• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Zimmerman sue the media and Martin's family in civil court?

Trayvon Martin's parents won an estimated $1 million settlement from the homeowners' association. Well, actually, they didn't WIN it, the insurance company settled.

I hope that settlement was conditional on Zimmerman's conviction.
They shouldn't be rewarded for being bad parents.
 
It would set the precedent that the media should get the story right before they air it.
This "it bleeds, it leads" mentality needs to end.

Sometimes that is impossible so you can't make a law against and even if you did organizations are pretty much free to do what they want or else every media outlet in the country would be out of business except for a state-run broadcaster.
 
Sometimes that is impossible so you can't make a law against and even if you did organizations are pretty much free to do what they want or else every media outlet in the country would be out of business except for a state-run broadcaster.

Are you saying that it's impossible for the media to act responsibly?
 
Yeah, I thought that is what everyone knew, it's their job.

No. It's their job to report the news, not make it up.
The first two rights we have in our Bill of Rights are the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. If I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights irresponsibility and someone gets hurt or killed, do I get to hide behind that right? No, of course not.
And the media shouldn't have the ability to hide behind the 1st Amendment when they use it irresponsibly either.
 
Speculation about an ongoing trial is not defamation. This would be a ridiculous and fruitless suit.
 
No. It's their job to report the news, not make it up.
The first two rights we have in our Bill of Rights are the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. If I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights irresponsibility and someone gets hurt or killed, do I get to hide behind that right? No, of course not.
And the media shouldn't have the ability to hide behind the 1st Amendment when they use it irresponsibly either.

It's the media's job to spin things. FOX News spins it to get the Conservative audience while MSNBC spins it to attract a Liberal audience.
 
Speculation about an ongoing trial is not defamation. This would be a ridiculous and fruitless suit.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Zimmerman would get enough money that he and all of his family would never have to work again if he went the civil trial route with a good team of lawyers. Plus he'll inevitably get big bucks for writing a book.
 
I'm as anti-frivolous lawsuit as the next person, but Zimmerman suing in civil court would be far from frivolous.

I could see Trays parents suing for wrongful death in civil court far easier. Wrongful death does not have nearly the burden as murder.
 
I could see Trays parents suing for wrongful death in civil court far easier. Wrongful death does not have nearly the burden as murder.

So you think Z couldn't win a civil trial against those who have ruined his name?
 
A bad precedent of what?

So Zimmerman should just be all "aww shucks, golly gee stuff happens" over this whole thing, even though the media and martin's family and Barack Obama painted him publicly as a racist murderer and now will be seen as that by some for the rest of his life?

Guy should count himself lucky the prosecution was just incompetent enough not to nail him with an easy manslaughter conviction and crawl back to his private life.

So you think Z couldn't win a civil trial against those who have ruined his name?

Guy ruined his own good name when he played wanna-be cop and yet couldn't keep the situation from escalating to the point where he apparently had to kill a minor.
 
Speculation about an ongoing trial is not defamation. This would be a ridiculous and fruitless suit.

He could not sue for "speculation." But numerous people and media outlets stated as unqualified FACT that GZ "murdered" TM and often referred states as absolute fact that GM is a "murderer."

That is called libel/slander per se. That means automatically presumed to be malicious and deliberately false UNLESS the person saying it can prove it's true.

That standard is very limited to saying someone committed an exact crime or has a mental or physical defect.

Thus, the media/press/people could say GZ is "a killer," "the most evil person on earth," "a racist," etc etc. BUT THEY CAN NOT SAY GZ IS "A MURDERER" just like they can't say "GZ HAS HIV/AIDS" - and if they do then it is there burden to prove the statement is true.

It has nothing to do with speculation. It has to do with was has been libel/slander law in this country for 200 years and as recognized common law too.
 
This whole thing seems to have been more about how awful and scary blacks are and less about whether a person was murdered..........................
 
So you think Z couldn't win a civil trial against those who have ruined his name?
Yes, in law, but finding a judge willing to go up against the media would be hard.
 
Guy should count himself lucky the prosecution was just incompetent enough not to nail him with an easy manslaughter conviction and crawl back to his private life.



Guy ruined his own good name when he played wanna-be cop and yet couldn't keep the situation from escalating to the point where he apparently had to kill a minor.

So if you were accused, arrested and drug through the mud by the media and the President for a crime that you're not guilty of, you'd just let it go?
 
Guy should count himself lucky the prosecution was just incompetent enough not to nail him with an easy manslaughter conviction and crawl back to his private life.

Thanks to the media and multiple talking heads, that's not an option for him anymore.
 
So you think Z couldn't win a civil trial against those who have ruined his name?

I think Z ruined his name that night. At least it wasn't swept under the rug like so many others. Everyone knows what he did and only a few think he should be proud of it. Hopefully he will quietly ponder his decision for the rest of his life.
 
