Zimmerman sues NBC

USFREEDOM911 said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Interesting that a corpse was essentially put on trial for causing his own death at the hands of a wanna-be cop acting on a "suspicion". Oh well, Freedumb is happy, so that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

Gee; I don't remember Trayvon being on trial and the chronology of the posts will show that your assertion is a falsehood, bunky. :)
Click to expand...

You need to stop and think beyond just having a gain saying to whatever I state, my intellectually impotent Freedumb. The defense continually pushed the idea/image that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was well within his rights under Florida law to act as he did....although they came up short to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify.

You don't have the brains to mock me, Freedumb...but that's all you've got rather than try to honestly and rationally discuss the matter. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You need to stop and think beyond just having a gain saying to whatever I state, my intellectually impotent Freedumb. The defense continually pushed the idea/image that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was well within his rights under Florida law to act as he did....although they came up short to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify.

You don't have the brains to mock me, Freedumb...but that's all you've got rather than try to honestly and rationally discuss the matter. Carry on.
Click to expand...

They presented E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E and Trayvon wasn't on trial.
Zimmerman was and he was found N-O-T--G-U-I-T-Y.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
They presented E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E and Trayvon wasn't on trial.
Zimmerman was and he was found N-O-T--G-U-I-T-Y.
Click to expand...

The "evidence" was at best questionable...something the prosecution seemed unable/unwilling for some reason to challenge effectively:

10 Reasons Lawyers Say Florida's Law Enforcement Threw Away George Zimmerman's Case

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...w-enforcement-threw-ryan-zimmermans-case-away

Hell, even the jurist were confused at one point by the judges instructions on "stand your ground" as it pertained to the case.



Like I said, no one has yet to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify. But you're happy that the minorities and liberals didn't "win", so all is well and we don't have to think about it anymore. :palm:

I doubt if Georgie's suit will stand....and I'm waiting to see if a civil suit is pending down the line.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You need to stop and think beyond just having a gain saying to whatever I state, my intellectually impotent Freedumb. The defense continually pushed the idea/image that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was well within his rights under Florida law to act as he did....although they came up short to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify.

You don't have the brains to mock me, Freedumb...but that's all you've got rather than try to honestly and rationally discuss the matter. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Unless you know something different the SYG defence wasn't invoked, it was self defence. Nobody actually knows what really happened hence the jury had no choice but to return a not guilty verdict. Innocent until proved guilty, isn't that how it should be? Cna you honestly say that you are being dispassionate or did you make your mind up from the start?
 
Taichiliberal said:
The "evidence" was at best questionable...something the prosecution seemed unable/unwilling for some reason to challenge effectively:

10 Reasons Lawyers Say Florida's Law Enforcement Threw Away George Zimmerman's Case

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...w-enforcement-threw-ryan-zimmermans-case-away

Hell, even the jurist were confused at one point by the judges instructions on "stand your ground" as it pertained to the case.



Like I said, no one has yet to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify. But you're happy that the minorities and liberals didn't "win", so all is well and we don't have to think about it anymore. :palm:

I doubt if Georgie's suit will stand....and I'm waiting to see if a civil suit is pending down the line.
Click to expand...

I agree what there should be a civil suit.
Zimmerman should sue the Martins, for their son's thuggish and assaultive behavior.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The "evidence" was at best questionable...something the prosecution seemed unable/unwilling for some reason to challenge effectively:

10 Reasons Lawyers Say Florida's Law Enforcement Threw Away George Zimmerman's Case

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...w-enforcement-threw-ryan-zimmermans-case-away

Hell, even the jurist were confused at one point by the judges instructions on "stand your ground" as it pertained to the case.



Like I said, no one has yet to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify. But you're happy that the minorities and liberals didn't "win", so all is well and we don't have to think about it anymore. :palm:

I doubt if Georgie's suit will stand....and I'm waiting to see if a civil suit is pending down the line.
Click to expand...

I concede I will not click on Alternet, then again I won't click on Blaze sites either.

If case will stand, won't be a problem finding on clickable sites.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You need to stop and think beyond just having a gain saying to whatever I state, my intellectually impotent Freedumb. The defense continually pushed the idea/image that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was well within his rights under Florida law to act as he did....although they came up short to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify.

