George Zimmerman appears not to be content with being on the criminal docket alone. He is now a civil litigant in a lawsuit filed against NBC Universal Media for an editing error that portrayed him as a racist in coverage of the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. The very first line of the complaint starts out with an accusation of unethical sensationalism” ““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.”
In addition to NBC and NBC’s Ron Allen, the lawsuit names as defendants Lilia Rodriguez Luciano (who was later terminated due to her reporting of the case for NBC) and Jeffrey Burnside of Dade County, another journalist who was also fired by NBC.
The second line is no more favorable: ““Their goal was simple: keep their viewers alarmed, and thus always watching, by menacing them with reprehensible series of imaginary and exaggerated racist claims.”
I am not sure if such reports “menace” viewers but it was clearly wrong and clearly harmful to Zimmerman. The network committed a serious error in the
editing of the 911 audiotape. Here is 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.
Thus, Zimmerman was not the one who raised race and was specifically asked to give Martin’s race by the police. However, NBC spliced together parts of the recording and left the opposite impression — a very serious mistake and lead to added international condemnation. NBC edited the tape to show Zimmerman stating “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his wraistband. And he’s a black male.” It is truly hard to see how a “mistake” like that could occur without malice, but at best it was gross negligence. It certainly, in my view, raises a legitimate defamation claim.
This is one of four such misrepresentations cited in the complaint which is linked below. This includes stating that Zimmerman said “f—ing coons” on the February 26 call when he said “f—ing punks.”
Count one is an omnibus defamation claim. Count two is an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. He is seeking both joint and several liability as well as punitive damages.
Notably, in some jurisdictions, he could also bring a false light claim. However, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the false light claims, leaving defamation as the only option in such cases. The court found that concerns over false light were valid: “(1) it is largely duplicative of defamation, both in the conduct alleged and the interests protected, and creates the potential for confusion because many of its parameters, in contrast to defamation, have yet to be defined; and (2) without many of the First Amendment protections attendant to defamation, it has the potential to chill speech without any appreciable benefit to society.”
There remains the question of the status of George Zimmerman in any defamation action. A status as a public figure or limited public figure would subject him to the higher standard of “actual malice” and the need to show actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth under New York Times v. Sullivan.
The complaint does not concede that Zimmerman is a public figure but it notably accuses the defendant of either actual knowledge or reckless disregard. While higher, there is a plausible basis for such a claim in the case even as a public figure. If Zimmerman tries to sue as an average citizen, he could face the same problem of my former client, Eric Foretich, who was declared a limited public figure due to a brief comment to the media in Foretich v. ABC. Zimmerman’s family made early efforts to frame his image in the media. This is understandable but could be viewed as triggering the higher standard if done with his knowledge or consent. It seems likely that he will be declared either a public figure or limited public figure.
Then there is the novel question of whether Zimmerman falls into a narrow category of a “libel proof” defendant. The complaint states that “[d]ue to the defendants’ journalistic crimes, Zimmerman has been transformed into one of the most hated men in America.” Yet, NBC could argue that his actions and confirmed statements resulted in that status and that, furthermore, he is now so without a good reputation that he is effectively libel proof. If so the court would have to find that Zimmerman’s reputation was already so damaged that he cannot recover more than nominal damages for subsequent defamatory statements. Marcone v. Penthouse Int’l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1079 (3rd Cir. 1985). This is a relatively rare basis for a dismissal and the plaintiff has to be akin to a Charles Manson.
Zimmerman has long denied the allegations and insisted that he was defending himself. Moreover, these incidents occurred early in the controversy. There is no question that the case quickly took on intense racial elements. I have written before that I believe that the case was over-charged and that the media was engaging in highly unprofessional commentary. I do not believe that the defendants could succeed in a libel-proof claims anymore than Zimmerman will be able to escape the status of a limited public figure.
I also believe that the lawsuit has merit, even with the apology of NBC. The story had already spread across the internet and global media. The apology could protect the company from punitive damages, however, depending on how the evidence unfolds. What do you think?
Here is the complaint.
Source: Washington Post
Oh, I see that “shit” has cleared the moderator. OK, then, on to substance.
