation. Thugs don’t like being reported, they tend yo get violent.

    “breaking every rule neighborhood watch has”

    which are in place to protect Crime Watch members from the suspected criminals that are being watched. The rules are prudent, as proven in this case. Martin had escaped from George’s view, George returned to his vehicle, Martin returned to confront George, likely feeling that he was “dissed” and needed to commit violence to restore his street prestige. Martin was, after all, the self labeled “no limits you-know-what”.

    “he was following a kid who was walking home from buying candy”
    there you go with the myth of sweet little Trayvon and his candy, just like the media showing only Martin’s baby pictures. That night, he probably had his thug “grill” in his mouth, and was quite possibly taking that walk just to case the neighborhood for more houses to burglarize.

    “that kid ended up on a slab at the morgue”
    because he committed a vicious criminal assault against a Crime Watch member, and continued that assault in order to inflict more physical injury even as his victim was helpless on the ground. George, after all, was not an accomplished thug, though Martin appears to have been. You (Anjin) move instantly from portraying Martin as the sweet, innocent boy, to Martin as mighty violent thug… which seems to be something that you admire, but the law does not (or should not). Tell me, Anjin, how many time have you been put in jail for the type of violent assaults that you so admire? Also, how many “gangsta rap” CDs do you own, so far? You know, you being such a fearsome internet tough guy and all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15

  34. superdestroyer says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    The problem NBC has is that its lawyers would probably want to settle to avoid the discovery process but management on news organizations just cannot settle. Image what will happen is memo discussing a “great white defendant” and how will be good for ratings are found.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  35. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Mister Manners: Oh brother.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  36. Tsar Nicholas says:

    No matter what happens with that lawsuit, however, NBC/GE and the rest of the national liberal media already got the last laugh. And specifically with respect to Zimmerman-Martin NBC sure as hell did its job well. The black vote in Fla. last month was 95-5 for Obama, exceeding the national margin. Blacks in Fla. were ginned up and they voted nearly in total lock step. It would be naive to think that Zimmerman-Martin was not a contributing factor. Yeah, granted, ultimately the final result would not have changed — since Obama also won OH, VA, etc. — but still from the standpoint of pure Machiavellian politics you have to give the liberal media a lot of credit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11

  37. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    But that doesn’t mean he murdered Martin.

    I wasn’t engaging on the criminal matter at all really. The piece is about his civil action, so I tried to confine my remarks to that for the sake of staying on topic. I wandered off into criminal procedure for the benefit of the armchair, but truthfully I don’t really have much of an opinion about (or really an interest in ) his guilt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  38. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    You dont think his life hasn’t already been turned upside down and examined? LOL

    There’s nothing there my friend. You have a drug using gangsta who adopted the Twitter accont name No Limit Ni66a that attacked a guy whom the FBI to date cannot seem to find anyone in his community that will even hint at any racism on his part. To the contrary they say he’s a model citizen. Read all 11 of the FBI reports Einstein.

    GZ only needs to demonstrate that a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger to win both cases – criminal and civil.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

  39. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    No attorney ever truly WANTS to settle. Billable hours? Hello? Discovery is in the attorney’s best interest from a fiscal standpoint. It’s a financial bonanza. Now, they do have a duty to act in the best interest of their client, but …

    NBC has no real motivation to seek a settlement either. The allegations go to core business practices, so NBC is well motivated to vigorously defend itself, and it more than has the resources to bleed out the contingency basis attorneys Zimmerman has hired.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  40. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    You dont think his life hasn’t already been turned upside down and examined? LOL

    Compared to what’s about to happen to him in discovery? No, not by a long shot.

    @Tom Roff:

    GZ only needs to demonstrate that a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm at the moment he pulled the trigger to win both cases – criminal and civil.

    Again, his criminal culpability has no real bearing on the civil matter against NBC. Let’s just leave it at that, because you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t know enough about the law to comment with any precision and I have zero interest in teaching you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  41. superdestroyer says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Do you really think that NBC News wants all of their e-mails and memo reviewed by outsiders. I suspect that the last thing the lawyers at NBC would want is an outsider trying to figure out the motivations and behaviors of the editors who decide what is reported and what is not.

    I suspect that the inhouse lawyers would rather pay a few dollar instead of risk what could be found in all of that e-mail.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  42. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I was referring to the civil case he has against police and prosecutors for arresting him in the first place via FL’s SYG law. BTW… that’s been explained to you here previously.

    Your hopes on NBC’s discovery are laughable.

    GZ wins all 3.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

  43. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Discovery is in the attorney’s best interest from a fiscal standpoint. It’s a financial bonanza.

    Did you think before you posted that? NBC wants this to go away. Why would they want to pay for their own attys “financial bonanza”?

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  44. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    You’re assuming that NBC, as a protected media org, wouldn’t successfully quash such a demand by exerting any of several evidentiary privileges available to it. I suspect that it would, and as noted, it has the resources to bleed Zimmerman’s attorneys out.

    Keep in mind that they aren’t being paid, and won’t be paid unless they prevail. Meanwhile, they have hefty expenses to bear.

    Realistically it is in NBC’s best interest to drag the proceedings out as long as possible in order to apply enough financial pressure to motivate Zimmerman’s attorneys to fold.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  45. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    You honestly believe that a company with $20 billion a year in revenue is so concerned about billable hours that it would whiff a case like this simply to avoid having to pay its attorneys? LOL

    Whew …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  46. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    I was referring to the civil case he has against police and prosecutors for arresting him in the first place via FL’s SYG law

    LOL, link to this mythical action, please.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  47. 11B40 says:

    Greetings:

    And in a clear example of the type of perversity inherent in a once free country, George Zimmerman uses a bit of legal jujitsu to introduce a major, and what’s worse profitable, corporation, to his current world wherein “the process is the punishment”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. jukeboxgrad says:

    it is in NBC’s best interest to drag the proceedings out as long as possible

    I agree, but I think Z wants to do the same thing. I think his real goal is to incite wingnuts to send him money. And they will, and a long, slow process is just the right thing for this purpose.

    It comes back to this:

    Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex

    Z wants in on that gravy train. It has worked for him in the past.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  49. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92:
    You honestly believe that a company with $20 billion a year in revenue is so concerned about billable hours that it would whiff a case like this simply to avoid having to pay its attorneys?

    Nice reversal…
    You and I both know they NBC shat themselves on this one and want it off the headlines… they’ll puff up for a while… then settle.

    This was a great move my GZ
    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  50. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    I think we’re done with amateur hour here.

    And I’m still waiting on your link.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  51. superdestroyer says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    All Zimmerman’s attorney would need is every memo, every e-mail, every text that mentions either Zimmerman or Martin. I think that NBC would prefer to keep those out of the public view.

    Zimmerman’s life has already been put under a microscope. NBC has not been looked at all. NBC’s lawyers would probably want to settle to save money and keep the outsiders away from the e-mail.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  52. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Its good that you retreat.

    Come back When you can prove GZ doesn’t have a good basis for civil case under FL’s SYG ground law…

    then we’ll talk some more.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

  53. Tom Roff says:

    @superdestroyer:

    YUP! As I said above… NBC shat themselves on this one and want it off the headlines… they’ll puff up for a while… then settle.

    This was a great move my GZ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11

  54. anjin-san says:

    To the contrary they say he’s a model citizen

    I’m a model citizen. I’ve never been ordered to take an anger management course. I’ve never been slapped with a restraining order. I’ve never been in a physical altercation with a cop.

    Zimmermann has.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  55. Tom Roff says:

    @anjin-san:

    I see your point…. that proves GZ didnt fear great bodily harm when he pulled the trigger on the purple lean drinking “No_Limit_Ni66a” that was straddled him beating his face in.

    lol

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  56. anjin-san says:

    @ Tom Roff

    Have a nice time with your “GZ” limited edition knee pads…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  57. Tom Roff says:

    @anjin-san:

    …. that proves GZ didnt fear great bodily harm when he pulled the trigger on the purple lean drinking “No_Limit_Ni66a” that was straddled him beating his face in.

    lol

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  58. de stijl says:

    @Tom Roff:

    I’d respect you more if you used “LOL” more often.

