Zimmerman

[Gadawg73]

Repeating yourself doesn't make you correct.

The only way Zimmerman can win his suit is if he proves he isn't a racist or a predator.

it's up to the defendant to prove he is a racist and predator

Not in a defamation suit.

Yes it is.
If someone makes an allegation based ON NOTHING in reality, then the burden IS on the plaintiff to prove their case.
All Zimmerman has to show is that the NBC allegations were based on NO evidence.
That is done during the discovery and deposition stage.
Ziummerman's lawyers in the deposition to the NBC employees that claimed Zimmerman was a racist: "Mr. Liberal NBC KooK reporter, when you claimed Zimmerman was a racist what did you base that on?"
Liberal NBC KooK reporter: "nothing, it was just opinion"
Within hours the NBC lawyer to Zimmerman's lawyer "How much can we settle it for. We have no defense"
WELL DUH

 

[Ravi]

it's up to the defendant to prove he is a racist and predator

Not in a defamation suit.

Yes it is.
If someone makes an allegation based ON NOTHING in reality, then the burden IS on the plaintiff to prove their case.
All Zimmerman has to show is that the NBC allegations were based on NO evidence.
That is done during the discovery and deposition stage.
Ziummerman's lawyers in the deposition to the NBC employees that claimed Zimmerman was a racist: "Mr. Liberal NBC KooK reporter, when you claimed Zimmerman was a racist what did you base that on?"
Liberal NBC KooK reporter: "nothing, it was just opinion"
Within hours the NBC lawyer to Zimmerman's lawyer "How much can we settle it for. We have no defense"
WELL DUH

Aside from the fact that you are wrong, NBC never claimed Zimmerman was a racist.

 

[Gadawg73]

The only way he can prove the defendant's statements are false is to prove he isn't a racist or a predator.

They take depositions in civil cases Ravi. That is required under the civil rules of civil procedure.
During the depositions the defendant will have to offer all evidence of George Zimmerman being a racist. What statements did the defendants hear Zimmerman make and when concerning his race being superior to another race.
And if the defendants have no evidence to base THEIR OPINION on then they have no defense.
And they already know it as they immediately fired all employees involved.
Maybe they do have some evidence to back up their claims that Zimmerman is a racist.
What are they?

 

[Ravi]

The only way he can prove the defendant's statements are false is to prove he isn't a racist or a predator.

They take depositions in civil cases Ravi. That is required under the civil rules of civil procedure.
During the depositions the defendant will have to offer all evidence of George Zimmerman being a racist. What statements did the defendants hear Zimmerman make and when concerning his race being superior to another race.
And if the defendants have no evidence to base THEIR OPINION on then they have no defense.
And they already know it as they immediately fired all employees involved.
Maybe they do have some evidence to back up their claims that Zimmerman is a racist.
What are they?

They don't have to prove that he's a racist. He has to prove that he isn't. This is how defamation lawsuits work. The accused is innocent until proven guilty in this case like in many others.

 

[Gadawg73]

Additionally, all Zimmerman has to prove is that the defendants, NBC, knew what they were claiming was false.
That is not that hard of a burden once you establish in depositions that they had NO evidence to begin with that he was a racist.

 

[Gadawg73]

The only way he can prove the defendant's statements are false is to prove he isn't a racist or a predator.

They take depositions in civil cases Ravi. That is required under the civil rules of civil procedure.
During the depositions the defendant will have to offer all evidence of George Zimmerman being a racist. What statements did the defendants hear Zimmerman make and when concerning his race being superior to another race.
And if the defendants have no evidence to base THEIR OPINION on then they have no defense.
And they already know it as they immediately fired all employees involved.
Maybe they do have some evidence to back up their claims that Zimmerman is a racist.
What are they?

They don't have to prove that he's a racist. He has to prove that he isn't. This is how defamation lawsuits work. The accused is innocent until proven guilty in this case like in many others.

