Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Woodruff]

Are you getting mad?

Mad? No. Frustrated by your lies? Yes.

I can see your anger coming out by the consistent swearing.

It isn't anger, it's frustration.

Where have I lied? I am an honest person.

If you haven't intentionally lied, then you really do have a problem with understanding the English language in its basic form.

Your pathetic efforts to change the subject again are worthless.

Change the subject? You started calling me a troll. I responded to that. If anything, YOU changed the subject.

If you point out the specific posts I will respond. I'm not impartial, I give everyone a chance.

I'VE DONE THAT. All you've done is continue to ignore my points and state that I'm trolling. Honestly, you come across to me as an exceptionally dishonest individual who is unwilling to simply man up and admit that they read something wrong and because of that made statements that weren't accurate. Thus, the comparison to Phatscotty, for whom that has become the modus operandi.

[Woodruff]

All of that came up. It's just that the media blew the wad on Zimmerman right off the bat in the beginning in order to gin up all the outrage against "white-hispanic" Zimmerman. Trayvon's thuggery (theft/brawling) is only being talked about just recently because the truth has only recently just been made known.

Only just recently, eh? I suppose if you consider "March of 2012" to be recent...

You feel like it's the 60's because without a doubt it is you who is living in the past

God, you're funny sometimes. Sadly, it's almost certainly unintentional.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Are you getting mad?

Mad? No. Frustrated by your lies? Yes.

I can see your anger coming out by the consistent swearing.

It isn't anger, it's frustration.

Where have I lied? I am an honest person.

If you haven't intentionally lied, then you really do have a problem with understanding the English language in its basic form.

Your pathetic efforts to change the subject again are worthless.

Change the subject? You started calling me a troll. I responded to that. If anything, YOU changed the subject.

If you point out the specific posts I will respond. I'm not impartial, I give everyone a chance.

I'VE DONE THAT. All you've done is continue to ignore my points and state that I'm trolling. Honestly, you come across to me as an exceptionally dishonest individual who is unwilling to simply man up and admit that they read something wrong and because of that made statements that weren't accurate. Thus, the comparison to Phatscotty, for whom that has become the modus operandi.

None of this shows the posts to which you are referring. Once again, topic changer. Do not call be dishonest if you are unwilling to back it up.

[oVo]

Stand your ground is not an issue here. The force is officially self defense and officially justified. Profiling is not always a bad thing, Zimmerman was not racially profiling, and race has nothing to do with it. Much of the animosity is coming from people repeating the lies. You feel like it's the 60's because without a doubt it is you who is living in the past, and your own views on racism, you think everyone has them and that's why you think everyone is as racist as your imagination, but that isn't true. It's just people like you.

One thing is... you don't know who started this fight? Both of these stubborn idiots have belligerent "mas macho" histories. Martin might have also claimed "Self Defense" had he survived this altercation. A second thing is... this situation was not necessary and I feel GZ is culpable by ignoring the police dispatcher's recommendation and pushing it. A third thing is... Zimmerman's "profiling" of Martin as suspicious by his appearance created the event, no crime was observed.

[Phatscotty]

One thing is... you don't know who started this fight?

But we do know who was punched, and who did the punching. Zimmerman was punched, as evidenced by his broken nose, and Martin's knuckles were bruised, from smashing them against Zimmerman's face.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.examiner.com/article/zimmerm ... -attorneys

In a twist not even the best fiction writers could have seen coming, the Trayvon Martin case, instigated by a couple of sheister attorneys looking to make money from a tragedy, will reportedly end with George Zimmerman recovering legal damages from Al Sharpton, NBC, and the Trayvon Martin family attorneys, Daryl Parks and Benjamin Crump.

