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
Anonymous: “I think most here are utterly missing the point. This lawsuit is only about whther NBC ‘injured’ George Zimmerman.”
Whether or not the editing had an agenda, if I were defending NBC I would assert things like:
-They could not use up 4+ minutes of air time to play the entire recording unedited.
– They included a section in which Zimmerman was describing Martin to the dispatcher as Martin approached the truck.
– Questions asked by the dispatcher to develop the description were not particularly relevant. What mattered was the descruption.
– The editing actually made Zimmerman seem more intelligent and ‘professional’ in that he appeared to volunteer a full description without having to be prompted for it. (( Always look on the bright side!! 🙂
I’ve never listened to that edited recording, so it certainly never influenced my thinking.
I am certain that it would not have influenced me, as my interest in the case sprang from attempting to find out what actually happened. I analysed the NEN call and whatever statements were available. I ran this against a map of the area to try and track their positions at various stages. I found that Zimmerman’s accounts had huge contradictions and gaps. Had their races been revesed, or had they been of the same reace, I would have done exactly the same
I think most here are utterly missing the point. This lawsuit is only about whther NBC ‘injured’ George Zimmerman. It has nothing to do with what George Zimmerman ‘did’ to Trayvonn Martin. Trayvon is not involved in the analysis, neither is the outcome of the criminal trial.
It’s straightforward. NBC published inaccurate reports on George Zimmerman. Regardless of if Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, he never called him a racial epitaph.
Even bad people and the evil are allowed to have their words published correctly by the press and not be misrepresented. These were sensationalist statements, and not mere mistakes. Further, the source is public (the 911 calls) and not an “anonymous source with knowledge” that NBC could claim misled them.
The idea that all news distorts, or Fox news this/that, or msnbc this/that, is just simply outside of scope. If a person is upset about Fox news distorting their quotes and placing them in a misleading light, they can bring suit if they’ve been injured. For all those that haven’t been personally injured, no harm, no foul.
Fox lies and distorts every day. Why isnt that a crime Mr Turley?
I managed to follow the OJ and Casey Anthony cases very superficially. Wish I could do it here but I keep getting pulled back in.
JoeBob, the prosecution is required to give the defense all exculpatory evidence. There is none. They are required to give them evidence as ordered by the Court. They do. But then, there is a category that you are probably worried about, and certainly the defense is worried about, that the prosecution does NOT have to give the defense, and that is REBUTTAL evidence to anything the defense puts up that is not covered in the prosecution’s case.
So if the prosecution puts up a case that says GZ committed murder, and then GZ puts up evidence that says, for instance, “but you didn’t take this terrible injury into consideration,” THEN the prosecution gets to put on a “redirect” or a “rebuttal” and that is not required to be revealed BEFORE the defense puts up its defense. They can reveal anything they want BEFORE trial about what they intend to use as a defense, but that doesn’t make it part of the case the prosecution has to make; that just presumes that it COULD become part of the defense case that the prosecution needs to REBUT.
So I think the prosecution is sitting there very well aware that if they do need to rebut something, they probably CAN. They probably can very well.
Those astardBays are still withholding evidence from the defense.
Malisha, I don’t think Ariel means to him/her what you believe it means. Ask.
We should be happy that we have Ariel to study. Unfairly or uncorrectly, I group (profile?) him in the class who support the Republicans. A fantastic group who cried in front of cameras when Romney lost. Good, godfearing folks who are for family values, father knows best, and so does Romney.
So let’s study Ariel, and see if you find anyway to change what we loosely call a mind. They don’t respond to smoothly packaged respectful dialogue, to solid facts or logic (Romney won’t release his tax returns and he is hiding money in the Cayman banks) or just anything reasonable.
We never did appreciate and use the phrase RWAs here. A shame, explains a lot.
PS What thread did BK do a good job on? I enjoy her work. I would go there just for that.
And I second Shano’s comment. More mouthing please.
when I think of this moment, where Trayvon is simply holding Zimmerman down while yelling for help- this was the perfect time for George to say “The cops are coming” or “The police ARE ON THE WAY” !!!