    Shoot for at least 4-5 per comment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  59. Tom Roff says:

    @de stijl:
    …. and that proves GZ didn’t fear great bodily harm the moment he pulled the trigger on the purple lean drinking “No_Limit_Ni66a” that was straddling him beating his face in.

    lol

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  60. bill says:

    he’s been tried and convicted by the media already- and they can’t let him walk despite the evidence. guilty or innocent his life is ruined. nbc should be ashamed of their behavior, but that would require the ability to feel shame.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

  61. Eric Florack says:

    @Tom Roff: Agreed, all points.
    Zimmerman suffered because Obama needed a boogieman in it’s fight against Gun rights. This was exposed when the WH in it’s ardor forgot to mention Zimmerman isn’t white.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16

  62. anjin-san says:

    I was just thinking that Tom Roff is the biggest idiot to show up here in quite a while. Then Florack declared himself to be a Roff fanboy and provided proof of concept…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3

  63. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    Don’t confuse being tired of armchairs with retreat. I essentially said “your ‘arguments’ are too stupid to continue acknowledging them with a response, because it only encourages you.”

    Come back When you can prove GZ doesn’t have a good basis for civil case under FL’s SYG ground law…

    A civil case against whom? Where are you finding some grant under SYG that empowers him to sue anybody? He’s empowered to recover if someone sues him.

    While you’re at it, do some reading about plenary immunity and how it applies to prosecutors. Who, exactly, do you believe he’s going to sue? On what basis? Enthrall me with your acumen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  64. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    All Zimmerman’s attorney would need is every memo, every e-mail, every text that mentions either Zimmerman or Martin. I think that NBC would prefer to keep those out of the public view.

    Agreed. See “evidentiary privilege” for further clarification. He’s not suing an individual. He’s suing a constitutionally protected organization with a variety of privileges at its disposal to employ in denying him the information that he would be seeking. NBC will employ all of them.

    Zimmerman’s life has already been put under a microscope. NBC has not been looked at all. NBC’s lawyers would probably want to settle to save money and keep the outsiders away from the e-mail.

    No, honestly it hasn’t, and until you’ve been through civil discovery with an opponent which has essentially unlimited resources, you can’t possibly understand the degree to which what he’s gone through thus far pales in comparison to what NBC can, and likely will, do to him. They settle with him and its open season on media orgs, with every nutjob who feels he’s been wrong flinging litigation. They vigorously defend against these actions precisely to deter people from bringing them to begin with. NBC has no motivation to settle, and every motivation to go scorched earth in response to this suit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  65. Tom Roff says:

    HarvardLaw

    Did you just prove GZ didn’t fear great bodily harm the moment he pulled the trigger on the purple lean drinking “No_Limit_Ni66a” that was straddling him beating his face in?

    lol

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

  66. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    No, I just informed you that prosecutors enjoy broad immunity against civil suits. The police do as well, so best of luck with this imagined suit of yours.

    See, if you were an attorney, you’d know that already. Since you aren’t, well, give them my best down at Bob’s Garage & Legal Clinic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  67. Jenos Idanian Who Has No Pony Tail says:

    @anjin-san: h yes, the myth. That Zimmerman was driving around with a gun, breaking every rule neighborhood watch has, and that he was following a kid who was walking home from buying candy at the store. That he was told to back off, but he kept on going. That the end result what that kid ended up on a slab at the morgue.

    Nice lie by omission. You omit what happened between “he was to told to stop” and the morgue — ZImmerman DID stop, Martin came back and confronted him, Zimmerman never laid a hand on Martin while Martin beat the living shit out of him, then — and ONLY then — did Zimmerman pull the trigger.

    So, in your world, is ANYONE allowed to go back and confront someone who “disses” them and beat the crap out of them, or only minorities?

    It’s something you obviously identify with. A guy gets his ass kicked, so he shoots the other guy dead. A revenge fantasy played out in real life. The kind of stuff cowards daydream about.

    I think I called you a “nickel psychiatrist.” You’re overcharging.

    And you never get tired of being this boob’s champion.

    While you never stop lying to fulfill your fantasies that he’s some racist profiling monster that only racists would ever stoop to defend.

    Zimmerman isn’t the brightest guy, and made some bad choices. Martin made far worse ones. But Martin isn’t alive to be charged, and has a ready-to-go army of race-baiters to build their case on his corpse.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13

  68. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @anjin-san:

    It’s Dunning-Kruger. The biggest tragedy of the internet, IMO, is that it has saddled the stupid with the misconception that having the ability to speak confers some sort of validity on what they have to say.

    In their minds, the fact that they can comment at all puts their commentary on an equal basis with expert commentary proffered by others.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  69. anjin-san says:

    Martin came back and confronted him, Zimmerman never laid a hand on Martin

    Really? Prove it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  70. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92: said: See, if you were an attorney, you’d know that already. Since you aren’t, well, give them my best down at Bob’s Garage & Legal Clinic.

    If you had actually went to law school instead of pretending to be one online you would know you were beating a dead horse.

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13

  71. Tom Roff says:

    @anjin-san: @anjin-san:

    Ooops

    I think the prosecution would has to prove that concoction.

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  72. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @anjin-san:

    Hence the biggest problem with this sort of statute – it confers ostensible immunity based on the statements of someone who has every motivation in the world to lie to protect him/herself. The statute flatly encourages lying, and since the other party is invariably dead, there is no viable challenge to the assertion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  73. anjin-san says:

    Zimmerman isn’t the brightest guy, and made some bad choices. Martin made far worse ones.

    Zimmermann chose to cruise the neighborhood with a gun, and stalk a kid who was going about his lawful business. Those are facts. Prove Martin made a bad decision.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  74. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    If you had actually went to law school instead of pretending to be one online you would know you were beating a dead horse.

    Right, because the conversation above certainly lends validity to the concept that I didn’t attend law school, but you did.

    Got it.

    I’ll be back momentarily, once I’ve finished laughing my ass off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  75. Tom Roff says:

    @anjin-san:

    LOL Thats called ghetto thinkin’

    Cruising is not illegal – Neither is possesing a gun
    However attacking and beating someone for asking you a question or following you – is.

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  76. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    I think the prosecution would has to prove that concoction.

    Um, no, sunshine. If Zimmerman presumes to claim immunity under SYG, it will be up to him to prove (to a judge, not to a jury) that he qualifies for it.

    I gave you the Florida cases above which establish that as fact. Perhaps when you’ve finished the oil change, you might give them a read.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  77. Tom Roff says:

    HarvardLaw SAID
    “Hence the biggest problem with this sort of statute – it confers ostensible immunity based on the statements of someone who has every motivation in the world to lie to protect him/herself. The statute flatly encourages lying, and since the other party is invariably dead, there is no viable challenge to the assertion.”

    Just learn some self-control… you shouldn’t have any problems.

    ^

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  78. Tom Roff says:

    HarvardLaw: I gave you the Florida cases above which establish that as fact. Perhaps when you’ve finished the oil change, you might give them a read.

    Is there no end to what you will make up in an anonymous forum to protect your ego?

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  79. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    Reread this comment until you understand it please.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  80. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    You know, to be nice and to assist you in your education, I’ll even give you links to the cases in question

    Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)

    Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010)

    Best of luck.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  81. Jenos Idanian Who Has No Pony Tail says:

    @anjin-san: Zimmermann chose to cruise the neighborhood with a gun, and stalk a kid who was going about his lawful business. Those are facts. Prove Martin made a bad decision.

    Zimmerman broke no laws by doing either. Martin DECIDED to confront Zimmerman, and DECIDED to start swinging (no signs of injuries to Zimmerman’s hands, no other injuries on Martin besides knuckles and gunshot). Those were bad decisions.

    Plus, Martin’s dead. That’s pretty convincing evidence that his decisions were bad. Especially since Zimmerman had stopped following him — meaning Martin had “gotten away” and came back to beat down the guy with a gun who’d “dissed” him

    Poor anjin… the instant you heard “white guy shot black teen,” you totally locked into your little fantasy version of events, and NOTHING — especially not such racist and hateful things like facts — will ever convince you otherwise.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12

  82. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Different case, facts and circumstances

    Very poor work there again…. HL.

    lol

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  83. Bernieyeball says:

    @Jenos Idanian Who Has No Pony Tail: Plus, Martin’s dead. That’s pretty convincing evidence that his decisions were bad.

