Judge to hear arguments in Zimmerman's defamation suit against NBC

Why don't you just admit that you only side with Trayvon Martin because he's black? Because you know damn well that if the colors were reversed, you'd be claiming George Zimmerman was an innocent man who was only being tried for murder because he was black.

 

if a black man followed in a vehicle and then on foot, then shot and killed a unarmed white boy on his way home from buying skiddles, I think it would be a open and shut case, someone would of went to jail that night....

.

 

Your silence says it all super.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys always leave a certain part out in your version of the story... I wonder why ?

 

Been away a while... good to see you haven't changed a bit.

Oh, wait... maybe you did.

 

Seems he won't be getting rich off of it.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/judge-rules-against-george-zimmerman-in-nbc-lawsuit/26723574

Why he would be assigned a judge already related to the case, I have no idea...

 

Based on which cases?

 

Based on the posting history of the individual.

 

Yes I hope he nails them too just as the Martin defenders get nailed and run when challenged here!

 

Why did you leave out the facts that were proven in court? If that is all that happened the night Martin caused his own death then Zimmerman would have been jailed that night and would be serving a term in prison right now. So why try to paint a false picture of it?

 

Will be interesting to see on appeal, was he actually a public figure at the time they doctored tape and did NBC prove beyond all doubt that they did not act with malice or should that be left to a jury to decide based on a full trial.

"In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

knowing that it is false; or

acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.
It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn't like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication."
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence


If NBC edited a Tom Cruise interview to have him saying "I like sex with young boys" presenting it as the actual interview would they have a lawsuit on their hands? I think so. The case seem very similar to me because they purposely and knowingly misrepresented the tape and demonstrated doubts about it when the disciplined the employees and apologized for it as not being accurate.

 

the Jury disagreed, they felt he was guilty, the prosecution just did not prove his case beyond all doubt in their eyes is what I got from the responses after the verdict

that is much different then saying he was proved innocent... that would be like saying OJ was proved innocent.. no, he just wasn't proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt...

.

 

Not guilty, self-defense.

DUH, they had no evidence to disprove his claim, the weight of the evidence PROVED his claim.

His defense proved the self-defense but feel free to prove it was not based on the evidence and not your baseless assertions or suppositions.

But in the meantime if you are going to state what happened or may have happened had the races been different then don't leave out the salient facts as you did in this statement

Include the part about running off to the safety of the apartment in which he was staying, then walking the length of two buildings to get back to the T junction to confront the other person then his cold cocking someone then mounting them pinning them on the ground and beating that persons head against a concrete sidewalk.

Then we can have an honest discussion of the matter.

 

you right... it was his word against the teen he killed, how can you disprove anything when the only other witness that knows was killed

 

You're wrong it was his statement of events which the police said they had nothing to contradict and was consistent with the evidence and the forensic evidence and the witness evidence as presented in court.

So why do you have to misrepresent it to attempt to make a point?

- - - Updated - - -

Margot OH Margot..................where for art thou oh Margot???

 

It would appear it is over, and Mr. Zimmerman lost.

His case was dismissed, and an appeals court upheld that.

He lost.


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/di...isses-george-zimmerman-nbc-defamation-lawsuit


George Zimmerman’s attempt to sue NBC News over its coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012 has once again been scuttled.

On Tuesday, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court’s ruling to dismiss the defamation lawsuit Zimmerman filed against NBC Universal. Zimmerman had claimed the media company maliciously edited phone calls he placed to 911 shortly after he shot and killed Martin in 2012.

The appellate judges did not issue a written explanation as to why they believed the trial court was correct in dismissing Zimmerman’s lawsuit.

The day before the appeals court ruling, Zimmerman sent out a Tweet that read, "NBC suit is alive & well". Zimmerman promised 20% of the proceeds from the lawsuit would be used to pay back supporters who donated to his legal defense fund.

In June 2014, Seminole County Circuit Court Judge Debra S. Nelson threw out the defamation case.

"There are no genuine issues of material fact upon which a reasonable jury could find that the Defendants acted with actual malice," Nelson ruled. She said the malice standard was appropriate because Zimmerman is a public figure.

During a prior court hearing, Zimmerman's attorney said NBC manipulated the call to make it appear as if Zimmerman was chasing Martin because of the color of Martin's skin.

Zimmerman: "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."

In the reports that aired on NBC, the question from the dispatcher was removed.

Zimmerman's attorney called the 911 reports "reckless," adding that NBC fired at least two employees after the story came to light.

The edited calls aired four times in March 2012, prompting the lawsuit by Zimmerman.

Zimmerman also accused NBC of defaming him in a separate broadcast, claiming he used a racial slur during his 911 call.

In 2013, a jury acquitted the former neighborhood watch leader of murdering Marti

 

ONE juror made that claim, the only minority and then admitted after a more close reading of the law ALL voted to acquit.

And they certainly did NOT hear the story you fallacious claim to be the facts

You did what is called a "lie by omission" by leaving out the salient facts as proven in court.

 

I watched it, and NBC lost the case tried in front of me.

 

Interesting.

10char.