Free Speech

George Zimmerman v. Pete Buttigieg & Elizabeth Warren

An interesting decision on a motion to dismiss in this libel lawsuit.

|

From today's decision, by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell (M.D. Fla.):

{The following statement of facts is derived from Plaintiff's Complaint, the allegations of which the Court must accept as true in ruling on the instant Motion to Dismiss.} On February 26, 2012, twenty-nine year-old George Zimmerman discharged a single shot to stop seventeen year-old Trayvon Martin from assaulting him, following an incident between the two at the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhome community in  Sanford, Florida where Zimmerman lived and was a member of the neighborhood watch.

Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder and acquitted by a jury on July 13, 2013. He and his family have been the target of death threats ever since. Due to the massive publicity after the shooting, the nationwide protests demanding his arrest without cause, the subsequent 2013 trial and his acquittal of all charges, and the acts of protest and violence that continue to this day in the name of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman alleges that his name is 100% synonymous with Trayvon Martin and the incident that resulted in Martin's death.

The actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred on February 5, 2020. That day, defendant Pete Buttigieg made the following tweet:

Buttigieg is an American politician and was a 2020 candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States of America. He allegedly had 1,600,000 followers on … Twitter ….

Elizabeth Warren, a nationally known public figure and 2020 candidate for the Democratic party nomination for President of the United States, also tweeted about Trayvon Martin that day. She tweeted the following statement to her 3,600,000 followers on Twitter:

The court dismissed the lawsuit because it concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Buttigieg and Warren, but in a way that should be easily cured by amendment:

The parties have both discussed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling on a very similar case, Internet Sols. Corp. v. Marshall (Fla. 2010)[, which held] … that "allegedly defamatory material about a Florida resident placed on the Web and accessible in Florida constitutes an 'electronic communication into Florida' when the material is accessed (or 'published') in Florida."

"In the context of the World Wide Web, given its pervasiveness, an alleged tortfeasor who posts allegedly defamatory material on a website has intentionally made the material almost instantly available everywhere the material is accessible. By posting allegedly defamatory material on the Web about a Florida resident, the poster has directed the communication about a Florida resident to readers worldwide, including potential readers within Florida. When the posting is then accessed by a third party in Florida, the material has been "published" in Florida and the poster has communicated the material "into" Florida, thereby committing the tortious act of defamation within Florida." …

The Eleventh Circuit has since followed this reasoning, though in an unreported decision, in finding that personal jurisdiction did not exist based on the plaintiff's allegations as to defamation….

Applying the rationale of the Florida Supreme Court in Internet Sols., the Court finds that Zimmerman has not pleaded sufficient facts to show that Defendants committed a tortious act within Florida such that long-arm jurisdiction exists. The complaint alleges merely that Defendants' tweets received national media coverage, and in particular in the state of Florida, including but not limited to Polk County. There is not one allegation that either tweet was directed to a specific person in Florida or accessed by a person in this forum.

{The Court notes that Warren's tweet is specifically directed to Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, by use of "@SybrinaFulton," which is in blue font and indicates she is a user of the platform. Additionally, "Trayvon's family and friends" are also referenced in the tweet. This distinguishes Warren's Tweet from that of Buttigieg, which does not reference any specific person or group. However, there is still no indication that Sybrina Fulton and/or Trayvon's family and friends were residing in Florida at the time of the tweets, and the Court will not infer such.} The mere fact that the material was accessible in Florida is not enough to plead the publication element of defamation, and therefore, the commission of a tortious act in this state…. Having determined that long-arm jurisdiction [under Florida law] does not exist, the Court need not address whether the exercise of jurisdiction would offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I expect that the Tweet was indeed read in Florida, by some of the millions of Buttigieg's and Warren's followers, so I would think that Zimmerman might be able to amend the Complaint to so allege. And on two substantive points, the court ruled in favor of Zimmerman:

[1.] Defendants argue that their tweets are not about Zimmerman, do not mention his name at all, nor imply anything about him. This argument relates to the second element of the tort, falsity, as the false statement must be of or concerning the plaintiff…. [But] it does not appear that there is a strict requirement, in Florida, that the author of the defamatory publication specifically identify a person by name for the statement to be actionable…. Certainly, a tortfeasor could juxtapose a series of facts in such a way that a specific person is identifiable even though that person's name has not been used….

[T]he complaint alleges generally that "[t]he name 'George Zimmerman' is 100% synonymous with Trayvon Martin and the incident that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin." Taking this allegation as true, Zimmerman plausibly alleges that the tweets, when considered as a whole, included an implied or indirect reference to him due to the incident resulting in Trayvon Martin's death. As such, the Court disagrees that the failure to name Zimmerman in the tweets subjects the claims to dismissal.

[2.] Defendants' next argument, that the tweets are true statements, questions, and pure opinion, is a challenge to the falsity element of defamation…. Zimmerman alleges that because of his role in Martin's death, these tweets promote the idea that he killed Trayvon Martin because of racism or white supremacy. He also alleges that a jury acquitted him based on evidence he was acting in self-defense. While the statements, taken alone, are true, the complaint plausibly alleges that when taken together they could suggest what Zimmerman contends.

Moreover, construing the allegations of the complaint as true, it is not clear that the tweets constitute pure opinion. "Under Florida law, a defendant publishes a 'pure opinion' when the defendant makes a comment or opinion based on facts which are set forth in the publication or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public. Mixed expression of opinion occurs when an opinion or comment is made which is based upon facts regarding the plaintiff or his conduct that have not been stated in the publication or assumed to exist by the parties  to the communication." "[A] speaker cannot invoke a 'pure opinion' defense, [however,] if the facts underlying the opinion are false or inaccurately presented." …

Zimmerman alleges that the American public is very knowledgeable of the facts surrounding the 2012 incident in which Trayvon Martin died. This appears to support a finding that Buttigieg and Warren offered their opinions based on facts available to members of the public.

However, it is not clear at this stage of the litigation that the facts underlying the conclusions as to white supremacy, racism, prejudice, and fear are available to the public, such that they transform the entirety of the statements into ones of mixed expression. Because the Court must construe the statements in their totality, including the circumstances surrounding the publication, and must examine all the words used in the publication, this issue is best determined on a motion for summary judgment….

Zimmerman has until March 9 to file an amended complaint.

NEXT: "That's Why It's Poetry"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I hope Zimmerman’s lawyer had the good sense to insist on being paid by the hour, not on a contingent fee retainer.

  2. Buttigieg and Warren suck. They are serial liars, and pander to minorities and the poor in a disgustingly cynical manner.

    The same goes for those “hands up, don’t shoot” idiots who support Michael Brown in their race baiting and race pandering.

    1. I’ve been searching for similar whining from you about serial and pathological liars like Trump, Guiliani, Roger Stone, et al. I’m having trouble locating them…can you post a few links here?

      1. The way the adversary system works is that both sides argue for their side, and rational, objective observers make up their minds from the clash of extremes. Based on this exercise, I conclude that all politicians lie routinely, including frequent defamation and abuse directed at those who were not born booted and spurred.

      2. I’ve been searching for situation where Trump, Giuliani or Stone tried to murder a cop, and then by association sent out people to burn down stores, neighborhoods and shoot at other cops.

        Can you post a few links here?

        1. Sure (but it’ll have to be just one otherwise my comment will get stuck in the spam filter)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol

          1. Last I saw — no murdered cops & no fires.

            NB: A stroke is not a “murder.”

            1. ‘NB: A stroke is not a “murder.”’

              It could be. Is it impossible for a battery to precipitate a stroke in someone with dangerously high blood pressure? Is a deadly stroke necessarily a random event caused by the decedent’s pre-existing medical condition and never induced by the deliberate actions of another?

              I think that in general, an assailant takes the victim as found and is liable for deadly results whether or not the cause of death could be what would otherwise be considered natural.

              1. Yes, it’s possible, but what is clear is that Sicknick wasn’t hit by any fire extinguisher. The closest to battery he apparently experienced was being pepper sprayed.

                Which, yeah, could have precipitated a stroke, but wouldn’t that still just be manslaughter if you could even prove a connection?

                1. If it could be proven that his death was precipitated by an attack with bear spray, I don’t know. Might be felony murder, but I’m not sure.

          2. No burning, no stores, no neighborhoods and no shooting at cops. Other than that…

            I hope don’t practice law in real life.

            1. KevinP, there are few if any pro-gun advocates who comment here who would not insist in other circumstances that the conduct of insurrectionists at the Capitol justified police officers to fear for their lives. No speculation at all is necessary to know officers were put in danger of serious bodily harm. It was a blessing and a tribute to the courage and discipline of those officers that they withheld use of massive deadly force which the incident fully justified.

              Stop minimizing what happened. Two insurrectionists were convicted of treason following Shea’s rebellion (later pardoned). In light of the Capitol insurrection, the judgment of history will scarcely remember Shay’s rebellion.

              1. “In other circumstances”? I’ve come right out and called Ashli Babbitt, the woman shot climbing through that window, a case of ‘suicide by cop’. I was totally shocked by how little fight the Capitol police put up, they would have been fully justified in getting much more violent.

                I don’t think most of the people who entered the Capitol that day had malign intent, once the barricades were down, it’s quite possible a lot of them weren’t even aware the Capitol was supposed to be closed to the public that day.

                But, when the barricades were attacked? I’d have fully backed the Capitol police being much more aggressive in defending their position.

              2. History scarcely remembered Shay’s Rebellion before the Capitol Riot, despite it being longer, larger, and more deadly. The fact that only 2 of over 4,000 were ever convicted doesn’t bode well for any Capitol Riot convictions, and the event itself will fade into history as quickly as Shay’s Rebellion did

                1. The difference, of course, is that the government was trying to tamp things down after Shay’s Rebellion, because they needed to live with those people in peace. Getting vengeful could have torn the new country apart.

                  Today they’re trying to use January 6th as an excuse for a crackdown on the opposition, being vengeful is exactly what they want.

                  1. What crackdown? People are sick and tired of the blatant stupid lying that lead to the riot and see no particular reason to forget that it happened and what they were trying to do and what they’re going to keep trying to do. Is that a crackdown? Difficult to live politically with people who were so obsessively bound and determined to throw out your votes because their guy lost.

                    1. A “crackdown” is going after people who were merely at the DC protest, and didn’t do anything illegal. And, yes, that’s happening.