I escaped an assault once using this tactic. Mine was bullshit and the bad guy took off.
Why wasn’t George -afraid for his life!- trying to tell this attacker that he was about to get caught, had the possibility of getting caught, that reinforcements could show up at any time, that he was ‘Neighborhood Watch’, that police with guns could arrive ANY MOMENT.
Any of this information being said out loud might have stopped this tragic chain of events.
Malisha, keep on, please, I look forward to each installment of ‘Mouth Off’.
Malisha, thanks for your words. I’ve mostly been reading Leatherman’s posts and not even going into the comments but for a couple of times for a quick scan. So the tone has become more civilized? Maybe I’ll wander over.
Shano, that’s the story without all the emotionally charged words and the irrelevant Bogey-man foldemerol. You distilled it and you nailed it. And the prosecution has the goods on the whole story, just as you told it. But due process does require that we tolerate all the nonsense that is going on now. And during that tolerant period I’m going to mouth off as much as I like.
Trayvon Martins hands do not support the ‘violent’ attack on Georgie at all. His hands do not even have Georgies dna on them,
no blood,
no signs of a violent beating,
bone crunching bone,
saliva splashing,
tooth loosening,
black bruise causing fight here.
There was no fight here, just clothes grabbing, knocking a cell phones out of a hand, wrestling on the ground, calling for help, Trayvon held George down for as long as he could- no one came to help him.
George shot him for no reason at this point- the one I suspect is his embarrassment, loss of face when this this lanky wan not-well-lately growth spurting teen was able to out wrestle him and pin him down.
Is this when George suddenly remembers he has a gun? Knowing the cops could be there at any minute……
Why yes, yes it is.
Thanks and greetings, BettyKath. By the way I want to thank you for your comments about the other blog where they took your words very much to heart; I wonder if you have been over there to check. It’s your doing and it’s good.
About being a newcomer and adopting the silly positions of the oldcomers, I believe what you’re saying but I also think it’s worth emphasizing for all, new and old, the main point:
THIS IS NOT about who made a physical move first that might be considered aggressive. Not at all. The aggressor had initiated the aggression by following the victim and deciding that he was going to dominate him and force him (the victim) to agree to his (the aggressor’s) will, whether that will included interrogation, unlawful restraint, or killing. There is just no way around it. Even if he got out of his truck for the purpose of finding an address (a truly idiotic explanation of a clear and obvious action taken for a stated purpose), Trayvon Martin had no legal requirement on him to guess that, know that, assume that, or even believe that, even if George had SAID IT. For instance,
“What’s your f*cking problem, homie?”
“I’m just looking for an address, sorry if I scared you.”
No. Trayvon believed he was being followed and that his pursuer was “up to no good.” Serino asked George if he was following Trayvon when he got out of the truck and he said YES. Sean asked him if he was following and he said YEAH. Serino repeated it twice and George agreed. Hannity even said it and George did not disagree. It is obvious and its effect on Trayvon Martin was obvious. George was the aggressor no matter what happened after he said, “YEAH” when he was allegedly at the T. Because if he was not following, when Sean asked him that he should have said, “No, I’m just trying to find an address.”
Malisha, Sling, Ariel has apparently not looked at any of the evidence from the official evidence dumps or she is not able to connect the dots. Let her go. She won’t be convinced until plea bargain is confirmed or the jury comes in “guilty” as charged. That’s ok. We’ve been through all the questions of trying to get Zimmerman’s story to work and know that it just doesn’t work. Once it’s impossible to believe his story of what happened in other respects, it just doesn’t make sense to believe him about who hit whom first. Besides, if some creepy guy followed me slowly in his truck and then got out of his truck to follow me in the dark, I’d be scared and I’m not sure what I’d do. He sure as h*ll would be up to no good.
Oh yeah, as far as “Don’t make shit up.”
That’s what should have been said to George Zimmerman on 2/26/2012.