    A good friend of mine died of cancer a few years ago because of the decision he made to continue choking down the butts. I guess your “someone is dead, they must have made bad decisions” syllogism holds across the board.
    It’s all coming clear to me. Thanks for lifting the fog.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  84. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Tom Roff: vs @HarvardLaw92:

    Bringing a knife to a gunfight.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  85. Tom Roff says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    That was intelligent.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  86. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Tom Roff:

    Really, just stop. You don’t know what you are talking about and it is painful to watch.

    Even us non-lawyers can tell.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  87. anjin-san says:

    Martin DECIDED to confront Zimmerman, and DECIDED to start swinging

    Prove it.

    Zimmerman had stopped following him

    Prove it.

    Martin’s dead. That’s pretty convincing evidence that his decisions were bad

    Of course. When someone who is walking down the street minding their own business gets shot, it is always their own fault.

    Zimmermann is a dangerous fool, a wanna be cop who was driving around his neighborhood with a gun profiling children. Martin was a kid walking home, going about his lawful business. Zimmermann’s profound stupidity set off a chain of events that ended in tragedy. It’s proven his judgement is horrible, and he is a proven liar. And you are obsessed with championing him. Go figure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  88. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Tom Roff:

    That was intelligent.

    Try it sometime. (by “it” I mean shutting up. you are so over classed it is obvious to all… except poor you, that is)

    Please, just stop.

    ps: Listening to FOX that is

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  89. Tom Roff says:

    OzarkHillbilly waves the personal attack white flag.

    OH, your surrender is accepted… again.

    LOL

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  90. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Tom Roff: Look….

    I am being kind…. I am saying “I am not a lawyer but I CAN tell the difference between a lawyer and an…. idiot.”

    Stop Tom. You don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I can tell which dog is having it’s throat ripped out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  91. de stijl says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  92. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: “Prove it?” The 911 tapes. Zimmerman told the operator he’d meet the police at a fixed point. That means he wasn’t following Martin — if you’re following someone, you don’t know where you will be at any set point. Ergo, Zimmerman had stopped following Martin.

    Further, Zimmerman sounded out of breath — that’s why the operator asked if he was following Martin. He stopped sounding out of breath after she told him “you don’t have to do that,” and the logical inference is that he stopped following Martin.

    Two facts from an indisputable source (unlike NBC News) — the original 911 tape. Not conclusive, but definitively more consistent with Zimmerman’s story that he stopped following Martin than your pulled-out-of-your-dumb-ass crazy story.

    If Zimmerman wasn’t following Martin and yet they ended up face to face, then Martin must have returned to where Zimmerman was to confront him. That was Martin’s choice. And it was a bad one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  93. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I suspect your argument (and Zimmerman’s) is going to run headlong into some unfortunate facts.

    1) The presumption in 776.013 (1) doesn’t apply as a consequence of 776.013 (2)(a). Now, granted, the section ostensibly applies itself to dwellings, residences and vehicles, but the common areas of a housing estate are arguably extensions of the dwellings therein. Under 776.013 (2)(a), Martin had the right to be there, so the presumption supplied in 776.013 (1) collapses.

    2) Zimmerman arguably instigated the interaction which led to Martin’s death, which abrogates (under 776.041 (2) ) any justification for the use of force supplied in the other sections. 776.041 (2)(a) doesn’t apply because it reintroduces the duty to flee requirement and Zimmerman clearly didn’t exhaust every reasonable means of escape. Going further, I can find no instance in which Zimnmerman met the requirement in 776.041 (2)(b) to clearly communicate to Martin his desire to withdraw.

    We’ll know more when Zimmerman finally gets around to submitting his motion for declaration of immunity and the court acts on that motion, but I suspect that this is not going to end up be the resounding vindication that you believe it will be.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  94. de stijl says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Not conclusive, but definitively more consistent with Zimmerman’s story that he stopped following Martin than your pulled-out-of-your-dumb-ass crazy story.

    If Zimmerman wasn’t following Martin and yet they ended up face to face, then Martin must have returned to where Zimmerman was to confront him.

    That’s some high quality proof you’ve got there.

    That’s mathematical-level, college-educated, QED level proof. You know what really sealed it for me? When you called two suppositions “facts.” That was awesome.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  95. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @de stijl: And yet, it’s more logical than the crap put forth by NBC and the regular gang of idiots that make up the commentariat here.

    Zimmerman’s been charged with murder. That’s a hell of a high standard. And despite the best efforts to convict him in the court of public opinion, the case against him doesn’t even say manslaughter — but innocent by reason of self-defense.

    Come on, show at least a few indicators that the “Zimmerman’s a racist murderer who racially profiled Martin, hunted him down, and shot him in cold blood” story. Or even some kind of proof that it was a murder, or even manslaughter.

    Pretty much all the facts to come out so far show Zimmerman didn’t make the best choices, but that’s a hell of a stretch from legally guilty of murder.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  96. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Zimmerman’s been charged with murder. That’s a hell of a high standard.

    Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder, and the standard realistically isn’t very high at all, certainly not in comparison to first degree. In Florida, it involves proving three elements beyond a reasonable doubt, namely:

    1) The victim is dead
    2) The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant
    3) There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life

    The “criminal act” reference in the statute must be a single event or series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose of committing the murder or creating the dangerous condition that led to the death. Whether a person’s actions amount to the requisite intent or recklessness to warrant conviction is left up to the jury’s determination.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  97. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Hey, overeducated and underbrained, the best account of the fight (backed up by forensics) is that Martin threw the first punch, knocking Zimmerman to the ground, then got astride him and started bashing his head against the pavement. (Martin’s injuries: skinned knuckles, single gunshot; Zimmerman’s, broken nose, contusions to the back of his head.) At what point should Zimmerman have “communicated to Martin his desire to withdraw?” Just what other “options” did he have to “exhaust” while his skull was being bounced against the pavement?

    This wasn’t a brawl. This was a beatdown. Zimmerman, it appears, never threw a single punch. (No injuries to his hands, no other injuries to Martin.)

    So throw more legal citations around to obscure the facts. I didn’t think it was possible, but there are a few more rotten stereotypes of lawyers (especially Ivy League lawyers) that you can reinforce.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  98. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    You are missing the forest for the trees. Had Zimmerman not followed Martin, there would never have been an interaction at all. Zimmerman’s choice to instigate contact was the initiating event in the chain that led to Martin’s death.

    By all means though, feel free to start throwing the ad hominems when your argument gets backed into the corner. You seem to do that pretty regularly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  99. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Yes, Zimmerman followed Martin. But that ain’t a crime. And Zimmerman stopped following Martin, as indicated by the 911 tape.

    If I think someone is following me, does that mean I am legally justified in turning around, going up to them, and beating the crap out of them? Does their “following” then legally justify whatever I think I might need to do to protect myself and avenge my honor? Didn’t Martin have some kind of legal obligation to NOT confront Zimmerman and start swinging?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  100. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Nobody said that following someone was criminal. What I’m trying to explain to you (evidently in vain) is that the statute pointedly revokes the justification (and by association, the supplied immunity) with respect to people who initially provoke the use of force against themselves.

    Zimmerman’s choice to engage and follow Martin, while not criminal, is certainly something that a reasonable person would view as being threatening behavior, and more pointedly, instigatory behavior for the purpose of 776.041 (2).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  101. An Interested Party says:

    Who needs the Constitution after all… all that stuff about rights to fair trials, due process… who needs it?

    The Constitution also has stuff about free speech…remember that while you’re getting all huffy…

    The black vote in Fla. last month was 95-5 for Obama, exceeding the national margin. Blacks in Fla. were ginned up and they voted nearly in total lock step. It would be naive to think that Zimmerman-Martin was not a contributing factor. Yeah, granted, ultimately the final result would not have changed — since Obama also won OH, VA, etc. — but still from the standpoint of pure Machiavellian politics you have to give the liberal media a lot of credit.

    You’re quite confused, sweetie…the large turnout of blacks voting in Florida had far more to do with Rick Scott and his voter suppression tactics that had the complete opposite effect from what he intended…so don’t blame the media because Romney lost Florida…for that, you need look no further than at the ham-handed, overplaying Republicans…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  102. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92SAID: Had Zimmerman not followed Martin, there would never have been an interaction at all. Zimmerman’s choice to instigate contact was the initiating event in the chain that led to Martin’s death.