                    2. That’s not much different from what’s been hapening at BLM protests and pipeline protests, in fact it’s way more lenient than either and didn’t come with baton charges, tear gas, running people over and targeting journalists. Which is great, by the way, but I don’t expect such police restraint to feature in future BLM or oil pipeline protests, and I don’t expect civli libertarians and small government types to do anything but keep whining abut how mean the Jan 6th ‘crackdown’ was.

                    3. “A “crackdown” is going after people who were merely at the DC protest, and didn’t do anything illegal. And, yes, that’s happening.”

                      how do you know? Is this a “fact from the ass”? Or merely a psychic knowledge of things unseen?

                    4. Link, Pollock. You could have followed it.

                    5. Link’s dedd, Bredd.

                    6. LOL. The “crackdown” is some employers not liking the behavior of their employees and engaging in disciplinary action, which Brett is trying to conflate with the FBI showing up at the doors of the people who invaded the Capitol.

                    7. Brett, you were in the Conspiracy thread on this…there are differences of fact alleged that you’re ignoring.

                    8. “Link, Pollock. You could have followed it.”

                      Point, Bellmore. You could have followed it.

                2. Kevin Smith, historians today remember Shay’s rebellion as consequential—partly because participants at the Constitutional Convention considered it during deliberations. In popular memory, few politically sophisticated Americans today are unaware of Jefferson’s, “Tree of Liberty,” remark. I would give odds that photographs of the Capitol insurrection show participants carrying banners which display that Jefferson remark.

                  If you make the number of participants the test of size, then the Capitol insurrection was the larger of the two.

                  What consequences the Capitol insurrection may have remain to be seen. Depending on what happens—and depending on what would-be insurrectionists continue to advocate and do—perhaps the Capitol insurrection need never be compared to firing on Fort Sumter.

                  Congress and the Justice Department have made it a major focus, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Right wingers sensible to shame may want memory of the Capitol insurrection to fade quickly. Perhaps you are one of them. It remains doubtful that your more-numerous proud-bully allies feel likewise, or will be content to let the matter rest.

                  A future Fort Sumter comparison remains possible. To stay mindful of that will challenge policy makers as they make fraught decisions about what happened, and what might happen. Those policy makers would be unwise as blithely as you have to minimize what happened on January 6.

              3. “KevinP, there are few if any pro-gun advocates who comment here who would not insist in other circumstances that the conduct of insurrectionists at the Capitol justified police officers to fear for their lives.”

                With the whole no gun things, no, I don’t think cops had any special right to fear for their lives. They’re professionals and should be far better at risk assessment than a random commenter at Volokh.

                “No speculation at all is necessary to know officers were put in danger of serious bodily harm.”

                True, firing off pepper spray indoors is a poor decision…but that was the cops’ decision that was made.

              4. KevinP, there are few if any pro-gun advocates who comment here who would not insist in other circumstances that the conduct of insurrectionists at the Capitol justified police officers to fear for their lives

                Uh, if that was the case, wouldn’t have there been more shooting? And why did similar actions not take place last summer when BLM and Antifa tried to storm the White House?

        2. Arguing Buttigieg and Warren tried to murder a cop is a bold move.

          1. They did more than Trump has ever contemplated doing.

            1. Hang on I thought Trump did more than any other President ever done?

              1. If you cannot read what is written, feel free to not broadcast it to all.

                1. He done more than Lincoln done!

                  1. Aren’t you just ADORABLE?

                    1. Not as adorable as Trump the most ADORABLE of all the Presidents! No one has done more to adore!

                    2. Look at you!
                      Being so adorable!

                      Soon, you might even make a point.

                      But now…ADORABLE!!

                    3. I’m sorry if I am at this time, like Trump is always, pointless.

                    4. “Not as adorable as Trump the most ADORABLE of all the Presidents! No one has done more to adore!”

                      He’s easily among the list of the top 46 US Presidents ever! (until we elect another President)

            2. “They did more than Trump has ever contemplated doing.”

              This is literally true of any living human being.

      3. Trump built tall buildings that didn’t fall down. Guiliani was mayor of our largest (?) city during 9-11. Stone did something back in the 1970s. None were quota checkoffs.

        Compare that to the fake Indian and token gay guy — and if Zimmerman had put their lives at risk, he’d get a visit from the USSS.

        1. ‘Stone did something back in the 1970s.’

          Sure, kid. A lot of people ‘did something’ back in the 1970s.

        2. “Trump built tall buildings that didn’t fall down.”

          Sure, that explains all the photos of him working the high steel. Wait…

          1. Seems funny that Trump could get an ice rink up and running in months when Ed Koch-led NYC couldn’t do so for years.

            1. That does seem to be his last genuine accomplishment, other than being a moderately successful game show host.

              1. The producer of the game show gets to claim the success for the game show, based on his record of creating and running several other successful game shows.

          2. I’d say that sets the bar low for Trump, that his buildings didn’t fall down, but local building regulations probably deserve the credit.

            1. It means he was once capable of hiring competent employees.

    2. Actually, I’d say that officer Darren Wilson actually has a much stronger defamation case every time somebody spouts that, “Hands up, don’t shoot” nonsense. Objectively false, and proven false almost immediately.

      I mean, I feel for Zimmerman, being subject to this falsified version of events all the time, but Wilson’s case would be much more clear cut.

      1. “I mean, I feel for Zimmerman, being subject to this falsified version of events all the time”

        Your revisionism now extended to denying that he killed the kid with a gun?

        1. Why, no, as I said elsewhere in this thread, clear case of justified self defense, as the jury agreed.

          Plenty of room to falsify details of what happened, in the cause of pretending otherwise.

          1. The claim made by Mr. Buttigieg is that Martin is dead. You characterized this as “a falsified version of events”.

        2. James,
          Just last month, the “Ignited” comic book put a barely fictionalized of him as the villain. They changed two things. One, the name. Two, that he shot the Trayvon Martin stand-in in the back as he was running away. Do you honestly think people aren’t remembering the false version where it was transparent murder?

          I disagree with the self-defense judgement. Zimmerman created a situation that put Martin in reasonable fear of his life and that situation never ended before Martin’s counterattack. While I understand the judgement from a legal standpoint, I do not believe that the facts justify the result. Manslaughter would be a justified conviction.

          1. You’re still conflating the fiction with what the evidence showed happened. There was no Martin “counter-attack”, that would require somebody to have attacked Martin.

            Being present on the same sidewalk is not an “attack”.

          2. State of Florida v. George Zimmerman

            Admittedly not an official trial transcript, just a first person account of the trial.

  3. It would be great to end violence so that all children especially young black children can grow up safe and free.

    Lets start by reducing black on black violence instead of condoning the culture that breeds that violence.

    1. Can we also talk about black on non-black violence?

      1. Can we also talk about black on non-black violence?

        We can, but it turns out that progressives blame that on whitey too.

        1. The media want us to believe white supremacy is the evil of the day, but conveniently don’t cover anything to deal with the inherently racist organization of BLM.

          1. Sure, insisting that black people matter is racist, IF you believe that they don’t.

        2. I doubt that Reason or the Conspirators would permit that.

        3. It really is absolutely stagwring that in the US black people who commit crimes don’t get arrested and go to jail. When will this madness end?

          1. Ever hear of Davon McNeal? He was an 11 year old who was caught in the crossfire of rival crews in D.C., and killed. Turns out that three of the shooters had pending violent felony charges against them, and were all out of jail pending trial.

            Recently, the shooter in another D.C. murder had been arrested for a violent felony with a firearm less than a month before the killing, and was out of jail, and the MPD and D.C. prosecutors office can’t explain why.

            1. This does little to persuade me that there isn’t a whole system devoted to punishing black people that does literally nothing to protect them, reform the convicted, or directly address crime and violence in their communities.

              1. Whattabouting black and black crime is just the worst.

              2. “This does little to persuade me that there isn’t a whole system devoted to punishing black people that does literally nothing to protect them, reform the convicted, or directly address crime and violence in their communities.”

                Sure, but, why the heck do you believe that? Literally nothing?

                I might go for sub-optimal on all of them but reforming the convicted, but literally nothing is crazy.

                1. You’re right, not ‘literally nothing.’ They generally make things worse.

                  1. That’s delusional.

                    1. Yes it is, but that’s the system that you people want to perpetuate.

                    2. “You people”?

                      Seems kinda racist.

                    3. “Seems kinda racist.”

                      perhaps to a gormless gobshite.

                    4. Not my fault Nige is a bigot. He has his issues.

                    5. What, are you suggesting you’re NOT people? Now that would be self-racism. Well let me tell you, not-people are people too. In fact people who like not-people are the luckiest people in the world.

                    6. “That’s delusional.”

                      You’re stepping on Brett’s territory. Delusional is his intellectual property.

                    7. “‘You people’?
                      Seems kinda racist.”

                      To an idiot, maybe.

                    8. No, the prison system does make a lot of things worse. Go in for a drug usage charge, spend months or years spending all your time with other criminals and gangs. Get out, and now you’re practically unemployable. The only easily accessible job is with your old prison gang. I’m actually surprised our recidivism rate isn’t higher.

              3. “This does little to persuade me that there isn’t a whole system devoted to punishing black people that does literally nothing to protect them, reform the convicted, or directly address crime and violence in their communities.”

                So, I guess some inane and laughable conspiracy theories are OK with the left.

                1. ^ To this genius, the entire history and origin of US policing is a “laughable conspiracy”, but zombie Chavez ginning up votes for Biden is plausible.

                  1. D.O.L —- a wide conspiracy where the entire government is dedicated, primarily, to killing blacks by having cops…well, shoot whites more than blacks…is totes plausible. But an election where laws were changed against the states’ constitution and had no actual oversight is on the up and up. Unlike, say, 2016, where we ae CONVINCED, in spite of no evidence, that Russia made Trump win.

                    Might want to sit this one out.

                    1. https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing

                      Educate yourself. I get the feeling you are as ignorant as one can get on this matter. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, but you should refrain from speaking until you know your basics.

                    2. “D.O.L —- a wide conspiracy where the entire government is dedicated, primarily, to killing blacks by having cops…well, shoot whites more than blacks…is totes plausible. But an election where laws were changed against the states’ constitution and had no actual oversight is on the up and up. Unlike, say, 2016, where we ae CONVINCED, in spite of no evidence, that Russia made Trump win.”

                      there’s some straw leaking out of that argument. Rather a lot of it, actually.

                    3. ‘a wide conspiracy where the entire government is dedicated, primarily, to killing blacks by having cops…well, shoot whites more than blacks…is totes plausible’

                      This is the response of what I presume (forgive me if I’m wrong) is either a small government Republican or a liberatrian, who usually share a common sort of outlook that, roughly, governments are bad because they are oppressive systems designed to curtail freedoms and take away personal and civil rights, (and I’ve always found these critiques of government power extremely useful.)

