Zimmerman

[Uncensored2008]

Defamation of Character

You know this refutes rather than supports your claim?

{Defenses to a lawsuit alleging defamation include:

Truth: Truth is considered to be an "absolute defense" to a defamation action. If the statements made by the defendant are true, a defamation action cannot succeed.

Privilege: Sometimes the defendant will be legally shielded from a defamation action. For example, statements made by witnesses and lawyers in court, by judges from the bench, and by legislators on the floor of the legislature during legislative proceedings, are considered to be "privileged", and will not support a cause of action for defamation no matter how false, reckless or outrageous the statements may be.

Opinion: It is said that a person's mere opinion, as opposed to an allegation of fact, cannot give rise to an action for defamation. It is important to note, though, that a statement which superficially appears to be an opinion may nonetheless contain a sufficient factual element to support a defamation action. The content and context of the statement will typically be considered in determining if the statement is actionable. A statement by an employer to the effect of, "Joe Smith is a pathological liar" is far less likely to be regarded as a mere opinion than a statement by a casual acquaintance. A statement by Joe Smith's psychotherapist to that effect, while possibly also violating duties of confidentiality, appears to be a medical diagnosis and thus, if false, may also support an action for defamation. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion in defamation actions, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

Fair Comment: Where a statement is found to be a "fair comment on a matter of public interest", the statement will not ordinarily support an action for defamation. For example, if the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, the expression of an opinion that you believe the allegations are credible is not likely to support a defamation action against you.

Innocent Dissemination: Where the defendant transmits a message without awareness of its content, the defendant may be able to raise the defense of innocent dissemination. For example, the post office cannot be held liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is unaware of the content of the letters it delivers.

Consent: Although unusual, in some circumstances a defendant may attempt to argue that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statement.
}

Gee, you're dumb, Rati...

 

[paperview]

NO, because even if Trayvon attacked (which there is little evidence for) Zimmerman precipitated that confrontation by following and stalking the kid AFTER police told him to STAND DOWN. Zimmerman thought he was going to be a bad-ass and got his ass handed to him (maybe). Or maybe he just wet himself when the black kid surprised him and fell over on his fat ass.

I don't really care which. He created the situation to start with.

And the end of it, a Child was dead.

Which is why he needs to go to jail for a very long time.

Comrade Stalin, you're such a fucking liar - and stupid.

The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin; they said that wasn't necessary and Zimmerman stopped.

Serious question, why do you lie about this? Is it just racism? I started a thread about why you leftists are such fucking racists. White leftists are the worst offenders, I think you all are looking for revenge against mommy and daddy for over-indulging you..

Wow. Are you ever right about anything?

Seriously. That's a pile of dung there.

"The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

Link to where Z asked "the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

G'head.

I note you're ignoring this.

Figures.

 

[Ravi]

Not in a defamation suit.

Wrong again Rati.

You went to the same law school as Jillian, dinja? (Hank's collage of laws and plumbing and stuff.)

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant printed or broadcast defamatory statements, with the add charge that the plaintiff deliberately engaged in fraud for the purpose of defaming the plaintiff.

All Zimmerman needs to prove is that NBC willfully broadcast defamatory information. NBC is so clearly guilty that it's laughable.

The DEFENSE that NBC can mount is to prove that Zimmerman is what they claimed, in which case it would not be defamation.

So as usual, you are completely wrong.

NBC doesn't have to prove anything. Zimmerman must prove that he isn't a racist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow. Are you ever right about anything?

Seriously. That's a pile of dung there.

"The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

Link to where Z asked "the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

G'head.

Sigh...

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

You voted for Obama, didn't you?

 

[Ravi]

Defamation of Character

You know this refutes rather than supports your claim?

{Defenses to a lawsuit alleging defamation include:

Truth: Truth is considered to be an "absolute defense" to a defamation action. If the statements made by the defendant are true, a defamation action cannot succeed.

Privilege: Sometimes the defendant will be legally shielded from a defamation action. For example, statements made by witnesses and lawyers in court, by judges from the bench, and by legislators on the floor of the legislature during legislative proceedings, are considered to be "privileged", and will not support a cause of action for defamation no matter how false, reckless or outrageous the statements may be.

Opinion: It is said that a person's mere opinion, as opposed to an allegation of fact, cannot give rise to an action for defamation. It is important to note, though, that a statement which superficially appears to be an opinion may nonetheless contain a sufficient factual element to support a defamation action. The content and context of the statement will typically be considered in determining if the statement is actionable. A statement by an employer to the effect of, "Joe Smith is a pathological liar" is far less likely to be regarded as a mere opinion than a statement by a casual acquaintance. A statement by Joe Smith's psychotherapist to that effect, while possibly also violating duties of confidentiality, appears to be a medical diagnosis and thus, if false, may also support an action for defamation. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion in defamation actions, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

Fair Comment: Where a statement is found to be a "fair comment on a matter of public interest", the statement will not ordinarily support an action for defamation. For example, if the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, the expression of an opinion that you believe the allegations are credible is not likely to support a defamation action against you.