We can dispense with the question of whether or not it was OK for George Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin. He did in fact follow Trayvon Martin. When he learned that it was going to be an “uh oh” kind of thing (which I think happened in the squad car on the way in to the station house, thanks to Tim Smith) he quickly changed his narrative to say that he was not actually “following” but in fact he was just checking for a house number, which he thought would mean that he could be exonerated.
It would have worked if not for the publicity that followed. There’s that “following” again, huh?
So what we have is: Pro-Zims say it was perfectly all right, and in fact it was noble and good and righteous and white, for Zimmerman to follow the possibly evil Martin.
Anti-Zims say, at the same time, that he should have gone back to his truck and NOT FOLLOWED.
He says, now, that he was trying to do that but less than a minute after he hung up with Dispatch, he was viciously attacked by Martin and had to kill him.
Here’s the issue: Whether or not he SHOULD have followed Martin, and whether or not in his own mind he WAS following or whether, perhaps, in his mind he was NOT FOLLOWING Trayvon Martin, at the moment that the two faced each other, HE CLAIMS Trayvon Martin said, “What the f*ck’s your problem, homie?” or, in the alternative, “What’s your problem?”
At that point in time he is admitting that Trayvon Martin expresses the thought that George Zimmerman is doing something problematic.
It’s not about us attributing bad motives to Zimmerman; it’s about Zimmerman attributing bad motives to Martin.
If Martin had said either of the two phrases George suggests, it was possible for George to use the next seven seconds (the time it takes to answer, “Hey man I don’t have a problem” and to hear “Now you got a problem”) to say, “I’m with the Neighborhood Watch.”
George admits that he did not say that.
Trayvon Martin was then, obviously, well within his rights to assume that George Zimmerman was following him to do him harm.
Trayvon Martin therefore had every right to defend himself. If he did, the reason his attempt at self-defense was not successful was that George was armed with a loaded gun. If he didn’t, then the reason he was killed was that George killed him for some reason other than self-defense as defined by law. Because George was the aggressor and Trayvon Martin had a right to assume that he was in danger of great bodily harm or death. (That was proven on the scene.)
I would love for somebody to sue Corey for prosecuting George. JoeBob, why don’t you get an organization together and hire a lawyer to do that. The statute to use is 42 USC Section 1983. Ask for attorneys’ fees under 42 USC Section 1988 at the same time; that way the attorneys can be compensated after it’s over.
😛 🙄
Ariel,
I have no problem with your reasoning, such as in your latest comment (with Fonda etc). But the posse mentality was not what I was endorsing either.
It was a way of saying my opinion, he was and is a sick guy. And Martin’s life was taken. Hopefully the trial will provide a full exposure of the facts with time lines and cross examination of the type which Sling Trebuchet appears to master, see example of what are the indications of safe distance, and Z’s claimed actions.
He knew the kid was unarmed, the waistband comment was BS, just to prepare for his “shootout”. He’d rehearsed this many times in his daydreams. Too bad there were no witnesses, but that was part of the plan.
He did all the things that he was told not to do, and thought that he would get away with it.. They let him keep his gun and go free. Jeeezus, what a police department.
The only good thing is that he finally got charged. Not much chance that he dares a repeat.
JoeBob, you say: “The prosecutor needs an award for first place in the pig shit swallowing contest.”
My question is this: How did your post, which contained the words “pig shit,” get through moderation? This is a test.
Sling Trebuchet,
Yes, “what if”. All sort’s of things are made from “what if”. Your entire post was a “what if”. I won’t hang a guy for a “what if”. I won’t even assume that my “what if” has anything to do with “what happened”.
Nice writing, though, you must watch “Castle” and identify with Nathan Fillion (isn’t he funny). OK, that was condescending, but you were writing a fictional piece and thinking it was in some way a real argument.
Personally, If I have to go into crime fiction I like Bogart’s Sam Spade, or almost any portrayal of Philip Marlowe (best detective ever, uh huh). Powers Boothe did a good job. Maybe Lew Archer is is there with Spade and Marlowe. You decide.
