[Update: Well that didn’t take long – after fleeing their home, terrorized couple hires attorney.]

[Update again: Damage control.]

Spike Lee may want to brush up on his Google-fu skills. The Brooklyn-based film maker decided he’s just the person to get involved in the firestorm over the shooting of Trayvon Martin because, you know, no one else is. The only question: how to “do something” productive that will make a real splash? The director evidently figured that, since no one knew exactly where George Zimmerman currently is, he’d point everyone to his home address via Twitter. What would be better than directing an angry mob and hordes of reporters to harass a murdering racist hoody-shooter, right? Only one problem. There’s more than one George Zimmerman . . .

Hell, I have a nephew named George Zimmerman. But he’s 15 and resides in Missouri. Thank God. Good thing Spike’s internet search skillz don’t suck quite that much. From orlandosentinal.com:

A school-cafeteria lunch lady and her husband have received hate mail, unwanted visits from reporters and fearful inquiries from neighbors — all because their Sanford-area address is being disseminated on Twitter as belonging to Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman, her son said late Tuesday.

The woman has another son named William George Zimmerman who lived with her in 1995 and still lives in Central Florida. He is no relation to George Zimmerman, 28, who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Feb. 26, sparking national outrage and international interest.

Oh well. I’m sure Spike will be more than happy to pick up the elderly couple’s hotel tab and help clear the press and protestors off of their lawn. If not, there’s no shortage of attorneys in central Florida who will be more than happy to help them recoup the costs they’ve incurred due to the reckless actions of a New York celebrity dilettante.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

72 COMMENTS

  2. Well that’s just awesome…

    [sigh]

    We need to send everybody in the country into a corner for a timeout. Driving elderly people out of their homes isn’t going to bring Trayvon back.

  3. “Black power all day. No justice, no peace”
    — The later part sounds like something similar to what the Palestinian Airplane Hijackers used to say in the 1970s.

    Just imagine if one of Spikey’s emotionally out of control followers committed an act of violence against the elderly couple’s home or even directly against them. I wonder if Spikey is setting the stage to produce another piece of film garbage?

    • Are you kidding? The man made a mint on films that exploited peoples’ stereotypes of inner city black youth. You’d damn well better believe he’s planning to do it again.

  5. Tom Wolfe must be sitting in a tavern somewhere muttering, “Christ, what an imagination I’ve got.”

  7. Spike has plenty of money. Let’s see plaintiffs and lawyers take it from him. I need to take a leak, where is Spike Lee living these days?

  9. I don’t know what the laws are down in Florida, or how they apply here since this was a tweet made from out of the state, but I am pretty sure that most places have laws against inciting riots, disturbing the peace, etc. It wouldn’t be a very far stretch to argue that Mr. Lee’s actions could have led to or contributed to (and may still) such crimes being committed. For example, whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, sending him a death threat is also illegal. Even if no criminal charges are filed, I hope the offended family sues Mr. Lee for a small fortune…I expect that lawyers are already lining up for an audition.

    • Spike better hope the hip hop crew doesn’t do anything stupid to those people or their property. There could be protests outside his house for a change.

      • During the Crown Heights Riots in NYC, Sharpton used a bullhorn that motivated a man to take action that resulted in his breaking into the Jewish owned clothing store and shooting five employees (none of whom were Jewish). Sharpton was never charged. If Sharpton was arrested his followers would ensure that even more blood flowed on the streets.

      • “…hope the hip hop crew doesn’t do anything stupid …”

        I wouldn’t hang your hope too high. It is going to fall hard.

  12. Lee looks very angry in that picture. It must have been taken right after he saw the reviews for “Jungle Fever.”

  13. This just might trigger another DGU before it is all over. I hope the Sanford cops are doing a good job of keeping these “panthers” off of the Zimmermans property.

  14. Didn’t he direct “Do The Right Thing”? Do the right thing, indeed! What a tool.

  15. didnt he see that movie about a pizza parlor in brooklyn… there was a ton of racial tension and everyone got all hot and bothered about what they assumed happened… oh yeah right, he MADE that movie…..

  16. QUESTION:
    Now, why on earth would a person tweet (or otherwise publish) the address of a private individual they suspect may have committed a crime?

    ANSWER:
    ter·ror·ize [ter-uh-rahyz]

    verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
    1. to fill or overcome with terror.
    2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.

  17. Why is anyone here criticizing Lee? He is free to exercise his 1st amendment rights. Stupid, yes. Illegal? The man is entitled to say whatever he wants. It’s your right not to listen or read his tweets. Don’t defend the 2nd amendment and then chastise the 1st.

    Sure, the guy is a prick but he’s not the one sending threats and forcing the old couple out of their house. They are the one’s your angry at. Focus people, focus!

      • Incorrect. This is not free speech. The Constitution protects YOU from the GOV. Not YOU from another person. While the Gov can’t restrict your speech or punish it, which will actually not protect Spikey Lee here, it does not protect him from a suit by the people in that house. This is why when people say stupid sh*t about others, they get sued for libel or slander.

