Color photos of a bloodied Zimmerman released

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I honestly feel like the prosecutors over charged Zimmerman, if they'd gone for Manslaughter instead of 2nd Degree Murder, they probably could have made a case that would stick. Zimmerman's got a pretty solid chance of walking whether he was in the right or in the wrong, and if y'all thought the fuss after Casey Anthony walked was bad...

**Ahtman**

AustonT wrote:
Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof.

He still has the burden of offering up some evidence; nowhere did I state that the weight of the burden was equal for both sides. He can't just claim self defense and enter no evidence whatsoever to back it up. As you even state here, he has to enter something to back it up, even if it is 'flimsy'.

**whembly**

Zimmerman's lawyer is suing NBC:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2012/12/06/george-zimmerman-sues-nbc-over-trayvon-martin-reports/

Lawyers for George Zimmerman filed suit today against NBC Universal Media over a well-publicized editing error that portrayed their client in racist terms in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin on a drizzly evening in February.

“NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so to set about the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain,” states the civil complaint in its opening salvo against NBC.
(Also at The Washington Post: Can Zimmerman prevail against NBC?)
NBC’s editing of the 911 audiotape in the Martin case became a public fixation after the media-monitoring Web site NewsBusters.org noted editing oddities on a “Today” show broadcast March 27. Here’s how NBC News portrayed the audiotape:

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

The full tape went like this:

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 black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

Zimmerman thus didn’t volunteer a racial profile of Martin; he was asked to provide it, a point that the lawsuit makes in colorful fashion: “NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman’s own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create illusions of statements that Zimmerman never actually made.”

The suit against NBC alleges four other instances in which NBC-produced shows aired false and defamatory versions of the same events. Zimmerman faces a second-degree murder charge in the case.

The botched edits, charges the suit, were far from innocent mistakes: “Defendants pounced on the Zimmerman/Martin matter because they knew this tragedy could be, with proper sensationalizing and manipulation, a racial powderkeg that would result in months, if not years, of topics for their failing news programs, particularly the plummeting ratings for their ailing “Today Show” as well as for the individual defendants to “make their mark” for reporting a [manipulated] story such as this.” Individual defendants are Lilia Luciano and Jeff Burnside, NBC employees involved in early cases of Zimmerman mis-editing.

Following a public uproar over the tape-doctoring, NBC News issued a statement on the matter saying this: “During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.”

Such contrition didn’t impress the Zimmerman camp. “Only after the defendants’ malicious acts were uncovered and exposed by other media outlets … did defendant NBC ‘apologize’ and terminate some of those in its employ responsible for the yellow journalism identified in this Complaint.” Zimmerman himself never received an apology from the defendants, according to the suit.

The suit doesn’t specify a dollar amount of damages that Zimmerman is seeking. “That’s showmanship,” says James Beasley, the Philadelphia-based lawyer representing Zimmerman in the suit.
Beasley declined to comment on whether he’d already had any discussions with NBC. “I don’t want to talk about that. I can’t talk about that. But let’s just say I don’t think it’s going to get settled.”

On that question, at least, Beasley and NBC appear to agree. When asked about the complaint, NBC Universal issued this statement: “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.”

I thought you couldn't sue anybody if you're a defendent on the current case?

**AustonT**

If that were true how would all those people on judge Judy counter sue?
This has kind of been a long time coming for NBC. They are probably going to pay GZ's legal bills.

**whembly**

AustonT wrote:
If that were true how would all those people on judge Judy counter sue?

LOL... okay... didn't know that as I don't watch Judge Judy.

This has kind of been a long time coming for NBC. They are probably going to pay GZ's legal bills.

Eh... isn't it difficult to sue for libel/slander? Isn't that what this is?

**AustonT**

Defamation is the suit I believe.

**whembly**

AustonT wrote:
Defamation is the suit I believe.

I guess that's not the same thing eh? (goes to work on my google-fu)

**Seaward**

Good. Drek like this is getting ridiculous. Present the goddamn story, quit crafting a narrative using bits and pieces of it that grab the most attention, strung together in the most salacious manner possible.

Even William Randolph Hearst would be advising cable news to dial it down a bit.

**Jihadin**

Remember David Jewel...he made serious bank

**AustonT**

Findlaw seems to think he has a pretty strong case. As long as he can demonstrate damage. And methinks his current criminal case, called for specifically by NBC on more than one occasion, will provide ample evidence. Plus you know the death threats from the NBP and others.