    ““““““““““““““““““

    Soooo….. After Martin decided to attack and knock down GZ, then straddle him raining down fists and bashing his head in…. GZ should have just let him continue since he had been watching him and following him?

    I get what you’re saying now….. Sorta like a wife should just lie there and let her husband beat the tar out of her, because she followed him to see where he was going,
    I mean she didn’t have to do that.. it was her choice to instigate contact was the initiating event in the chain that led to ger beating. She should take her beating.

    What a maroon… lol

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  103. An Interested Party says:

    Meanwhile, there are a few people on this thread who are bending over backwards to give George Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt…it is fascinating that these same people are doing everything they can to paint Trayvon Martin as a thug, even though their evidence for this accusation has already been proven to be false

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  104. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    Haven’t you figured out by now that nobody here is taking anything you have to say seriously? Perhaps you’d be happier over at Fox?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  105. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92: @HarvardLaw92SAID: Had Zimmerman not followed Martin, there would never have been an interaction at all. Zimmerman’s choice to instigate contact was the initiating event in the chain that led to Martin’s death.

    ““““““““““““““““““

    Soooo….. After Martin decided to attack and knock down GZ, then straddle him raining down fists and bashing his head in…. GZ should have just let him continue since he had been watching him and following him?

    I get what you’re saying now….. Sorta like a wife should just lie there and let her husband beat the tar out of her, because she followed him to see where he was going,
    I mean she didn’t have to do that.. it was her choice to instigate contact which became the initiating event in the chain that led to her beating. Your honor she sould have taken her beating…..

    WOW! What a maroon… lol

    .
    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  106. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tom Roff:

    Possibly the only thing that is worse than posting stupidity is reposting it twice.

    You’re out of your depth here, pal. You’ve wandered into the deep end of the pool without your floaties on. Save yourself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  107. Tom Roff says:

    From a real live Harvard Law School grad…. LOL

    @HarvardLaw92: @HarvardLaw92: @HarvardLaw92SAID: Had Zimmerman not followed Martin, there would never have been an interaction at all. Zimmerman’s choice to instigate contact was the initiating event in the chain that led to Martin’s death.

    ““““““““““““““““““

    Soooo….. After Martin decided to attack and knock down GZ, then straddle him raining down fists and bashing his head in…. GZ should have just let him continue since afterall – he had been watching him and following him?

    I get what you’re saying now….. Sorta like a wife should just lie there and let her husband beat the tar out of her, because she followed him to see where he was going,
    I mean she didn’t have to do that.. it was her choice to instigate contact which became the initiating event in the chain that led to her beating. Your honor she sould have taken her beating…..

    WOW! What a maroon

    I’m embarrassed for you… lol

    ..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  108. Pylon says:

    It seems Tom was there. I’m surprised he hasn’t reported his eyewitness status.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  109. Tom Roff says:

    @Pylon: It seems Tom was there. I’m surprised he hasn’t reported his eyewitness status.

    WOW! You mean Martin didn’t attack GZ, straddle him, and bash his head?

    Sooo tell us… where were you standing that night, in relation to the parties?

    LOL

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  110. anjin-san says:

    avenge my honor?

    You’ve already provided ample proof that you are not very bright. You really don’t need to keep piling it on…

    A grown man in a truck is following a kid who is on foot. The kid thinks the guy following him might be dangerous. It turns out the kid is right, he is being followed by an idiot with a gun – always a bad, bad combination.

    By continuing to throw stupidity like “dissed” into the discussion, you not only reveal yourself as someone who has racial issues, despite many shrieking protests to the contrary, you also show yourself to be a real and genuine punk. Which is a bad thing to be if you are over 14.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  111. anjin-san says:

    Zimmerman’s choice to engage and follow Martin, while not criminal, is certainly something that a reasonable person would view as being threatening behavior

    And here we have one of the key aspects of this tragedy. How would any reasonable person react upon hearing that a grown man with a gun was following their child, who was engages in the highly suspicious behavior of walking home from the store after a run to buy some candy?

    I think I know how most fathers would react. But a guy like Jenos will never get it. In his world, Zimmermann is the sympathetic character. Who one identifies with says a lot about who you are…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  112. Tom Roff says:

    @anjin-san: A grown man in a truck is following a kid who is on foot. The kid thinks the guy following him might be dangerous.

    You referring to “No_Limit_Ni66a”? He had quite a Twitter following don’t ya know.

    Yeah ole No Limit was the man until he decided to play UFC with an armed man.

    LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  113. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pylon:

    It seems pretty clear by this point that he’s just a troll, and not even a very good one. I’d suggest ignoring him from this point or just raising the suggestion with the powers that be on here that he and his commentary be removed. He’s worth neither the time nor the effort that is required to engage him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  114. Tom Roff says:

    Yeah Pylon, ‘ole No Limit was da man:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86809463/Trayvon-Martin-s-NO-LIMIT-NIGGA-Tweets-The-Daily-Caller

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  115. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Meanwhile, there are a few people on this thread who are bending over backwards to give George Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt…

    I’ve found, at least anecdotally, that these folks tend to sort into one of two groups – closeted (and not so closeted) racists, and folks who are using this issue as a proxy for their fervor about gun rights.

    So, it’s in essence the KKK and the NRA. Neither are much worth our time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  116. anjin-san says:

    @ Tom Roff

    Zimmermann’s actions basically scream “bitch”.

    And you are his groupie. Wow. Are you sure you are a dude?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  117. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Well, it took long enough.

    In arguments like this around here, the idiocracy on the left always tries the same tactic: when they can’t answer what is being said, they try to change the subject to why it’s being said. To make it about the motives of the other side, and not about the topic at hand.

    Sorry, played that game too much. Not gonna play it now.

    Harvard: I’m not going to even bother to check your legal citations; for the sake of argument I’ll assume you’re being accurate. (Trusting you is probably an unwise idea, but I’ll risk it.) Where you drop the ball is in applying it to the known circumstances. Is simply “following” someone enough of a provocation for the followed party to turn and attack the follower? And does that act of “following” put all the blame on the follower, and not on the followed who chose to NOT confront the follower?

    If so, then the next time I feel followed, I will feel free to turn and attack my follower, knowing that you’ll be glad to come to my legal defense. “Your honor, he was following me, so even after he stopped and I lost him, I had the right to go back and beat the crap out of me. My attorney, a graduate of Harvard Law, says it was all his fault.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  118. Tom Roff says:

    @HarvardLaw92:said: So, it’s in essence the KKK and the NRA. Neither are much worth our time.

    “““““““““““““
    Isn’t answering our questions and responding to the facts what you’re really avoiding?
    But anyway… tell us again how a block watch captain is asking for a beat down if he follows or watches someone at night. LOL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  119. de stijl says:

    @Tom Roff:

    You referring to “No_Limit_Ni66a”?

    You keep referring to this as if it some some of trump card. That it proves something. Pray tell, what exactly does it prove?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  120. Tpm Roff says:

    @de stijl:
    You referring to “No_Limit_Ni66a” – what exactly does it prove?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Simply put, the media’s preservation of Trayvon “No_Limi_Ni66a” Martin’s Twitter account allows him to speak to us from the grave:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86809463/Trayvon-Martin-s-NO-LIMIT-NIGGA-Tweets-The-Daily-Caller

    ,
    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  121. de stijl says:

    @Tpm Roff:

    Please read the page that you’re linking to. It is scrambled nonsense. There is no readable text in your link.

    Again, you keep mentioning “No_Limit_Ni66a” like a mantra. What exactly are you trying to say? Please elucidate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  122. An Interested Party says:

    Simply put, the media’s preservation of Trayvon “No_Limi_Ni66a” Martin’s Twitter account allows him to speak to us from the grave…

    Except that is not the Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman murdered…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  123. Tpm Roff says:

    @de stijl: Please read the page that you’re linking to. It is scrambled nonsense.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Are you making fun of Trayvon’s diction? That’s not cool… He is speaking to us in his own way sir – please take time to read the several pages of his tweets in the link:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/86809463/Trayvon-Martin-s-NO-LIMIT-NIGGA-Tweets-The-Daily-Caller

    .
    .

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  124. superdestroyer says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I doubt if communications between employees of a new organization would be privileged versus the communication between a source and a reporter. In trying to show that the NBC knew it was lying, Zimmerman’s lawyers would need to see all of the communications between decision makers and reporters.