        They could sue for any of numerous invasion of privacy actions also That’s in addition to a case based on intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. That lady won’t be a lunch lady for long!

        • Well that’s a perfect argument for proving my point, Thank you.

          So we have the Constitution to protect you from the government only, right? So it would be perfectly acceptable for your neighbor to take away your guns because he’s a liberal hoplophobe and thinks they’re scary. I didn’t think so. Why would we let our neighbors take away our rights if we won’t let our government do it. Should your neighbor be allowed to sue you because you have guns in your home? No. Why? Because it is a constitutional, and inalienable right. Just like the right to say whatever the hell you damn please without risk of persecution.

          The constitution is the law of the land. It is the highest authority and is not negotiable. If you’re willing to compromise those freedoms, well it’s no wonder our country has become what it has.

          • LOL that would be burglary!!! You know what…I’m sorry I knew I shouldn’t have fed the troll….

          • I appreciate your reverence for the Constitution.

            The Constitution does not in fact grant you the right to break the law in terms of what you do with your speech, e.g., inciting a riot, treason, etc. There are still consequences for misusing your First Amendment rights, just as there are consequences for misusing your Second Amendment rights. Remember, for every right there is a corresponding responsibility. Mr. Lee screwed the pooch royal and should apologize immediately as well as making a generous settlement offer. The civil lawsuit that will follow this will be a terrible thing for him to behold.

            If you think about this more, I’m sure you’ll get there.

    • He is setting the stage for them to be harrased and actually is falsely stating that is George Zimmerman the neighborhood watch members’s address. Spike is pouring gas on a fire and egging on the mob as much as possible.

      • That has nothing to do with anything. I think I’ve already established my point that Lee is an idiot and an asshole for posting this information on twitter, especially because it was incorrect. Anyone who wants his address could probably find it in the phone book. It isn’t the act of publishing the address that’s wrong; it’s the acts of the “mob” (as you put it).

        The “mob” is who you should be criticizing. They’re the ones who have acted wrongly with this information and are obviously stupider that Lee is.

        “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson.

        Lee will face no legal culpability… and, honestly, I don’t think he should. He will pay the price in another way for using his free speech so freely.

        • It wouldn’t be a stretch for a reasonable person to conclude that Lee is releasing, or attempting to release, Zimmerman’s address in order to incite a mob, riot, or other realiatory act.

          It might be a stretch for you, though.

      • Lee is letting the floodgates of the mob open. He is playing a game and knows what he is doing. He is an instigator. I have seen this before.

    • There is no 1st Amendment right to spread lies, issue threats, intentionally endanger people, or use words in an attempt to influence others to do harm.

      You should really try to understand Natural Law before delving into Constitutional Law.

      • He made no such threats, and is only guilty of making a mistake. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. All he did was post an address online.

        • “he made no such threats”

          I guess you missed the other three criteria I listed. Given the emotion surrounding the Martin shooting, it’s argueable that Lee had a reasonable expectation his words would influence people toward violence. It’s also argueable that he did this with the intention of causing Zimmerman harm.

          However, regardless of those circumstances, I was merely commenting that the criteria I listed would not constitue “protected speech.”

        • If there is no problem with what he did, why don’t you post your name and address here (on-line)?

          • No problem! I doubt the moderators will allow it but I’ll do exactly what Mr. Lee did:

            Guy Franklin
            5673 Tobias Ave.
            Van Nuys, CA, 91411

            By the way, I didn’t say there was nothing wrong with what he did. However, morality is not the issue here. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not defending his actions. I’m just trying to show the contrast between those who want their freedoms but then want to deny them to others.

            • Great now go do something that causes a terrorist group to put a price on your head and maybe you’ll understand how these people feel.

        • Guywithagun, the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect people who yell “fire” in a crowded theater. That’s what the Supreme Court said, and what it means is that when someone intentionally creates a situation that is likely to lead to serious injury or death, they don’t get to use 1A as a shield.

          All speech is not protected.

          • +1, Ralph. What Lee did is equivalent to firing a weapon into the air in the general direction of a crowd. Just because the weapon was fired at an elevation above everyone’s heads does not mean the shooter has a reasonable expectation that nobody will be hurt.

          • Well thank you Ralph for for the remedial lesson; however, I am very well aware of the “exceptions” to the 1A. First of all, the Supreme Court is a joke for making any exception whatsoever to any of the bill of rights and is in violation of the law of the land for doing so (regardless of our opinions). Secondly, I don’t believe Mr. Lee’s actions constitute such an exception.

            He did not write, “Here is Mr. Zimmerman’s address. I want everyone who reads this to go to that address and hurt or kill this man.” If that were the case, then all of your points are valid.

            Suppose I posted the following statement on this forum:

            “Barack Obama’s Address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500”

            Now, would I be legally culpable for any legal action because someone on this forum might want to go to that address and hurt or kill said person (’cause that would never happen here)? No. There is no difference between my statement and Mr. Lee’s statement. What if the address in Mr. Lee’s tweet was actually correct? Does it matter? No. There is no actual threat. There is only an incorrect statement posted as a result of sheer ignorance. Ignorance is not a crime. Don’t make it one.