                      BUT NOT WHEN BLACK PEOPLE SAY IT.

                    4. Educate yourself. I get the feeling you are as ignorant as one can get on this matter.

                      Policing has been around since the fucking shire reeves of medieval England, you dumbass.

                    5. Rocks, and what was their primary purpose in the colonies and the US?

                      Slave Patrol. Dumb ass.

                    6. Rocks, and what was their primary purpose in the colonies and the US?
                      Slave Patrol. Dumb ass.

                      That’s certainly the revisionist version of history. It’s nowhere near the “origins” as you claimed. Dumbass.

                    7. From Time Magazine, May 18, 2017–ironically, citing a professor from the very same university:

                      In fact, the U.S. police force is a relatively modern invention, sparked by changing notions of public order, driven in turn by economics and politics, according to Gary Potter, a crime historian at Eastern Kentucky University.

                      Policing in Colonial America had been very informal, based on a for-profit, privately funded system that employed people part-time. Towns also commonly relied on a “night watch” in which volunteers signed up for a certain day and time, mostly to look out for fellow colonists engaging in prostitution or gambling. (Boston started one in 1636, New York followed in 1658 and Philadelphia created one in 1700.) But that system wasn’t very efficient because the watchmen often slept and drank while on duty, and there were people who were put on watch duty as a form of punishment.

            2. “Ever hear of Davon McNeal? He was an 11 year old who was caught in the crossfire of rival crews in D.C., and killed. Turns out that three of the shooters had pending violent felony charges against them, and were all out of jail pending trial. ”

              Sounds like a good reason to ensure that accused criminals get speedy trials.

          2. It really is absolutely stagwring that in the US black people who commit crimes don’t get arrested and go to jail. When will this madness end?

            Are you not bright enough to recognize the obvious utter irrelevance of that response, or are you just too dishonest to care?

            1. I just think it’s remarkable that you want to talk about crimes that in general see the perpetrator held responsible for their actions, usually in response to people who talk about crimes where the person responsble is acquitted or where they’re not held responsible at all, and yet, you don’t talk about it, you talk about talking about it and about not talking about it, as if someone is stopping you from talking about it.

              1. I just think it’s remarkable that you want to talk about crimes that in general see the perpetrator held responsible for their actions

                You think it’s remarkable because you don’t actually give a rat’s ass about the fact that black Americans are murdering each other at a rate ~6x that of white Americans.

                1. What I think is remarkable is that you think black people don’t give a rat’s ass.

            2. If an argument looks irrelevant, dishonest, and/or stupid, it’s probably because it was tailored for you.

              1. If an argument looks irrelevant, dishonest, and/or stupid, it’s probably because it was made by James Pollock.

                FIFY

    2. Who condones ‘the culture that breeds violence?’

      1. Who condones ‘the culture that breeds violence?’

        Those who keep sweeping it under the rug so they can pretend that “white privilege” and other braindead tropes are really to blame….because in spite of all their virtue-signaling, they really don’t give a rat’s ass about young black Americans murdering each other at a break-neck pace….because they don’t make for good political pawns.

        1. Damn those virtue signallers, when will a black person who commits a crime in the US ever see the insde of a prison?

          1. How is a black person who commits a crime the fault of white people? That is the mantra of the Left these days.

            1. Well, no, in fact, it’s your mantra, it being a direct quotation from you, and not so much a mantra as a whine.

              1. Again, if you are unable to read, no need to broadcast it to all.

                1. Hang on, i’ll read your comment again.

                  ‘How is a black person who commits a crime the fault of white people?’

                  Yep, still there.

                  1. I get it. You cannot read well. C’est la vie. I will try and type more monosyllabically for you.

                    1. Hang on.

                      ‘How is a black person who commits a crime the fault of white people?’

                      I mean, there it is.

                2. “How is a black person who commits a crime the fault of white people?”

                  Would you care to diagram that sentence before castigating others on their English usage and reading comprehension?

                  Clue: Nobody claims that black people are white people’s fault.

                  1. Ahh, haven’t followed CRT at all? Good to know.

              2. Well, no, in fact, it’s your mantra

                Try again, Sparky. Pay particular attention to the spate of attacks on Asian-Americans by black perpetrators, and the left’s attempt to spin that as the result of “white supremacy”, particularly in response to the murder of Vicha Ratanapakdee.

                1. Ermagehrd the right’s attempts to spin the left’s attempts to spin stuff? Poor old white supremacy, when will its suffering end? When will people remember the good stuff white supremacy has done for America?

                  1. Again, blacks kill people and the complaint is that it is white folks fault. I know you don’t see what you wrote here (it was quite boring in spite of being short) but that is what you’re doing.

                    Hint: Black person kills another minority…whites are not involved at any point. “White supremacy” could not have less to do with it.

                    1. Yeah but you’re the sort of person who thinks studying slavery is done solely for the purpose of guilt-tripping modern white people, so your interpretation of what are probably (but not necessarily) more nuanced arguments, assuming they’re not a complete invention, is not what I’d call reliable.

                    2. Studying anything is worthwhile.

                      Pretending it began recently or that the USA had an unusual system of it is factually incorrect.

                      Being given reparations would be a crime.

                    3. Wow, the merest suggestion set you off demanding control of the sylabus and fiercely pre-empting any inclination to some sort of justice! QED.

                  2. the right’s attempts to spin the left’s attempts to spin stuff?

                    There’s no spin from the right about this. Just direct quoting. I’m not surprised that you’re not bright enough to understand the difference.

                    1. ‘There’s no spin from the right about this.’

                      There’s a first time for everything I suppose. In theory.

            2. “How is a black person who commits a crime the fault of white people? That is the mantra of the Left these days.”

              You just wrote it. How long have you been a leader of the left?

          2. Damn those virtue signallers, when will a black person who commits a crime in the US ever see the insde of a prison?

            Who said anything about them not going to prison? Just you, so far.

            1. Why do want me to go to prison, I’m just commenting here, man.

              1. …still cannot read comments well, eh?

                1. … still cannot write good comments, eh?

                  1. James, I do not wish for you feel so singled out.

                2. I’ll give you that one, I read it wrong, my comeback was weak, but his comments make my eyes glaze over, mea culpa.

              2. Why do want me to go to prison, I’m just commenting here, man.

                You’re just babbling.

                1. Your comments have a weird soporific effect, soz.

      2. In 2020, a grand total of nine unarmed black persons died in altercations with the police in the US.

        How many black persons were murdered by other black persons without any posturing or virtue signaling by people like you?

        Did their Black Lives Matter?

        1. Did the perpetrators get off because they had qualified immunity or because they were effectively untouchable because of their profession? Did a load of white net-warriors argue strenuously that the victims probably deserved it and that the killers should have even more weapons and more protections from oversight and accountability and of they didn’t get them theyd be justified in not performing their murdering-related duties? Did white people get so mad at black people for demanding justice for victims of ‘black on black’ violence that they started an entire counter-movement in support of the murderers?

          Mind you that does sound like stuff whte people would do.

          1. You do know that cops kill more White men than Black men, don’t you?!?

            1. Sounds like if you actually gave a damn about that you’d have common ground with BLM, but if everyone who said ‘You do know that cops kill more White men than Black men, don’t you?!?’ actually joined in the movement for police reform because of it, then it might actually happen, and we can’t have that, because that would be tantamount to admitting that black people were right about something.

              1. There’s two important questions here, Nige:

                1) How many people are the cops killing.

                2) How many of them SHOULD the cops have killed.

                In an ideal world, of course, the cops shouldn’t be killing anyone, but in an ideal world, there wouldn’t be any criminals, now, would there?

                In the real world, most of the people they kill are not remotely innocent, white or black, and probably were properly shot.

                1. Those are not the questions. The question is, is there sufficent oversight, transparency and accountability, which, if there were, would provide satisfactory answers to your questions? The answer is: no.

                  1. Shorter Nige: “Demanding evidence from me is probably racist”

                    1. I mean, I’m literally asking for evidence to be recorded and provided and examined, are you in upside down world?

                    2. So all that “unable to read” stuff was projection.

                    3. “I expect you to do things I am apparently incapable of doing on my own” — Nige

                    4. You expect me to reform the oversight and accountability of every LEA in the US on my own? I find your confidence in me inspiring, I really do. Thanks, man.

                2. “In the real world, most of the people they kill are not remotely innocent, white or black, and probably were properly shot.”

                  You have an interesting definition for capital crime.

                  1. Well, take Michael Brown, for instance. He was shot while assaulting a police officer, shortly after committing a robbery.

                    Now, in an ideal world, he wouldn’t have been shot to death, but in an ideal world, he wouldn’t have been a robber assaulting a police officer, either.

                    A lot of police shootings are like that. Shootings that wouldn’t happen in an ideal world, but were reasonable in the world we actually live in.

                    Personally, I’d abolish all victimless crime laws, to deprive urban gangs of their income from serving as muscle for drug dealers. I think that would do more to reduce police shootings, by reducing crime, than anything BLM wants to do. Because I’m not pretending police are the root cause.

                  2. You have an interesting definition for capital crime.

                    There’s no such definition required if you have enough active brain cells to comprehend the difference between justifiable use of deadly force vs capital punishment.

        2. “In 2020, a grand total of nine unarmed black persons died in altercations with the police in the US.”

          Did that include Jacob Blake, who very much was armed in spite of press claims to the contrary?

        3. In 2020, a grand total of nine unarmed black persons died in altercations with the police in the US.

          Not that the absolute numbers matter in this moral issue about state sanctioned use of force, but how many had toy guns? How many were ‘armed’ with a car that was stopped?

          1. how many had toy guns? How many were ‘armed’ with a car that was stopped?

            I’m going to predict the answer is zero for both, assuming the determination of “armed or not” was made after the fact.

        4. The problem with that stat is the misleading inclusion of the term “unarmed.” (Also the false term “altercations.”) Police call people “armed” if they’re in possession of anything that theoretically could be a weapon, and whether or not they’re actually threatening. (The term “wielding” rather than “holding” is always used in cop speak.) For example, Laquan McDonald had a knife, so he wasn’t unarmed. But he was shot in the back at a distance.

          Deborah Danner was holding a baseball bat when she was shot, so she wasn’t “unarmed.” She was also a 66 year old woman alone in her bedroom in her apartment, not suspected of any crime. Apparently a physically fit 31 year old cop was so scared of an elderly woman alone in her room holding a stick that he had to go in there and shoot her.