As for my experience, pushing it into the “what if” just leaves me with crime fiction. I think of Dashiell Hammett.
Ariel,
Your words could be rewritten as
‘Just as bad as the side that has found Z innocent before trial, with all that exculpatory evidence securing innocence since that’s all that’s needed to determineinnocence.’
Someone might say that it is not a valid parallel, as there is a presumption of innocence.
In a straightforward classic killing case, this might be true.
This is not such a case.
In order for Zimmerman’s to be innocent, Martin has to be guilty of committing an unprovoked assault so violent that Zimmerman feared for his life.
To presume Zimmerman to be innocent is – in this particular case – to presume Martin to be guilty.
Idealist707,
“Z. was a murderer looking for a victim to slay”. Really? I can think of two movies that describe your take: “The Ox-Bow Incident” and “12 Angry Men”. Henry Fonda was in both, but that’s incidental. He funded the latter movie, lost money on it, yet today it’s a classic. And a good example of art as instruction.
Don’t do what lynch mobs have done in the US since the 1870s: “knowing” without a true examination of the facts and hanging accordingly; the court of public opinion doesn’t meet the criteria of examination but people have hanged for it. You have nothing but reporting to go by or what some have claimed as proof: what the prosecution wrote to justify charges. Neither are unbiased.
Please, this way of thinking should have ended long ago. Neither you nor I know Z’s mind or M’s at the time, nor do either of us know what is a lie or what isn’t in this case. Don’t ever let emotions or prejudice override reason in this arena. We all fail at some time with emotion overcoming reason, but please not here. I’m not pleading for Z (I’ve already given my opinion), but for reasoned justice. Let the Prosecutor and the Defense argue this in Court (if I capitalize anymore nouns I’m going for German in the next round).
“…I was asked to follow at a safe distance until police arrived…… I would have followed no matter what until police arrived.”
Presumably, you would have followed at a safe distance.
How would you be able to maintain a safe distance?
Easy if you can see the guy at all times.
What if he disappeared from your sight down a dark walkway.
Bear in mind that this guy – who looks like he’s up to no good – on drugs or something – has just circled your truck in a threatening manner – with the position of his hand on his waistband suggesting a weapon.
Now you can’t see him. He’s sort of skipped – and definitely not in fear – around a corner. It’s really dark down there. No public lighting.
Given that he’s just threatened you and provoked you, he might well be lying in wait for you just around the corner. He did after all threaten you.
So…… despite having no idea where he actually is, you walk straight at the corner that he has just turned.
You have no idea where this threatening thug actually is.
You could come face to face with him suddenly.
Very clearly, this is not “from a safe distance”
You would have done that?
“The clear opposite happened. “Are you following him?” – “Yeah” – We don’t need you to do that.”
I have to admit, I always do what I’m told, even if it’s only suggested. If I don’t it’s proof I have some nefarious intention.
I did a 911 call where I was asked to follow at a safe distance until police arrived. If the 911 responder had said “don’t” I would have ignored (911 responders are not necessarily police, nor do they have the authority of police). In my case, this guy was driving up on the sidewalk to block a woman, who then went around his car to walk on. Wash, rinse, repeat, for blocks (Cave Creek Road in Phoenix, near Sonny Barger’s Harley shop). I would have followed no matter what until police arrived.
Screw the media. They are just honchos making money for their corp owners. This is just a plot by Z’s team to move the attention away from the evidence as drawn by Sling Trebuchet.
Z. was a murderer looking for a victim to slay. He did it stupidly, gave testimony in the first recorded interview so that his lieing nature and behaviour shines clearly. The testimony is not the one given by an accused searching for good recall, it is instead of a slow thinker who looks for a lie that he can use, and not recalling all that he said to NEN.
That is my opinion after listening to the audio of it.
He is a pathological liar, used to fooling fools, but not pro cops who are following investigative routine. Something he almost escaped from.
Following up on the following thing …. duh!
The Walk-through video illustrates Zimmerman’s awareness that following Martin was something that would have a negative impact.
