WN: Farrakhan Tweets: 'Where there is no justice, there will be n

[Guest shiloh357]

They didn't break any laws, but the have actively incited people to rush to judgment, to condemn Zimmerman before his side of the story is fully known and before all of the evidence has been examined, and before Zimmerman has had a fair trial. Sharpton and Jackson are empty headed windbags who have tried to make this a race issue and it is not clear yet that this was a raciall motivated murder or an act of self-defense.

Which is protected speech under the 1st amendment.

"Trying to make this a race issue" is not a crime and to advocate jailing them for that, to quote earlier in the thread, would be "advocating something beyond the law".

If Zimmerman is discovered as having acted in self-defense, what Sharpton and Jackson did amounts to slander and that is NOT protected speech. They have ruined Zimmerman's name and his future career options as a result. Much of the media would also be liable for slander/libel lawsuits as well. Accusing Zimmerman of murder when the evidence has not been presented to that effect amounts to slander, and if Zimmerman turns out to have shot Martin in self-defense, the can legally pursue a defamation lawsuit against both of them.

[Burning_Ember]

If Zimmerman is discovered as having acted in self-defense, what Sharpton and Jackson did amounts to slander and that is NOT protected speech. They have ruined Zimmerman's name and his future career options as a result. Much of the media would also be liable for slander/libel lawsuits as well. Accusing Zimmerman of murder when the evidence has not been presented to that effect amounts to slander, and if Zimmerman turns out to have shot Martin in self-defense, the can legally pursue a defamation lawsuit against both of them.

They can pursue it, but there are two, possibly three big hindrances to that.

If it is a Statements made in a good faith and the person has reasonable belief that they were true then that is not considered defamation. It does not require that the statement be true, only that the person saying it had a reasonable belief that it was.

If it is a Fair comment on a matter of public interest, then no. It only requires that a reasonable person could in fact believe that given what they had seen. That is very subjective and up to personal opinions so while you might not think it is reasonable, that doesn't matter. Only that a reasonable person in their opinion could.

If Zimmerman is considered a public figure, which he very well could be, then they may have to prove malicious intent, which is a very high burden of proof.

All of this is assuming that Zimmerman is in fact not guilty as well. If it turns out he is, that makes the case harder by orders of magnitude.

That's why you are allowed to call Obama a Dictator, for example because from your point of view you have a reasonable belief that may be true, and because of the third item, he is a public figure.

[Guest shiloh357]

If it is a Statements made in a good faith and the person has reasonable belief that they were true then that is not considered defamation. It does not require that the statement be true, only that the person saying it had a reasonable belief that it was.

Which precludes the incitement that Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Farrakhan engaed in. It was not made on a reasonable belief at all.

If it is a Fair comment on a matter of public interest, then no. It only requires that a reasonable person could in fact believe that given what they had seen. That is very subjective and up to personal opinions so while you might not think it is reasonable, that doesn't matter. Only that a reasonable person in their opinion could.

And that also precludes what Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan said. They did not see anything. They were not witnesses.

If Zimmerman is considered a public figure, which he very well could be, then they may have to prove malicious intent, which is a very high burden of proof.

Zimmerman is not a "public" figure. He was thrust into the public view because the liberals have tried and convicted him publicly without due process and have tried to characterize him as a racist and a murderer desipite having no evidence to that end. He is a private citizen and his life is ruined, even if he is innocent.

But let's say that in the end, even if he is not guilty and does not have a case for slander, that what Sharpton and Jackson and Farrakhan said is protected speech, isn't really a justifcation for what they have done.

There is a bigger isue in play than whether or not they broke any laws. What they have done shows their poor character and their complete lack of integrity. They are/were opportunistic thugs who have dragged this man through the mud before any evidence came to light. What they have done to this case is deplorable, protected or not. Just because their speech is protected, doesn't mean much. It doesn't really address the substance of their speech.

I find it interesting that the left is all about having civility and "kindness" in discourse but then rush to defend men like Sharpton and Jackson when they sow so much racism and hatred. Lberals are such hypocrites.

[Guest]

I find it interesting that.... is all about having civility and "kindness" in discourse but then rush to defend men like.... when they sow so much racism and hatred.... are such hypocrites....

The Days

All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Matthew 24:8-13

Of Our Lifes

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28

And The Walk We Will Walk

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8

In The Name Of Jesus

Amen

[nebula]

I've been gone for a week; surprised to see how this thread has been progressing.