Yes, in law, but finding a judge willing to go up against the media would be hard.

The "in law" part is doubtful. This trial received so much media coverage that "Zimmerman the private citizen" has transformed into the nebulous legal entity "Zimmerman the Public Figure." Public figures have even less recourse against libel and slander than the average American, and on the whole we have little.

The only "people" in the United States who enjoy consistent protection from slander and libel are people who make large amounts of money, specifically corporations.
 
No poll, just what do you think?

I think he should hire a good team of lawyers and take them for all they're worth. Perhaps he could also sue President Obama since he decided to stick his filthy, ugly nose into it?

He has no case. People who become "public figures" are subject to "opinion" and "commentary." He has little or no standing for either libel or slander.
 
So if you were accused, arrested and drug through the mud by the media and the President for a crime that you're not guilty of, you'd just let it go?

... that question is so full of abstractions it doesn't mean anything. Did I "deserve" to be accused? Was my arrest merited? In what sense am I "not guilty?" Generally speaking, I've heard my family, friends, and even acquaintances and strangers say I'm not responsible for many of my failures and I've never been able to believe them. If as a grown man I shot and killed a 17-year old kid because of a general lack of awareness and preparedness for what the scenario entailed, I doubt I would believe that I was "not guilty" even if my defense team was able to convince a jury otherwise.
 
Last edited:
He could not sue for "speculation." But numerous people and media outlets stated as unqualified FACT that GZ "murdered" TM and often referred states as absolute fact that GM is a "murderer."

That is called libel/slander per se. That means automatically presumed to be malicious and deliberately false UNLESS the person saying it can prove it's true.

That standard is very limited to saying someone committed an exact crime or has a mental or physical defect.

Thus, the media/press/people could say GZ is "a killer," "the most evil person on earth," "a racist," etc etc. BUT THEY CAN NOT SAY GZ IS "A MURDERER" just like they can't say "GZ HAS HIV/AIDS" - and if they do then it is there burden to prove the statement is true.

It has nothing to do with speculation. It has to do with was has been libel/slander law in this country for 200 years and as recognized common law too.

That would not be libel per se. That there was an ongoing case which had garnered substantial attention means that they were completely entitled to have an opinion on it. If they were to state that he had been convicted, that would be per se libel or slander. But it's not even really inaccurate. He is a murderer. He did kill the kid. He just had a statutory defense and got away with it. Do you think it's slander to call OJ a murderer? If someone else had shot the kid, then he would have a case if he were still referred to that way. Accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit would be slander. Accusing someone of a crime they did commit is fine.

I could see Trays parents suing for wrongful death in civil court far easier. Wrongful death does not have nearly the burden as murder.

They probably could. The family of the woman won the civil suit against OJ despite his acquittal in the criminal trial. It's not like the facts are in dispute, merely whether or not the civil jury or judge (if a bench trial) believes that he was justified. the real question is, does he have any money? Otherwise there's not much point.
 
Mark O'Mara made reference to same last night in his presser. We'll see who gets sued. O'Mara was not happy and sounded like pursuing the civil actions was going to be a personal crusade. I'm not a legal expert so I don't know who can be sued. I do know nbc (edited 911 call), cnn (released ss #), abc (video claiming GZ had NO injuries that night), spike lee (giving out an address of GZ's parents that turned out to be wrong and the people living there had to flee), ben crump (perjury in a deposition), black panthers (criminal charges, bounty issued), would be a good start.
 
Mark O'Mara made reference to same last night in his presser. We'll see who gets sued. O'Mara was not happy and sounded like pursuing the civil actions was going to be a personal crusade. I'm not a legal expert so I don't know who can be sued. I do know nbc (edited 911 call), cnn (released ss #), abc (video claiming GZ had NO injuries that night), spike lee (giving out an address of GZ's parents that turned out to be wrong and the people living there had to flee), ben crump (perjury in a deposition), black panthers (criminal charges, bounty issued), would be a good start.

see post 45, but if I were GZ, I'd chill a bit and hope the DOJ doesn't pursue a civil rights case against me ... there are petitions going into the DOJ calling for a civil rights filing, as we waste our time on these threads ...
 
No. It makes no sense. GZ never wanted to kill TM, he was defending himself. It is not in his nature to do what you suggest. The culture of the black community was the initial motivation for his prosecution. When a black person is killed by someone , anyone other than another black person , it MUST be racially motivated. The current administration jumped on the band wagon to fan the ever popular racial ill winds. Pushed by all the liberal media (looking for a juicy story) the prosecution put together the weakest case ever presented nationally. It was a disgrace. It was embarrassing. This prosecutor, and all the assistants in the office should be fired. They prosecuted an innocent man. I'm relieved he was found not guilty, but his life is a shambles. He and his family are in danger for the rest of their lives. This 'Justice 4 Trayvon' crowd never wanted justice, they want vengeance.
 
Back
Top Bottom