Right from the start of his walk-through description of his conversation with the dispatcher, he claims that the dispatcher was asking him to get to a place where he could see Martin. It seems that poor Zimmerman was constantly nagged and instructed to search out Martin.
Zimmerman supporters echo this. They point to: “He’s running? Which way is he running?”
Zimmerman answered the question – “Down towards the back entrance”.
That was it. Job done.
There was absolutely no request for further information.
The clear opposite happened. “Are you following him?” – “Yeah” – We don’t need you to do that.”
JoeBob,
Just as bad as the side that has convicted Z before trial, with all that prosecutorial evidence securing guilt since that’s all that’s needed to determine guilt.
As for NBC, the editing of the 911 call raises real questions about their commitment to fact or truth.
Ariel: “It all goes down to who was the aggressor”
Define “agressor”.
Is it the first to actually strike the other?
Is it the first to put their hand on the other’s arm to restrain them?
Is it the first person to speak in an agressive tone?
Is is the person who pushed someone who was blocking their path?
Is it the person who followed the other into the dark? – who made them feel under threat in a dark place?
The Zimmerman camp want “aggressor” to be the person who got nothing more than a scratch on one finger in the course of a struggle that lasted more than 50 seconds and possible 60 – while the other party got a bloody nose and two minor cuts on the back of his head.
They want “aggressor” to be the person that a witness identified as being on top for the few seconds during which he observed them.
It’s not that simple.
Zimmerman knew that straight away.
NEN Call: “He’s running” – “He ran”
NEN Call: “Are you following him?” – “Yeah” – “We don’t need you to do that”
Within days, this became his brother’s: “He did not follow Mr Martin. He was just going in the same direction”
O’Mara knows it too. He had plenty of time to consider the story to tell before the Hannity interview: “He was not running – and certainly not in fear.” – I was not following him. I was going in the same direction.
O’Mara does not want following.
O’Mara does not want Martin fearful or worried by Zimmerman.
O’Mara does not want Martin running.
Following into the dark – instilling fear/concern – would make Zimmerman the aggressor.
Then there’s the lies by Zimmerman.
His accounts can’t be made to fit the timeline set by timestamps and content of recorded calls. Only cherry-picking works. A continuous timeline does not work.
Damming for Zimmerman is the 3 minutes from the end of his NEN call to the shot. His walk from where he says the call ended to where he says he was attacked took him 20 seconds in the Walk-through.
In the Walk-through, he says that he ended the call by suggesting to the dispatcher that he meet the incoming patrol at the mailboxes. He says that he started walking back immediately.
He forgot than in the NEN recording, it is the dispatcher who suggests the meet at the mailboxes. Zimmerman agrees to this. Then — at the last second. he breaks in over the dispatcher to change the plan to one of the patrol ringing Zimmerman when they arrive so that Zimmerman can tell them where he’s at.
Then he has no explanation for the next 2 minutes+ other than walking for 20 to 30 seconds.
.
Zimmerman supporters trumpet a “right by his father’s house” from DD’s interview to ‘prove’ that Martin first ran home and then ran back to attack Zimmerman.
They don’t volunteer to explain how Martin would have known where Zimmerman was or why Zimmerman was still at the T-junction 1.5 minutes after he passed it if one accepts his ‘retuning to the truck immediately after the NEN call’ story.
They don’t offer to explain why John’s witness sketch puts the pair 70 feet South of where Zimmerman says Marin punched and decked him.
The body ended up 10 feet North of that.
If they assign any credibility to DD’s interview, then they have to live with all of the interview. That has Martin in fear of Zimmerman, thinking he had shaken him off, and then Zimmerman closing on him.
Even without relying on DD, there is enough for any reasonable person to judge that Zimmerman’s account of the events leading up to the struggle do not stand up.
.
Zimmerman supporters say that following Martin, and even approaching him was not illegal.
This is where the Reasonable Person consideration comes in.
Zimmerman claims that Martin circled the truck in a threatening manner.
Getting out and following/same-direction into a dark area when he had lost sight of Martin was a very reckless and unreasonable action in the circumstances. He could well have found himself suddenly face-to-face in the dark with the thug who had threatened him
It would be so for any person, but it’s worse for Zimmerman as a NW ‘captain’.