The first claim is likely to be intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). To be successful, Zimmerman will have to show that conduct of Al Sharpton and NBC was so extreme and outrageous that it transcended all bounds of decency; that they acted with either the purpose to cause Zimmerman extreme emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard for Zimmerman's emotional well being, and that Al Sharpton and NBC caused him identifiable emotional damage. Here, Al Sharpton publically claimed that Trayvon Martin was murdered and that George Zimmerman should be arrested for the crime. The ensuing civil unrest and threats of racial violence caused Zimmerman to go into hiding. There is no doubt that crying racism and murder to a group of self-radicalized Black militants is beyond all bounds of decency. Any White peron accused of killing an unarmed Black child because of racism would be terrified of the mob's reaction. If Zimmerman has been treated by a physician for any kind of emotional trauma caused by Sharpton linking him to a murder that never occured, Sharpton's going to be held responsible.

NBC will likely also be found liable to Zimmerman for IIED because a producuer who admittedly altered an audio recording to make it look like Zimmerman harbored racial prejudices against Blacks. The result made all of America believe that George Zimmerman was the most wretched racist on the planet. Again, this sort of behavior is wholly unacceptable in a society that values established due process and the search for the truth. This act, combined with Sharpton's incessant race-baiting no doubt caused Zimmerman intense emotional pain.

The second against Al Sharpton and NBC claim is likely to be twofold- defamation and the invasion of privacy. The common law elements of defamation are 1) a false statement, 2) about or concerning the plaintiff, 3) communicated to a third person, and 4) damage to the plaintiff's reputation. While it's generally held that defamatory speech is slander and written communications are libel, where the speech is recorded and widely available, the proper claim is libel, which is held to be the more serious of the two as video recordings become permanent because they are ubiquitiously reproduced and shared across the Internet via social networking.Clearly, Al Sharpton repeatedly told people that Trayvon Martin was murdered by a racist and that George Zimmerman should be held responsible. As we are finding out, there was no racially motivated murder here. Sharpton's statements on MSNBC and at the numerous rallies he appeared at were patently false, and they were clearly about George Zimmerman. The damage to George Zimmerman's reputation is grave. He's been branded a racist child murder by Sharpton. He had to quit his job and leave his community because of the damage done to his reputation.

While Sharpton's employer, NBC, would normally not be liable for Sharpton's intentional torts, they certainly could be held responsible for his behavior under a negligence theory. If NBC knew, or should've known, that Sharpton's on-air race-baiting and vitriolic conjecture would lead to the destruction of George Zimmerman's reputation, and did nothing to prevent Sharpton from harming Zimmerman, NBC will also be looking at a negligence action.

An invasion of privacy claim will stand against NBC because of the altering of the audio tape. The publication of the audio placing George Zimmerman in a false light that is offensive to a reasonuble perosn under the circumstances, and satisfies the main elements of a false light invasion of privacy claim. Because the producer has reportedly admitted to altering the audio to make the story seem like a hate crime, there will be little problem with establishing intent here. Because this is a story of public interest, Zimmerman will have to show that it was done with malice. What could be more malicious than deliberately portraying someone as a racist child killer without a shred of proof?

The third claim will be against the Martin family attorney whose professional malpractice brought a nation to the precipice of a race riot. It was attorney Benjamin Crump who contacted Al Sharpton. Crump called Sharpton after trying to intimidate Sheriff Lee into arresting Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. When Crump realized he wasn't going to be able to bring a wrongful death suit against the city or county (his specialty by the way is suing state and local governments), Crump decided to invent a racial controversy in order to force the Sanford Police Department into a settlement. Benjamin Crump manufactured outrage over a hate crime that was itself manufactured. This is negligence of the worst sort. It's willful.

As an attorney, Benjamin Crump has a duty to adhere to the principles of law. If you don't have a merit-based case, the law holds you have no case. It is malpractice to invent knowingly invent one. The harm caused by Crump's breach of duty is mind-numbing. There were death threats to Zimmerman and his family from militant Black racists. There were retalitory killings of White people. All of this on top of the injury to George Zimmerman. He has lost everything for no other reason than a greedy attorney wanted to shake down the police for money. It's shameful. It's this sort of behavior that gives legal professionals a horrible public image. Thanks a bunch Ben.