          The issue is whether shootings are unjustified, not whether they fall into the category of “unarmed.”

          1. Hands up, don’t shoot!

    3. ‘Lets start by reducing black on black violence instead of condoning the culture that breeds that violence.’

      Wait, are you telling me honking great police budgets, military-grade armouries, qualified immunity, a massively profitable private prison service and over-policing of black neighbourhoods aren’t working? Fnally, some progress!

      1. Yes….but blaming white folks for the problems is an asinine decision that is sure to be even less effective. So let’s double down on that.

        1. Black people have been trying to do something about police brutaliy and nearly half the white people in the country acted like 18th century plantation owners sniffing a slave uprising on the way, so white people being part of the problem seems demonstrably less than asinine.

          1. I fail to see how it is my job to give two shits what happens to black folks. They are adults.

            1. And two whole shits would be generous, coming from you.

              1. Sorry, minorities ARE NOT adults and are not capable of taking care of themselves?

                Got it. I am not sure anybody thought so little of minorities as you do, but the modern Left has a deep reservoir of disdain for minorities so there’s that.

                1. Now that makes three shits you’ve given. Please stop shitting everywhere.

                2. “I fail to see how it is my job to give two shits what happens to black folks”

                  ” the modern Left has a deep reservoir of disdain for minorities so there’s that.”

                  There you have it, in the words of the modern leftist.

            2. “Not my problem.”

              Very immature, and also unbelievable. You have far too many and strong opinions for someone who simply doesn’t care.

              Why do I detect a cynical excuse for your barely concealed racism?

              1. So, whites are required to fix all other peoples’ issues?

                Sounds kinda racist there.

                1. And you immediately resort to a false dichotomy.

                  Try again, this time without a logical fallacy, please.

                  1. Given Nige’s refusal to place ANY blame on the problems on the black community, it is clear he demands that others resolve the issue, which is idiotic (not our job, again) and self-defeating (treating others as lessers is not much of a way to improve anything).

                    Thought it was clear but, again, I’m dealing with you…

                    1. If these were white communities we’d quire rightly commiserate with what the decent law-abiding citizens have to put up with and what could be done to help the situation and what a tragedy it is that so many young people are lost to crime, but with black communities it’s YOU HAVE TO BLAME YOURSELVES FIRST BLACK PEOPLE.

                2. Not working actively to prevent them from fixing their issues is all that would be necessary.

                  1. Except when that is offered, it is still “White supremacy” when any issue occurs anywhere.

                    Give you a hint: Whites do not obsess over race. At all.

                    1. Well when you’re the Supreme Race, you dont have to.

                    2. Well when you’re the Supreme Race, you dont have to.

                      Yeah, white people are pretty awesome.

                    3. Some of my best friends are white.

                    4. No wonder they have so much self-loathing.

                    5. The burden of self-awareness.

                    6. “Yeah, white people are pretty awesome.”

                      some of them, anyway.

            3. “I fail to see how it is my job to give two shits what happens to black folks. ”

              Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

  4. Hang on, let me get this straight: Best-case scenario for Zimmerman, he gets the opportunity to prove in a court of law on the balance of probabilities that he’s not a racist? That should be interesting…

    1. Betcha he can prove that he’s not a white supremacist.

      1. He’s a “White Hispanic” supremacist….

        1. Yup. I think the term is “multiracial whiteness”

        2. Imagine the outcry were he to respond by calling Buttigieg a “faggot” and encouraging violence against him on that basis?

          50 years ago, that’d have been considered perfectly acceptable — our society hasn’t improved, we’ve just changed which groups we scapegoat…

          And if it was wrong then, it’s wrong now…

          1. So, leaving aside that one is a choice and one is not, it’s as wrong to be a homosexual as it is to be a white supremacist? Os it it that you long for a utopia where nobody is shamed for being either a homosexual or a white supremacist?

            1. Are you so obtuse to fail to (a) realize that 50 years the exact opposite would be said, *and* (b) while one can choose abstinence (and hence not be gay) one can’t chose the color of one’s skin.

              Zimmerman out to have replied to Buttigieg by mentioning Jeffery Curley’s murder and NAMBLA.

              https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/06/30/jeffrey-curleys-killer-i-did-it-to-see-if-i-could-get-away-with-it-like-on-tv/

              1. You can’t choose to be white, you can choose to be a white supremacist, so the equivalence still seems suspect.

                1. …except the Left labels any white who is not on board with white guilt as a “White supremacist”. The term means, solely, “somebody I don’t like much”.

                  1. Well Sparky you get out there and you prove ’em wrong!

                    1. Why would I care what idiots think?

                      I mean, your opinion means little to me.

                    2. Then feel free to get on with the rest of your life!

              2. “(b) while one can choose abstinence (and hence not be gay) one can’t chose the color of one’s skin.”

                Nimrod, being abstinent doesn’t make a gay person stop being gay, it makes them an abstinent gay.
                And whatever the color of his skin, Mr. Zimmermann could have chosen to avoid picking a fight with a black kid walking through the neighborhood and remained a happy(-ish) wannabe-cop in complete anonymity. He also could have decided not to bring a gun to a fistfight, which would have left him not an unemployable killer. Mr. Zimmermann’s current plight is the result of his own choices, and trying to pin it on someone else is rather unlikely to succeed.

                1. “He also could have decided not to bring a gun to a fistfight, which would have left him not an unemployable killer.”

                  …just somebody dead or horribly injured. No biggie there.

                  1. Maybe not chasing after people who can kick your ass in a fistfight would have occurred to him along the way somewhere.

              3. Actually, I was bullied as a gay virgin. Anti-gay fuckers don’t actually care if you’re having sex or not.

            2. “Os it it that you long for a utopia where nobody is shamed for being either a homosexual or a white supremacist?”

              No one should be shamed for being gay, or for believing that getting the right answer is important in math.

    2. You have put your finger on a basic problem with libel as a tort. The tort system is designed to compensate victims for damage. In many libel cases, the issue is not so much damages, but vindication. The tort system, and the First Amendment overlay that NY Times v. Sullivan imposed on defamation cases, makes vindication hard to get.

      I wonder if there would be any value in having one remedy for libel be a simple declaration that the statement was false, regardless of the damages. And what restrictions, if any, the Sullivan line of cases would place on that. (Of course, the cost of such a suit would be prohibitive to all but the richest plaintiffs.)

    3. You’re an ignorant and sneering Dutchman, so you likely won’t know that Zimmerman has a good factual record of not being a racist, and there were black individuals who testified for him as character witnesses.

      1. It just looks suspicious that all the kids he killed were black, is all.

        1. You mean the one who was on top of him on the road and pounding on him?

          Having a gun against an unarmed kid does not mean one has to allow the kid to kill you. Or even injure you.

          He’s innocent. Deal with it.

          1. You seem to have a different definition of “innocent” than the usual usage of the word.
            I’m going to “deal with it” by ignoring your future ranting.

  5. I suppose Zimmerman thought he could bury the domestic abuser stories with frivolous lawsuit stories.

    1. Objection – irrelevant.

      1. Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

        (In case that was too subtle, this isn’t a courtroom. It’s a comment section. “Irrelevant” is, well, irrelevant).

    2. So, he DESERVES libel? Good to know.

      Who knew that possible criminals have no right to legal protection?

      1. What libel? Did he not kill a young man with a gun?

        1. If you push a lady out of the way of a bus about to hit her, it’d be libel to say “Well, James has a history of pushing ladies around”

          1. If you stopped drooling on the keyboard, it would become libel to accuse you of being a drooling idiot.

      2. Who knew that being cynical about a person’s motivations meant you thought they had no right to legal protection? Damikesc, apparently.

        As for myself, I’m quite capable of both being cynical about his motivations and having no problem with him having his day in court.

  6. No, I have not read the Complaint, but why would Zimmeran’s counsel fail to plead all of the jurisdictional facts in support of the court exercising its long arm jurisdiction?

    1. There are a *lot* of incompetent lawyers out there….

    2. ” why would Zimmeran’s counsel fail to plead all of the jurisdictional facts in support of the court exercising its long arm jurisdiction?”

      The good lawyers try to avoid taking on losers, either cases or clients. Mr. Trump seems to have the same problem.

  7. It is long past time for the race-baiters to be held responsible for their deliberate and inflammatory falsehoods.

    Trayvon Martin’s death had NOTHING to do with white supremacy or prejudice (as Pete Buttigieg falsely claimed), or with racism (as Elizabeth Warren falsely claimed). Rather, it was an act of self-defense (and by one non-white, the Hispanic Zimmerman, against another, as if that matters).

    It’s highly likely that Buttigieg and Warren knew that “white supremacy,” “prejudice,” and “racism” had nothing to do with Martin’s death when they made their outrageous statements. George Zimmerman was a respected member of his community, a military veteran, devoutly religious, and an advocate for minority rights (having protested against the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white FL police officer). None of that stopped Buttigieg and Warren, and so many others who followed their lead, in defaming that innocent man.

    A court needs to examine their comments, and assess damages. I’ve commented before about how the judiciary has beclowned itself in its unwillingness to tackle this and the other important issues of our time. Let’s hope this case isn’t another example of that judicial cowardice.

    Yet we can all do more, starting with acknowledging the truth. Trayvon Martin’s death had nothing to do with “white supremacy,” “prejudice,” or “racism.”

    Martin’s death was the natural and probable consequence of his own violent behavior, and nothing else.

    1. THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

      This White, male, conservative
      blog has operated for
      TWO (2) DAYS
      without gratuitous use of a
      vile racial slur and for
      669 DAYS
      without imposing partisan,
      viewpoint-driven censorship
      and for
      ZERO (0) DAYS
      without cynically lathering its
      downscale collection of clingers.

      1. “This White, male, conservative
        blog has operated for
        TWO (2) DAYS
        without gratuitous use of a
        vile racial slur”

        How could you possibly know that, Arthur?

        1. Isn’t that now zero days since AK used the slur “white, male, conservative…”

          1. It’s ALK’s way of ‘fixing’ it.

              1. What term can be used for white male conservatives that won’t opress or offend them, then?

                  1. That’s the correct term for conservatives who won’t oppress or offend. There just ain’t any such thing.

      2. Get help, Artie.

        1. Open wider, clingers.

          You have much more progress to swallow as the American culture war continues in its admirable trajectory.

          As always, your compliance with the preferences of your betters is appreciated.

