*shrug*
Politics demands a sacrifice. Guilty or not, the politicians need to throw a victim to the mobs.
He calls it unethical and irresponsible, and says it's too thin to get past a judge.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/harvard-professor-alan-dershowitz-says-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-is-irresponsible-and-unethical-video/
I don't know anything other than what I read in the papers and on the internet, but this smelled like politics the minute I read the story.
I hope his attorney doesn't cut a deal.
You don't think it could just mean he wants a book deal?
Winning an actual trial as opposed to pleading out would increase the value of that deal even if his interest is purely pecuniary.
He has already been tried, convicted and darn near exicuted in the court of public opinion. At this point the trial is anti climaxtic. Regardless of that decision, the public has branded him the villian.
You think the general public is against Zimmerman?
Help me here.
Israeli media reported that Zimmerman stated he tried to 'detain' Martin.
Is that actually something that Zimmerman said, or is it a translation failure"?
Help me here.
Israeli media reported that Zimmerman stated he tried to 'detain' Martin.
Is that actually something that Zimmerman said, or is it a translation failure"?
Second, On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.
Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.
. . . Dershowitz appears not to realise that the charge already got through a judge on a probable cause standard. . . .
Ah, the baiting continues...
Ah, the baiting continues - but in this case for no reason, as I've already commeneted that murder two seemed a stretch. See previous locked threads where I quoted both statutes and said as much.
Dershowitz appears not to realise that the charge already got through a judge on a probable cause standard.. The question now is whether the evidence supports the allegations, which he wrote three days ago is certainly possible for manslaughter, although he thinks we need to wait for the facts at trial.
Dershowitz's comment is here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/alan-dershowitz/the-rorschach-facts-in-th_b_1418441.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/alan-dershowitz/the-rorschach-facts-in-th_b_1418441.html). I will quote his statements, which, unlike his prediction that the charges wont get past a judge (they already did), make some sense:
Funny how hard we can scream "not enough facts!" when facing an argument we disagree with, and simultaneously declare "innocent!".
Birdman, dershowitz clearly said the charging document was insufficient and wouldn't get past a judge, butnitndid - what happens next is a hearing about whether the evidence, if judged true, would be sufficient to convict. Dershowitz was claiming the case wouldn't even get to that.
Lots of things can now happen before trial, but they won't be based on the assertion that the charging instrument hasnt made out the crime - that issue is already settled. Now the arguments will be about whether the evidence, even in theory, can support the charge.
In a series of recent moot courts, he has defended Jesus (hung jury), Abraham (acquitted) and Hamen (convicted but sentence commuted to life imprisonment).
Also AD seeks the camera. In any big case, the media line is "Dershowitz was unavoidable for comment".
"Baiting"? Really?
You know, for an ex-pat lawyer you're pretty friggin' thin-skinned, SS... :'(
Where, exactly, is this anti-Semitism you speak of?
Danged if I can find it...
"Baiting"? Really?
Perhaps he needs DeSelby to staighten him out ... :cool:
Fistful, baiting is inviting me to "set Dershowitz straight", not your comment.
I honestly did not know that talking about people was considered baiting.
I don't like the implication that I would think Dershowitz's comments have something to do with his last name, that's what I meant.
Fistful, baiting is inviting me to "set Dershowitz straight", not your comment.
Ok, so we have Dershowitz in writing saying there seems to be enough evidence for a trial, but we are seizing on his prediction that the charge will not get through a judge. Well, it's easy to evaluate that one, because the probable cause hearing already happened.
Birdman, the pre-trial immunity hearing will evaluate evidence that the defence is available. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the charge was made out by that instrument, which, incidentally, only empowers the state to detain Zimmerman if a judge finds there is probable cause to proceed (as Judge Herr did.)
The question of whether the "confrontation" and "profiling" alleged in the Affidavit are sufficiently depraved behaviors to meet the law depends on the evidence; the charge itself is already made out. Dershowitz is clearly referring to the affidavit of probable cause in that interview, and his prediction was not correct.
:laugh: ^^^
My honest gut reaction over it all is this:
1. All the prosecutors who've looked at the Zimmerman case have felt the shooting and the totality of it's circumstances are such that "beyond a reasonable doubt" for manslaughter 1-2-3 or murder 1-2-3 is impossible.
2. Yet they desperately want a trial to avoid unrest.
3. A trial buys them time, maybe even years, for things to calm down.
4. If it's not the opening gambit for a plea deal, they may purposely be overreaching on the charges so the prosecutors can wash their hands of the case, and lay blame on the court and the jury. Or they actually see it as a roundabout way to give Zimmerman justice, seeing as they think it's likely he'd be found not guilty of Murder 2, or of any charges that would placate the segments of the public up in arms about this, and yet create enough of a dog-n-pony show to placate them.