    I know that big pockets do not want to settle to discourage additional lawsuits and that is why I pointed out that NBC would not settle even though their lawyers know it will costs more to defend against Zimmerman than what they would ever pay. However, if the lawyers find a smoking gun in the internal communications, then NBC will have to settle. Especially if the internal communication told people to lie in order to emphasize the racial nature of the accusations.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  125. Tillman says:

    I’m not certain which disappoints me more about this thread: that we have such dedicated trolls or that we have such dedicated troll feeders. Seriously, just stop talking to them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  126. Barry says:

    @Doug Mataconis: “Zimmerman hasn’t been convicted of murdering anyone. ”

    BZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No verdict has been found in this lawsuit, either (yet).

    Doug, you’re a lawyer, so you know better.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  127. Barry says:

    @Bernieyeball: “Indeed. Who needs any of this?
    Of course what the vigilantes among us seem to forget is that if Citizen Zimmerman can be deprived of due process then so can they. ”

    You know, it’s really funny since Zimmerman did just that, and claimed justification under a law which was designed to do just that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  128. Tpm Roff says:

    @An Interested Party: Except that is not the Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman murdered…

    “““““““““““““““““““`

    You’re confusing the Facebook page that had the picture of another Trayvon Martin. It didn’t even resemble him. This is his Twitter feed. And that be him.

    Yep Trayvon Martin had “No Limits.” LOL Tell me… Isn’t true that self control is looked upon as a weakness rather than a virtue in the ‘hood?

    Yep No_Limit speaks volumes to us.

    .

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  129. de stijl says:

    So far you’ve said:

    You have a drug using gangsta who adopted the Twitter accont name No Limit Ni66a

    the purple lean drinking “No_Limit_Ni66a”

    Thats called ghetto thinkin’

    You referring to “No_Limit_Ni66a”?

    Trayvon “No_Limi_Ni66a” Martin’s Twitter

    It seems like you’re trying to say something, but you lack the stones to actually come out and say it. Why are you playing it so coy? Do you lack the courage of your convictions?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  130. Tpm Roff says:

    @de stijl: It seems like you’re trying to say something, but you lack the stones to actually come out and say it. Why are you playing it so coy? Do you lack the courage of your convictions?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Are you reading something that I don’t see into Trayvon’s own words, actions, and Twitter account posts… that I don’t see?

    Please give him the benefit of the doubt sir – it’s not necessary for you to malign or twist the meaning of his tweets.

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  131. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @An Interested Party: It’s so cute how you keep using the word “murder” and its variants. Do you stomp your widdle footsies too when you do it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  132. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Is simply “following” someone enough of a provocation for the followed party to turn and attack the follower? And does that act of “following” put all the blame on the follower, and not on the followed who chose to NOT confront the follower?

    It’s enough, IMLO, to abrogate the assumption of immunity granted by the state under SYG and shunt the person, in this case Zimmerman, into having his individual set of circumstances weighed by a jury.

    I’m not saying that it makes him guilty. I’m saying that it voids his presumption of immunity and puts his fate in the hands of a jury.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  133. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    I doubt if communications between employees of a new organization would be privileged versus the communication between a source and a reporter. In trying to show that the NBC knew it was lying, Zimmerman’s lawyers would need to see all of the communications between decision makers and reporters.

    You’d be surprised how far courts will go in extending the 1st Amendment. In any case, NBC has the resources to drag that fishing expedition out for a long time, if not quash it entirely, and Zimmerman’s attorneys are sensitive to time & financial pressures which NBC doesn’t suffer from.

    The funny thing is that NBC technically isn’t lying. Every statement that was presented in the recording was uttered by Zimmerman. Nothing was added extraneous to his own statements. The construction of the presented versions leads us off onto what I feel sure NBC will argue was the presentation of an opinion, as NBC did not have sole custody of or use of the material in question.

    It was presented by several other media orgs at the same time, and those orgs chose to employ their own formats of presentation – some edited, some not – so the average viewer was more than able to ascertain for him/herself that the material had been edited and draw his own conclusions about the presentation.

    Defamation is a difficult claim to successfully assert even under the best of circumstances, and I just don’t like Zimmerman’s chances of succeeding here. All the factors in play work against his success, not for it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  134. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I thought SYG was tossed out of this case ages ago. Once the fight started, Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat — the first punch knocked him flat, and then Martin got astride him and started beating his head into the pavement.

    At what point was Zimmerman obligated to retreat from the confrontation Martin initiated?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  135. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    To my knowledge, Zimmerman has not to date filed a motion for declaration of immunity, as required under Dennis, so assuming he has not done so, at present SYG is an option that is open to him. I’ve simply argued why I believe such a motion will fail.

    As for the rest, consider the facts. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was not. Zimmerman was in a car. Martin was on foot. The guy had a world of options available to him.

    He could simply have driven away when advised by the police not to engage further. For that matter, he could simply remained where he WAS, locked the doors to his vehicle and waited for the police to arrive.

    Given my opinion that Zimmerman smoked his immunity by initiating the events to begin with, he was obligated to retreat at the point where he felt that he was in danger and reasonably had the option to retreat. What he’s going to run into, headlong, is the fact that he could have defused the situation at any of several points by simply walking away. He chose not to do so, and juries tend not to like that. It blows huge holes in self-defense claims.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  136. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: So, you’re making an argument over something that no one else is arguing. You’re making it easier and easier to believe you’re an Ivy League lawyer.

    And you’re incorrect on several points. Zimmerman wasn’t in a car, he had access to his car — he got out of it well before the confrontation. Zimmerman knew he was armed, but didn’t know if Martin was armed. Martin (most likely) did not know Zimmerman was armed. And Martin had “lost” Zimmerman when Zimmerman gave up his pursuit.

    Martin also had options. He could have returned to the home he was staying. He could have kept walking. He could have gone on to a different store. He could have confronted Zimmerman without throwing the first punch.

    The evidence strongly indicates that Zimmerman committed no crimes prior to the actual shooting. Martin, however, apparently did — he threw the first punch.

    Zimmerman had other choices, but he was not legally obligated to take any of them Martin also had other choices, but he WAS legally obligated to take them — basically, anything besides “punch the guy in the face, then beat his head bloody against the pavement.”

    You want to argue abstracts. Sorry, I’m going to keep bringing up actual facts in this case.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  137. Rob in CT says:

    Question: do we actually know – I mean *know* who initiated the fight? I understand Zimmerman’s account (he followed, but then went back to his truck and on the way back Martin caught up to him, jumped him and beat the shit out of him). We know Zimmerman had a broken nose and injury to the back of his head. We know Martin’s knuckles were bruised. Anything else – facts, not guesses?

    Who started it seems rather important, and if we don’t really know, it’s a little silly to make super strong assertions (“murder” or “Zimmerman’s totally innocent!”) about the criminal case.

    Having said that, I’ve suspected for a long time that Zimmerman is going to walk. My layman’s assumption is that the prosecution will have to prove that Zimmerman instigated the fight, and that they will be unable to do so. As I recall (and I don’t know how valid this info is), the various eyewitnesses didn’t see/hear the beginning. This leaves Zimmerman’s story and the forensic evidence. Based on what I know, the physical evidence & Zimmerman’s story do not conflict. Ergo, the prosecution has its work cut out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  138. grumpy realist says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I think we all agree that Zimmerman doesn’t have a legal defense under the old self-defense law. The question is whether he has a legal defense under the piece of legal catsh*t called the “Stand Your Ground” law.

    The judge/judges will either go one of two ways: an extremely narrow interpretation, in which case Zimmerman gets his defense knocked out of court, or a broader interpretation (which saves Zimmerman) complete with a lot of pointed remarks about how if society doesn’t like the result of the law it’s up to the legislature to fix it.

    What the jury will think is anyone’s guess.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  139. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    So, you’re making an argument over something that no one else is arguing. You’re making it easier and easier to believe you’re an Ivy League lawyer.

    So goes the burden of understanding criminal procedure when others don’t. There are like 3,000 (figuratively speaking) things that have to happen in this process. You’re arguing about # 2,900, while the court is working on #45.

    You want to argue abstracts. Sorry, I’m going to keep bringing up actual facts in this case.

