Skip to main content

Zimmerman NOPE

The very first thing that struck me as exceptionally odd in this George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin fiasco came almost immediately after the news broke that he had shot a teenage boy dead. It had nothing to do with whether he or the victim were black, white, brown, yellow or red. It had nothing to do with color at all. It was simply the fact that he got out of his vehicle with a loaded gun. He knew as soon as he slammed the door shut that he was entering a very dangerous territory; one that immediately compromised his own common sense and sanity. Given what I know today, I feel the same way.

Forget the recording with the dispatcher for the moment. Initially, I paid little attention to it. Whether Trayvon attacked him first or not was not that important to me because, as far as I was concerned, Zimmerman knew exactly what he was capable of doing with that gun when he steadied himself and sidled into the unknown. No one walks with a gun without understanding the possible consequences, and that Kel-Tec PF9 pistol empowered him. It enabled him to play police officer, judge, jury and executioner with all of the bravado of Paul Kersey, and that's precisely what he did. Paul Kersey was the character played by Charles Bronson in the Death Wish movie franchise. Take away the weapon and George Zimmerman would never have moved stealthily into the darkness, confronting a fictional fear that was as frightful as the shadow he cast on that dreary Sunday night. There was no real danger lurking about; it was created by his need and strong passion to become some kind of legendary figure that haunted his soul for years. He had to prove to himself and others just who he was. To that end, he succeeded, but at a huge loss.

Trayvon Martin was a nobody in the sense that none of us are, but you cannot put a price tag on life. He was a typical teenager who would have spent his teen years in obscurity, like most other boys and girls his age -- listening to the songs from Mac Miller's Blue Slide Park and kickin' to the rhythmic beats of Akon. His world was different from ours as adults and unless we are in step with the minds of today's youth, we just don't get it. Right on and out of sight were as out of sync to him as lunchin' and tizzle are to us. Certainly, when Zimmerman was lunchin' that night, Trayvon was in a tizzle. (See: Hip Hop Slang.)

Because of what George Zimmerman did on the night of February 26, Trayvon is classified as either a martyr or a gangsta, when all that really matters is that he should have been left the hell alone. Because of Zimmerman, this child will never walk in his father's footsteps. He will never become what he aspired to be, whether his mind was made up or not. After all, he was still quite young. He was at an age when aspirations are supposed to run wild. Sadly, he was snuffed out by a thief in the night, whose only screams were for power and glory.


My thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with NBC or any other media organization. I think on my own two feet, thank you, and if racism ever crossed my mind because the victim was African-American and the perpetrator was not, I never jumped to that conclusion. Most certainly, had I, it would NOT have been because of something that appeared on the Today show. I've learned, like most people, that you cannot trust any one news source. Where the Wall Street Journal runs on the conservative side, for instance, the New York Times is at the opposite end of the spectrum; and since the advent of reporting on newsworthy events, from thousands of years ago, opinions have been an integral part. It's the nature of the beast. Who remembers the tears flowing from Walter Cronkite's eyes as he announced the death of JFK on live television? Who could possibly be neutral on the day the Twin Towers fell? As objective as media are supposed to be, they are not, and the only advice I can proffer is to consider all options; listen to every side, considering that all sources are multi-faceted and not always reliable. Remember when WFTV reported that George and Cindy Anthony inked a book deal with Simon and Schuster? Did you ever read that book? Was the story ever rescinded?

This leads me to whether or not NBC should be held accountable for a story that skewed the events of the night of February 26. Quietly, I will tell you that skews and news are pretty much interchangeable these days, but in this case, the report that originated at an NBC affiliate station in Miami, WTVJ, before it aired on the Today show, ran perpendicular to the actual event, where Zimmerman purportedly said:

"This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."

The New York Post reported a slightly different version on the NBC coverage:

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.”

The actual transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and the Seminole County emergency dispatcher clarified the error. Zimmerman did not say it like it was reported:

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.

