Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the finding was "justifiable homicide", Zimmerman will be immune from civil litigation related to or arising from the death of Trayvon Martin under the Florida Castle Doctrine.
That said, libel and slander are tough cases to make.
Perhaps you forgot the OJ verdict. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case. However, he was liable in the civil suit that followed.
The issue is the different standards in criminal and civil cases. In the former, it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In the later, it is based on a "preponderance of the evidence."
But I agree, libel and slander are tough cases to make, especially against a news outlet, which has special constitutional protection.
I don't see how anyone in their right mind could possibly take NBC's side and defend them for editing the tape to try and make GZ sound like a racist.
Regardless of how you feel about the actual case, this tape editing (which NBC admits to doing) is so wrong. And, it should cause you to never believe what they broadcast.
The bolded language is the problem with immunity from civil suit. GZ never asked for a hearing that stopped the criminal prosecution. He was not 'immune' from criminal prosecution, so why would he be immune from civil action.
I don't know, maybe he can ask a judge to prevent a civil suit ? I'll be listening to what the lawyers say about this.
Exactly! I don't think he can use it because he didn't go through SYG but we will see.
Too bad you know nothing about caselaw in the First Amendment. In the SCOTUS case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, "an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department."
The court ruled "(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved. Pp. 279-283." The court vote was 9-0.
What that means is that to be awarded damages against the Press, for which TV news is included, Zimmerman would have to prove that not only were statements incorrect but that the TV station did so with "actual malice". That is usually a steep hurdle to prove.
DOJ can sue him for civil right violation just like what happened to those policemen in Rodney King's case.
This used to be a tool that the federal government used to fight discrimination.
Nope. The only ones that can violate another's civil rights are the state, the feds or police. George would have had to have been working for one of those in order for this to stick.
Perhaps you forgot the OJ verdict. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case. However, he was liable in the civil suit that followed.
The issue is the different standards in criminal and civil cases. In the former, it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In the later, it is based on a "preponderance of the evidence."
But I agree, libel and slander are tough cases to make, especially against a news outlet, which has special constitutional protection.
No. I linked the case law to this earlier and the burden is different for a public figure like you cited above and some schmo off the street like Richard Jewell or Zimmerman. (which I also linked to).
This was all covered on page 6 or 7 of the thread and is supported with links to the case law and Richard Jewells successful recoveries of money from the news media.
There are literally dozens of examples if you google around a bit. (these two are public personas, Richard Jewell (go check wiki or my old link) is the closest comparison to Zimmerman.)
While there is an exclusion for public figures, the operative part of Sullivan v NYT was the requirement to prove actual malice -- which applies even if the plaintiff was not a public figure. That's a heavy burden on the plaintiff.
I don't see how anyone in their right mind could possibly take NBC's side and defend them for editing the tape to try and make GZ sound like a racist.
Posted with TapaTalk
IDK, Fox seems to do fine editing tapes to suit them.
Last edited by Donna-501; 07-15-2013 at 07:46 AM..
Perhaps you forgot the OJ verdict. OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case. However, he was liable in the civil suit that followed.
The issue is the different standards in criminal and civil cases. In the former, it is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In the later, it is based on a "preponderance of the evidence."
But I agree, libel and slander are tough cases to make, especially against a news outlet, which has special constitutional protection.
No, I'm not forgetting that. What is probably being overlooked is the lack of a California Castle Doctrine in 1994 and that the nature of the case was whether or not the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. carried out the murders, which is a very different thing from the state trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a "concealed carry draw" was second degree murder or manslaughter rather than justifiable homicide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