    Honestly, I don’t really. I just really dislike these statutes, so my commentary has been focused on the problems that they create.

    The REALLY interesting part? Were Martin still alive, he could equally assert the belief that he felt threatened by Zimmerman and acted in self-defense as well. Somebody has to initiate a chain of events leading to a death. You want it to be Martin, for reasons I won’t speculate about.

    I’ve simply proffered an alternate version of events – namely that Zimmerman’s behavior could have been viewed as threatening by Martin and probably would have been viewed as threatening by a reasonable person in the same circumstance and, since it happened first, Zimmerman was the instigator, not the victim – which you can bet will be presented by the prosecutor as well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  140. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Which is exactly what I have been arguing. Zimmerman has the option to move for immunity under SYG. He doesn’t HAVE to avail himself of it, but if he does, the burden of proving that he qualifies for it falls on his shoulders. I’ve simply argued why I believe that such a motion, were he to tender it, will fail.

    if it fails, or if he declines to tender it to begin with, then we are off to the races with a common law self-defense claim, and on that point, you’re correct – it will end up where it ends up with the jury’s opinion about Zimmerman’s claims. The forensics establish what happened, but they don’t really establish WHY it happened, and criminal trials are about blame – Martin is dead and someone has to be blamed for it.

    The prosecution will blame Zimmerman. Zimmerman obviously will blame Martin, and in the end it will boil down to which attorney tells the better story in court. It always does.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  141. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And you’re incorrect on several points. Zimmerman wasn’t in a car, he had access to his car — he got out of it well before the confrontation.

    Um, so he was in a car. It’s a bit odd to argue “Zimmerman wasn’t in a car, he got out of it” — if he wasn’t in a car to begin with, then how did he get out of it?

    He started the chain of events in a car. At some point he got out of the car, of his own volition.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  142. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Rob in CT: Question: do we actually know – I mean *know* who initiated the fight? I understand Zimmerman’s account (he followed, but then went back to his truck and on the way back Martin caught up to him, jumped him and beat the shit out of him). We know Zimmerman had a broken nose and injury to the back of his head. We know Martin’s knuckles were bruised. Anything else – facts, not guesses?

    Without getting too existential, what we “know” is based on the medical records of both men immediately after the incident. Martin had skinned knuckles and a single gunshot wound; Zimmerman a broken, bloody nose and a bashed-up back of head. What we can infer from that is that Martin threw at least one substantial punch, Zimmerman’s nose was the target of a forceful blow, and the back of his head repeatedly came into contact with a hard, rough surface. We also know that the gun that fired the fatal shot was a few inches to a few feet from Martin when it was fired.

    Zimmerman’s story is entirely consistent with these records, and came out long before those records were released — which gives it credibility, as he didn’t have a set of facts available to tailor his story around. And his story is taht Martin punched him, knocking him down, then sat on him and started bashing his head against the pavement. Zimmerman’s gun — legally concealed — became visible during the struggle, and Martin went for it. Zimmerman drew it and fired it once, hitting and almost instantly killing Martin.

    Again, that’s Zimmerman’s story. And obviously he’s got an incentive to make himself look innocent. But all the evidence that has come out since then has been consistent with that story, and nothing has come out to contradict it. No signs that Zimmerman threw any punches, no evidence that Martin was shot from behind or from a distance, no other injuries on Martin, nothing that would challenge Zimmerman’s account.

    Further, a lot of anti-Zimmerman stuff has totally fallen apart incredibly quickly. So there’s no lack of scrutiny on the subject — the people dead-set on Zimmerman’s guilt wouldn’t be making up so much stuff and throwing around so much obviously false BS if they had something real to hang their venom on.

    I’m not investing anything in Zimmerman’s innocence. I’m just saying that those who are so insistent on his guilt have done tremendous damage to their own credibility thus far.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  143. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Zimmerman’s gun — legally concealed — became visible during the struggle, and Martin went for it.

    There’s absolutely no evidence for this other than Zimmerman’s word, and he has every reason in the world to lie about it (and an already-established history of lying to the court and authorities).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  144. Tom Roff says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Your honor my wife was in the house – at some point she left the house and followed me to see where I was going… She started a chain of events that led to my beating the living crap out of her.

    LOL

    .
    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  145. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Rafer Janders: Congratulations. You just discovered what I spelled out from the outset — that I was repeating Zimmerman’s story. And you repeated that Zimmerman has a strong incentive to spin that story to make himself look better.

    All you omitted was how pretty much all the evidence released so far backs up that account, and nothing challenged it.

    …so what was the point of your comment, anyway?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  146. Tom Roff says:

    @Rafer Janders: There’s absolutely no evidence for this other than Zimmerman’s word,

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So Martin (unarmed) saw a man packing a 9mm following him – so instead of running he chose to attack him?

    Do you base that irrationality on a supposition that Martin was high on drugs or alcohol? Or are you even serious?

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  147. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I’m not investing anything in Zimmerman’s innocence.

    Voluminous commentary to the contrary notwithstanding. :-D

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  148. Devout says:

    @Doug Mataconis: It won’t even make it to trial because the crux of Zimmerman’s suit is premised on the ill-conceived theory that he was somehow placed in a “false light” of being a racist when the NBC defendants edited the tape by omitting a certain small segment from the subject tape. That theory fails as a matter of law because the Florida Supreme Court held in Jesus v. Rapp, No. SC06-2491, — So.2d —, 2008 WL 4659374 (Fla. Oct. 23, 2008), that Florida does not recognize the tort of false light “because the benefit of recognizing the tort, which only offers a distinct remedy in relatively few unique situations, is outweighed by the danger in unreasonably impeding constitutionally protected speech.” Id. at —, 2008 WL 4659374, at*13. See also, Anderson v. Gannett Co., 33 Fla. L. Weekly S856 (Fla. 2008). Furthermore, Zimmerman’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim is merely an extension of his defamation “false light” claim, and in order to prevail on that claim, he must first succeed on the underlying tort. And, as explained above, his defamation “false light” claim fails as a matter of Florida law and will be summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Florida does not recognize the tort as viable cause of action.

    Nor would Zimmerman succeed on a simple defamation claim because the suit does not allege nor can he allege that the NBC defendants made a false statement of fact about Zimmerman. Rather, the suit is based on an allegedly edited tape that purportedly omitted a small segment that placed him in a “false light” which is an unrecognized defamation tort in the State of Florida.

    Moreover, the suit overlooks the fact that George Zimmerman was already perceived as a “racist” long before the subject tape ever surfaced. Zimmerman was perceived as a “racist” because he is a white Hispanic man who chased down a black unarmed 17 year old boy in the rain with a loaded 9mm gun, shot and killed him and wasn’t arrested. Base on that backdrop, Zimmerman was perceived a ‘racist’. The allegedly edited tape added nothing to that. Nor did it have any effect on whether or not the ‘public’ perceived then as they do now that Zimmerman is a racist.

    Finally, George Zimmerman’s very own cousin gave a written sworn statement to local police that stated unequivocally that the Zimmerman’s were “racist”. So, I suppose that she too should be named as a defendant in that suit.

    Bottom line is, the suit is seen as nothing more than a last ditch attempt to distract attention from the underlying criminal case against Zimmerman and dun people of money to foot his financial situation. He has already dunned his supporters of money, and now he is focusing on the NBC Defendants like Ahab did on the whale.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  149. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I didn’t think I’d have to spell this out to someone of your obvious intellect and training and breeding, but apparently stellar credentials don’t actually always represent brainpower.

    I’m investing in Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, not his actual innocence.

    I can’t believe I’m having to explain that to someone who allegedly GRADUATED from HARVARD LAW in 1992.

    Wait a minute… Obama graduated Harvard Law in 1991. Now it seems a bit clearer…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

  150. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Um, no. Where I come from, what you’ve been doing constitutes making an argument, and a quite verbose one at that, for why he should be adjudicated innocent.

    Of course he’s presumed to be innocent. Every criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent. You could have made that argument with a single sentence. What you’ve constructed here goes way, way beyond that.

    And enough with the ad hominems already …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  151. An Interested Party says:

    Seriously, just stop talking to them.

    A fair point, but when so much disinformation is vomited all over the place…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  152. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Um, no. If you were indeed arguing for his presumption of innocence, you could have made that argument in a single sentence. Of course he’s presumed to be innocent. Every criminal defendant is.

