The George Zimmerman Case!
Wait what

Groveport, OH

#4791 Jul 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you actually read the suit?
It goes quite a bit further than that.
And it sounds like Zim wrote it himself.
Hmmmm...yet, NBC chose to fire two of the reporters named in the suit.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#4792 Jul 6, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm...yet, NBC chose to fire two of the reporters named in the suit.
You'll note that Reader doesn't comment on the act of defamation.
She deflects by claiming that the lawsuit, in her expert opinion, reads as if Zimmerman wrote it himself.

All I can say is better Zimmerman than...Dee Dee, who gets the automatic Reader pass.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#4793 Jul 6, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm...yet, NBC chose to fire two of the reporters named in the suit.
They fired them before the suit.
Wait what

Groveport, OH

#4794 Jul 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
They fired them before the suit.
How does that change culpability, since they were fired for editing the tape incorrectly?
Wait what

Groveport, OH

#4795 Jul 6, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll note that Reader doesn't comment on the act of defamation.
She deflects by claiming that the lawsuit, in her expert opinion, reads as if Zimmerman wrote it himself.
All I can say is better Zimmerman than...Dee Dee, who gets the automatic Reader pass.
She's commented. Apparently if do enough housecleaning, you'll be immune from the dust.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#4796 Jul 6, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll note that Reader doesn't comment on the act of defamation.
She deflects by claiming that the lawsuit, in her expert opinion, reads as if Zimmerman wrote it himself.
All I can say is better Zimmerman than...Dee Dee, who gets the automatic Reader pass.
Read the suit and all it claims.

Then come back and defend it.
Wait what

Groveport, OH

#4797 Jul 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the suit and all it claims.
Then come back and defend it.
NBC FIRED employees who knowingly and incorrectly edited the Zimmerman 911 call and put them at risk.

But what happened to the body (has that question been asked in court yet?)?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#4798 Jul 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the suit and all it claims.
Then come back and defend it.
...says the woman who defended Dee Dee.
Wait what

Groveport, OH

#4799 Jul 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the suit and all it claims.
Then come back and defend it.
Reader, try reading what lawyers have said about the lawsuit. If you want to argue, I suggest starting with them.
Wait what

Groveport, OH

#4800 Jul 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the suit and all it claims.
Then come back and defend it.
How does firing those named in a lawsuit prior to the lawsuit being filed reduce culpability? Stop hiding behind "have you read the lawsuit".
Wait what

Groveport, OH

#4801 Jul 6, 2013
Googling, perhaps?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#4802 Jul 6, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that change culpability, since they were fired for editing the tape incorrectly?
Read the suit. It goes far beyond the editing of the tape

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#4803 Jul 6, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
NBC FIRED employees who knowingly and incorrectly edited the Zimmerman 911 call and put them at risk.
But what happened to the body (has that question been asked in court yet?)?
You mean it was shot at intermediate range with a hollow point bullet??

Or did you mean when Zimmerman claims he spread his arms out (and then apparently got up to make a phone call)?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#4804 Jul 6, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Reader, try reading what lawyers have said about the lawsuit. If you want to argue, I suggest starting with them.
You mean your guy at Legal Insurrection?

“The One! The Only! RUKiddingme”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey, Baby!

#4805 Jul 6, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>You mean "people" like Rachel Jeantel, a racist poster child?
No, I mean "people" like you, who feel he should get a medal of some sort for killing an unarmed young man.
Wait what

Groveport, OH

#4806 Jul 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean it was shot at intermediate range with a hollow point bullet??
Or did you mean when Zimmerman claims he spread his arms out (and then apparently got up to make a phone call)?
Stop acting like a petulant child. I'm sorry the prosecution didn't do a better job, but their lacking performance has been noted by both liberal as well as conservative lawyers.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#4807 Jul 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean your guy at Legal Insurrection?
Law professors, too...one whose perspectives are similar to yours.
But his perspective on this case has now changed significantly.
[Bonus: He references your very favorite case: Triangle Shirtwaist.]

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2013...

After the killing of Trayvon Martin, I was disturbed that George Zimmerman was not arrested, and was glad that charges were brought and would be resolved in court. I was wrong; I did not understand how weak the evidence was. As the trial has progressed, no one, not one witness, testified to facts strongly indicating a felonious killing. Instead, the prosecution evidence has been about Zimmerman's personality, character, and education, ambiguous statements of eye- and ear-witnesses, inconclusive forensic evidence, and a focus on trivial differences between various voluntary statements that Zimmerman made. The state has not quite rested yet, and maybe they've saved the good evidence for last. But in a jurisdiction where self defense must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt, so far I have not seen enough evidence to warrant a conviction for anything.