Police NW coordinator says that Zimmerman was at a presentation at which she emphasised ‘observe from a safe distance’, ‘do not approach’. She says she even has a special slide for that emphasis.
Zimmerman went into a dark place on the hells of a ‘thug’ who had actually threatened him – as opposed to someone who he had secretly observed.
He would also have been aware of the ‘no weapons’ rule.
.
I wonder if O’Mara’s ‘no plea bargain’ is just poker-playing up to the wire.
Zimmerman should be awarded a medal of honor for shooting his assailant. NBC contrives all these lies and the prosecutor swallows them. The prosecutor needs an award for first place in the pig shit swallowing contest.
Dismiss this criminal case, fire the prosecutor, and get on with jury selection in the case against NBC.
“which I do not concede by the way, that guilt is as a drop in the ocean compared to the guilt of a man who would stroke his own ego by targeting, chasing, terrifying and killing a kid, and then lying about him and attributing evil acts to him post mortem.” Semantically, all these words drip bias, laden with emotion and judgement. Judgement’s fine, the use of emotionally laden words isn’t. Emotionally laden words are used to justify the judgement, post fact. You have no idea that M was terrified, no idea that Z was stroking his ego at the time, or that any “lying” took place.”Rashomon” for reference, facts and truth by perspective.
(An aside on how words turn facts to shit, from which shit truth is derived: Z didn’t “chase” nor did he “stalk”, the usual twist; he followed. No emotional satisfaction there I admit. And, allegedly, stopped at one point and turned back.)
As for reading the prosecution’s evidence and thus determining guilt, I’d direct you to the Innocence Project, Duke Lacrosse (have those 88 prejudiced, non-thinking, but well-educated morons ever apologized? Education does not confer wisdom, only knowledge obviously), or any other cases where the prosecution’s evidence lacked?
I’ve been neutral on this across a lot of comment sections, which means I’m pro-Z or anti-Z depending on the bent of the commenters. It all goes down to who was the aggressor: If Z, may he rot in jail; if M, then we are left with was Z’s force justifiable? Could he have escaped? Did Martin pull at the gun (a defense used often by LEO’s, and seldom questioned)? Was Z so in fear for safety and life that the use of a gun was justified? I’ll leave that to the court by evidence presented by both prosecution and defense.
Finally, OT. The press presentation of M by a picture of him at twelve set my alarms off immediately (reverse it with a picture of Z at 12 and M at 17). Follow that with an edited tape that clearly is prejudiced against Z because it is what didn’t happen but also directs you to a conclusion that isn’t there, how can you deny that NBC didn’t manipulate you for it’s own purpose? There were multiple people involved in that edit, all the way to air time.
By chronology, I’ll give this to Z. You can’t say after he is convicted (that’s my actual bent on this, but I try to remain objective) that therefore “the fake but true” is OK. It isn’t, it was prejudicial, and it was likely purposeful.
I will give that NBC may have a lot of people that don’t understand editing out whole sections of a recording constitutes lying. If so, why would I listen to NBC? More rhetorical than anything else the fallacy nazi may come up with by opportunity.
Juris, something really bothered me about your initial post to BettyKath, and it wasn’t about either of us serving as jurors. Now I went back and found it. You said, sarcastically:
“You sure do claim to know a lot about Zimmerman’s mental state. Maybe you could serve as a key witness for the prosecution?”
First of all, we do know a lot about Zimmerman’s mental state. Why? Because he revealed it. And he revealed it well before NBC’s allegedly tortious broadcast.
1. He said to Sean on the NEN call: “There’s been a lot of break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy…”
His mental state at that time was VERY suspicious and quite officious.
2. He said to Sean on the NEN call: “These a55holes, they always get away.”
His mental state at that time was VERY accusatory and also very eager to apprehend and punish the “a55hole.” So add in disdainful, contemptuous, and authoritarian. HE will prevent the a55hole from getting away, this time.
3. He admits to saying, while on the phone with Sean on the NEN call: “F*cking punks.”
His mental state at the time was hostile, angry, and belligerent.