Thankfully, however, we have an adversarial system (as imperfect as it is) that gives justice a fighting chance and all sides will soon see all the evidence there is.
:laugh: ^^^
My honest gut reaction over it all is this:
1. All the prosecutors who've looked at the Zimmerman case have felt the shooting and the totality of it's circumstances are such that "beyond a reasonable doubt" for manslaughter 1-2-3 or murder 1-2-3 is impossible.
2. Yet they desperately want a trial to avoid unrest.
3. A trial buys them time, maybe even years, for things to calm down.
4. If it's not the opening gambit for a plea deal, they may purposely be overreaching on the charges so the prosecutors can wash their hands of the case, and lay blame on the court and the jury. Or they actually see it as a roundabout way to give Zimmerman justice, seeing as they think it's likely he'd be found not guilty of Murder 2, or of any charges that would placate the segments of the public up in arms about this, and yet create enough of a dog-n-pony show to placate them.
Having read the doc, I am somewhat put aback by its lack of substance.
Not having a legal education or such experience, I wonder if all or most such docs are so lacking in data and rely mostly assertion? Do judges let prosecutors get away with what is the legal jargon equivalent of, "Because I say so?"
I suspect that the process will be the punishment for Zimmerman: lacking in data, the speshul prosecutor is trying to beat him about the head with the charge in hopes of breaking him.
AJ, no prosecutor in America charges someone with murder as part of a complex scheme to set them free. That would be insane.
Two prosecutors have looked at this case, one of them agreed with the homicide investigator who recommended charges on the night of the shooting, and the other did not.
Edit: national review has a very good debate on this going between two experienced lawyers:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295942/three-legal-keys-trayvon-martin-affidavit-david-french (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295942/three-legal-keys-trayvon-martin-affidavit-david-french)
Reply 1: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295997/martin-case-affidavit-andrew-c-mccarthy#more (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295997/martin-case-affidavit-andrew-c-mccarthy#more)
And 2: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296014/re-martin-case-affidavit-david-french (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296014/re-martin-case-affidavit-david-french)
"And one can’t rule out the possibility that she knows she has nothing like the evidence necessary to support her factual assertions, and she’s merely made a cynical political move. We’ll find out soon enough."
AJ, no prosecutor in America charges someone with murder as part of a complex scheme to set them free. That would be insane.
Yeah, political charges happen (although rarely) - but they happen because the prosecutor is actually trying to jail someone. That's my point.
You don't lay a charge of murder two secretly hoping the defendant will walk. They are trying hard to throw Zimmerman in jail; murder two seems a stretch, but if they get it, Zimmerman misses out on life. Manslaughter, which will be fairly easy to prove unless Zimmerman's statements have some new and shocking detail unknown to us, is a lesser included offence.
Manslaughter, which will be fairly easy to prove unless Zimmerman's statements have some new and shocking detail unknown to us, is a lesser included offence.
Rev, also true - the point is to get a plea. In cases where you've charged depraved indifference murder, the plea means a decade instead of two. Plea bargaining doesn't mean there's no jail time.
In this case, they did throw manslaughter at him - they also threw murder two which is basically extreme manslaughter. The easily proven charge is there, and all that's required is a jury finding that his behaviour wasn't quite reckless enough to be murder 2 - that finding is a manslaughter finding.
I thought he was charged with murder 2 (depraved indifference). Were there two charges?
elected prosecutor has made her play for press. now when it gets tossed she throws up her hands "i tried!" slimy creature
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law, which allows the use of deadly force when someone has the reasonable belief he could face death or great bodily harm.
& if/when the burn baby burn crowd goes at it, fully expect the radlibs & poverty pimps to deny culpability.
if/when the burn baby burn crowd goes at it
I'm tellin ya, you start shooting rioters and that *expletive deleted* stops pronto.
People need to figure that one out. Start flipping police cars and tossing molotovs? Bullet to the head, mother *expletive deleted*er. It's a universal language.
I'm tellin ya, you start shooting rioters and that *expletive deleted* stops pronto.
People need to figure that one out. Start flipping police cars and tossing molotovs? Bullet to the head, mother *expletive deleted*er. It's a universal language.
Until some self-appointed "neighborhood riot stopper" shoots you in the head for "looking suspicious", that idea is just dandy. You just might want to have a think about who will be speaking this "universal language" before you go endorsing it.