How many of these cases have you taken to trial?
If the defendants did NO investigating PRIOR to putting this on the air, had no established guidelines as to how to tell if what they are reporting is true or not,had not established a neutral position on their criteria for publication of the claim of racism, followed that criteria that was established before publication, made sure they were not publishing something from unreliable sources or employees (note the fraud they did and how they fired their own employees for violating this), retained full records of all background on how they reached their conclusion that Zimmerman was a racist, confirmed the information that they were about to publish-that Zimmerman IS TRULY a racist, used actual QUOTED MATERIAL that Zimmerman had actually stated himself that is believes his race is superior to others in their publication, avoided and COUNTERACTED any bias that their reporting agency may have in the matter like you believe Zimmerman is guilty and made every attempt TO AVOID LANGUAGE THAT MAKES CONCLUSIONS in their publication then their ass is cooked from the word go.
Ravi, all of the steps above ARE what the defendant has to HAVE DONE prior to reporting. If they have failed in any of these areas then their ass is cooked on the liability.
Now there are 2 stages to all civil damage cases. First stage is the liability stage. Zimmerman has that one in the bag as indicated above.
2nd stage is damages and he has to prove actual damages to his reputation.
That one is the hard part but since NBC has all but admitted they are liable they will cough up money.
Again, read each step above as that is the step guideline I use in all of the cases I have worked.
Ever heard of Richard Jewell? Look that case up against the AJC my dear.

 

[Ravi]

Gilligan, how many links do you need before you admit you are wrong?

Here's another.

Burden of Proof

As with all civil lawsuits, in libel and slander cases the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. If the proof of defamation is made, a plaintiff may collect financial compensation for damages and in some cases may also be awarded punitive damages. Appeals may be made on the basis of First Amendment rights.

Libel and Slander Claims

 

[Gadawg73]

Gilligan, how many links do you need before you admit you are wrong?

Here's another.

Burden of Proof

As with all civil lawsuits, in libel and slander cases the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. If the proof of defamation is made, a plaintiff may collect financial compensation for damages and in some cases may also be awarded punitive damages. Appeals may be made on the basis of First Amendment rights.

Libel and Slander Claims

Do you even read your own links?
Where does it say the plaintiff MUST PROVE HE IS NOT WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID?
Where is that Ravi?
Your claim has been that Zimmerman must prove HE IS NOT A RACIST TO WIN.
So where is that?
Thought you may have some sense and brains but I believe what others state here now.
You are stupid.

 

[paperview]

Live Coverage - FOX 35 News Orlando

Live stream of the Zimmerman hearing.

 

[Gadawg73]

Read the steps above as that is the case law as to what a defendant must have done to make sure they do not print, publish or broadcast false statements.
In all court cases the burden is always on the side that brings suit but the civil rules of procedure in these cases require the due diligence steps BEFORE publishing, broadcasting or printing statements THAT WERE KNOWN TO BE FALSE to begin with.
And NBC never did their due dilligence.
Do you even know what due diligence is and how that is applied to most all civil cases?

 

[Ravi]

Gilligan, how many links do you need before you admit you are wrong?

Here's another.

Burden of Proof

As with all civil lawsuits, in libel and slander cases the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. If the proof of defamation is made, a plaintiff may collect financial compensation for damages and in some cases may also be awarded punitive damages. Appeals may be made on the basis of First Amendment rights.

Libel and Slander Claims

Do you even read your own links?
Where does it say the plaintiff MUST PROVE HE IS NOT WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID?
Where is that Ravi?
Your claim has been that Zimmerman must prove HE IS NOT A RACIST TO WIN.
So where is that?
Thought you may have some sense and brains but I believe what others state here now.
You are stupid.

Zimmerman has to prove he isn't a racist or a predator to win his suit. It's really pretty simple.

 

[paperview]

Well, this was interesting. We just learned at the hearing the lead detective Serino wanted at first to charge Zimmerman with MURDER, not manslaughter.

Ha!