          Carry on with the whining. You get to whimper as much as you like.

          1. Remember Vicki Weaver, Rev. Or don’t you care about her?

            1. Open wider, chief.

              1. “Open wider, chief.”

                Clearly a comment typed with one hand.

                How can you tell how many days it’s been since somebody said “nigger”, Arthur? You wouldn’t be typing it into a search box, would you?

                1. It’s currently 2/25 around 9:30 am. You said it yesterday at around 8:09 pm. No typing into a search box necessary.

    2. It is long past time for the race-baiters to be held responsible for their deliberate and inflammatory falsehoods.

      Trump was held accountable. That’s why he lost his election.

      1. If you think that is why he lost, you were sleeping through most of 2020.

        1. “If you think that is why he lost, you were sleeping through most of 2020.”

          He lost because he kept being Donald Trump for his entire Presidency, and that got enough citizens motivated to register and want to vote for somebody who wasn’t Donald Trump at the first opportunity to do so, and they followed through and did so.

      2. Nonsense EscherEnigma.

        Find me a legitimate (meaning IN CONTEXT) example of Donald Trump race-baiting while President.

        I’ll be waiting. Forever.

        1. The Mexican judge thing?

          1. Well, Queen Amalthea, if you’re talking about Donald Trump’s criticism of U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, and saying it’s an example “of Donald Trump race-baiting while President,” then you’re wrong in three ways.

            First, Donald Trump wasn’t President in June, 2016, when he criticized the judge.

            Second, Donald Trump criticized the judge for his rulings in the Trump University case, on the basis that the judge was biased against Trump because of tension between Trump’s policy proposals and the judge’s Mexican heritage. Such tension, or its appearance, is a totally legitimate basis to criticize a judge’s rulings or seek recusal. A judge must put aside (in fact and appearance) his personal feelings when ruling on a case.

            Third, “Mexican” isn’t a race (and so no race-baiting there).

            1. Alex – in addition, Sotomayor expressly said that using one’s ethnicity was a fair use to decide law. Remember the “wise Latina” quip? So according to her, it’s perfectly OK to have such a bias. All Trump did was point it out.

              1. I wouldn’t agree that Justice Sotomayor’s race-based claim to wisdom is an endorsement of using race as a factor in judging. Rather, I think it was just an extreme example of identity politics and of her myopic view of the human experience.

                Nevertheless, “Mexican” (and then-citizen Donald Trump’s reference to Judge Curiel’s “Mexican heritage”) isn’t a race (or ethnicity). It’s a citizenship, and a fine one at that, held by people of all races, colors, and creeds.

                1. Isn’t that like criticizing African-Americans, then squeaking, “There’s tons of white Africans in South Africa and some came to America!”?

                2. If “Mexican” refers to citizenship only, why did Trump use the term to try to impugn Curiel’s integrity? Curiel was born in Indiana.

            2. “First, Donald Trump wasn’t President in June, 2016, when he criticized the judge. ”

              He isn’t President now, either.

            3. “Second, Donald Trump criticized the judge for his rulings in the Trump University case”

              Trump has unclean hands with regard to that case. He knew full well (or damn well should have known) that that scam was a thorough fraud, start to finish. So complaining that a judge didn’t recuse (for whatever reason(s)) before taking note that “Trump University” was fraudulent is itself fraudulent.

        2. I’m sorry that you were in a coma for the last four years, but you need the help of a doctor, not a rando on the internet, to help you readdjust to modern life.

      3. Computers don’t really have feelings like that.

    3. “Trayvon Martin’s death had NOTHING to do with white supremacy or prejudice (as Pete Buttigieg falsely claimed), or with racism (as Elizabeth Warren falsely claimed). ”

      I think the argument is made that regardless of what happened in the altercation (and remember, while he could not be convicted it’s fairly impossible to know what went down that night) that racism or prejudice might have been behind the attention given to Martin in the first place. This is why I think Zimmerman’s claim of defamation must fail as well.

      1. “racism or prejudice might have been behind the attention given to Martin”

        Buttigieg and Warren’s claims were nowhere near so circumspect.

        1. “Buttigieg and Warren’s claims were nowhere near so circumspect.”

          They don’t need to be. It’s very likely that, at the summary judgement stage, the comments at issue will be found to be protected expressions of opinion. Read the original post carefully.

      2. Bullshyte — it’s fairly clear what happened that night — one man tried to smash another man’s head open on the concrete.

        1. That’s an opinion and it’s true that Zimmerman’s attorneys presented a winning self defense case. But, we know little of what happened preceding the actual shooting and even if, as is plausible, Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense, that does not prove that Zimmerman is not a racist or white supremicist. Racists get to act in self defense too.

      3. I think it had something to do with racism, but it seems on the evidence that it was Martin’s racism that was the problem.

        1. If you’re determined enough to end with that conclusion, you can rationalize enough facts to get there.

      4. Queen’s comment – “I think the argument is made that regardless of what happened in the altercation (and remember, while he could not be convicted it’s fairly impossible to know what went down that night) that racism or prejudice might have been behind the attention given to Martin in the first place.”

        Probably true since his Behavior , Race and Age matched the profile of a typical criminal, most importantly his behavior.

        As long as there remains the huge disparity in crimes committed by race is acknowledged and addressed by the black community

        1. When you outlaw being young and black, the young and black will be outlaws.

          1. Hint: Any teen sneaking through yards in the middle of the night will generate suspicion. Race is immaterial to it.

            1. But as Joe_Dallas said, being black was part of the profile. So walking home while being young and black.

              1. No, sneaking through multiple yards at night did it. ANY teen doing so would lead to suspicion and any cop would stop any teen who did so.

                1. Martin was not sneaking through yards.

                  1. But he must’ve been, or why would brave, noble, definitely non-racist neighborhood watch personnel have accosted him?

                    1. why would brave, noble, definitely non-racist neighborhood watch personnel have accosted him?

                      I see your stupid comment schtick has gotten boring and you’ve made the transition to flat-out lying. Nobody accosted Martin.

        2. Well, Joe, about all I can say to that is thank you for identifying yourself as someone who’s opinions and arguments are not to be taken seriously.

    4. ” by one non-white, the Hispanic Zimmerman”

      Most of the people from Spain are white. So being Hispanic may or may not establish that someone is “non-white”.

      “Martin’s death was the natural and probable consequence of his own violent behavior, and nothing else.”

      He was set upon by a dude with a gun, who went for it when he lost the fistfight he decided to provoke. What kind of violent behavior is that? He fought back but was, literally, outgunned. Young Mr. Martin needed a gun for his own self-defense. I wonder if this fact was picked up upon by any of Martin’s friends in the ‘hood?

      1. Zimmerman was walking away. Trayvon initiated the fight, ambushed Zimmerman, and was killed before he could kill George.

        1. On the contrary Damikesc. Under Florida law, both men could probably have claimed self defense.

          Zimmerman initiated the conflict by stalking Martin at dusk on an empty street. Martin was put in reasonable fear of his life. There is no reasonable way he could have known that Zimmerman had given up the pursuit (and we have no confirmation that he had done so. If nothing else, Zimmerman is extremely biased and suffered a concussion immediately thereafter, both of which undermine his utility as a witness). Thus, it was a single, continuous event.

          1. “Zimmerman initiated the conflict by stalking Martin at dusk on an empty street. Martin was put in reasonable fear of his life.”

            I fail to see how.

            One is free to kill somebody walking near them? I’m not seeing “Well, he scared me by walking and looking at me” as a self defense claim.

            “There is no reasonable way he could have known that Zimmerman had given up the pursuit (and we have no confirmation that he had done so. If nothing else, Zimmerman is extremely biased and suffered a concussion immediately thereafter, both of which undermine his utility as a witness). Thus, it was a single, continuous event.”

            Well, we know Zimmerman is innocent. Trayvon should’ve been less of a hothead and he’d have been fine.

            But if somebody scares you by walking near you and you think (don’t know, mind you, think) they MIGHT be stalking you…you think it’s OK to attempt to murder them?

            1. You sound like an irredeemable bigot, damikesc. Always. For better Americans, stomping guys like you in the culture war has been a pleasure and an important public service.

              Enjoy the rest of that culture war. I know I will.

            2. “Well, we know Zimmerman is innocent.”

              The thing is, if we don’t insist on sticking to our pre-conceived preferred conclusion, as you are doing, you don’t necessarily end there.

            3. ” if somebody scares you by walking near you and you think (don’t know, mind you, think) they MIGHT be stalking you…you think it’s OK to attempt to murder them?”

              If someone starts a fistfight with a young, healthy person, they might lose that fight. Or win, if they happen to have a big enough penis extension.

        2. “Zimmerman was walking away. Trayvon initiated the fight, ambushed Zimmerman, and was killed before he could kill George.”

          If you make up your own facts, you can prove anything.

  8. I thought federal courts were not supposed to reach the merits if they lack personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

    1. The judge identified three flaws in the complaint:
      1) The complaint is a “shotgun complaint,” which is a way of saying that separate claims for relief must be stated for each tweet.
      2) “Personal jurisdiction over Defendants has not been established,” because “Zimmerman has not sufficiently alleged that either Buttigieg or Warren committed a tortious act in this state.”
      3) “Zimmerman has failed to state a cause of action by failing to sufficiently allege publication, an essential element of defamation.”

      Item 2 is sufficient for the judge to dismiss the complaint, but all three of these issues probably say more about the competence of Zimmerman’s lawyer than the strength of his case. The judge is probably hoping that by writing about all three issues in this opinion, Zimmerman’s lawyer will get it right in the next complaint, rather than writing another complaint that has to be dismissed.

      1. I think that your guess is likely correct. I’m actually a fan of dicta, when it’s used to avoid a huge waste of time (Like here, as you note, where no one’s interests are served by counsel filing an amended complaint, only to find out months later that it too will be dismissed without prejudice and a 3rd amended one needs to be filed.)

        Counter-argument: Hire good lawyers, and avoid bad lawyering by courts imposing minor (but non-zero) sanctions in cases like this.

  9. If the statement that Zimmerman killed Martin because of racism or white supremacy isn’t protected opinion under either Florida law or the First Amendment, then something is very wrong.

    1. A person’s motivation, including whether he was motivated by racism, are questions of fact that underly many legal issues. All hate crime statutes assume that the defendant’s motivation is determinable as a matter of fact, indeed determinable beyond a reasonable doubt.

      If motivation is a question of opinion, then hate crimes laws are unconstitutional.

      1. If motivation is a question of opinion, then hate crimes laws are unconstitutional.

        Ah yes, how did I forget that.