[Woodruff]

Are you getting mad?

Mad? No. Frustrated by your lies? Yes.

I can see your anger coming out by the consistent swearing.

It isn't anger, it's frustration.

Where have I lied? I am an honest person.

If you haven't intentionally lied, then you really do have a problem with understanding the English language in its basic form.

Your pathetic efforts to change the subject again are worthless.

Change the subject? You started calling me a troll. I responded to that. If anything, YOU changed the subject.

If you point out the specific posts I will respond. I'm not impartial, I give everyone a chance.

I'VE DONE THAT. All you've done is continue to ignore my points and state that I'm trolling. Honestly, you come across to me as an exceptionally dishonest individual who is unwilling to simply man up and admit that they read something wrong and because of that made statements that weren't accurate. Thus, the comparison to Phatscotty, for whom that has become the modus operandi.

None of this shows the posts to which you are referring. Once again, topic changer. Do not call be dishonest if you are unwilling to back it up.

It's all already been done in the thread. I'm not going to re-create the wheel for you. All you have to do is find the points where I stated you lied, and you'll be in the right spot. Again, this is a Phatscotty tactic...it's like you've been personally trained by the Sith Lord or something.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty tactics are to stay on topic and state the truth first, then the opinion.

Truth: Zimmerman was found not guilty. Trayvon Martin was found guilty.

Opinion: Woodruff should tell Phatscotty that he was right all along and admit he was wrong.

[oVo]

Sure Martin took a punch, but that doesn't mean it was the first one thrown
and it's just as possible that Martin could have been acting in self defense.

The Examiner is always my first place to look for impartial News reporting. The suits --if they actually do get filed on Zimmerman's behalf-- are as flimsy as GZ's character and the murder charge against him. It will be interesting to see what --if anything-- happens there.

Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder, that doesn't mean
he didn't initiate or escalate this fight. Since he is the only
witness, that truth may never genuinely be known.

I haven't heard who threw the first punch when he was charged
with domestic violence by his ex-fiance or later shoving an Orange
County Police Officer which resulted in an assault charge.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Are you getting mad?

Mad? No. Frustrated by your lies? Yes.

I can see your anger coming out by the consistent swearing.

It isn't anger, it's frustration.

Where have I lied? I am an honest person.

If you haven't intentionally lied, then you really do have a problem with understanding the English language in its basic form.

Your pathetic efforts to change the subject again are worthless.

Change the subject? You started calling me a troll. I responded to that. If anything, YOU changed the subject.

If you point out the specific posts I will respond. I'm not impartial, I give everyone a chance.

I'VE DONE THAT. All you've done is continue to ignore my points and state that I'm trolling. Honestly, you come across to me as an exceptionally dishonest individual who is unwilling to simply man up and admit that they read something wrong and because of that made statements that weren't accurate. Thus, the comparison to Phatscotty, for whom that has become the modus operandi.

None of this shows the posts to which you are referring. Once again, topic changer. Do not call be dishonest if you are unwilling to back it up.

It's all already been done in the thread. I'm not going to re-create the wheel for you. All you have to do is find the points where I stated you lied, and you'll be in the right spot. Again, this is a Phatscotty tactic...it's like you've been personally trained by the Sith Lord or something.

You have still yet to show me the posts where I lied. And hey have you voted on the poll of this topic yet?

[oVo]

Truth: Zimmerman was found not guilty. Trayvon Martin was found guilty.

Trayvon Martin was not found guilty, he was found dead.

[Woodruff]

Phatscotty tactics are to stay on topic and state the truth first, then the opinion.

That would be a very pleasant change of pace on your part, if it were true.

Truth: Zimmerman was found not guilty. Trayvon Martin was found guilty.

That is actually NOT truth. Who here is shocked?

Opinion: Woodruff should tell Phatscotty that he was right all along and admit he was wrong.

If you had been reading my posts here, you might actually educate yourself a bit. That, too, would be a pleasant change of pace on your part.

[Woodruff]

Are you getting mad?

