Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[mikado]

split quite sure what's dispicable about the comments, pretty sure I find a thug killing a kid in poor taste, and gee trouble sure has followed him around hasn't it

 

[shemp]

It was self-defense. The restaurant patron had to defend himself from Zimmerman's face.

The right to swing one's fist ends where someone else's face begins. However, in Zimmerman's case, I think that boundary should be moved.

 

[Cylinder]

My personal opinion is that the 'fighting words' doctrine is bollocks*, however, that doesn't obviate your point. I suspect he wouldn't have reached that threshold for 'fighting words' although, by reputation, he is a complete arse, so may have done.



*I don't mean it doesn't exist over there, I just mean I think it shouldn't.

Fighting words alone don't really exist in law (anymore) in the US as a defense to assault. They can be a criminal act such as breach of peace if the words have a substantial likelihood of instigating or inciting violence and are not otherwise protected speech. They can also act as an element to constructive assault -- against which one could claim the justification of self defense.

For instance, I corral you at a restaurant table and start talking endlessly about the latest Paris Hilton scandal (or some other irritatingly boorish topic) while kind of physically blocking your exit. Society would expect a reasonably prudent and cautious person at the point of wanting to extract themself from the situation to interrupt, ask the person to leave, ask the person to move aside so you could leave yourself, ask the restaurant staff to remove the distraction, etc... It probably would not be judged reasonable to extract yourself using physical force as an initial response.

Let's say you were at the same restaurant but this time at you beloved sister's wake. I come up, similarly block your exit and prattle on about how your sister was a dirty whore who did not deserve the advantages she had in life or some similarly scandalous behavior. Society probably would judge someone so affected -- but otherwise reasonably prudent and cautious -- able to extract themself physically, having judged the behavior so outside the norm that with it comes a reasonable conclusion that the more kind of intermediate courses of action were not tolerable or unlikely to succeed considering the circumstance. That is, you wouldn't be expected to suffer further abuse in an attempt to leave peacefully.

There's some examples that sort of split the difference as well. I start talking loudly in public about my opinion of your beloved sister/mother/wife as a common whore. You decide to intervene physically. Your simple assault may be deemed unlawful and likewise my ability to claim justification against that assault may suffer the defect of provocation.

Even 150 years ago, fighting words weren't mere disagreements of opinion. They required the element of being a personal affront to honor which required a person to respond under the social mores of the day, thus effectively preventing what would have been their ability to withdraw from or avoid the conflict.

 

[Cylinder]

You think somebody should just be allowed to walk over to a person and verbally harass him with no consequences? I don't, and neither do most normal people I should think. The fighting words exception has been narrowed significantly by the Supreme Court over the years. It now requires a very specific and personalized target of verbal abuse. For example, the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church weirdos were ruled completely protected by the 1st Amendment, even though it is hard to come up with examples of more inflammatory speech than that.

That doctrine describes a limit to free speech -- not a defense to assault. There's really no fighting words doctrine that applies as defense to assault.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

That doctrine describes a limit to free speech -- not a defense to assault. There's really no fighting words doctrine that applies as defense to assault.

Which is why Bart Sibrel won a large lawsuit against Buzz Aldrin who punched Sibrel, on camera, after Sibel called him "a liar, a cheat and a thief."

Oh, wait, that didn't happen. The judge threw the case out. Because fighting words.

 

[Giordano]

The right to swing one's fist ends where someone else's face begins. However, in Zimmerman's case, I think that boundary should be moved.

The original definition works okay for me if Zimmerman is facing away from the fist thrower.

 

[KatieG]

This slime ball just can't help running his mouth. If he had any pride or dignity, he'd keep a low profile and keep his mouth shut.

He has never learned that bad publicity isn't a good thing. I suspect he never will and one day it will go very, very bad for him.

 

[fishbob]

This slime ball just can't help running his mouth. If he had any pride or dignity, he'd keep a low profile and keep his mouth shut.

He has never learned that bad publicity isn't a good thing. I suspect he never will and one day it will go very, very bad for him.

Hmmm.
Where do you think he got that idea?
What public figure could he be emulating I wonder?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Hmmm.
Where do you think he got that idea?
What public figure could he be emulating I wonder?

I think we've found Trump's Secretary of Homeland Security.

 

[HenryLee]

Which is why Bart Sibrel won a large lawsuit against Buzz Aldrin who punched Sibrel, on camera, after Sibel called him "a liar, a cheat and a thief."

Oh, wait, that didn't happen. The judge threw the case out. Because fighting words.

I think there's a difference between someone getting in your face insulting you and trying to provoke a reaction and interjecting yourself into someone else's conversation.

 

[sadhatter]

I see this the same as speaking ill of the dead. Silly.

If what I say or feel could retroactively stop the event for sure I would feel differently. But seeing as my enjoyment or lack thereof of the incident has zero impact on it, **** this guy, and I'll laugh when it happens again.

 

[Travis]

Some ******* loses their life in the moment they commit a criminal act that's one thing, but after the fact and when they're in custody no person should suffer extra-judicial punishment, no matter what crime they committed.

BZZZTT No. Extra judicial punishment is exactly warranted for scum like him. You'd better believe if I lived near him I'd be wanting to disappear his disgusting ass out into the woods. He murdered a teenager for no reason and there is no doubt he was the one that did it. He even brags about it now!

I say everyone punch him in his evil face every chance you get! If we're lucky he gets so despondent over everyone always hitting him just for murdering a kid that he'll off himself.

 

[Babbylonian]

BZZZTT No. Extra judicial punishment is exactly warranted for scum like him. You'd better believe if I lived near him I'd be wanting to disappear his disgusting ass out into the woods. He murdered a teenager for no reason and there is no doubt he was the one that did it. He even brags about it now!

I say everyone punch him in his evil face every chance you get! If we're lucky he gets so despondent over everyone always hitting him just for murdering a kid that he'll off himself.

I hope that anyone who does so gets a nice little vacation in a county jail. 1 to 3 months should be enough to make the point.

In other words, you're beyond wrong. George Zimmerman is a horrible person who got acquitted. It happens all the time. It's particularly unjust in this case but throwing out the law to get petty revenge is even worse.

 

[Giordano]

I've come to believe that Zimmerman represents his own punishment. I am not suggesting that this is adequate versus a criminal conviction (which I believe he deserved). But just look at his life since his acquittal and how he seems to be devoted to attracting melodrama and screwing up over and over again. He appears to be a horrible person to me, but one who also messes up his own life pretty badly when given any opportunity (IMHO).

 

[Bob001]

Which is why Bart Sibrel won a large lawsuit against Buzz Aldrin who punched Sibrel, on camera, after Sibel called him "a liar, a cheat and a thief."

Oh, wait, that didn't happen. The judge threw the case out. Because fighting words.

I think the point is that "fighting words" might, in narrow circumstances, be offered as a defense to a charge. But it's up to the judge and jury. The concept doesn't protect you from being arrested, charged and prosecuted, or sued civilly.

In that particular case, Aldrin is an elderly national hero. If the same words had been directed at, say, a local used car dealer and he had responded the same way, chances are he wouldn't have walked.

 

[Babbylonian]

In that particular case, Aldrin is an elderly national hero. If the same words had been directed at, say, a local used car dealer and he had responded the same way, chances are he wouldn't have walked.

He should have been prosecuted as might any other citizen but, at the end of the day, if anyone was ever going to be eligible for a free pass it's hard to find fault with giving one to the second human to walk on the moon.

 

[Jules Galen]

I'm certain that George Zimmerman will kill again. And, of course, he will protest that he is the victim.

Just wait for it.

 

[332nd]

He should have been prosecuted as might any other citizen but, at the end of the day, if anyone was ever going to be eligible for a free pass it's hard to find fault with giving one to the second human to walk on the moon.

I dunno, IIRC, Bart was following Buzz & the woman around, was very aggressive, & Buzz tried everything he could to disengage & Bart backed him into a wall.

 

[TJM]

I dunno, IIRC, Bart was following Buzz & the woman around, was very aggressive, & Buzz tried everything he could to disengage & Bart backed him into a wall.

Ambushed by a camera crew and put on the defensive by a guy twice his size and half his age, who kept the pressure on while Buzz's daughter did her level best to keep Sibrel from getting punched out.

Sibrel should've sued her instead.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If my neighbor's kid was doing that to me, I probably would defend myself with any means at hand. Then again, I don't follow teenagers(or anyone really) home and try to confront them, so I don't find myself in that situation.

And you are always armed when stalking the neighborhood children as you should be. Now if their parents see an armed man following them around for no reason how should they react?