Until some self-appointed "neighborhood riot stopper" shoots you in the head for "looking suspicious", that idea is just dandy. You just might want to have a think about who will be speaking this "universal language" before you go endorsing it.
Misidentification DOES happen. So does twitchy fingers and poor fire discipline.
But on the other hand, if someone is smashing a window or setting things on fire, it's obvious who is a rioter. Thing is, folks tend to riot in their own neighborhood or nearby. Fantasies of putting down looters in your backyard is unlikely, unless you live in a border region next to an already unstable area.
I'm tellin ya, you start shooting rioters and that *expletive deleted* stops pronto.In the wake of the MLK assassination, much of Detroit burned. When rioters started that stuff in Chicago, Mayor Daley (the original, not the son) gave police an order: Shoot to kill arsonists, shoot to maim looters.
Yeah, all of this.
But, light rail public transpo can bring a mob/rot/gang from the hood to (near) your home. Something to think about when house-hunting. "Great access to MetroCity light rail" can also be interpreted as "We bring the ghetto to your doorstep."
Until some self-appointed "neighborhood riot stopper" shoots you in the head for "looking suspicious", that idea is just dandy. You just might want to have a think about who will be speaking this "universal language" before you go endorsing it.So...someone flipping cars and setting *expletive deleted*it on fire is just a bit...suspicious looking?
I'm tellin ya, you start shooting rioters and that *expletive deleted* stops pronto.Yep. I'm in a nicer area of Anderson, but the ghetto is near. Well within "we want to ^)&^% some people up" walking distance.
People need to figure that one out. Start flipping police cars and tossing molotovs? Bullet to the head, mother *expletive deleted*er. It's a universal language.
De Selby: Don't you think that if someone is trying to set fire to a house or car with people on it, it's fine and dandy to shoot them?
Or a group of healthy, strong men trying to gang up on a single man to beat him down, they're dandy to shoot too.
Yeah, all of this.
But, light rail public transpo can bring a mob/rot/gang from the hood to (near) your home. Something to think about when house-hunting. "Great access to MetroCity light rail" can also be interpreted as "We bring the ghetto to your doorstep."
True, but that's a burglary and robbery problem you're describing - riots require numbers too large to be a real issue outside the rioters own neighborhoods.
I do - but I also think its dangerous in times of unrest to have armed "protectors" roaming around with ideas like say, hoodies being signs of danger.
You've now completely jumped the shark.
^This.
I don't see where anyone has suggested shooting suspicious people...except for De Selby.
And at least some of them think your clothing choices are a good enough reason to "investigate". [citation needed]
True, but that's a burglary and robbery problem you're describing - riots require numbers too large to be a real issue outside the rioters own neighborhoods.
True, but that's a burglary and robbery problem you're describing - riots require numbers too large to be a real issue outside the rioters own neighborhoods.
you are yet again mistaken
THAT'S RRRRRAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
Those Urban Youths aren't harming anybody! They're just enjoying the evening and you racist aholes think they are up to no good! You vigilantes are just itching to shoot them, aren't you?
Where did I accuse anyone here of suggesting that? My point is that not everyone who takes up public protection as a hobby will be so reasonable. And at least some of them think your clothing choices are a good enough reason to "investigate".
How do you feel about those types being armed and looking out at you as you go about your day?
I do - but I also think its dangerous in times of unrest to have armed "protectors" roaming around with ideas like say, hoodies being signs of danger.
I do - but I also think its dangerous in times of unrest to have armed "protectors" roaming around with ideas like say, hoodies being signs of danger.Yeah, the armed merchants of Koreatown proved to be really dangerous during the Rodney King riots.
It isn't just misidentification that's the problem, it's bizarre interpretations of what constitutes a threat or a riot that I'm concerned with.
Yeah, the armed merchants of Koreatown proved to be really dangerous during the Rodney King riots.
(If you were a rioter.)
In your first statement, you say it's dangerous in times of unrest to have armed "protectors" roaming around. How can they possibly be dangerous unless they're going to shoot someone? Unless you think that the mere presence of a gun is dangerous, then your two statements are contradictory.
Roo ster, I don't see how 10-20 people is a potential riot. I see a robbery/burglary problem in the photo as well. A crowd on a bus is not going to be able to ruin whole neighborhoods a la Rodney king.
Herd/crowd behavior rules even at that level. Precise number is incidental.
Could you then explain how 20 people cannot be a riot? What is the threshold, and why?
So a riot can be 10-20 people?
It seems 3 or more people usually meets the legal definition.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/riot
https://www.google.com/search?q=riot+legal+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Yeah, so if we are using the legal definition, why are we talking about disaster preparedness measures? not necessary to worry for your neighbourhood over three people.