One category of prosecution evidence is insinuations that Zimmerman was profiling, to suggest that Zimmerman might have been the aggressor.

But if all of us have implicit bias, in and of itself, the fact that Zimmerman noticed the race of another person is not particularly probative. And the testimony showed that on the night he was killed, Trayvon Martin used racial terms to describe Zimmerman, the more polite of which was "creepy ass cracker." Prosecutors should not be allowed to use one-way arguments which, when applicable to a defendant, are evidence of guilt, but if applicable to someone on the prosecution side, suddenly become irrelevant. If thin evidence of racial atttitudes suggests that the person with those attitudes was an aggressor, then this category of evidence is a wash at best because it suggests that both were aggressors.

The prosecution has also focused on the discrepancies among the several voluntary statements that Zimmerman made to the police. But discrepancies are normal when someone recounts events which occurred under stress.(Recall the famous cross-examination by Max Steuer in the Triangle Shirtwaist prosecution where a prosecution witness used virtually the same language to tell the story again and again, suggesting it had been memorized and the jury acquitted.) Does anyone doubt that the prosecutors in this case--every experienced trial prosecutor--has sent many people to prison by assuring the jury that prosecution witnesses were reliable in spite of testimonial inconsistencies far more profound than these?

Do not misunderstand my point. It may be that in fact George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in cold blood with no justification. But unfortunately, trials cannot magically discover actual historical truth when there is no solid evidence or reliable witnesses. No person of any race deserves to be convicted of a serious crime solely because a terrible thing happened, and there's something about the defendant that the jury does not like. People of color are disproportionately caught up in the system. If defendants can be convicted based on effective impeachment and insinuations about motive in the absence of meaningful evidence that they actually committed crime, that would be terrible for people of color. Therefore, in my view, if Zimmerman is acquitted, it will not indicate, like the Rodney King travesty, that people of color are reated unjustly. Instead, it will be a sign that even in high pressure cases involving terrible crimes, juries can acquit when there is a reasonable doubt.
Pale Rider

Somerset, KY

#4809 Jul 6, 2013
mr bean wrote:
Both people were wrong. Zim should have let it go and Martin should have just stopped and answered the simple questions. But what no one is talking about is why did Martin go live with his dad? because he was a teen always in trouble and his Mother couldn't handle him.
What in your opinion, is justification to kill someone?

A broken nose?

A few tiny scrapes to the back of the head?

A man that wasn't hurt bad enough, he turned down going to a hospital, or even a wound clinic.

Then go before a TV camera and make up some story, and put some bandaides on the back of your head, to make it look like you had suffered a beating from a kid? Are you kidding me. I wonder why the killer wasn't in a wheel chair, or at least on crutches for emphasis during his fake filming. While he was giving his story, the kid was having the top of his head sawed off as he lay dead on an autopsy table. The sad part, it was all uncalled for.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#4810 Jul 6, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop acting like a petulant child. I'm sorry the prosecution didn't do a better job, but their lacking performance has been noted by both liberal as well as conservative lawyers.
I understood you to be suggesting that something critical was not bekng asked about the body.

What exactly did you have in mind?

And let me remind you agan, the trial is far from over.
Pale Rider

Somerset, KY

#4811 Jul 6, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop acting like a petulant child. I'm sorry the prosecution didn't do a better job, but their lacking performance has been noted by both liberal as well as conservative lawyers.
The lawyers for the prosecution have been common at best. But it should not cover up the fact, a kid was shot, over a minor fight. Even if Zimmerman lost a handful of teeth, he could have ran. He set the stage for a confrontation, when he called the Police Dispatcher. The Police were on the way.

What kind of lies would people on here tell, if they had killed a kid, that had done nothing that night. If he had stolen a bag of candy at the store, and was running away, is not cause to kill someone. Now if he had came into the store, with a gun, or had threatened Zimmerman with a shotgun, I think that would have been totally different. What would a bunch of pussy-foot women, know about a fight? That will most likely let Zimmerman ride home in a Police car.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thieves ram U-Haul into Louis Vuitton store in ... 42 min fat tired old and... 4
What Amerika Elected was a Nit Wit 6 hr They cannot kill ... 183
Who Sent Their Child To Intern With Harvey Wein... 7 hr They cannot kill ... 7
for desendents of slaves 9 hr Escondido 10
300 dead in Somalia blast 9 hr Where the Somali ... 25
Harvey Weinstein 11 hr Duke for Mayor 5
Will Harvey Weinstein Go Down Alone? 11 hr Duke for Mayor 3

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages