The Goat Pen

How? He won't win a lawsuit against them?

innocentbystander wrote:

10ac wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... l-security

They report, you deside.

I have decided that when Zimmerman is acquitted, he will own CNN.

I have decided you are a fucking idiot.

IMO, the prosecution is making a great case for the defense. At worst he gets some kind of reduced manslaughter charge, which is what the locals were charging him with initially....but NBC wouldn't hear of it.

Jungle Rat wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:

10ac wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... l-security

They report, you deside.

I have decided that when Zimmerman is acquitted, he will own CNN.

I have decided you are a fucking idiot.

He is going to sue CNN for millions of dollars if he hasn't already. You know that right? And his case is a winner. I'm not a lawyer and even I could win this case.

STFU moron. You are dumber than my shoe.

innocentbystander wrote:

I have decided that when Zimmerman is acquitted, he will own CNN.

Jungle Rat wrote:I have decided you are a fucking idiot.

innocentbystander wrote:He is going to sue CNN for millions of dollars if he hasn't already. You know that right? And his case is a winner. I'm not a lawyer and even I could win this case.

No, you'd lose big time. You'd have to prove falsehood and actual malice (that's not the same as hostility and is very difficult). Hell, if it were as easy as you think it is, the National Enquirer would pay out billions a year.

Owlman wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:

I have decided that when Zimmerman is acquitted, he will own CNN.

Jungle Rat wrote:I have decided you are a fucking idiot.

innocentbystander wrote:He is going to sue CNN for millions of dollars if he hasn't already. You know that right? And his case is a winner. I'm not a lawyer and even I could win this case.

No, you'd lose big time. You'd have to prove falsehood and actual malice (that's not the same as hostility and is very difficult). Hell, if it were as easy as you think it is, the National Enquirer would pay out billions a year.

Well Spike Lee actually wanted people with pitchforks coming to Zimmerman's home to have him tarred and feathered (and if you'd have seen the tweets.) That is actual "malice" so....

...yeah I think Zimmerman might have a winner here.

If I owned a TV store in Lakeland, I'd board up before this trial ends!

What does Spike Lee have to do with CNN? How is anything that Spike Lee says going to have any effect on a lawsuit against CNN and show that there was malice by CNN? Your thoughts are meaningless. Just admit on this you don't know what you are talking about.

Owlman wrote:What does Spike Lee have to do with CNN? How is anything that Spike Lee says going to have any effect on a lawsuit against CNN and show that there was malice by CNN? Your thoughts are meaningless. Just admit on this you don't know what you are talking about.

CNN gave Spike Lee (and the whole world) information about Zimmerman. Spike Lee called for an angy mob. Spike Lee sent the tweet for ZImmerman's address for the wrong Zimmerman. Either way, CNN displayed Zimmerman's address, social security number, everything, and nothing was redacted.

That's a lawsuit.

Now, if Zimmerman doesn't capitalize on that, that is his own fault. But any lawyer that read even one law book could win this case and win Zimmerman big bucks.

Bullshit. That is not a lawsuit. Now if he wants to sue CNN, would I take his case? Sure, with a very healthy large retainer after I'd advise him that the chances of him winning are remote. You still don't know what you are talking about.

Owlman wrote:Bullshit. That is not a lawsuit. Now if he wants to sue CNN, would I take his case? Sure, with a very healthy large retainer after I'd advise him that the chances of him winning are remote. You still don't know what you are talking about.

welp, we'll see. we'll see if zimmerman pursues this. i'm guessing he'll find a line of attormney's who would not require even one penny of retainer.

dumbass. The SS# was put on the screen by a prosecutor that forgot to give it to the Clerk of Court to redact the information first. Since you think you are an atty, how will you prove malice on the part of CNN? You are a fucking moron.

Invasion of Privacy perhaps? It wasn't in the control of CNN. Again, where's the intent? Negligence? You'd have to prove breach on the part of CNN and proximate cause in their actions.

Owlman wrote:dumbass. The SS# was put on the screen by a prosecutor that forgot to give it to the Clerk of Court to redact the information first. Since you think you are an atty, how will you prove malice on the part of CNN? You are a fucking moron.

because it was CNN that broadcasted the SS#. ultimately, THEY are responsible for what they broadcast. if somone else fucks up and shows them something they can't broadcast, that does not absolve them from responsibility

the prosecutor does not own a broadcasting company. or else he would responsible

dumbass

And your legal training was where??? And you passed what bar? And what type of law do you practice? And you are going to sue under what tort? And what elements of that tort will the plaintiff have to prove?

The more you speak, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Owlman wrote:And your legal training was where??? And you passed what bar? And what type of law do you practice? And you are going to sue under what tort? And what elements of that tort will the plaintiff have to prove?

The more you speak, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you are talking about.

i am not a lawyer

but ALL of your arguments against my saying that Zimmerman has a case boils down to the following:

Credentialing equals Blogosphere Rent Seeking That is all that is.

Owlman, your "legal credentials" are nothing more than Blogosphere Rent Seeking. You passed a bar, I didn't. You went to law school. I didn't. You practice law somewhere. I don't. And just because you are credentialed (and I am not) you want to disqualify (utterly) any argument I am making.

Your blogosphere rent seeking is about as meaningful as a fucking taxi medalian. You are a used car salesman who passed the bar. Just because you have credentials (and I don't) does not mean I am not permitted to discuss something that your credentials allows you to earn a living from....

I can't believe you are actually arguing with this clown, Spacer...

Truthfully, I'm not. I'm arguing with those who really want to believe IB but don't why? IB, I recognize is just foolish on this and will keep with his opinion no matter what information presented that should tell him otherwise.

Owlman wrote:Truthfully, I'm not. I'm arguing with those who really want to believe IB but don't why? IB, I recognize is just foolish on this and will keep with his opinion no matter what information presented that should tell him otherwise.

Well what I'm not going to do is say that you have no right to discuss something on this forum because you don't have any credentials on the matter. That is what you just did. You just wimped out owlman.

You are a lawyer. You of all people know you can sue anyone for anything. Zimmerman has a case. He has damages. Whether or not he pursues this case (and if he can actually win or not) is another matter. But he CAN sue. And there are a lot of hungry (unemployed) lawyers out there. He only needs one.