They didn't break any laws, but the have actively incited people to rush to judgment, to condemn Zimmerman before his side of the story is fully known and before all of the evidence has been examined, and before Zimmerman has had a fair trial. Sharpton and Jackson are empty headed windbags who have tried to make this a race issue and it is not clear yet that this was a raciall motivated murder or an act of self-defense.

Which is protected speech under the 1st amendment.

"Trying to make this a race issue" is not a crime and to advocate jailing them for that, to quote earlier in the thread, would be "advocating something beyond the law".

BE, why are you defending Sharpton and Jackson?

Would you classify their actions as Biblical? Godly?

[oldzimm]

If Zimmerman is discovered as having acted in self-defense, what Sharpton and Jackson did amounts to slander and that is NOT protected speech. They have ruined Zimmerman's name and his future career options as a result. Much of the media would also be liable for slander/libel lawsuits as well. Accusing Zimmerman of murder when the evidence has not been presented to that effect amounts to slander, and if Zimmerman turns out to have shot Martin in self-defense, the can legally pursue a defamation lawsuit against both of them.

They can pursue it, but there are two, possibly three big hindrances to that.

If it is a Statements made in a good faith and the person has reasonable belief that they were true then that is not considered defamation. It does not require that the statement be true, only that the person saying it had a reasonable belief that it was.

If it is a Fair comment on a matter of public interest, then no. It only requires that a reasonable person could in fact believe that given what they had seen. That is very subjective and up to personal opinions so while you might not think it is reasonable, that doesn't matter. Only that a reasonable person in their opinion could.

If Zimmerman is considered a public figure, which he very well could be, then they may have to prove malicious intent, which is a very high burden of proof.

All of this is assuming that Zimmerman is in fact not guilty as well. If it turns out he is, that makes the case harder by orders of magnitude.

That's why you are allowed to call Obama a Dictator, for example because from your point of view you have a reasonable belief that may be true, and because of the third item, he is a public figure.

This post brings up a couple questions.

When did Zimmerman run for, and get elected to a public office?

When did Sharpton or Jackson make a statement in good faith, specially racially?

It is my opinion that out of all the races of people that are public figures, Sharpton and Jackson are biggest racist of them all. It seems Sharpton and Jackson are more interested in dividing the American people then they are of uniting the people.

[Matthitjah]

The charge is 2nd degree murder for Zimmerman.

Here's a definition of such according to Florida law;

Under Florida law, second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual. The maximum sentence for the crime is life in prison.

In other words the preliminary finding of murder was that it was not pre-meditated or planned.

Zimmerman will have his day in Court. Hopefully he will stay alive long enough for it.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/04/11/report-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-shooting-wednesday-afternoon/

[Matthitjah]

Here's more;

Special prosecutor Angela Corey announced the charges but would not discuss how she arrived at them or disclose other details of her investigation, saying: "That's why we try cases in court."

Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does involve a premeditated plan to kill.

Yes! We do not yell and scream Murder. We do not try cases without the facts. We are a Nation of Laws. I pray that she prosecutes the Black Panther Party as well before all is said and done.

She has looked at the facts surrounding the case and has come to an obviously sound conclusion.

Shame on those who stated that Zimmerman stalked and then murdered Treyvon! Shame on those who called for his murder and those who were complicite!

Know what's odd? I was going to link to the AP story from which these quotes were taken and suddenly it's gone. It's changed to a story about Zimmermans lawyer asking for calm as Zimmerman turns himself in.

[Guest shiloh357]

Here's more;

Special prosecutor Angela Corey announced the charges but would not discuss how she arrived at them or disclose other details of her investigation, saying: "That's why we try cases in court."

Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does involve a premeditated plan to kill.

Yes! We do not yell and scream Murder. We do not try cases without the facts. We are a Nation of Laws. I pray that she prosecutes the Black Panther Party as well before all is said and done.

Zimmerman had to go into hiding for a few days because the Black Panthers called for his death and began putting his picture up all over Sanford, Florida. I would love to see some liberals come on the board screeching and howling about protected speech...

The lamestream media reported that Zimmerman was in hiding but failed to include the bounty put on his head by the Black Panthers as the reason for him feeling the need to go into hidng. That kind of lack of integrity among the liberals in the media is not surprising.

[nebula]

Someone pointed out something interesting -

Why are they in the media circulating a picture of Treyvon as a 13-or-so year old?