            The point to all of this (which appears to be lost by all but me on this post) is that Mr. Lee’s actions are an unfortunate consequence of his right to free speech. It is in the same regard that it is unfortunate that people use guns to kill other people. Does that mean all guns should be banned? No, it is an unfortunate consequence of our right to keep and bear arms. Yes, please continue to accept the Supreme Court’s “exceptions” to the Bill of Rights and then wonder why we have to fight to get our gun rights back.

            It seems that everyone here wants their 2A rights, but they don’t think Mr. Lee should get to keep his 1A rights. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the afternoon.

            • GGW, I think what some of us are saying is equivalent to what we would say to a negligent idiot at the range: watch it asshole; you’re gonna hurt someone. In this case, though, there were actual consequences. The property owners were forced out of their home, however temporarily. If this is proven to be a direct consequence of Lee’s (or anyone else’s actions), then those actions have infringed on the property owners’ rights. My rights end where yours begin, right?

              • Exactly! And believe me, I completely understand your points. But there’s absolutely no way to determine that Mr. Lee’s comment directly or indirectly caused those people to send in their threats and do whatever they did at that address to scare away the innocent couple. How did he get that address? Maybe he just forwarded it from another twitter account the same way he passed it on to others. Is it only “wrong” of him to do it because he’s famous?

                To counter your point: Should someone be legally liable if they are “a negligent idiot” at the range? Maybe it’s his or her first day at the range and hasn’t learned the 4 rules yet. Eventually he’s going to realize that his actions are wrong, but that is in the eye of the beholder. We all had our first day on the range and not all of us were given proper training.

                Let him say what he wants on his stupid twitter or Facespace or whatever. He’s not the one who made the actual threats to the couple.

              • “Is it only wrong…”
                Good question. Should we hold those who may exert disproportionate influence to a higher standard?

                “Should someone be held legally liable..?”
                Um, yes. You are responsible for your own actions. Or is personal responsibility contingent on, well, something?

              • “He’s not the one who made the actual threats to the couple.”

                True. But only a complete idiot couldn’t extrapolate out what such actions could precipitate. Lee’s actions were, at best, a cynical ploy to seek retribution against Zimmerman’s alleged crime, all the while creating enough space for himself to deny any culpability for what actions “others” may have taken against Zimmerman.

                This lynch mob that’s gathering is no different from any in the past, be they Night Riders, the Klan, the Mongols or the Visigoths. They’ve become blood simple; they are not rational, moral or ethical actors. What they are doing is simply wrong. They demean themselves, their cause and whatever principles they purport to espouse. Further, they demean all of their fellow citizens. They are pathetic fools and they make a mockery of what we have worked very hard through the ages to call civilization. They are willingly, if ignorantly, walking hand in hand with evil.

                Guy with a gun, how old are you?

            • You’re busting people for picking and choosing their laws, and then tell us that SCOTUS is violating the law because you disagree with their opinions?

              You’re very funny. Just not intentionally.

              • Well, I’m sorry to hear that you find humor in the fact that “SCOTUS” is violating the law of the land.

                I think I’ve made my point. Let’s all agree to disagree on the next post. I’ve had enough of this one but look forward to the next one. Thanks for the replies. A appreciate the responses. I may disagree with most of you on this one but I value your opinions nonetheless.

  18. Legal question —

    I think the ‘wrong’ Zimmermans have a solid case against Spike. How about the ‘right’ George Zimmerman nailing Spike for the grossly incompetent attempt to endanger him?

  19. Am I supposed to be surprised Spike Lee is racist and socially irresponsible? I’ve known that for a long time.

    • I think you misspelled “Amazing”. Or perhaps, “It is inconceivable that”. Perhaps even “How in the fvck is it that”.

    • The way that’ll go down is self inflicted. While jamming his gold plated 9 into the front waistband of his MC Hammer pants with a stylin gangsta flourish. The wound will be to the inner thigh since there is not so much between the muzzle and his leg to impede the trajectory of the round.

      • Bummer. There’s a major blood vessel in that area. I pity the poor chauffeur who’ll have to clean that up.

  21. Sounds like Ms. School Cafeteria Lunch Lady will be getting an all expenses paid retirement courtesy of one Spike Lee.

  23. May God and the Courts of Florida award her every last cent Spike Lee has and will ever make. May God grant the school-cafeteria lunch lady and husband the grace to visit Spike in the homeless shelter while enjoying ever thing he owns; driving his cars to and from his mansion on their way to trips to Cannes.

  24. If one good thing has come of this whole Zimmerman fiasco, it’s that we’ve been shown yet again a sad truth of the human condition: you truly can’t trust people to do the right thing, and you especially can never trust your “countrymen” to act like Americans.

  25. My thoughts on this are: Have you ever noticed that the MSM almost never releases the Address of suspects in their news stories. Why is that I wonder?

Comments are closed.