I will agree that the televised segment made George Zimmerman look like a racist because it appeared that he pointed out Trayvon's color without being prompted, and that's simply not true. However, does it rise to the level that warrants a lawsuit and monetary settlement?

I'm not here to defend Zimmerman, but I'm not going to condemn him, either; certainly not on this one. Why? Because I have experience in this field and I can genuinely empathize with him. NBC clearly did him an injustice. The network does, however, have more going for it than meets the press, so to speak. For one thing, did George Zimmerman have a "good" name at the time of the report? While the incident happened over three weeks prior, the news of the event actually broke over a week before the NBC story aired. By then, Zimmerman's name was already festering, and rumors of racism had already abounded.


Many of you are aware of what happened to me during the Casey Anthony case -- that I was attacked ferociously and voraciously by a fringe element that labeled me as gay, with AIDS, an alcoholic with DUI convictions, and a convicted felon. Convicted of what felonies, I do not know, but the list didn't end there, nor did it end with me. My friends and family were insulted and accused of crimes, as well. Names and addresses were published. Online documents, such as tax records, were altered. My parents were supposedly card carrying gay communists with AIDS. Several of my e-mail accounts were hacked. I saw counterfeit documents with my own eyes, so I completely understand why Trayvon's family shut down his social sites.

I went to the police with what I thought was hardcore evidence on my computer. Granted, it's not easy to identify creeps that call themselves "DEAD DAVE" and other anonymous names, but they can be found. That's what computer crimes units are for. While it went nowhere, I also contacted a defamation attorney who helped me tremendously. Ultimately, between the two resources, I gathered comprehensive knowledge of what constitutes libel and what can legally be done about it.

First of all, here's a quick primer. If it is written, it's libel. If it is spoken, it's slander. Both are considered defamation. In NBC's case, it could be all of the above because it was seen, read, and heard. The problem is, it's tough to prove and the laws in the United States make it a very difficult nut to crack.

In my case, there was a genuine malicious design. The objective of those people was to destroy me, physically and emotionally. They wanted me dead and said so. That's what trolls do. In NBC's case, there was no such intent. Was there bias? Yes. Or maybe no. It depends on which side of the fence you're on. The media are supposed to remain truthful, but we know that, in today's world, it's far from reality; where even reality shows are well-choreographed. While Zimmerman's supporters will tell you NBC's report was so slanted against him it was sickening, Trayvon's people will tell you the complete opposite. NBC will tell you it was a matter of time constraints -- editing a story to fit in a defined time slot.

While my trolls wanted me dead, I had no direct threats. No one said they were going to kill me and without any real menace, veiled or otherwise, law enforcement was powerless to act. That's when I decided to contact a defamation attorney. While I had no money to mount any sort of lawsuit, the attorney did tell me he would freely advise me if I found a local attorney to take on my case. I never did pursue that venue, but he continued to help. One of the key aspects of proving libel deals with search engine standings. A lot hinges on how search terms stack up in the hierarchy, and engines differ in their results. If you do a search for "marinade dave", how long do you have to scroll before something nefarious shows up? The higher the defamation in the pecking order, the more of a case you may have. Still, in my situation, I couldn't go after any one person or even a group because no such entity existed. There was no structured organization; no corporation and no headquarters. In Zimmerman's case, there's NBC.

So what does Zimmerman have stacked in his favor? Not much, really. When the news broke, he automatically became a public figure. Actually, it began the moment he squeezed the trigger, whether he knew it or not, and just because it wasn't reported right away, which it as, locally, he was no longer a private citizen. While I was merely a bit player in the Casey Anthony case, he became the star attraction; the center ring in a vast media circus. While the media could have looked at me as a culprit in my situation, they chose not to. In Zimmerman's case, he is either guilty or he's not, and I think we've already established that the media is not always fair and impartial, and there's no law that forces them to be.

According to The Florida Bar, the "mere fact that a person does not like the way an article portrays him does not entitle him to damages. Rather, a defamatory communication, in its classic definition, is one that tends to hold a person up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or causes him to be shunned or avoided by others."