Stand there and say you shot the guy and DON’T MAKE SHIT UP.
Ariel, you’re concerned that I used charged words and you’re sarcastic about it. But you’re “tired of it” too.
I am not concerned about your fatigue or anything else. I used charged words because I chose them and meant for them to have their effect, on you among others, and your response to them is your business but I am personally GLAD that you didn’t like it.
Here’s why: I do not have to justify my personal verdict about George Zimmerman specifically BECAUSE I do not intend to hang him from a tree until he is dead. See? I am spouting off about him, in the most effective polemical words possible, because I am permitted to do that; I am not, however, permitted to hang George Zimmerman from a tree. Maybe I would like it; I rather think I would NOT and I also am quite sure that if he were convicted of First Degree Murder and on Death Row I would devote my time, energy and money to getting his sentence commuted. I KNOW THAT about me.
But you know very little about me. ONE: I am not the least big ashamed to be considered to have done everything you say. Unfair to George Zimmerman? Sure I am. Don’t want to wait until the legal process finishes to announce my own personal “verdict”? No indeed. I am entitled to say all this about George Zimmerman, and worse, and I will do so YES YES YES and unapologetically.
Compare me to any lunch mob if you like; that does not bother me.
I like your name, by the way.
Now, on to another matter: your quote:
——————————–>
“First, unprovoked is weasling. “Your mother ****s big (whatever color) ***ks”. Provocation? Z followed M (or chased or stalked to add the emotional). Provocation? Martin only has to be the aggressor, no unprovoked nor “so violent”. Don’t make shit up (I apologize for the phrase, but I’m tired of all
No, Z’s innocence isn’t by way of your description of what M has to be guilty of, nor is it an either Z’s guilty or M is. False dichotomy, and I feel shame to go the way of Gene H.s dismissive argumentation, but really that is what you’ve posed.
“so violent”? Have you ever been hit bare-knuckled in an eye? You can’t see for seconds, many seconds. The blow shuts off the eye hit, as well the other eye. You can’t do a damn thing but you can hope you won’t be hit again, and again, and again. You fear for your life at the point when you can’t defend yourself, because the blow leaves you unable to defend yourself. Life isn’t the BS you see on TV or in the Movies (think you can shake off a beer bottle strike?) nor can you judge it by George Foreman or my Renshi (this guy used a log, and I mean a log, for shin strike practice, and could take a face strike and smile back, scary) because we aren’t them. Even they aren’t them by the BS we see on TV or in Movies. (You do understand that surviving explosions that throw you 10′s of feet is pure BS, the overpressure liquifies your internal organs because it threw you those 10s of feet, you do know that? I’m being pissy again.) The real world isn’t “Fight Club”.
“so violent”? Really? Use emotionally charged phrases much?
—————————
OK, I can’t tell what you’re really objecting to, the assumption that George Zimmerman was overreacting to the injuries he may have sustained while leading up to the killing of Trayvon Martin or the use of emotionally charged language. Let’s say it was the former, first.
Let’s say George got punched in the face enough to cause the blood in the recently-released color photograph to be on his mustache, nose-tip and lips, and the smudge on his right cheek near the corner of his mouth. Let’s say George is NOT a very tough guy and let’s say that made him fear for his life. My initial reaction is, of course, that it’s a far-fetched notion, but let’s say.
Then the question would be, under Florida law, whether he had a REASONABLE FEAR. I think once you go THERE, you end up with a pretty firm — faggetabouddit!
So let’s say that the claimed (but unlikely, according to the forensics) punch in the nose and subsequent punches did hurt George Zimmerman a lot and therefore made HIM think (wrongly but fearfully) that they were serious. What then? Then pretty obviously he would have been really angry. Wow. Just like Marissa Alexander, he can be seen to have fired his gun in anger, not in fear.
But let’s take the other issue you express, about the emotionally charged language. Jeez, that’s a terrible charge to level at someone who’s blogging: the use of emotionally charged language. I might not sleep tonight, worrying myself sick about whether I have ever done that; certainly I should not have. Bad me, Bad me, BAD ME!! (Slink guiltily around.)