        It is widely known that people posting on Twitter are all held to the same burdens of proof as a prosecutor pushing for a criminal conviction is.

        Similarly, everyone knows that in order to successfully sue someone in civil court, you must meet the same standards and burdens of proof as criminal courts. Which is why no one that has been acquitted of wrongdoing has ever been sued in civil court for the same damn thing they were just acquitted of.

        Further, we all know it is trivially easy for a prosecutor to get a hate crime conviction, and they aren’t notoriously difficult to secure at all.

        All well known facts†.
        _________
        †False. This was a parade of lies, mocking your ridiculous claim.

        1. None of which have anything to do with your comment.

          In the United States, a plaintiff in a defamation case has the burden of proving the elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. One element is falsity. Matters of opinion by legal definition cannot be true or false, and so cannot be the subject of a defamation claim.

          Zimmerman’s motivation is a quesiton of fact, and it is theoretically possible for him to prove it, and that Buttigieg’s and Warren’s characterizations of it were false.

          Your statements are ridiculous, and betray a complete misunderstanding of the applicable law. (The different burdens in a civil and criminal case, to the extent relevant at all, merely support my point.) I hope you are not a lawyer, because you really have no clue what you are talking about.

          1. “Zimmerman’s motivation is a quesiton of fact, and it is theoretically possible for him to prove it”

            He can walk into court and testify as to what his motivation really was. That’s evidence, but it isn’t proof.

            1. Not sure how anybody could prove his frame of mind outside of himself. You’d think such things would have been brought up in the trial he was acquitted in.

              1. How much does it hurt when you try to think?

        2. Ah yes, how did I forget that.

          Severe head trauma?

        3. Suppose we were to find out your real name and accuse you, on Twitter of being a child molester.

          Cool?

          1. And who says Qanon isn’t getting mainstreamed?

            1. Who says Qanon is any more wrong than Rachael Carlson was?

              That’s the nice thing about free speech — it leaves open the possibility of a scintilla of truth in the raving of lunatics.

              1. Everyone says Qanon is wrong. Qanon turns out to be wrong once a week or so. Qanon is so wrong so often that Qanon has built a rationale around why always being wrong proves them right.

                1. As far as I can tell, being wrong and suckering people is actually the whole purpose of QAnon. It looks like an opposition psyop to me.

                  1. That’s a very Qanon thing to say. I’d call it ironic, but it’s more like irony eating its own tail.

                    1. I find it odd how well-versed you are on QAnon when the Right doesn’t even know who they are.

                      Then again, the Left is comically susceptible for 4Chan jokes. Hell, some of y’all think the OK symbol is a white power thing.

                    2. I think it’s adorable that you think pleading ignorance is the smart thing to do here.

                    3. I fail to see why your obsessions need be mine as well.

                    4. Good luck with that.

                    5. “I find it odd how well-versed you are on QAnon when the Right doesn’t even know who they are.”

                      Nobody knows who they are, just that they are prone to lazy conspiracy thinking.

                  2. “It looks like an opposition psyop to me.”

                    That’s what too much paranoid conspiracy theorizing does to you, after a while.

                  3. As far as I can tell, being wrong and suckering people is actually the whole purpose of QAnon. It looks like an opposition psyop to me.

                    That’s because you have this mistaken image of yourself as insightful, and part of that is saying to yourself about any story, “Oh, the obvious straightforward version cannot be correct. There must be secret motivations that only I am clever enough to discern.”

          2. Based on the Elon Musk precedent, you’d be fine.

      2. If I understand your argument, once a jury determines a fact, you are liable if you contradict that fact. So for example, OJ can sue me for defamation if I call him a murderer. I think not.

        1. No, you don’t understand my argument, nor the law that you cited.

          1. As ridiculous as it is for OJ to sue for defamation, I will concede he can do so without a First Amendment defense because being a murderer is a matter of fact, not opinion (it nonetheless greatly bothers me OJ could win if a jury is convinced based on the preponderance of evidence).

            However, I am not buying that just because motivation is a factual matter presented to a jury in a hate crime charge, the First Amendment is not a defense to a defamation suit. The matter is too subjective to let a jury decide based on the preponderance of evidence. In contrast, a criminal conviction requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to overcome the subjective nature of the decision. I guess I could go for a similar burden on the plaintiff in a defamation suit.

        2. Josh, wasn’t OJ found “not guilty” of the crime of murder? And losing a civil case does not make one a criminal, i.e. one convicted of a crime.

          1. Score another case of Ed completely missing the point. How many times in a row is that?

            1. How many times in a row is that?

              All of them.

              1. Don’t help him by feeding him the answer. The point is for him to figure it out and learn from it.

        3. “for example, OJ can sue me for defamation if I call him a murderer. I think not.”

          The most recent jury verdict on the subject was that he is responsible for the wrongful death of Mr. Goldman. Murder is the criminal act of causing a wrongful death.

          I don’t think you have to worry about OJ suing you. On the other hand, if you see him loitering on the street near your house, you might want to worry about that.

          1. I think OJ loses twice if he tries to sue someone for calling him a murderer. First, I think that calling OJ a murderer is probably a protected expression of an opinion. Second, OJ should lose because of the malice thing.

            1. Plus, he has to prove it’s false. The fact that he got a jury to decide that the prosecutor hadn’t sufficiently proved it true is not the same thing as proving it false.

      3. “If motivation is a question of opinion, then hate crimes laws are unconstitutional.”

        But, people get to make opinions about facts based on what is known or alleged, don’t they? There are known facts that might lead someone to infer that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animus. If someone states that OJ is guilty of murder in fact, though not in law, isn’t that a protected statement of an opinion based on widely known facts? Likewise, aren’t the statements at issue here statements of opinions arrived at because of known facts and evidence? And, in defamation law, how much factual basis needs to be established to justify the expression of a conclusory opinion? Not much, I’d guess.

        Besides all that, how does Zimmerman get past Sullivan? Can malice, in the defamation law sense, be established in this case?

      4. ” All hate crime statutes assume that the defendant’s motivation is determinable as a matter of fact”

        Where all=none.

        The reason hate-crime statutes exist is because they create fear in people other than the direct victim. You paint slogans on the driveway and set fire to the garage of a house, you get charged with arson and vandalism, murder if someone dies in the fire. If the slogan refers to the race or religion of the people who live in the house, and you have now created victims of all the other people in all the other houses, who now have to take precautions against arson because you’ve made a threat against them. Whether or not the reason you set the fire is because someone in the house is a particular race or the religion you referenced in your vandalism.

  10. My impression is that one does not have to PLEAD jurisdictional facts, although then one has to support them with an affidavit.

    So I am a bit puzzled by the idea that the Complaint lacks enough facts, but this can be fixed on an amendment.

    If the Tweets are read as directed at Zimmerman (which I think they are, and so did the judge), then I don’t see how Calder v. Jones (1984) does not establish personal jurisdiciton.

    1. Florida defamation law allows you to sue non-residents for statements made on the internet, but only if someone in Florida read the statements. All Caldor v. Jones says that that Florida could change the law to eliminate the requirement for someone in Florida to have read the statements.

      Probably someone in Florida read the tweets. If not, Zimmerman could still sue Buttigieg in Indiana and Warren in Massachusetts.

      1. Or possibly both of them in DC, but that’s a non-starter.
        In fact seing in MA is probably not worth the effort.
        Indiana might be another thing.

  11. The left is made up of evil sociopaths.

    With Zimmerman, they blatantly lied about him being “ordered” to go back to his truck, and they lied that he confronted Thugvon. Buttlicker and Pocahontas know of this, but they don’t care if their lies help further their agenda.

    With the $1.9 trillion “stimulus” they claim is necessary, they don’t explain why $1.9 is suddenly the right number, when they were claiming that the economy “needed” the $3.2 trillion bill they passed in the spring. They were either lying then or lying now.

    They use any shooting as justification to push bills on “universal background checks” or bans on “assault weapons,” even when the shooting had nothing to do with the behavior that would be stopped by either.

    The left’s actions are all steeped in transparent bad faith, and this case of ordinary self defense is just one example.

    1. “The left is made up of evil sociopaths….Buttlicker and Pocahontas”

      Sociopaths indeed.

      1. China brought millions out of abject poverty by going 10% capitalist. The left is pure evil.

        1. Bringing people out of poverty is evil?

    2. A small aside: Fauxcahontas was a clever name given to Senator Warren which makes fun of her baseless claim to have Native American ancestry. It combines “faux” (false) with a recognizable name of a historical Native American woman. It is not in the least bit racist. Faux also appears in the clever put down of Fox News: “it’s pronounced faux”.
      But the not-so-clever kids hear these clever bits, don’t understand why they are clever and misuse them repeatedly. So you get dumb liberal commenters saying “faux news” over and over or people like yourself saying “Pocahontas” which can be taken by the less-informed as a racist slur against the Senator’s Native American background.

      1. It’s not that clever and it is pretty racist.

        1. I’m a bit unclear about this: What makes it racist? I mean, she’s actually got less Indian blood in her than the average American. It was a racist slur against her being white?

          1. Using the name of a Native American woman as a slur? And literally nobody takes the fake outrage of the right over Warren’s mistake about her ancestry seriously, the whole thing is just an excuse for nasty bullying and name-calling because Native Americans only exist as Disney princesses to Repblicans.

            1. No, it isn’t using the name of a Native American woman as a slur. It’s using a parody of the name of a Native American woman to mock somebody’s claim to be a Native American woman.

              Unless, of course, you can identify some Indian woman named Fauxcahontas.

              She gets mocked over the claim, not just because it was false, but because as far as conservatives are concerned, even if it were true it shouldn’t matter, so she’s mocked for trying to make a big deal of it. Making a big deal of it when it isn’t even true is just that much funnier.

              1. You think turning it into a parody insulates it from from being a slur?

                Now you’re agreeing with me. Native Americans are irrelevant and don’t matter and a joke to Republicans, hence the nasty bullying name for a woman who mistakenly thought she was one and thought it was a big deal.

                1. Yeah, actually I do.

                  If Warren actually were an Indian, and you called her “Pocahontas”, you’d have a case for a slur, because she’d be mocked for being an Indian.

                  But she’s not being mocked for being an Indian, she’s being mocked for pretending to be an Indian.

                  1. Using an actual Native American’s name as a term of mockery.

                    1. Find an actual native American named “Fauxcahontas”, then.

                    2. Oh no what real name can that clever word play be based on no-one could ever possibly guess except that people go to such pains to explain the joke and how clever it is, making the connection with the real name, then a few comments later denying any connection to the real name and still they’re claiming to be clever.