You don't have the brains to mock me, Freedumb...but that's all you've got rather than try to honestly and rationally discuss the matter. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Unless you know something different the SYG defence wasn't invoked, it was self defence. Nobody actually knows what really happened hence the jury had no choice but to return a not guilty verdict. Innocent until proved guilty, isn't that how it should be? Cna you honestly say that you are being dispassionate or did you make your mind up from the start?
Click to expand...

This lady explains it better:

Florida's self-defense law prohibits "initial aggressors" from using force if their own conduct has provoked that force. So if a defendant "initially provokes the use of force" against himself, he cannot claim to have acted in self-defense, unless he withdraws or retreats.

The prosecution asked the judge to instruct the jury that it could consider who was the first aggressor in the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin. If the judge had agreed to give that instruction, the jury might have concluded that, by following Martin, Zimmerman provoked a physical response from Martin. The defense objected to the instruction, and the judge decided not to give the first aggressor instruction.

The jury was instructed to consider only whether Zimmerman reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself - when he later tussled with Martin on the ground. The jury was also told Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, that he could stand his ground, and meet force with force- including deadly force - if he was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place he had a right to be. Finally, the judge instructed the jury that if it had a reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty.

The instructions prevented the jury from considering whether Zimmerman was the first aggressor when he got out of his truck and began following Martin. When Zimmerman told the 911 operator, "Shit, he's running," the operator asked, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman said that he was. "OK, we don't need you to do that," the operator told Zimmerman. But Zimmerman followed Martin nevertheless. Rachel Jeantel testified that Martin told her on the cellphone he was being followed by a "creepy ass cracker."

The jury was only given partial instructions on self-defense - those parts that helped Zimmerman. They were prevented from considering whether Zimmerman might have been the first aggressor, which would have negated his claim of self-defense.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/zimmerman-jury-mistakes_b_3618132.html


Given the jury confusion and direction by the judge, they indeed "had no choice"....and there lies the rub. I mean seriously, the evidence shows Zimmerman action on a personal suspicion, tailing his "suspect", reporting to the police that Martin spotted him, came up to the window to look and then ran away, and Zimmerman pursues him even after being told by the cops that he did not need to do that. So why shouldn't Martin, AN INNOCENT MAN, have had the right to "stand his ground"? Given Zimmerman's BS story that Martin leaped at him from behind some bushes that upon inspection could NOT have hidden him, NO blood or DNA on Martin's hands despite Zimmerman claiming he bashed his head against the ground.

Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty, but as I've showed the prosecution was lack luster in trying to do just that.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
The "evidence" was at best questionable...something the prosecution seemed unable/unwilling for some reason to challenge effectively:

10 Reasons Lawyers Say Florida's Law Enforcement Threw Away George Zimmerman's Case

http://www.alternet.org/civil-libert...mans-case-away

Hell, even the jurist were confused at one point by the judges instructions on "stand your ground" as it pertained to the case.



Like I said, no one has yet to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify. But you're happy that the minorities and liberals didn't "win", so all is well and we don't have to think about it anymore.

I doubt if Georgie's suit will stand....and I'm waiting to see if a civil suit is pending down the line.
Click to expand...

I agree what there should be a civil suit.
Zimmerman should sue the Martins, for their son's thuggish and assaultive behavior.
Click to expand...

And pray tell us where was the EXACT PROOF of this "thuggish and assaultive (?) behavior" on Martin's part beyond Zimmerman's questionable version? Remember, all Martin was guilty of was Zimmerman's suspicions. Zimmerman did his job when he contacted the police, the phone records have him continuing pursuit when it was no longer necessary and being told so. His claim that Martin leaped out at him from behind some bushes was PHYSICALLY PROVEN FALSE via video examination of the scene.

The lawyers in the alternet link point out far more faults with the prosecution's handling of the case. But the FACT remains that a creep pursued an innocent man at night in the rain, got out of his car to continue said pursuit AFTER stating that Martin "ran away", and a confrontation occurred that would NOT have happened had Zimmerman kept his fat ass in that car.

