Free speech has never included the right to slander and lie with impunity. Every freedom comes with responisibility. Free speech also entail accountability for deliberate abuse of that freedom. No responsible journalist ever need worry about this lawsuit. Only those who attempt to use their position to spread malicious lies need worry.
Actually it does.
This is a very bad comparison. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You are talking about criminalizing speech. What is happening here is an attempt at civil restitution. This is no slipper slope. It is a different hillside. Who “enforces” it? Why, the jury would, if it goes to trial. They determine if a deliberate act by a corporation results in an injury to a third party.
I have not read anything other than speculation on the behavor of Trayvon Martin which prompted Zimmerman to make the call. He said on the phone that the young man was behaving oddly but gave no details. The transcript of Zimmerman’s 911 call indicated that he was not at first sure of Martin’s race; given that it was dark and apparently rainy, that is not too surprising.I don’t get it. How was he behaving oddly? The boy was simply talking on the phone while heading home.
Zimmerman claimed that Martin was “running” in the rain. That it wasn’t like someone exercising in the rain bla bla bla. According to Zimmerman, that wasn’t normal. (Although it was normal for him to follow Martin in the same rain.)
Then he later admitted that Martin wasn’t actually running.
Hmmm, so how then was he suspicious?
No one has the right to be a vigilante. Zimmerman violated the Neighborhood Watch guidelines, ignored the police dispatcher, and initiated a confrontation.
If a strange man is following you, shouting at you, and approaches you with a gun then you have the right to do anything in your power to defend yourself from that hostile action.
The stand your ground law doesn’t work that way. You can’t aggressively pursue and confront someone with a gun then claim you had the right to shoot them because they were defending themselves.
It will take more than “he was following him” to convict him on 2nd degree murder. The State has to meet all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt AND convince 12 people of of it.
No doubt they overcharged him. at the most it was involuntary manslaughter and even that would be a hard case to make.
Yes, that does happen. It is the State’s job to make sure the charges fit the crime and to do their job correctly so that criminals don’t walk.
He broke no law, There had been several break-ins and he was watching someone to see what they were up to. The dispatcher said he didn’t “have” to follow Zimmerman. GZ was returning top his truck when Trayvon attacked him.
Sorry…. GZ wasn’t shouting and he did not reveal that he had a gun until he was on his back…
Sorry he didn’t aggressively pursue anyone.
The Defense attorney disagrees and isn’t using a SYG defense. They are going with a standard self-defense.
Government is responsible for enforcing the law, not armed civilians with an agenda outside of morality.
The prosecution just needs to prove GZ did not fear great bodily harm the moment he pulled ten trigger
Oh, the prosecution doesn’t have to go that far, they just have to prove that Zimmerman didn’t have to get involved with an exchange with Martin and could’ve just stayed away from Martin until the cops showed up.
So Zimmerman should hsve allowed Martin to beat him as long as he wanted to?
Nope it’s not govts job to protect me.
Huh?