                    3. Obviously I’m not denying it has a connection to a real name. (As opposed to being one.) But mocking somebody for BEING Indian, and mocking somebody for LYING ABOUT being Indian, are pretty different things.

                    4. You’re using a version of a real name to relentlessly and endleslly bully a woman over an extremely minor mistake she made a long time ago in a way that displays your contempt for women, Native Americans, the truth, fairness and the ugly impulse to be loud obnoxious assholes just because you can and nobody can stop you. It’s also difficult to ignore the free pass you guys give to far, far more egregious and genuinely harmful and nasty behaviour over a loger time frame by Trump. I don’t actually think this is primarily because you’re hypocrites, it’s because as the ‘Fauxcahontas’ thing shows, he’s an accurate representative of the character of modern Consrvativism.

                    5. Who was Fauxcahontas historically?

                      We could also use Lieawatha if you’d so like, unless you can find that name historically as well?

                    6. “You’re using a version of a real name to relentlessly and endleslly bully a woman over an extremely minor mistake she made a long time ago in a way that displays your contempt for women, Native Americans, the truth, fairness and the ugly impulse to be loud obnoxious assholes just because you can and nobody can stop you.”

                      Claim was made for YEARS…until she got tenure. Then she stopped making the claim. Nothing suspicious whatsoever there. It was not minor. It was not a mistake. It was intentional and she, rightfully, gets raked over the coals for it.

                    7. “You’re using a version of a real name to relentlessly and endlessly bully a woman over an extremely minor mistake she made a long time ago in a way that displays your contempt for women, Native Americans, the truth, fairness and the ugly impulse to be loud obnoxious assholes just because you can and nobody can stop you.”

                      Wow, are you ever over the top. Yes, I also use it as a dessert topping and floor wax.

                    8. No, damikesc, your racism is far too cleverly disguised to be detected.

                    9. Again, “Racism” meaning “I don’t like this”.

                      I could give two shits what you think is racist.

                    10. No, racism meaning you’re using the names of Native Americans as mocking slurs against a woman who once made a mistake about her ancestry. There’s a whole load of ugly baggage to unpack from it, most of it about how disgustingly racist and misogynistic and cringe right-wing humour is.

                    11. “you’re using the names of Native Americans”

                      Again, point out any actual Indians named, “Fauxcahontas” or “Lieawatha”.

                    12. Again, no-one could see through such clever word-play.

                    13. There’s nothing to see through. We’re mocking her for lying about her ancestry. It’s no slur against Indians to mock somebody for pretending to be one.

                    14. It is the way you do it, but the real joke is that you try so hard justify this because she ‘pretended’ to be something, while you all voted for someone who pretended to be a successful businessman.

                    15. Right-wing bigotry is a large part of the reason that conservatives have lost the culture war in America and that the Republican Party is increasingly a collection of cranky, disaffected, superstitious, old White losers.

                    16. Arthur L. Hicklib is an expert on white losers because he sees them all the time. It’s called “family get-togethers.”

                    17. What’s he doing hanging out at your family get-together?

                2. It’s almost as good as calling Shaun King Talcum X.

            2. Lol at the guy who uses the letters of the N word as his screen name.

                1. Isn’t it typically a diminutive of Nigel?

        2. How can commenting that somebody utterly lied about a native heritage to get a job be racist?

          Seems the racism is in false claims of it to get a job.

          1. It took effort, but you managed somehow. It probably helped that the right don’t give a shit about Native Americans, false claims, honesty, or integrity, therefore it was always just an opportunity to be an asshole.

            1. So, again, it’s NOT racist to falsely claim minority status to get a job that would’ve likely gone to an ACTUAL minority then stop mentioning it once you cannot be fired…but it IS racist to notice it?

              Sound logic there.

              If you do not care about it, why should people you deem to be racist care any more than you do?

              1. Its not racist if it was a genuine mistake. It is racist for members of the party openly hostile to Native Americans to cynically inflate it to a whole nasty mocking bullying routine with no regard for actual Native Americans. I don’t expect racists to care about much of anything other than taking opportunities to be racist in the most asinine ways possible and then get stroppy when called on it.

                1. “Its not racist if it was a genuine mistake.”

                  It was not. Didn’t even take much research to prove it was not. That blood test debacle was her last ditch effort to maintain any credibility on an issue she had already been proven to have lied about for years.

                  “It is racist for members of the party openly hostile to Native Americans”

                  Feel free to list this “open hostility”. I know you think you can just toss this nonsense around and not get called on it…but you cannot.

                  “cynically inflate it to a whole nasty mocking bullying routine with no regard for actual Native Americans.”

                  Except that was not done. Still. You’ve come across as an imbecile on the issue and one would think you’d tire of looking like an imbecile but it seems to be an obsession of yours.

                  “I don’t expect racists”

                  More slurs used with no definition beyond “I disagree”

                  You’re an idiot. You’ve proven it repeatedly. Might be time to take the “L” on this one, but I doubt you have the sense to do that.

                  1. I have seen it asserted that it wasn’t a mistake, but never with any credibility.

                    You should go ask some Native Americans what they think of how Republicans have treated them.

                    I don’t know what you’re complaining about, you loves your big shared nasty racist joke, it pwns the libs, yuk it up.

                    1. “I have seen it asserted that it wasn’t a mistake, but never with any credibility.”

                      There is, literally, zero evidence it is true. Not “not much”…none. People have checked everything and found absolutely nothing. It is not a mistake to make a blatantly false claim for decades then stop doing so only after getting tenure.

                      “You should go ask some Native Americans what they think of how Republicans have treated them.”

                      I asked YOU since YOU made the claim. Why not ask them yourself to back up your claim?

                      “I don’t know what you’re complaining about, you loves your big shared nasty racist joke, it pwns the libs, yuk it up.”

                      You’re silly. And the only racists are the ones defending her racist actions.

                    2. Here you are still passionately justifying this stupid racist bullying joke, holding someone to account for a mistake that happened years ago, while the man you voted for President, and who really loves that racist joke and made it even creepier somehow, literally conned millions out of people through a fake university.

                    3. Again, calling the joke “racist” is laughable. Nothing remotely racist about it. Sorry if you don’t get it.

                    4. In fairness, that would make it funnier than the ‘joke,’ but it’s still true.

                  2. ” It is not a mistake to make a blatantly false claim for decades then stop doing so only after getting tenure.”

                    Believing what your family told you about your ancestry and repeating it, then stopping when the claim is shown to be wrong is a mistake. With or without tenure.

              2. “Sound logic there.”

                What you demonstrated is that you laid out a strawman argument that is particularly clumsy. Then attacked someone else for having the logic YOU described.

                You’re right, that logic is quite weak.

          2. By calling her “Pocahontas” and variations thereof as you do so. This isn’t complicated.

            1. By noting that somebody got advantages by falsely claiming native heritage, they are the racists. Not the person who ACTUALLY lied and actually got the benefits.

              Not shocking…Democrats cannot be racist in your eyes. Nothing they do is actually wrong.

              Mind you, several tribes demanded she apologize for her lie as well.

              1. Oh, I’m sorrry, you seem to have missed all the criticism Warren received from the left for her response to this when it emerged. The whole blood test thing in particular was handled quite poorly. But those were generally intelligent, thoughtful, non-hstrionic non-grandstanding discussions that tried to treat the opinions and sensitiviteis of native Americans with respect. Hardly surprising they’d pass you by, you were so caught up in laughing at your stupid racst joke.

                1. The key ingredient is OUTRAGE. Some people turn to politics to get a daily dose of outrage, and some other people are only too happy to stoke it for political gain. Why, it’s positively OUTRAGEOUS! Grrrrr.

    3. All politicians are lying grafters. Back in the bank bailout of some additional $700 billion, by the time it had passed, Congress had heaped on an additional $100 billion in pork.

      Which means many Congresspeople were:

      A. Willing to hold up vital legislation to prevent economic collapse unless they got pork.
      Or
      B. Felt principled and thought the bailout was wrong, but got bought out by pork to vote for it.

    4. ” they lied that he confronted Thugvon.”

      so in your bubble universe, Zimmermann and Martin were never in the same place and Zimmermann didn’t kill anybody? It must be so confusing for bubble-Martin to keep hearing that he’s dead.

      1. Seems to be Trayvon’s problem to be a hothead who ambushed an armed man. I’d teach MY kids that ambushing people is a poor idea, but that’s just me.

        Perhaps if Trayvon didn’t find it worth his time to ambush somebody, he might be alive today. Bit holding him responsible for his actions is, apparently, wrong.

        1. “Seems to be Trayvon’s problem to be a hothead who ambushed an armed man. I’d teach MY kids that ambushing people is a poor idea, but that’s just me.”

          The poor kid didn’t bring a gun to a gunfight.

  12. Trayvon Martin would have been 25 today.

    Had he not been a violence-prone young thug…like so many others who never made to their 25th birthdays, mostly at the hand of other violence-prone young thugs.

    Interestingly, the photos posted by those lamenting Martin’s failure to reach that milestone aren’t the readily available ones that show him as he was closest to that age. I wonder why that is.

    1. “Had he not been a violence-prone young thug”

      Did Martin have a history of violence?

        1. You guys are absolute garbage. Honestly.

          He was a kid. Kids say dumb shit on social media. Digging through a dead 17 year olds tweets to justify his murder is…well it’s about the most disgusting thing a I can think of, so analogies are failing me.

          1. We don’t need to justify his murder, because he was killed in self defense, not murdered.

            Martin might well be alive today if he hadn’t attacked Zimmerman. That’s on him.

            1. “Martin might well be alive today if he hadn’t attacked Zimmerman. That’s on him.”

              Martin might well be alive today if he hadn’t been attacked by Zimmermann. That’s on who?

          2. “He was a kid.”

            17, which would get him tried as an adult. Let’s not act like he was 12.

            “Digging through a dead 17 year olds tweets to justify his murder”

            He was not murdered. He was killed in self-defense as is legal and quite justified.

            1. Says the violent, wife beating and pedophile sole survivor of the incident.

              Funny how I don’t think you’d buy the story so uncritically if Martin was the sole survivor.

      1. Did Martin have a history of violence?

        Were you in a coma for the entire duration of the incident and the trial?

    2. Plus there was always a strong likelihood that some cop would have gunned him down for walking while black on video and gotten away with it.