Look at your language, Judge Ariel:
“hit bare-knuckled in an eye?
The blow shuts off the eye hit, as well the other eye.
You can’t do a damn thing but you can hope you won’t be hit again, and again, and again.
You fear for your life at the point when you can’t defend yourself, because the blow leaves you unable to defend yourself.
Life isn’t the BS you see on TV or in the Movies
(think you can shake off a beer bottle strike?)
George Foreman or my Renshi
(this guy used a log, and I mean a log, for shin strike practice,
could take a face strike and smile back, scary)
surviving explosions that throw you 10′s of feet is pure BS, the overpressure liquifies your internal organs
The real world isn’t “Fight Club”.
See, there, Ariel, that stuff is pretty emotional. Reminds me kind of the following quotes from George Zimmerman:
Then the suspect emerged from the darkness again
Every time he did, my head felt like it was going to explode
He looks like he’s up to no good
F*cking punks
These a55holes, they always get away
His hand slid down my chest
I felt like when he was hitting me he had something in his hand
I said, “help me, I’m being killed [or was it this guy’s killing me]
There was blood all over my face and in my eyes and I couldn’t see
etc etc etc ad nauseam
All this stuff George has been peddling is emotional clap-trap, the kind that a person gets really tired of. Violence? Do I have to prove that George committed violence? He says that all he did was shoot a hollow-point bullet into the chest of a young unarmed “suspect” and kill him.
If that’s not violent, I just don’t know what you’re tired of.
Malisha,
Look at your words here: “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.” Neutral words carrying no connotation, no emotional bias. I’d applaud, but my sarcasm gets in the way.
Starting from the last to work inward, Z is white like Linda Ronstadt is white, unless Hispanic is a term of convenience, and no it doesn’t mean “fluent in
Spanish”. Going further, I don’t think you can typify “pro-Zs” as believing Z ” was noble and good and righteous”, though you may view it as such. It might be more subtle, such as M attacked Z (for whatever reason, you may know but I don’t), and Z feared for his safety and his life. Maybe even Z felt M grabbing at his gun (CCP), so Z, fearing for his life when M found his gun, wrestled for it and killed M. We can all make s**t up (I’m avoiding moderation, thank you). Maybe Z attacked M, if so he should rot in jail.
I won’t respond to much of what else you wrote because I don’t see it as pertinent. Either Z attacked M or M attacked Z, if the latter the question is whether Z’s response is justifiable or not. If he was a cop, we’d be done.
All the conjecture on what happened, all the “his frame of mind” crap, almost all of what you all write is what you want to believe and it’s worth nothing more than that. This: “In Zimmerman’s mind he followed,,, uh, went in the same direction as one of those “a55holes [who] always get away” He’s going to do the job that the cops have been unable to do, this a55hole isn’t going to get away.” Pure crap, pure made up crap. Fiction as fact in the mind of the maker.
I’m tired of this. I’ve seen it, I’ve heard it, I’ve read it, over and over. I’ve been reading newspapers since before Kennedy was shot. The ability of people to take their preconceptions, their prejudices, their flights of farce, and turn them into some truth they hold incontrovertible sickens me so much because get enough of you together and we have a lynch mob.
That guy hanging from a tree, in full AEF uniform, well he did attack a white woman. We all know it. That’s why he was hanged. Give me a chance, and I’ll give you the story for all of us. Just give me the chance. I can justify it. I can come up with any interpretation necessary to justify it. I’ve been doing it since before history. I’ll be doing it well beyond the 22nd century, and I can rest assured I’ll have your full support.
Just have a little sympathy…and I’ll be there for you.
Ariel,
Either Zimmerman is truthful or he isn’t.
Unprovoked:
Martin runs up behind him and ….
“You got a problem?”
“No I don’t have a problem!
BAM!!
Violent:
Zimmerman says he was in fear of his life. Punching him. Pounding and pounding his head on the concrete.
