TexasCHLforum.com

Zimmerman trial is over, he's found not guilty. Angela Corey is on HLN News and asked to describe George Zimmerman in one word. She responds "murderer". In my mind she just commited slander and ought to be sued. Am I wrong in beliving this?

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/15 ... -interview

I think it would be libel since it was published.

SC1903A3 wrote:Zimmerman trial is over, he's found not guilty. Angela Corey is on HLN News and asked to describe George Zimmerman in one word. She responds "murderer". In my mind she just commited slander and ought to be sued. Am I wrong in beliving this?

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/15 ... -interview

Seems absolutely like slander to me. The thing is, Zimmerman has been acquitted, so "murder" is a defamatory statement. You or I can get away with that if we are so inclined, but not a public official. OTH, there is nothing defamatory about the words I would use to describe Angela Cory if forum rules permitted it, because her behavior on camera manifestly proves it. Res ipsa loquitur.

"Res ipsa loquitur" cannot be said about any alleged guilt on the part of George Zimmerman. He is not guilty.

Due to the medium, television, even though Ms. Corey "said" Murderer, this would be libel. IANAL, but since it's libel, you have to prove malice. She believes he is a murderer, and stated that opinion, Zimmerman would have to prove that she made her statement specifically to harm him.

Dadtodabone wrote:Due to the medium, television, even though Ms. Corey "said" Murderer, this would be libel. IANAL, but since it's libel, you have to prove malice. She believes he is a murderer, and stated that opinion, Zimmerman would have to prove that she made her statement specifically to harm him.

Actually, you generally only have to prove "actual malice" if the person being libeled is a "public person" e.g., someone who has injected themselves into the public debate on an issue. Otherwise the standard is negligence.

You also have to prove damages from the false statement. Sometimes the defamed person sues and is awarded $1, worth it to have the record.

It doesn't always work out like you plan, or hope, though. An attorney of my acquaintance in San Diego sued an accountant for addressing him in public in highly uncomplimentary terms, an anatomical reference, for habitually conducting himself in an irregular and offensive manner. About half the escrow officers and a good many of the bar association offered to testify to the truth of the supposedly defamatory statement. The outcome was that the plaintiff was awarded the cost of cleaning his suit, since a beer was poured on it during the supposedly defamatory outburst, but the defense of truth prevailed and became res judicata as to the Plaintiff.

AlaskanInTexas wrote:

Dadtodabone wrote:Due to the medium, television, even though Ms. Corey "said" Murderer, this would be libel. IANAL, but since it's libel, you have to prove malice. She believes he is a murderer, and stated that opinion, Zimmerman would have to prove that she made her statement specifically to harm him.

Actually, you generally only have to prove "actual malice" if the person being libeled is a "public person" e.g., someone who has injected themselves into the public debate on an issue. Otherwise the standard is negligence.

Does Zimmerman fit the definition of "public person"? I would argue that he does, whether his "celebrity" or being of "great public interest" was of his own making or not.

IMO free speech. The media won't let this go until there is mass civil unrest.

texanjoker wrote: The media won't let this go until there is mass civil unrest.

The media these days can't just report the news, they have to help generate it now!

Dadtodabone wrote:

AlaskanInTexas wrote:

Dadtodabone wrote:Due to the medium, television, even though Ms. Corey "said" Murderer, this would be libel. IANAL, but since it's libel, you have to prove malice. She believes he is a murderer, and stated that opinion, Zimmerman would have to prove that she made her statement specifically to harm him.

Actually, you generally only have to prove "actual malice" if the person being libeled is a "public person" e.g., someone who has injected themselves into the public debate on an issue. Otherwise the standard is negligence.

Does Zimmerman fit the definition of "public person"? I would argue that he does, whether his "celebrity" or being of "great public interest" was of his own making or not.

No.

What I've been reading is that the prosecution has a certain latitude after the case is complete before they can be accused of slander. I think Corey is cynically taking advantage of that loophole.

txglock21 wrote:

texanjoker wrote: The media won't let this go until there is mass civil unrest.

The media these days can't just report the news, they have to help generate it now!

And generate it they do, in all sorts of ways

I see a big problem with Corey's inflammatory words if anything was to happen to Zimmerman. He was found innocent, and Corey's words diminish the credibility of the jury's decision and impugns the legal process she is suppose to represent. Dereliction of duty also comes to mind.

JALLEN wrote:You also have to prove damages from the false statement. Sometimes the defamed person sues and is awarded $1, worth it to have the record.

It doesn't always work out like you plan, or hope, though. An attorney of my acquaintance in San Diego sued an accountant for addressing him in public in highly uncomplimentary terms, an anatomical reference, for habitually conducting himself in an irregular and offensive manner. About half the escrow officers and a good many of the bar association offered to testify to the truth of the supposedly defamatory statement. The outcome was that the plaintiff was awarded the cost of cleaning his suit, since a beer was poured on it during the supposedly defamatory outburst, but the defense of truth prevailed and became res judicata as to the Plaintiff.

now THAT'S funny! And the plaintiff now has his "legally etablished status" on record...

Zimmerman's life was wrecked by a thug He needs money to rebuild his life
He has a long list of news media to sue the prosecutor needs a liable suit too
I worked in a state reform school for five years I have seen what violent youth are
capable of wake up Martin was not a sweet little child like the
liers in the news media mislead the foolish follower to believe.
The people who tried Zimmerman in the news papers
need to be put on trial for starting a riots

talltex wrote:

JALLEN wrote:You also have to prove damages from the false statement. Sometimes the defamed person sues and is awarded $1, worth it to have the record.

It doesn't always work out like you plan, or hope, though. An attorney of my acquaintance in San Diego sued an accountant for addressing him in public in highly uncomplimentary terms, an anatomical reference, for habitually conducting himself in an irregular and offensive manner. About half the escrow officers and a good many of the bar association offered to testify to the truth of the supposedly defamatory statement. The outcome was that the plaintiff was awarded the cost of cleaning his suit, since a beer was poured on it during the supposedly defamatory outburst, but the defense of truth prevailed and became res judicata as to the Plaintiff.

now THAT'S funny! And the plaintiff now has his "legally etablished status" on record...

Yep! It was hilarious and good use was made of this ahh, unique situation. Another funny thing was that the suit was brought in Municipal Court, which then had a jurisdiction limit of $5,000, so for all the caterwauling about the damage to his reputation, it was worth less than $5,000 tops. For many years I had a set of the pleadings in a file, some of the most creative legal writing I ever encountered in nearly 40 years, and a source of humor and satisfaction to many for decades.

The guy would have been far better off to have sucked it up and ignored his tormentor, but as the allegation suggested, he habitually conducted himself in an irregular and offensive manner, and so it was.