If people are shunning Zimmerman, could it be because of his own doing, not NBC's?

In Florida law, there's also the element of substantial proof:

While "truth is a defense" to a claim of defamation, Florida common law has taken that notion slightly further by permitting publishers of allegedly false statements to show those statements are "substantially true" or that portions that are untrue are so insignificant that a typical reader neither would realize the difference nor draw a different conclusion about the plaintiff if the false statements had not been included. In determining, then, whether an article is libelous, Florida courts review the article as if the allegedly false statements had been omitted. If the article purged of the error would not affect the mind of the reader differently, the article is not libelous. This test allows a defendant to demonstrate the general truth of the report, even though some portions may contain inaccuracies.

If we remove the NBC report from what we know to date, would it change our minds about George Zimmerman? Did the report motivate anyone (or enough people) to turn against him by altering their opinion (at that time) regarding whether or not he was a racist, and what kind of adverse effect could it have on his future? Who or what is more to blame, NBC or George himself?

It's very difficult to prove libel. It's very expensive, too. Who or what is prompting the defense (or George) to file a suit? Robert, Jr.? Where will the money come from? Because this would be a civil matter, how would his criminal defense attorneys fit into the equation? Zimmerman would be up against a huge corporation, so, unless he is hoping for a quick out of court settlement, what kind of risk is he willing to take considering his odds of winning or losing?

I understand that this situation is far removed from what I went through, but in the case of media, there are issues concerning time constraints that would work in their favor. I question how difficult it would be to prove that the network set out to destroy George Zimmerman's reputation. One other thing to take into consideration is the competitive nature of an industry where advertising revenue is based on ratings. Scoops are what count. Yes, news outlets should strive for the truth, but tell me honestly, aren't shocking stories what we really want ? Aren't they called headlines?

I have one more question that I'd like to address, and this one goes to George Zimmerman's most ardent supporters. It deals with the goose and the gander. If NBC should be held responsible for destroying his "good" name, who should be held accountable for the horrible smear campaign against Trayvon Martin? What Website(s) wrote: "TRAYVON MARTIN WAS A DRUG DEALER" and "A YEAR OF DRUG USE CULMINATES IN PREDICTABLE VIOLENCE..." with nothing to legally substantiate the claims? Do they fit the description of defamation?

Incidentally, George Zimmerman was on drugs, and that's the truth. You can't sue me. Whether he took them that day is something else, but why not try Googling "trayvon martin was a drug dealer" and see what you get on the first page? Hmm... Could that be a lawsuit just waiting to happen?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  you just proved there was no libel.n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  The NBC video came out well after most (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwjjd, Tonedevil

    people had heard the tapes on their own. I don't think it formed anyone's opinion. I didn't even catch the edit because I had already heard what he said in context.

    "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

    by second gen on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 03:48:30 PM PDT

  •  You must prove NBC had "actual malice" (0+ / 0-)

    when it televised the statement you are referring to.

    See here:

    Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
    Now is Zimmerman a public figure? By legal standards, yes he is, because:
    The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
    •  they edited the statement, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      so they knew what they were doing it.  ie, the edits weren't an accident.  malice is probably the easiest element to show here.

      •  No (0+ / 0-)
        If such a case is in fact filed, Zimmerman will have to address several elements of libel that may prove sticky.

        First, NBC didn’t actually call Zimmerman a racist; the edits possibly only imply it. The network did actually indicate something was missing with the ellipsis. So technically, the quote is correct.
        •  I'm not so sure. (0+ / 0-)

          First of all, many states recognize the tort of false light which covers true but misleading statements.

          Second, ellipses can only take you so far. An ellipsis can turn "I am appalled that Penn State continued to employ someone it knew or should have to be a child rapist," into "I am ... a child rapist." If a newspaper changed the former into the latter, I can almost guarantee that it will be actionable.