    What you have spent a great deal of time constructing is a voluminous argument for why he should be adjudicated innocent. At least have the intellectual consistency to own your argument.

    And enough with the ad hominems.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  153. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Sorry for the duplication of comments. The site seems to be going nutso today.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  154. anjin-san says:

    I’m investing in Zimmerman’s presumption of innocence, not his actual innocence.

    No, you are invested in the argument that your suppositions are established facts, and that Martin is far more to blame for his death than Zimmermann is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  155. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: No, my suppositions are derived from facts. Which is a hell of a lot more than the other side can claim.

    And if you’re so hell-bent on going after unfounded suppositions, there are a few people upthread here who’ve proclaimed that Zimmerman “murdered” Martin. Why don’t you quibble with them, as well? Or do you only care about “fact-checking” one side of the argument?

    I don’t mean to single you out — there are several others I could ask that of. But you were the last one to speak up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  156. Tom Roff says:

    Anyone here care to relate a smidgen of evidence that refutes GZ’s claim that Martin attacked him as he was returning to his truck?

    .
    .
    .

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  157. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    my suppositions

    Suppositions are all you have. Yet you have been presenting a version of events you think took place as fact – over, and over, and over – pretty much obsessively for months. You can tap dance all you want, but there is one thing we all know is a fact.

    Zimmermann set forth on a foolish, dangerous, irresponsible course of action, and it set off a chain of events that resulted in a kid who was simply walking home with candy in his pocket dead on the ground. No amount of fantasies you concoct about Martin wanting payback for being “dissed” can change this – and the fact that you claim to know Martin’s thoughts and bring bogus black slang into the discussion shows us just how full of shit you really are – as if we did not know it from the links to fake Martin web pages you have posted in the past.

    You also can’t change the fact that Zimmermann was a somewhat marginal character with behavior problems, though that may help explain why he resonates with you so strongly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  158. Tom Roff says:

    Hey anjin-san…:

    Go ahead… relate to us the evidence you have that refutes GZ’s claim that Martin attacked him as he was returning to his truck?

    ,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  159. Tom Roff says:

    chirp chirp chirp

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  160. Rafer Janders says:

    @anjin-san:

    You also can’t change the fact that Zimmermann was a somewhat marginal character with behavior problems, though that may help explain why he resonates with you so strongly.

    Ouch. That one had to sting….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  161. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Rafer Janders: No, not really. Whenever anjin (or the rest of the gang of idiots) try to change the argument from the topic at hand to me, I know they have conceded the main point.

    “When you’re getting the most flack, you know you’re over the target.”

    And anjin… you keep jumping right over the same details. Yes, Zimmerman followed Martin… and Martin ended up shot to death. What happened in between that you keep “forgetting” to mention?

    Zimmerman stopped following Martin.

    Martin turned around and chose to confront Zimmerman.

    Martin beat the living snot out of Zimmerman.

    If, as you say, Zimmerman is wholly (or even majorly) culpable for the conclusion, then Martin is either largely or totally blameless for his role in it. Are you saying he had no choice but to turn back, confront Zimmerman, and beat the living snot out of him? Or he had the legal right to do so?

    I keep asking, you keep refusing to answer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  162. Herb1949 says:

    @HarvardLaw92:
    Actually, he needed to do this because it will help the civil trial. It opens up the can of worms about the media pre-trying the case and can sway the jury about it being murder or self defense.
    By doing it now, he has a chance of counteracting the screwed up reporting, that was done, before the trial.
    Just the fact that he filed the lawsuit will help the jury to see him as innocent before proved guilty.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  163. Ken says:

    @Tillman: I’m not certain which disappoints me more about this thread: that we have such dedicated trolls or that we have such dedicated troll feeders. Seriously, just stop talking to them.

    Seriosuly. I don’t post on this site very often, but I read it a lot. And while I see some stupid (to me) ideas presented by some obnoxious (in my opinion) people I disagree with quite often, never, until today, have I seen such repetitive, obvious, stupid trolling, and supposedly bright, Harvard educated lawyers consistently responding to it.

    It can’t be repeated enough, i think – FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, JUST STOP TALKING TO HIM

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  164. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Herb1949:

    We’ll just have to disagree on that one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  165. anjin-san says:

    What happened in between that you keep “forgetting” to mention?

    Zimmerman stopped following Martin.

    Martin turned around and chose to confront Zimmerman.

    Well, that’s what you think happened, but it is pure speculation. Sorry, your guesses don’t equate to facts.

    Why are you so invested in getting Zimmermann off the hook? Normal people think he is a creep who’s creepy pastime of driving around with a gun eyeballing kids led to a horrible tragedy. They think he is a freak show. And you clearly identify with him. It’s pretty revealing, actually.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  166. Tom Roff says:

    Hey Anjinsan:

    Here’s an excerpt from GZ/s statement given to police the night of the incident:

    “…..the dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that officers were in route. As I headed back to my truck the suspect emerged from the darkness and said you got a problem? I said “No”. The suspect said”You do now”. As I looked and tried to find my phone to call 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me…”

    http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/97802972?access_key=key-2nu7o65qvwjxh462nfhw
    Pg 2

    So quit your running dude – and answer the question:

    Q: Are you aware of any evidence the state has that refutes that statement?

    .
    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  167. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Ken: Trolls? No kidding. Look at all the different things they want to discuss besides the actual facts in the Zimmerman case.

    Pathetic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  168. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: You apparently didn’t read it the first 57 times I mentioned it, so I’ll spell it out one last time.

    Zimmerman was panting on the 911 call. That prompted the operator to ask if he was following Martin. He said yes, she said “you don’t need to do that,” and he agreed to meet the police at his truck. He also returned to breathing normally.

    That strongly supports Zimmerman’s story that he stopped following Martin and was returning to his truck. Further, nothing has emerged to challenge that story.

    Frankly, you’re starting to sound like the Birthers on this one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  169. Tom Roff says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And then came Investigator Gilbreath to the rescue: :

    http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/1212/zimmerman_reply_to_resp_to_motion_for_deposition.pdf
    Check out Paragraph 2

    LOL

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  170. anjin-san says:

    You apparently didn’t read it the first 57 times I mentioned it

    Yo – Rain man. Repeating something endlessly does not make it any more meaningful or accurate. Of course you believe Zimmermann – a proven idiot and liar. Birds of a feather…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  171. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Well, you finally acknowledged it. Acknowledging it is the first step towards recovery…

    Next, it’d be nice if you actually addressed the issue at hand, and didn’t try to bury it in generalizations and insults and other irrelevancies. Does the 911 recording support ZImmerman’s story? Do you know of anything that specifically challenges Zimmerman’s story? (The “specifically” is to head off your expected “Zimmerman’s lied about X, so he must be lying about Y, Z, and everything else” response.)

    I think I’ll head off to work, fairly comfortable in the knowledge that you won’t actually respond with anything substantive. It is your hallmark, after all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  172. pylon says:

    @Tom Roff: “Anyone here care to relate a smidgen of evidence that refutes GZ’s claim that Martin attacked him as he was returning to his truck?”

    sure:

    Sanford detective Christopher Serino said in the report that Zimmerman at first verbally confronted Martin from his car and that the defendant and witnesses said he was too afraid of Martin to get out. Later in the encounter, Zimmerman got out of his SUV and followed Martin.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/trayvon-martin-case-evide_n_1628901.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  173. pylon says:

    “His actions are inconsistent of those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject,” Serino wrote.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  174. pylon says:

    Also – girlfriend’s evdience of contemporaneous phone converstaion with the victim.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  175. Tom Rofff says:

    @pylon: “His actions are inconsistent of those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject,” Serino wrote.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Jeesh… no wonder Serino was demoted from detective to night patrol.

    Red herring alert.

    Why would Zimmerman need to “fear” Martin – before Martin followed him back to his truck and cold-cocked him?

    Hmmmmmmm?

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  176. pylon says:

    Oh, I see. now you want to debate the credibility of the detective. And here I thought I was just providing the “smidgen” of evidence as requested.

    Bottom line: in the criminal court Zimmerman’s testimony could easily be found to lack credibility. If that happens, he will be assumed to have intended the natural result of his actions (i.e killing Trayvon) and there will be no credibal rebuttal evidence.