Innocent Dissemination: Where the defendant transmits a message without awareness of its content, the defendant may be able to raise the defense of innocent dissemination. For example, the post office cannot be held liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is unaware of the content of the letters it delivers.

Consent: Although unusual, in some circumstances a defendant may attempt to argue that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statement.
}

Gee, you're dumb, Rati...

If NBC wants to mount a defense, they can. But they don't need to and Zimmerman will be required to prove that he isn't a racist.

 

[Ravi]

Wow. Are you ever right about anything?

Seriously. That's a pile of dung there.

"The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

Link to where Z asked "the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

G'head.

Sigh...

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

You voted for Obama, didn't you?

^proving himself wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

NBC doesn't have to prove anything. Zimmerman must prove that he isn't a racist.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Go sit in the corner and play with your feces, Rati.

 

[Uncensored2008]

^proving himself wrong.

Right, it was the police just like PV claimed... Oh wait, no it was 911...

ROFL

You are incredibly stupid, Rati.

 

[paperview]

Wow. Are you ever right about anything?

Seriously. That's a pile of dung there.

"The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

Link to where Z asked "the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

G'head.

Sigh...

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

You voted for Obama, didn't you?

You think that is proof that George ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin ?

What kind of world do you live in where you think what you presented above is what you stated?

 

[paperview]

^proving himself wrong.

Right, it was the police just like PV claimed... Oh wait, no it was 911...

ROFL

You are incredibly stupid, Rati.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I mean this: are like heavily sedated or on some other kind of drugs or something?

 

[Ravi]

Wow. Are you ever right about anything?

Seriously. That's a pile of dung there.

"The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

Link to where Z asked "the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

G'head.

Sigh...

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

You voted for Obama, didn't you?

You think that is proof that George ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin ?

What kind of world do you live in where you think what you presented above is what you stated?

I don't know who is wrong more consistently, Eunuch2008 or Gawdawg. Gawdawg at least isn't a rightwingnutter. Eunuch has no redeeming values.

 

[paperview]

Sigh...

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

You voted for Obama, didn't you?

You think that is proof that George ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin ?

What kind of world do you live in where you think what you presented above is what you stated?

I don't know who is wrong more consistently, Eunuch2008 or Gawdawg. Gawdawg at least isn't a rightwingnutter. Eunuch has no redeeming values.

lol. As I'm learning...

 

[Gadawg73]

Defamation of Character

You know this refutes rather than supports your claim?

{Defenses to a lawsuit alleging defamation include:

Truth: Truth is considered to be an "absolute defense" to a defamation action. If the statements made by the defendant are true, a defamation action cannot succeed.

Privilege: Sometimes the defendant will be legally shielded from a defamation action. For example, statements made by witnesses and lawyers in court, by judges from the bench, and by legislators on the floor of the legislature during legislative proceedings, are considered to be "privileged", and will not support a cause of action for defamation no matter how false, reckless or outrageous the statements may be.

Opinion: It is said that a person's mere opinion, as opposed to an allegation of fact, cannot give rise to an action for defamation. It is important to note, though, that a statement which superficially appears to be an opinion may nonetheless contain a sufficient factual element to support a defamation action. The content and context of the statement will typically be considered in determining if the statement is actionable. A statement by an employer to the effect of, "Joe Smith is a pathological liar" is far less likely to be regarded as a mere opinion than a statement by a casual acquaintance. A statement by Joe Smith's psychotherapist to that effect, while possibly also violating duties of confidentiality, appears to be a medical diagnosis and thus, if false, may also support an action for defamation. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion in defamation actions, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

Fair Comment: Where a statement is found to be a "fair comment on a matter of public interest", the statement will not ordinarily support an action for defamation. For example, if the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, the expression of an opinion that you believe the allegations are credible is not likely to support a defamation action against you.

Innocent Dissemination: Where the defendant transmits a message without awareness of its content, the defendant may be able to raise the defense of innocent dissemination. For example, the post office cannot be held liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is unaware of the content of the letters it delivers.

Consent: Although unusual, in some circumstances a defendant may attempt to argue that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statement.
}

Gee, you're dumb, Rati...

If NBC wants to mount a defense, they can. But they don't need to and Zimmerman will be required to prove that he isn't a racist.

ONLY in a criminal case is the defendant presumed innocent.
If NBC fails to defend this case the plaintiff wins on summary judgment.
NBC has to defend the case. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff but proving he is not a racist is not that burden.
All they have to prove is that what the defendant published, printed or stated is false.
LONG WAY from having to prove someone is not something.