          I'm not saying that NBC would lose, only that it might be a closer call. In any case, even if he proved libel, Zimmerman would still have a problem proving damages.

  •  You can't libel a dead person n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  I have no idea who you are. (0+ / 0-)

    Were you Casey Anthony's attorney or something?

    In any case, very well written article. I'm not sure I agree with it, and I think you took a huge leap comparing your own experience with that of George Zimmerman's, but at least it was an interesting take.

    Logic will break your heart forever. Be brave. -- The Stills

    by Colorado is the Shiznit on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 04:04:42 PM PDT

  •  This is the first I am hearing of your ordeal ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... and it's truly sickening.

    Is there talk they might really sue NBC? I hope not. I think it would rub salt in the Trayvon family's wounds, forcing them to relive this tragedy in two courtrooms. That's the main reason I hope Zimmerman keeps his mouth shut.

    Zimmerman's people will be well advised to keep their heads down, focus on his defense, and keep away from the media. They have squandered the court's good will and sympathy at this point, and it would be foolish of them to do anything to make that worse - especially since, whatever the technical legal merits of his claim, Zimmerman would likely collect little more than a modest out-of-court settlement and an apology.

    I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace. - Thomas Paine

    by ManOutOfTime on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 04:11:22 PM PDT

  •  Malice was shown in the news coverage (0+ / 0-)

    1) Although not just by NBC.    As usual, the News Media largely lies by omission and gross exaggeration --rarely does it resort to outright falsehoods.

    2) I knew that the News Media was being deceitful when I looked up the crime figures for Sanford.   Contrary to it's depiction as the Wild West, it's homicide rate is relatively low.   However, it does have a very high burglary/breakins crime rate, very high unemployment and  a massive fall in housing values.   For the News Media to IGNORE the environment in which the shooting occurred  was dishonest.  

    3) It took a BRITISH news agency to provide a more truthful  depiction of reality --see  

    4) Usually it is Fox News which does the functional equivalent of lying through its teeth.   In this case, however, it appears to largely be Democratic aligned news organizations.   Apparently they hoped that if they let the Democratic leadership shed enough crocodile tears for Trayvon, then black voters would forget about that 15% black unemployment rate  (40% in the case of black teenagers like Trayvon.)   A rather dirty game, in my opinion, since it included railroading a Hispanic.

    5) The laws on deadly force are clear.   I don't know if Zimmerman was guilty -- that will require detailed examination of the evidence by the jury.   But I think the lynching attempted in the news media was disgraceful.  

    6) And Zimmerman was not the only party attacked in this manner.    

    I disagree with Ron Paul about many things but he was about the only politican in either party who stood up and challenged the Republican Neocons in a public forum.   Even President Obama let Dick Cheney and the Neocons escape trial and judgment.

    Yet  a number of  Democrats supported the New Republic's attempt to paint Paul as a racist based on 20 year old guilt by association.  

    That would be the New Republic which promoted an unnecessary war in Iraq that has killed more black men in the past decade than the Ku Klux Klan managed in the past century.   And if you want to see racism, ask
    the New Republic's Marty Peretz what he thinks of

  •  You're wrong about the definition of libel (0+ / 0-)

    Libel is written (or broadcast) and slander is spoken. Defamation covers both.

    Also, it isn't exactly right to say that truth is a defense. That's only true of non-public figures. So for example, if you were to say that I cheated on my partner, I would only need to prove that (a) you made the statement and (b) that it would tend to lower my esteem in the community. Once I did that, the burden would be on you to prove that I actually committed adultery (or that some other defense or privilege applied).  

    Zimmerman is (probably) a limited public figure. Under NY Times v. Sullivan he would also need to prove that the statement was false and (legally) malicious. Truth wouldn't be a defense, because Zimmerman carries the burden of proving falsity.

    •  definition of libel (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You're right about that and I knew it. What I didn't pay attention to was how I wrote it. This was definitely my error and thank you very much for pointing it out to me. I corrected it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site