Mad? No. Frustrated by your lies? Yes.

I can see your anger coming out by the consistent swearing.

It isn't anger, it's frustration.

Where have I lied? I am an honest person.

If you haven't intentionally lied, then you really do have a problem with understanding the English language in its basic form.

Your pathetic efforts to change the subject again are worthless.

Change the subject? You started calling me a troll. I responded to that. If anything, YOU changed the subject.

If you point out the specific posts I will respond. I'm not impartial, I give everyone a chance.

I'VE DONE THAT. All you've done is continue to ignore my points and state that I'm trolling. Honestly, you come across to me as an exceptionally dishonest individual who is unwilling to simply man up and admit that they read something wrong and because of that made statements that weren't accurate. Thus, the comparison to Phatscotty, for whom that has become the modus operandi.

None of this shows the posts to which you are referring. Once again, topic changer. Do not call be dishonest if you are unwilling to back it up.

It's all already been done in the thread. I'm not going to re-create the wheel for you. All you have to do is find the points where I stated you lied, and you'll be in the right spot. Again, this is a Phatscotty tactic...it's like you've been personally trained by the Sith Lord or something.

You have still yet to show me the posts where I lied.

Are you even capable of reading? I mean...seriously...is it beyond your capabilities?

And hey have you voted on the poll of this topic yet?

Yes.

[Woodruff]

Truth: Zimmerman was found not guilty. Trayvon Martin was found guilty.

Trayvon Martin was not found guilty, he was found dead.

He was found black and dead. In Phatscotty-speak, that is "guilty".

[Phatscotty]

Truth: Zimmerman was found not guilty. Trayvon Martin was found guilty.

Trayvon Martin was not found guilty, he was found dead.

He was found black and dead. In Phatscotty-speak, that is "guilty".

Zimmerman was not guilty because he was defending his life from Trayvon who was trying to take his life, which means the jury found Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman, which makes him guilty of attempted murder. Trayvon Martin is the only one who broke the law, as well as the only one who used a racial slur. You couldn't have it more ass backwards if you tried. And it doesn't matter what race the person who was trying to kill Zimmerman was, except to racists who can see nothing but race and constantly exploit race to make other people look racist. A boy is dead, and you are exploiting him to score a cheap point in a forum with strangers. That makes you a disgusting race hustler.

Your strategy of pretending to be dumber than shit in order to get me to foe you so that you can return to talking crap behind my back like a coward isn't going to work.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Are you getting mad?

Mad? No. Frustrated by your lies? Yes.

I can see your anger coming out by the consistent swearing.

It isn't anger, it's frustration.

Where have I lied? I am an honest person.

If you haven't intentionally lied, then you really do have a problem with understanding the English language in its basic form.

Your pathetic efforts to change the subject again are worthless.

Change the subject? You started calling me a troll. I responded to that. If anything, YOU changed the subject.

If you point out the specific posts I will respond. I'm not impartial, I give everyone a chance.

I'VE DONE THAT. All you've done is continue to ignore my points and state that I'm trolling. Honestly, you come across to me as an exceptionally dishonest individual who is unwilling to simply man up and admit that they read something wrong and because of that made statements that weren't accurate. Thus, the comparison to Phatscotty, for whom that has become the modus operandi.

None of this shows the posts to which you are referring. Once again, topic changer. Do not call be dishonest if you are unwilling to back it up.

It's all already been done in the thread. I'm not going to re-create the wheel for you. All you have to do is find the points where I stated you lied, and you'll be in the right spot. Again, this is a Phatscotty tactic...it's like you've been personally trained by the Sith Lord or something.

You have still yet to show me the posts where I lied.

Are you even capable of reading? I mean...seriously...is it beyond your capabilities?

I'm going to quit reading your posts now. You have presented no evidence towards my "dishonesty." There is no further discussion because now you're just trolling me.

[john9blue]

Your strategy of pretending to be dumber than shit in order to get me to foe you so that you can return to talking crap behind my back like a coward isn't going to work.