4. He says to Sean on the NEN call: “Sh*t, he’s running.”
His mental state at the time was disappointed and indignant.
5. He asks Singleton as he is waiting for the voice-stress analyst to administer the test he has requested whether she has ever “had to shoot somebody” and when she says she has NOT, he comments that probably nobody would question her authority.
His mental state at the time shows a sense of frustration that he had to kill somebody because they questioned his authority.
6. He writes out his statement to the police on 2/26/2012 blaming it all on the deceased Trayvon Martin who, he says, tried to kill him and “assured [him]” that he would die that night. He calls Trayvon Martin “the suspect” throughout his written narrative.
His mental state at the time shows that he believes Trayvon Martin was the person who should be in trouble with the police; Trayvon Martin was still “the suspect” even after it was discovered that the boy was unarmed. His initial decision to mark Martin as a criminal has not changed.
So we do know quite a bit about George Zimmerman’s mental state.
But since Trayvon Martin was not given a chance to tape record his comments about the encounter, we know less about his mental state. As little as we know about Trayvon Martin’s mental state, however, we can guess that he was scared because George Zimmerman said, “Sh*t, he’s running” and later, “He ran.”
Yet — here’s where it gets good, Juris — when Hannity asks George Zimmerman if he thought Trayvon Martin was running away from him in fear, George claims to know, as you put it, “a lot about [Trayvon Martin]’s mental state.” George calmly announces that Trayvon Martin was NOT running from him in fear. Not at all.
So George is now attributing a vicious attack by Trayvon Martin upon the innocent “not following” George to something OTHER than fear. George declares that Trayvon was not feeling fear. “Sh*t, he’s running” becomes “skipping.” Now Trayvon Martin is a fearless, homicidal thug. To paraphrase Serino, what would make Trayvon attack George?
George, who professes to know Trayvon Martin’s mental state at the time of the not-following incident, must believe that it was only evil, only wickedness, only badness, that made this particular person (of any race but it just so happens that he was of the African American race) attack George, since it surely wasn’t fear.
So Zimmerman attributes badness and wrongness to Trayvon. Whom he kills. But we should not be so presumptuous as to attribute badness and wrongness to Zimmerman because, after all, we cannot know what his mental state was, can we?
No, Juris. I could never serve on George Zimmerman’s jury. But I can judge him. And if NBC is guilty of not being totally fair to George, which I do not concede by the way, that guilt is as a drop in the ocean compared to the guilt of a man who would stroke his own ego by targeting, chasing, terrifying and killing a kid, and then lying about him and attributing evil acts to him post mortem. And I condemn every cell in Zimmerman’s body and every spark of each and every neuron in his brain and every thought and feeling in his mind and I will forever, and I do it because HE has told me who he is. HE has told me in a way that his distorted self-serving story-telling cannot cover up.
Oh, oops 😳 Shano, I got the wrong passage. So you say Zimmerman had to smite Trayvon because Trayvon was fighting against him? OK, the Bible has that one covered too:
Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight: Psalm 144:1
Coowul. 😎
Malisha you must know Trayvon was not some child, he was a (black) thug.
He had a empty plastic bag so he was a junkie.
He hit George with MMA style karate chops with his certified deadly weapon hands.
As every thread on any discussion of this case would show.
JoeBob says: “NBC needs to go off the air and take a breath of fresh air instead of the sewage they inbible.”
I want to thank JoeBob for the word “inbible.” In fact I had never thought up that word and right here and now I castigate myself for having failed to coin it. It means: “Justifying something ridiculous because some support for it can more or less be found in the Bible.” In that regard, I will advise you of the following:
What George Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin can be found in the Bible:
They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
And thus I guess it’s OK and damn NBC to Hell for departing from that word.
MikeS, No apology needed. As I always told the kids I coached, we’re all human and we all make errors. Although Joe “Fatso” Foy made more than his share. However, since he was big as 2 men…maybe it was justifed.
Nick,
Joe Foy: bad field, bad hit, moderate power, average speed til he got fat.
JoeBob,
I’m laying 10 to 1 odds that you’re a gun owner.