      1. Because they do so frequently. Really, they do. Sure, all of the claims the Left broadcasts tend to fall apart, but still…I bet they do all of the time.

        1. If they do fall apart, then more oversight and accountability showing the police were justified – and punished appropriately in those oh-so-rare cases where they were not – is only going to restore and build citizen trust in their police forces, so it’s a win-win.

          1. YOU claimed cops would just shoot them down.

            Not my claim. Yours.

            Not surprisingly, you are full of shit.

            1. Prove me wrong with greater oversight and accountability!

              1. “Ignore my idiotic claim and do this instead!”?

                Nah. You don’t get to just choose to move the goalposts when you make an ass of yourself.

                You’re incapable of good faith so why should I treat you as if you were capable of it?

                1. Are you talking to yourself? Easiest way for you to score points off your interlocuter, I suppose.

                  1. I’m not the one who made an idiotic comment , brushed it off, then demanded somebody address this different comment.

                    Nah. Hope you don’t get a hernia hauling those goalposts around.

                    1. Lick boots harder.

                    2. Is that your screen name means? Thought it was a Special Forces reference but then I realized the only special forces you’d be a part of would be, you know, REALLY “special”

                    3. I miss the old Volokh when commenters you argued with could follow a conversation.

                2. “Nah. You don’t get to just choose to move the goalposts when you make an ass of yourself.”

                  Right. You’re the only one allowed to do that.

    3. “Had he not been a violence-prone young thug…like so many others who never made to their 25th birthdays, mostly at the hand of other violence-prone young thugs.”

      Had he survived his interaction with that other violence-prone young thug, he probably would have learned that he’d better be strapped if he wanted to do suspicious things like walk down streets.

  13. It’s amazing how many people are so sure what happened that night. The only things that can be proven seem to be that Zimmerman followed Martin, Zimmerman was injured and Martin was shot. We don’t know how the altercation started, what was said, etc., because it was a two party event and one was killed.

    1. Written by that noted wingnut Alan Dershowitz and published on that right wing rag Huffpost.

      https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-forensic-evidence-is-_b_1527972

      1. Dershowitz is a wingnut. And a pedo.

        And I don’t care how badly Zimmerman was beat up. He initiated the confrontation. He stalked an innocent teenager, got his confrontation, and then killed the boy. The situation was entirely Zimmerman’s making.

        1. Yes, that’s the fantasy version of events that was demolished in the courtroom, but nobody on the left seems to care.

          1. “Demolished”?

            Dead men tell no tales. This is not hard.

    2. It’s amazing how many people are so sure what happened that night.

      You’re referring, of course, to those who claim that the incident occurred because Zimmerman is/was a racist…correct?

      1. Hard to overlook possible racism being correlated to the fact that 100% of the dead kids caused by Mr. Zimmermann happen to be black-skinned. But I’m sure you can do it.

        Another possibility is that possessing a handgun made Zimmermann overconfident in assessing his likelihood of winning a fistfight, thus encouraging him to engage in one.

    3. There was at least one witness who testified to seeing Martin straddling Zimmermann, who was lying on the concrete sidewalk, and punching him in the head, MMA -style.

      1. Which is a completely justifiable thing for a teenager to be doing to a full grown man who has been stalking them and then tried to initiate a confrontation.

        This is similar to Kyle in Kenosha, where the racists argue for self defense after they start a confrontation. Doesn’t work that way, and the rest of us can see the hole in your argument as clear as day.

        1. “Which is a completely justifiable thing for a teenager to be doing to a full grown man who has been stalking them and then tried to initiate a confrontation.”

          It’s only luck you’ve never been charged with assault, if that’s your idea of reasonable cause for beating on somebody.

          1. Being lucky enough to have avoided running into a Zimmermann, is a privilege that comes from living in better neighborhoods and having more reflective skin.

    4. “The only things that can be proven seem to be that Zimmerman followed Martin, Zimmerman was injured and Martin was shot.”

      That’s bullshit. It’s amazing how little you seem to know, or pretend not to know, about what happened that night. It was laid out in great detail at the trial, and it was established as fact that Martin was straddling Zimmerman, pounding him, as Martin shot up at him to stop the beating. Likewise, facts about the movement of the two before the fight were established.

      I watched almost the entire trial. Where were you?

      1. She was probably following the pseudo-coverage that was reporting all the weird theories, instead of the evidence that got Zimmerman acquitted.

      2. So Zimmerman gets to start fights with kids, and when the kids can kick his ass, he gets to shoot them?

        1. No, so Zimmerman is entitled to stand on a sidewalk without being assaulted. All the evidence indicates Martin was the aggressor.

          1. Like Zimmerman stalking the boy and thus initiating the whole incident? The fact of the matter is that Trayvon was not committing a crime, Zimmerman initiated some sort of confrontation and got his ass kicked. Then he shoots the teenager dead, rather than live with the embarrassment of getting his ass kicked by a kid.

            The fact that you guys so obviously identify with Zimmerman (a wife beating pedophile, by the way) doesn’t help my opinion of you all.

            1. Do you understand that Zimmerman was legally entitled to use the same sidewalk as Martin, even start a conversation with him, without having Martin break his nose and start beating his head into the pavement?

              I see this over and over when the Zimmerman case comes up, people on the left who have utterly bizarre notions of what constitutes a legal threat you can respond to with violence.

          2. ” All the evidence indicates Martin was the aggressor.”

            If you insist on imagining it that way.

      3. “I watched almost the entire trial. Where were you?”

        In a completely different time zone, with something (probably several somthings) better to do.

    5. Are you aware that there was a jury trial? Do you know how trials work?

    6. “We don’t know how the altercation started”

      What with only one participant able to tell their side of the story, it’s not a shock to only have one side of the story.

  14. When there is no legal recourse due to lawyer cant, the contrapositive has full justification. This decision is just more lawyer garbage. The contrapositive should brought to the real owners of this system.

  15. I would think that Zimmerman’s case would be facing an uphill battle due to the “actual malice” standard established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Because he is a public figure, it would have to be proven that Buttigieg and Warren made the allegedly defamatory statements with actual malice toward Zimmerman, which is a difficult thing to prove. However, there could be some debate as to whether Zimmerman even constitutes a public figure as set forth in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.

    1. If I call you a White Supremacist, do I have malice towards you?

      1. Who would use White Supremacist as a compliment?

        1. You use it as a term with no actual meaning, so there’s that.

          1. Hmm, but how do I know you’re not just ignorant of its meaning? You’ve been proud to be ognorant about at least one other subject.

            1. I have explicitly explained its definition in how you use it.

              It’s an idiotic definition, but hey, expectations aren’t high with you.

              1. Yes, your definition is idiotic – a harsh self-judgement, but fair.

                1. True, using the definition offered by a moron is usually a bad idea, but this is more a discussion of your non-existent thought process.

                  1. Stop talking about KevinP – the guy who actually introduced the term in this conversation – like that you’re so mean.

      2. “If I call you a White Supremacist, do I have malice towards you?”

        Malice in a defamation case has nothing to do with malice in the normal sense of the word, i.e. ill will.

      3. That would not be relevant. If you called me a white supremacist and I sued you for defamation, I would not have to prove that you had actual malice because I am not a public figure. The “actual malice” standard is only applicable to cases involving public figures.

        1. You would have to prove that you aren’t actually a white supremecist, public figure or not. That’s a tough negative to prove.

  16. It’s kinda funny….

    Zimmermann is suing Buttigieg and Warren because of what they posted on social media.

    Yet Prof. Volokh can post the story – including the original posts – with no problem.

    I can even link Prof. Volokh’s blog on a Facebook/Twitter account (if I had one), and spread it worldwide where it will remain for eternity.

    Yep…kinda funny.

    1. He is reporting about an ongoing litigation. That is privileged. (At least in NY).

      If you sue for defamation, you cannot complaint that someone then reports about the details of your lawsuit, and your allegations against the defendants.

      1. Yeah, I know.

        My point is, the thing that Zimmermann doesn’t want to happen (he being tied to racist behavior), is now being published and can now be distributed worldwide and forever!

        1. True, but only as part of reporting on the suit. You cannot just retweet Buttigieg’s tweet just because it is quoted in Zimmerman’s complaint.

          1. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the tweets that Zimmerman finds so alarming have been retweeted quite a bit already. And yet, all the doubtlessly many people who spread them are not named as parties to the suit.

            So either Zimmerman’s lawyers are incredibly incompetent, or you are.

            1. It can be both.

            2. What makes you think there would be any point to suing each and every person who retweeted the original tweets? Do you think that just because something you do technically makes you liable, that a lawyer should sue that person, rather than the person who originated the libel?

              This lawyer seems to have competency issues. But not because he failed to sue everyone in sight. That you think that failure makes him incompetent shows what an ignorant moron you are.

    2. “Yet Prof. Volokh can post the story – including the original posts – with no problem.”

      Because the lawsuit was spurious. Had there been any actual libel, repeating the libel can introduce liability.

      1. Once more showing your complete ignorance of the law.

        1. Ignorant of the law, yet able to pass a bar exam.

          You apparently don’t know that publishing a libel produces liability for publishing a libel, yet use the word “lawyer” in your handle. Wishful thinking?

  17. So mentioning Trayvon Martin is libelous against the man who murdered him (in “self-defense”)?

    1. I’d have to say I find the lawsuit a stretch, and I think Martin was shot in legitimate self defense. I get the impression Zimmerman is trying to in effect buy a lottery ticket. And not for the first time.

      What ever happened with his lawsuit against the Martin family over the supposed use of a fake witness during the trial?

      George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin’s family and others for $100 million

      That was over a year ago, surely something has happened?

  18. Buttigieg smeared him…plain and simple. He claimed Zimmerman killed Martin because of “white supremacy” whatever the heck that is. Jury found him innocent in self defense. Buttigieg lied and should be found guilty for libel. Given the reach of Twitter the penalty should be very harsh in monetary amount..say $100M at least.

    1. Titus,
      You are not a lawyer, so you are making a common mistake. The jury did NOT find him innocent. The jury found that the prosecution could not (did not) prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

      The jury did not find OJ Simpson innocent in his criminal trial. (In post-trial interviews; several jurors there felt that OJ had done it.) For non-lawyers-there is the perception that “not guilty” to be equal to “innocent.” But it’s actually not at all the same.

    2. ” He claimed Zimmerman killed Martin because of “white supremacy” whatever the heck that is.”

      More accurately, he didn’t claim Zimmermann did anything at all. Point to where you see the Zimmermann name in the tweet.

Please to post comments