“You can’t do a damn thing but you can hope you won’t be hit again”
Apparently you can have a conversation with witness John.
Apparently you can get your hand on a gun, raise it and – being careful to conciously position the gun so that you don’t hit your other arm – shoot the guy.
Going by your description, Zimmerman was lucky that his nose rather than his eye got hit.
Either Martin made that violent unprovoked attack as Zimmerman describes – or he didn’t.
If Zimmerman is innocent, then Martin is guilty.
“but I’m tired of all this crap”. Just in case anyone noticed the hang.
Sling Trebuchet,
“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.”
First, unprovoked is weasling. “Your mother ****s big (whatever color) ***ks”. Provocation? Z followed M (or chased or stalked to add the emotional). Provocation? Martin only has to be the aggressor, no unprovoked nor “so violent”. Don’t make shit up (I apologize for the phrase, but I’m tired of all
No, Z’s innocence isn’t by way of your description of what M has to be guilty of, nor is it an either Z’s guilty or M is. False dichotomy, and I feel shame to go the way of Gene H.s dismissive argumentation, but really that is what you’ve posed.
“so violent”? Have you ever been hit bare-knuckled in an eye? You can’t see for seconds, many seconds. The blow shuts off the eye hit, as well the other eye. You can’t do a damn thing but you can hope you won’t be hit again, and again, and again. You fear for your life at the point when you can’t defend yourself, because the blow leaves you unable to defend yourself. Life isn’t the BS you see on TV or in the Movies (think you can shake off a beer bottle strike?) nor can you judge it by George Foreman or my Renshi (this guy used a log, and I mean a log, for shin strike practice, and could take a face strike and smile back, scary) because we aren’t them. Even they aren’t them by the BS we see on TV or in Movies. (You do understand that surviving explosions that throw you 10’s of feet is pure BS, the overpressure liquifies your internal organs because it threw you those 10s of feet, you do know that? I’m being pissy again.) The real world isn’t “Fight Club”.
“so violent”? Really? Use emotionally charged phrases much?
Ariel,
“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. ”
We sure do have some pointers though. What was in Z’s mind is reflected in his NEN call. Every statement by Zimmerman starts with “there’ve been a lot of break-ins in my neighborhood. So a kid staying in the neighborhood, one in which Z says he knows everyone, is profiled. Trayvon is a thug “up to no good or he’s on drugs or somethin”. He’s one those “a55holes [who] always get away”, a f[x]ckin’ [punk, coon, goon]. Black youth “in his late teens” is part of the profile b/c other black youth have been seen in the neighborhood and accused of break-ins.
What’s in his mind is continued after the shooting when he writes up his statement at the SPD station house that same night and he calls his victim “the suspect” multiple times. Normally, a suspect is one who is suspected of committing a specific crime, but Trayvon did nothing illegal and there were no open cases in the area.
In Zimmerman’s mind he followed,,, uh, went in the same direction as one of those “a55holes [who] always get away” He’s going to do the job that the cops have been unable to do, this a55hole isn’t going to get away.
What we know of Trayvon’s mind at the time we know from the account of DeeDee who was on the phone with him most of that time. He told her of the creepy guy following him. He thought he lost him. Now the creepy guy is back.
There are no reports whatever of Trayvon being violent. Otoh, there are multiple reports of Zimmerman being violent (throwing a woman across a room when he was a bouncer at an illegal party, attacking a plainclothed officer attempting an arrest, and others).
As to what’s a lie and what isn’t, well, maybe Zimmerman isn’t lying. Maybe basic physics re: time and space were suspended for him. His account leaves a couple of minutes unaccounted for, his actions that he says the dispatcher asked him to do but the dispatcher didn’t, that his story has the altercation 40 some feet from where Trayvon’s body was found, that his story of spreading Trayvon’s hands doesn’t account for Trayvon’s hands being found under his body, that Z’s injuries are very superficial for someone who had his head banged as viciously as he says.