 

[Uncensored2008]

NO, because even if Trayvon attacked (which there is little evidence for) Zimmerman precipitated that confrontation by following and stalking the kid AFTER police told him to STAND DOWN. Zimmerman thought he was going to be a bad-ass and got his ass handed to him (maybe). Or maybe he just wet himself when the black kid surprised him and fell over on his fat ass.

I don't really care which. He created the situation to start with.

And the end of it, a Child was dead.

Which is why he needs to go to jail for a very long time.

Comrade Stalin, you're such a fucking liar - and stupid.

The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin; they said that wasn't necessary and Zimmerman stopped.

Serious question, why do you lie about this? Is it just racism? I started a thread about why you leftists are such fucking racists. White leftists are the worst offenders, I think you all are looking for revenge against mommy and daddy for over-indulging you..

 

[Uncensored2008]

They did something wrong, all right. But they did not call Zimmerman a predator or a racist.

And Zimmerman has to prove that he is neither in order to win his suit.

Rati, you are amazingly stupid.

NBC edit:

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

Actual audio:

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.

__________________________

It's called "libel," Rati - and this is a text book case.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So under your theory Zimmerman has to prove he does not feel his race, whatever half breed he is, is far superior to Martin's race.
You do know that the legal definition of racism is one believing his race is superior to another.
So tell us how Zimmerman has a hard time proving he does not claim his race is superior to Martin's race.
Know your subject before you speak.

That would render Rati entirely mute...

 

[paperview]

NO, because even if Trayvon attacked (which there is little evidence for) Zimmerman precipitated that confrontation by following and stalking the kid AFTER police told him to STAND DOWN. Zimmerman thought he was going to be a bad-ass and got his ass handed to him (maybe). Or maybe he just wet himself when the black kid surprised him and fell over on his fat ass.

I don't really care which. He created the situation to start with.

And the end of it, a Child was dead.

Which is why he needs to go to jail for a very long time.

Comrade Stalin, you're such a fucking liar - and stupid.

The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin; they said that wasn't necessary and Zimmerman stopped.

Serious question, why do you lie about this? Is it just racism? I started a thread about why you leftists are such fucking racists. White leftists are the worst offenders, I think you all are looking for revenge against mommy and daddy for over-indulging you..

Wow. Are you ever right about anything?

Seriously. That's a pile of dung there.

"The Police never told Zimmerman anything. Zimmerman ASKED the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

Link to where Z asked "the 911 operator if they wanted him to pursue Martin"

G'head.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He can't prove he isn't a racist, dummy. That's the point and why I said his suit is probably just a bid to poison the minds of a future jury at his criminal trial.

It's a court of law, moron. He doesn't have to prove anything except that NBC made a claim. NBC must prove through a preponderance of evidence he IS a racist of be found liable. They will settle long before the question hits the court.

You should have stuck it out to 7th grade Rati, seriously.

 

[Ravi]

They did something wrong, all right. But they did not call Zimmerman a predator or a racist.

And Zimmerman has to prove that he is neither in order to win his suit.

Rati, you are amazingly stupid.

NBC edit:

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

Actual audio:

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.

__________________________

It's called "libel," Rati - and this is a text book case.

Only if Zimmerman can prove he isn't a racist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Zimmerman's going to go to jail, and NBC will say, "I told you so!"

Comrade Stalin, the two cases are not related. Even if Zimmerman were convicted - which is highly unlikely, it has no bearing on the NBC defamation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not in a defamation suit.

Wrong again Rati.

You went to the same law school as Jillian, dinja? (Hank's collage of laws and plumbing and stuff.)

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant printed or broadcast defamatory statements, with the add charge that the plaintiff deliberately engaged in fraud for the purpose of defaming the plaintiff.

All Zimmerman needs to prove is that NBC willfully broadcast defamatory information. NBC is so clearly guilty that it's laughable.

The DEFENSE that NBC can mount is to prove that Zimmerman is what they claimed, in which case it would not be defamation.

So as usual, you are completely wrong.