    All you are doing at the moment is establishing that you are not a qualified juror.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  177. Tom Rofff says:

    @pylon:

    LOL. A red herring conclusion by Serino can’t refute anything.

    YOU POSTED:”“His actions are inconsistent of those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject,” Serino wrote.”

    So I’ll ask you a second time:
    Why would Zimmerman need to “fear” Martin – before Martin followed him back to his truck and cold-cocked him?
    .
    .
    .

    Still waiting….
    .
    .
    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  178. Rafer Janders says:

    @Tom Rofff:

    I’m sorry, do you understand what the word “inconsistent” means? “His actions are inconsistent of those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject” means he was not in fear.

    Or, in simpler English, Zimmerman was not acting like someone who was afraid would really act — therefore it’s likely he wasn’t actually afraid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  179. Tom Rofff says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    OK… so he wasn’t afraid BEFORE Martin attacked him.

    So that “inconsistency” somehow proves Martin did not later attack as Zimmerman was retreating… and furher proves Zimmerman didn’t fear great bodily harm when he was getting a UFC beat down from Martin?

    LOL
    My sides are splitting now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  180. anjin-san says:

    OK… so he wasn’t afraid BEFORE Martin attacked him.

    Since we know that Zimmermann attacked Martin, this makes no sense…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  181. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    He’s a troll. Don’t waste your time or effort on him. You might as well be trying to argue with a fundamentalist about religion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  182. Tom Rofff says:

    @anjin-san:

    LOL

    PYLON POSTED:”“His actions are inconsistent of those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject,” Serino wrote.”

    So I’ll ask you a second time:
    Why should Zimmerman need to “fear” Martin – before Martin followed him back to his truck and cold-cocked him?
    .
    .
    .

    Still waiting….
    .
    .
    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  183. Tom Rofff says:

    Sorry, HarvardLaw, but this is gonna sting a bit:

    http://gzlegalcase.com/images/zimmerman_scene_photo.jpg

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  184. bill says:

    @anjin-san: it’s not like trevon was some cute little 6yr old in a bunny costume (like the media portrayed him). he’s huge and has a troubled past, his age doesn’t matter. heck. i slugged a cop when i was a teenager, i was a big kid and the laws favored me because of my age back then. treyvon made the mistake of beating on an armed guy and he can’t tell his side of the story- sad as it is. the only way zimmerman gets time is to appease the mob, and it’ll probably happen as the country is so pc it’s sickening. the logic to making him do time would be the negative effects of the angry mob, facts are facts. bin laden would stand a better chance in court than zimmerman (if he wasn’t killed).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  185. superdestroyer says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Zimmerman does have a strong claim under simple self-defense. Martin was on top of him and was hitting him. Zimmerman definitely had the right to defend himself. Of are you going to argue that blacks have free license to beat anyone they see?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  186. Truth-o-matic says:

    @superdestroyer: Are you going to argue that blacks have free license to beat anyone they see?

    You mean they don’t?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  187. pylon says:

    @Tom Rofff:

    The post about Serino was not in response to your question, BTW. A little more reading comprehension, a little less smugness, please.

    If you really want an answer though – if Zimmerman truly thought Martin was a criminal, why would he not have some fear, even before being “cold-cocked”?

    Yor problem is that you assume that Zimmerman tells the truth, when he’s a proven liar. There’s no evidence, aside from his say-so, about any cold cocking, and his story (a) has changed from time to time, (b) doesn’t match the location of the truck and the location of the body, and (c) is contradicted by other evidence including the girlfriend.

    As I said, this all turns on his credibility, which is already half shot. If a jury finds his testimony lacks credibility and rejects it – his defence is gone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  188. pylon says:

    BTW, Serino’s comment about Zimmerman not exhibiting actions of someone in fear were in respect of Zimmerman’s own initial claim that he was too afraid to get out of his truck.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  189. Truth-o-matic says:

    @pylon:

    That attempt was even weaker than your last one.

    One of his answers about his finances at the bond hearing doesn’t make him a proven liar. He’s already given a more than satisfactory answer to that.

    Serino, who has since demoted from to night patrol, made several conclusions that wont stand up to cross-examination

    GZ’s statnment about Martins “cold-cocking” is fully backed up by the 911 tape, and by his injuries.
    You fabricated (b) – and your opinion of his credibility is unfounded and merely an opinion. As for his girlfriend, her statements have changed, she’s biased, and she made assumptions from cell phone miles away.

    Truth-o- matic
    aka Tom Roff
    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  190. pylon says:

    @Truth-o-matic:

    wow! the 9-11 tape recorded him being cold-cocked?

    Or was it just him saying that to 9-11?

    He also told a co-worker that he was mugged.

    And I didn’t fabricate b. The location of the truck compared to his story meant that he’d have to have shifted the time-space continuum in order for the fight to take place where it did.

    His girlfriend IS biased. But so is he, moreso probably.

    He may not be convicted. it will all turn on his credibility. IMO, he’s got troubles in that dept.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  191. pylon says:

    BTW, why do you seem to hope so much that Zimmerman was attacked?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  192. Tom Roff says:

    @pylon:

    None of the PROVES GZ was the initial aggressor, (which under FL law) is the only real shot the prosecution has, albeit a very long one.

    If the you and the other GZ detesters here had paid any attention in 8th Grade Civics, you’d be aware that in America, defendants are innocent until proven guilty. And they need not prove a thing, or have to prove a thing. Or for that matter even mount a defense.

    The prosecution must engineer a way to actually PROVE Zimmerman was “the initial aggressor”. Not that he “might” have been, or “may” have been, or that it was “likely that he was” the initial aggressor. (BTW, Good luck on that…lol)

    This is a criminal case not a “preponderance of evidence” civil one.

    Real evidence has been quickly displacing the whacked-out assumptions and the nut ball theories and lies spread by NBC, and other media, and the rubbish provided here on this forum by our wannabe Perry Masons, which were either duped by that media, or simply have an agenda to hang Zimmerman.

    It now it appears the odds that Zimbo will be found guilty are quickly approaching nada.

    Have a good week-end.

    .

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  193. pylon says:

    All you’ve shown is that you don’t understand reasonable doubt, nor what a prosecutor must “prove” to get a conviction. If Zimmerman is disbelieved by a jury, he has lost the only evidence which rebuts the presumption that one intends the natural result of his actions.

    And by following a person with a gun, and shooting him, there is a presumption raised.

    BTW, I dont really need 8th grade civics. My JD and clerkship at the Supreme Court will do nicely, thanks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  194. Tom Roff says:

    @pylon:

    Nonsense…. he must PROVE he was the initial aggressor.

    BTW.. would I be incorrect in deducing that it was an affirmative action JD?

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  195. pylon says:

    You’d be wrong (but that’s not new for you, correct?). Plus, there are no affirmative action Supreme Court clerkships.

    There is no “initial aggressor” test for murder, or manslaughter. the prosecutor has to prove the elements of the offense. Then, to run a defence such as SYG, the onus shifts. So, if Zimmerman’s positive SYG defence (or self-defence, or provocation) isn’t accepted, he’s SOL.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  196. Tom Roff says:

    @pylon:

    State can’t even prove the elements on manslaughter. LOL

    In FL, a person can legally kill another person if they are defending themselves from another’s attempt to murder them.

    Either way he goes – he wins easy.

    Tell the truth,,,, you clerked in a County Deed Room some where.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  197. Devout says:

    A security company has filed suit against murder suspect George Zimmerman, his wife and attorney, Mark O’Mara, accusing them of failing to pay $27,000 for bodyguards. Associated Investigative Services filed suit in state circuit court in Orange County.
    It alleges it’s due the money for protecting Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie. O’Mara has said for months that a legal defense fund fed by Internet PayPal donations is running low. Last month, Zimmerman announced plans to ramp-up fund-raising, writing in a blog post that he would now start sending autographed thank you cards to donors. It’s not clear if that effort, along with a revamped and updated webpage, has boosted giving.
    So far, conned donors have contributed an estimated $340,000 to Zimmerman.
    Details about the lawsuit against Zimmerman, his wife and O’Mara can be found at this link:
    http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=8337253
    Lawsuits filed in court must list the last known address of each party, so I have sent a couple folks down to the courthouse in Orange County to track that information down. And once they obtain it, it will be circulated as a matter of public record.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0