> pretending

[patrickaa317]

... which means the jury found Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman, which makes him guilty of attempted murder. Trayvon Martin is the only one who broke the law...

No. They didn't find Trayvon Martin to be guilty of anything. They found that there was not enough evidence to prove that George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. Innocent until proven guilty. I agree with the court's decision but just because Zimmerman was found not guilty, does not mean that Trayvon was 'guilty', it was determined that Zimmerman had enough reason to fear his own life and unfortunately had to take Trayvon's. It's not a one side wins, one side loses game where one person is innocent so the other side is automatically guilty.

Trayvon may have likely feared for his life by being followed by an older gentlemen so he jumped him. He may have planned on getting a KO out of the deal and walking away. I think Trayvon also had the right to defend himself.

It was just a complete shit situation that got much shittier in a short time. Again, just because Zimmerman was found not guilty does not mean Trayvon was guilty, it just means there was enough reason for Zimmerman to have to resort to what should be the last resort.

[Jdsizzleslice]

... which means the jury found Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman, which makes him guilty of attempted murder. Trayvon Martin is the only one who broke the law...

No. They didn't find Trayvon Martin to be guilty of anything. They found that there was not enough evidence to prove that George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. Innocent until proven guilty. I agree with the court's decision but just because Zimmerman was found not guilty, does not mean that Trayvon was 'guilty', it was determined that Zimmerman had enough reason to fear his own life and unfortunately had to take Trayvon's. It's not a one side wins, one side loses game where one person is innocent so the other side is automatically guilty.

Trayvon may have likely feared for his life by being followed by an older gentlemen so he jumped him. He may have planned on getting a KO out of the deal and walking away. I think Trayvon also had the right to defend himself.

It was just a complete shit situation that got much shittier in a short time. Again, just because Zimmerman was found not guilty does not mean Trayvon was guilty, it just means there was enough reason for Zimmerman to have to resort to what should be the last resort.

Pretty much this. I believe Zimmerman was not guilty. Doesn't make Martin Guilty automatically.

[Phatscotty]

... which means the jury found Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman, which makes him guilty of attempted murder. Trayvon Martin is the only one who broke the law...

No. They didn't find Trayvon Martin to be guilty of anything. They found that there was not enough evidence to prove that George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. Innocent until proven guilty. I agree with the court's decision but just because Zimmerman was found not guilty, does not mean that Trayvon was 'guilty', it was determined that Zimmerman had enough reason to fear his own life and unfortunately had to take Trayvon's. It's not a one side wins, one side loses game where one person is innocent so the other side is automatically guilty.

Trayvon may have likely feared for his life by being followed by an older gentlemen so he jumped him. He may have planned on getting a KO out of the deal and walking away. I think Trayvon also had the right to defend himself.

It was just a complete shit situation that got much shittier in a short time. Again, just because Zimmerman was found not guilty does not mean Trayvon was guilty, it just means there was enough reason for Zimmerman to have to resort to what should be the last resort.

Pretty much this. I believe Zimmerman was not guilty. Doesn't make Martin Guilty automatically.

But I think he did try to kill Zimmerman, and that's why he got shot, not because he was walking home, and not because he was eating skittles. You guys are right though.

But it still means something...isn't it obvious Trayvon was guilty of assault at least, right? I know he wasn't on trial or charged with a crime, but he would have to be assaulting Zimmerman in order for Zimmerman to be defending himself.

[squishyg]

... which means the jury found Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman, which makes him guilty of attempted murder. Trayvon Martin is the only one who broke the law...

No. They didn't find Trayvon Martin to be guilty of anything. They found that there was not enough evidence to prove that George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. Innocent until proven guilty. I agree with the court's decision but just because Zimmerman was found not guilty, does not mean that Trayvon was 'guilty', it was determined that Zimmerman had enough reason to fear his own life and unfortunately had to take Trayvon's. It's not a one side wins, one side loses game where one person is innocent so the other side is automatically guilty.