 

[Gadawg73]

The biggest problem NBC has, and Ravi and paperview of course have no clue about any law much less this important fact:
NBC comes into court with unclean hands in this matter. The unclean hands doctrine dates back to common law and is often offered in civil matters. This case is classic for this. NBC has already ADMITTED that their employees fraudulently doctored recordings and other material that they offered to the public as fact. NBC comes into this case as a defendant already admitting their entire production of "Zimmerman is a racist" was a fraud.
NBC's unclean hands WILL be used by Zimmerman to prove his claim AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, to prohibit NBC from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. The Judge has to allow it. NBC has admitted it.
Additionally, when this case was filed plaintiff Zimmerman legally served on defendant NBC a Summons, Complaint, Request for Admissions and Plaintiff's First and Continuing Interrogatories to Defendant NBC.
In the Requests for Admissions there is a question "Did you, defendant NBC, fire employees of your corporation for fraudulently manufacturing materials for public broadcast that stated plaintiff George Zimmerman is a racist"
And NBC has a certain amount of time to answer all requests for admissions and interrogatories.
And defendant NBC will answer "Yes" to that request.
That puts them under the unclean hands doctrine and limits all of the affirmative defenses as they admit to fraud on their claims of Zimmerman.

 

[paperview]

Audio of the hearing today.
Move it up to about 35:00. That's when the fire starts.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HhOahHNm5L4]Zimmerman Hearing Dec 11th 2012.mp4 (Audio Only) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[tjvh]

Yeah, it's a new ball game. Trayvon was unarmed, minding his own business and stalked by an armed vigilante with an aggressive history. Trayvon is still dead. What new ball game?

The game that dictates you don't commit felony assault against people with guns... The game that Trayvon lost.

 

[JoeB131]

Comrade Stalin, you're such a fucking liar - and stupid.

The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin; they said that wasn't necessary and Zimmerman stopped.

Serious question, why do you lie about this? Is it just racism? I started a thread about why you leftists are such fucking racists. White leftists are the worst offenders, I think you all are looking for revenge against mommy and daddy for over-indulging you..

If he stayed in his truck, this would have never happened.

If he stayed on his couch eating Cheetos, this never would have happened.

He went out hunting "them people", and now he's going to prison for the rest of his life.

Deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, it's a new ball game. Trayvon was unarmed, minding his own business and stalked by an armed vigilante with an aggressive history. Trayvon is still dead. What new ball game?

The game that dictates you don't commit felony assault against people with guns... The game that Trayvon lost.

I'm sure Zimmerman will keep that in mind when his thug ass is being sodomized when he spends the rest of his life in prison...

And Republicans will put him there.

 

[jtpr312]

All this speculation and arguing is a waste of time. Twelve people will decide the fate of Zimmerman, and out of those twelve, there will be AT LEAST one white juror who is not some white guilt filled scumbag liberal, that will vote not guilty. I can't even begin to see the prosectuion presenting a case good and stong enough to remove reasonable doubt from all 12 jurors. They will try to argue it was a race based shooting, and I have confidence that at least one juror won't be a race baiting, scumbag democrat. I'd take bets on him not being convicted of killing the thug.

You might have one racist asshole on the jury, but the thing about racists is that most of you are cowards. You get into a room of minorities and decent minded white folks, you pretty much shut up pretty quickly. Now you all hide on the internet, the last refuge of the racist.

Lol, I'd be willing to bet your front teeth that you'd never call me a coward to my face, and here's a fact for you dude, I speak, think and act IRL, the same way I speak, think and act here, and here's another little fact, you don't have to give any reason for voting not guilty in the jury room and furthermore too many "decent minded white folks" have been directlly, or indirectly through close friends of family members, adversely effected by the negro criminal culture to be swayed by the liberal biased bs that shows trayvon as being the innocent victim of some hispanic white supremacist.

 

[JoeB131]

All this speculation and arguing is a waste of time. Twelve people will decide the fate of Zimmerman, and out of those twelve, there will be AT LEAST one white juror who is not some white guilt filled scumbag liberal, that will vote not guilty. I can't even begin to see the prosectuion presenting a case good and stong enough to remove reasonable doubt from all 12 jurors. They will try to argue it was a race based shooting, and I have confidence that at least one juror won't be a race baiting, scumbag democrat. I'd take bets on him not being convicted of killing the thug.

You might have one racist asshole on the jury, but the thing about racists is that most of you are cowards. You get into a room of minorities and decent minded white folks, you pretty much shut up pretty quickly. Now you all hide on the internet, the last refuge of the racist.

Lol, I'd be willing to bet your front teeth that you'd never call me a coward to my face, and here's a fact for you dude, I speak, think and act IRL, the same way I speak, think and act here, and here's another little fact, you don't have to give any reason for voting not guilty in the jury room and furthermore too many "decent minded white folks" have been directlly, or indirectly through close friends of family members, adversely effected by the negro criminal culture to be swayed by the liberal biased bs that shows trayvon as being the innocent victim of some hispanic white supremacist.

Besides the fact that someone as racist as you are will be weeded out in the selection process (Again, REPUBLICANS are going to hang Zimmerman so that Democrats won't be able to) for a jury, what I've found is that most racists shut the fuck up when anyone challenges their bullshit.

For instance, I went to a party where a woman said they cancelled her facebook account after she referred to the President by the "N-word", and she didn't see anything wrong with that. When people pointed out EXACTLY what was wrong with that, she shut up for the rest of the evening.

Sadly, if this is how you act IRL, it's no wonder you don't have any friends. Well, you'll always have Stormfront.