**Alfndrate**

I'm not sure when evidence started surfacing as opposed to when Zimmerman was charged, but what if the prosecutor sees this as a whole giant thing blown way out of proportion due to the media making a huge deal out of this, and charged him with Murder 2, knowing that it probably wouldn't stick.

*tin foil hat on*

The government man...

**Jihadin**

Don't forget Obama mentioning the case to

**d-usa**

We all talked about the case as well, maybe Yakface will get a letter...

**AustonT**

Something something 1996 law something something.
He's immune.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well that change is a bit, but fromm what i understand it was late at night, at an hour when no one should be walking around.

Indeed, his death wasn't tragic at all when you look at it that way. All rather expected, really.

Walking in the rain?
He confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman's injuries support his argument.
Its simple math. Try to attack a guy who's carrying and life may not turn out well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
Which part was stupid. Buying snacks? Walking? Or was it being black?

How about attempting to kill someone with his bare hands? Thats usually pretty stupid.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?

What are the approved hours for walking the street? I work third shift, should I expect to be shot while walking to or from my car?

Also, I wear a hoodie as well, so I guess my eventual shooting would prove entirely warranted.

If you think someone is following you do you attempt to ambush and kill them?

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:

If you think someone is following you do you attempt to ambush and kill them?

So you advocate not confronting people that might be following you, but you are okay with shooting people that are leaving if they are on your property?

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

If you think someone is following you do you attempt to ambush and kill them?

So you advocate not confronting people that might be following you, but you are okay with shooting people that are leaving if they are on your property?

If someone is following you I advocate getting to a safe place and calling authorities. That also happens to be EXACTLY what the police recommend you do. Anything else is stupid and could get you killed. Oh look...

I didn't advocate any such thing. It helps to0 actually read the posts and not paraphrase what you think and pass it off as someone else's statement. I noted a possible scenario about how a robber who flees but it still in the yard might not make it.

**KalashnikovMarine**

AustonT wrote:
Findlaw seems to think he has a pretty strong case. As long as he can demonstrate damage. And methinks his current criminal case, called for specifically by NBC on more than one occasion, will provide ample evidence. Plus you know the death threats from the NBP and others.

Yep I think this one's an easy win for George. Now if only we could, as a society, do something about the plague on humanity that is Nancy Grace.

**AustonT**

Nancy Grace isnt all bad. Much like most other people she has good and bad points. I'm sure she doesn't strangle puppies. she eats them alive

**KalashnikovMarine**

AustonT wrote:
Nancy Grace isnt all bad. Much like most other people she has good and bad points. I'm sure she doesn't strangle puppies. she eats them alive

The whimpering adds to the flavor

**djones520**

Ahtman wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof.

He still has the burden of offering up some evidence; nowhere did I state that the weight of the burden was equal for both sides. He can't just claim self defense and enter no evidence whatsoever to back it up. As you even state here, he has to enter something to back it up, even if it is 'flimsy'.

I'd say this photo along with all the other proof of significant injury that he incurred is all the evidence that he needs.

If this where second degree murder he wouldn't have waited for Martin to smash his head into concrete several times before pulling the gun on him.

**Ouze**

AustonT wrote:
If that were true how would all those people on judge Judy counter sue?
This has kind of been a long time coming for NBC. They are probably going to pay GZ's legal bills.

Judge Judy is actually binding arbitration dressed up to look like an actual court.

So far as GZ suing NBC; I wish him the best of luck. I think he has a very solid suit and I think he can prove malice.

**AustonT**

Ouze wrote:
AustonT wrote:
If that were true how would all those people on judge Judy counter sue?
This has kind of been a long time coming for NBC. They are probably going to pay GZ's legal bills.

Judge Judy is actually binding arbitration dressed up to look like an actual court.

So far as GZ suing NBC; I wish him the best of luck. I think he has a very solid suit and I think he can prove malice.

They were real suits before they signed a contract. The point remains that civil countersuits are common and that defendants frequently sue people, which is what I was answering with a public example.

**Peregrine**

I'm not sure why being involved in a case is even relevant here. Since when do you give up your right to sue someone for maliciously attributing false quotes to you just because they're "reporting" on a criminal case you are part of? The act in question isn't part of the case (unlike, for example, suing a witness for giving testimony against you), and it would be a pretty screwed up legal system if you were free to commit libel against any defendant you want without any fear of consequences.

Also, if you want the real proof, just look at how news coverage of a case always refers to "the alleged murderer" even when the person was caught with the murder weapon in their hands standing over their dying victim, and shot a dozen police officers before they were finally captured. You know why? Because if they don't they can get sued.