Trayvon may have likely feared for his life by being followed by an older gentlemen so he jumped him. He may have planned on getting a KO out of the deal and walking away. I think Trayvon also had the right to defend himself.

It was just a complete shit situation that got much shittier in a short time. Again, just because Zimmerman was found not guilty does not mean Trayvon was guilty, it just means there was enough reason for Zimmerman to have to resort to what should be the last resort.

Pretty much this. I believe Zimmerman was not guilty. Doesn't make Martin Guilty automatically.

But I think he did try to kill Zimmerman, and that's why he got shot, not because he was walking home, and not because he was eating skittles. You guys are right though.

But it still means something...isn't it obvious Trayvon was guilty of assault at least, right? I know he wasn't on trial or charged with a crime, but he would have to be assaulting Zimmerman in order for Zimmerman to be defending himself.

No.

[Phatscotty]

... which means the jury found Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman, which makes him guilty of attempted murder. Trayvon Martin is the only one who broke the law...

No. They didn't find Trayvon Martin to be guilty of anything. They found that there was not enough evidence to prove that George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. Innocent until proven guilty. I agree with the court's decision but just because Zimmerman was found not guilty, does not mean that Trayvon was 'guilty', it was determined that Zimmerman had enough reason to fear his own life and unfortunately had to take Trayvon's. It's not a one side wins, one side loses game where one person is innocent so the other side is automatically guilty.

Trayvon may have likely feared for his life by being followed by an older gentlemen so he jumped him. He may have planned on getting a KO out of the deal and walking away. I think Trayvon also had the right to defend himself.

It was just a complete shit situation that got much shittier in a short time. Again, just because Zimmerman was found not guilty does not mean Trayvon was guilty, it just means there was enough reason for Zimmerman to have to resort to what should be the last resort.

Pretty much this. I believe Zimmerman was not guilty. Doesn't make Martin Guilty automatically.

But I think he did try to kill Zimmerman, and that's why he got shot, not because he was walking home, and not because he was eating skittles. You guys are right though.

But it still means something...isn't it obvious Trayvon was guilty of assault at least, right? I know he wasn't on trial or charged with a crime, but he would have to be assaulting Zimmerman in order for Zimmerman to be defending himself.

No.

Hey squishy! K, so who was Zimmerman defending himself from? Let's just play this out

[Jdsizzleslice]

... which means the jury found Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman, which makes him guilty of attempted murder. Trayvon Martin is the only one who broke the law...

No. They didn't find Trayvon Martin to be guilty of anything. They found that there was not enough evidence to prove that George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. Innocent until proven guilty. I agree with the court's decision but just because Zimmerman was found not guilty, does not mean that Trayvon was 'guilty', it was determined that Zimmerman had enough reason to fear his own life and unfortunately had to take Trayvon's. It's not a one side wins, one side loses game where one person is innocent so the other side is automatically guilty.

Trayvon may have likely feared for his life by being followed by an older gentlemen so he jumped him. He may have planned on getting a KO out of the deal and walking away. I think Trayvon also had the right to defend himself.

It was just a complete shit situation that got much shittier in a short time. Again, just because Zimmerman was found not guilty does not mean Trayvon was guilty, it just means there was enough reason for Zimmerman to have to resort to what should be the last resort.

Pretty much this. I believe Zimmerman was not guilty. Doesn't make Martin Guilty automatically.

But I think he did try to kill Zimmerman, and that's why he got shot, not because he was walking home, and not because he was eating skittles. You guys are right though.

But it still means something...isn't it obvious Trayvon was guilty of assault at least, right? I know he wasn't on trial or charged with a crime, but he would have to be assaulting Zimmerman in order for Zimmerman to be defending himself.

No.

Maybe if we actually knew what went on. Maybe if Trayvon was still alive he might get Assault. I don't think he TRIED to kill him, maybe just was trying to beat the living daylights out of him. But no one but Zimmerman will know. And I really think that he doesn't want to think about this again. I'm sure he is ready to move on from this incident.