If the civil case happens, the documented chain of events clearly shows Zimmerman instigating a fatal situation for an INNOCENT man. Zimmerman was the armed man unnecessarily pursing an INNOCENT man based on solely on his suspicion.
 
Annie said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
The "evidence" was at best questionable...something the prosecution seemed unable/unwilling for some reason to challenge effectively:

10 Reasons Lawyers Say Florida's Law Enforcement Threw Away George Zimmerman's Case

http://www.alternet.org/civil-libert...mans-case-away

Hell, even the jurist were confused at one point by the judges instructions on "stand your ground" as it pertained to the case.



Like I said, no one has yet to explain just why an INNOCENT guy being followed by some creep in a car didn't have the right to confront him and "stand his ground". But Martin is dead, and could not testify. But you're happy that the minorities and liberals didn't "win", so all is well and we don't have to think about it anymore.

I doubt if Georgie's suit will stand....and I'm waiting to see if a civil suit is pending down the line.
Click to expand...

I concede I will not click on Alternet, then again I won't click on Blaze sites either.

If case will stand, won't be a problem finding on clickable sites.
Click to expand...

So your willfully ignorant and proud of it. Not surprising, that being the cornerstone for opinions passing as fact for the Limbaugh/Hannity/Drudge audience. So I won't waste anymore time responding to you. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And pray tell us where was the EXACT PROOF of this "thuggish and assaultive (?) behavior" on Martin's part beyond Zimmerman's questionable version? Remember, all Martin was guilty of was Zimmerman's suspicions. Zimmerman did his job when he contacted the police, the phone records have him continuing pursuit when it was no longer necessary and being told so. His claim that Martin leaped out at him from behind some bushes was PHYSICALLY PROVEN FALSE via video examination of the scene.

The lawyers in the alternet link point out far more faults with the prosecution's handling of the case. But the FACT remains that a creep pursued an innocent man at night in the rain, got out of his car to continue said pursuit AFTER stating that Martin "ran away", and a confrontation occurred that would NOT have happened had Zimmerman kept his fat ass in that car.

If the civil case happens, the documented chain of events clearly shows Zimmerman instigating a fatal situation for an INNOCENT man. Zimmerman was the armed man unnecessarily pursing an INNOCENT man based on solely on his suspicion.
Click to expand...

Well they did find that due to Martin's thuggish and assaultive behavior, that Zimmerman was justified in defending himself.

There was no proof of him "continuing" anything, except to continue giving the dispatcher information.

The rest of your whining has been debunked many times, on various threads.

Zimmerman is not guilty.
Deal with it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And pray tell us where was the EXACT PROOF of this "thuggish and assaultive (?) behavior" on Martin's part beyond Zimmerman's questionable version? Remember, all Martin was guilty of was Zimmerman's suspicions. Zimmerman did his job when he contacted the police, the phone records have him continuing pursuit when it was no longer necessary and being told so. His claim that Martin leaped out at him from behind some bushes was PHYSICALLY PROVEN FALSE via video examination of the scene.

The lawyers in the alternet link point out far more faults with the prosecution's handling of the case. But the FACT remains that a creep pursued an innocent man at night in the rain, got out of his car to continue said pursuit AFTER stating that Martin "ran away", and a confrontation occurred that would NOT have happened had Zimmerman kept his fat ass in that car.

If the civil case happens, the documented chain of events clearly shows Zimmerman instigating a fatal situation for an INNOCENT man. Zimmerman was the armed man unnecessarily pursing an INNOCENT man based on solely on his suspicion.
Click to expand...


Well they did find that due to Martin's thuggish and assaultive behavior, that Zimmerman was justified in defending himself.

Again, what "thuggish" behavior are you babbling on about? Walking home in the rain at night talking on a cell phone? Because beyond Zimmerman's suspicion voiced to the police dispatch, no other "thuggish" behavior was displayed. And again, we have only Zimmerman's version of being "assaulted", but with no DNA on Martin's hands and no viable "bushes" to hide and leap from, Zimmerman's tale is questionable at best....something the prosecutor strangely did not do. So beyond your biased "opinion", where is the proof of your claim? I'll wait.

There was no proof of him "continuing" anything, except to continue giving the dispatcher information.

Wrong as usual, my intellectually impotent USFreedom911....Zimmerman states during his conversation with the dispatcher that Martin came up to the car and looked him, then ran away. Zimmerman shortly thereafter states he lost sight of Martin, leading to the famous question "are you still following him" by the dispatch and subsequent "we don't need you to do that". But Zimmerman did NOT get back into his car, now did he?

The rest of your whining has been debunked many times, on various threads.

Translation: USFREEDOM911 DID NOT READ ANY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE THREAD, BECAUSE HE CANNOT REFUTE OR DISPROVE ONE OBSERVATION BY THE LAWYERS PRESENTED. So in typical neocon/teabagger intellectual cowardice, he blows smoke.

Zimmerman is not guilty.
Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I am "dealing with it"....pity you are not, as I've shown here. Carry on.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
How is whining about it, "dealing with it".
You must buy your tissues, by the case.
Click to expand...

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?53677-Zimmerman-sues-NBC&p=1295191#post1295191

Whenever USFreedom911 is faced with FACTS that disprove his contentions, or is asked to produce FACTS to support his opinion on a matter, he just blows smoke like he is doing here.

I leave him to have the last word (made up of last false accusation, repeated lies and distortions/exaggeration).
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
"NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so set about to create the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain," the lawsuit says.
Click to expand...

This is a slam dunk for him.

He'll win this then take all the money and go into a concealed life somewhere.

Mr. Zimmerman is marked for death by his haters so he'll probably change his identity and live as close to a normal life as possible as a wealthy man after lawyer fees.
 
philly rabbit said:
This is a slam dunk for him.

He'll win this then take all the money and go into a concealed life somewhere.

Mr. Zimmerman is marked for death by his haters so he'll probably change his identity and live as close to a normal life as possible as a wealthy man after lawyer fees.
Click to expand...

After lawyers fees and taxes, there will be nothing left, and I doubt he wins.
 
philly rabbit said:
This is a slam dunk for him.

He'll win this then take all the money and go into a concealed life somewhere.

Mr. Zimmerman is marked for death by his haters so he'll probably change his identity and live as close to a normal life as possible as a wealthy man after lawyer fees.
Click to expand...


Now for an unbiased take, from Prof. Clay Calvert of the University of Florida:

“Damages would be tough for Zimmerman to prove given all of the bad publicity that has surrounded him. He would only get what courts call special damages if he can prove that this particular broadcast on NBC caused him to lose a job or sustain some other direct monetary loss. On the other hand, compensatory damages for reputation harm — what it means when his friends don’t hang out with him, for example, or the public generally shuns and avoids him or ridicules him — are possible, but the jury would have to sort that only if Zimmerman wins his case.” (Disclosure: Calvert issued that opinion earlier this fall, when rumors of a suit surfaced.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-florida-shooting-lawsuit-idUSBRE96F1EL20130716
 
Rana said:
After lawyers fees and taxes, there will be nothing left, and I doubt he wins.
Click to expand...

I bet he wins in court or receives a settlement outside of court. They deliberately edited the tape to make it sound like he was a racist. That impression stuck with him throughout the ordeal and now because the issue of race was hammered home by the media, his life is in danger from here on out. Seven figures would be my guess.
 
Taichiliberal said:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?53677-Zimmerman-sues-NBC&p=1295191#post1295191

Whenever USFreedom911 is faced with FACTS that disprove his contentions, or is asked to produce FACTS to support his opinion on a matter, he just blows smoke like he is doing here.

I leave him to have the last word (made up of last false accusation, repeated lies and distortions/exaggeration).
Click to expand...

I can't face the facts, when you've posted none.

I leave you, so you can return to your village. The need they're village idiot back. :)
 
Rana said:
After lawyers fees and taxes, there will be nothing left, and I doubt he wins.
Click to expand...


They have all the evidence they need on the doctored tape.

Even if I were Zimmerman's lawyer, I'd still win this suit.

He'll have plenty left after lawyer's fees. This is an open and shut no brainer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top