Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 01, 2013

[OTP-July] SportsGrid: Brewers’ Minor League Team Is Holding A Gun Raffle On “2nd Amendment Night”

OTP caterwauling! Get your OTP caterwauling here! Can’t tell the players without your OTP caterwauling thread for July!

Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:33 AM | 5787 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 30 of 58 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >  Last ›
   2901. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:11 AM (#4495482)
"She said two jurors wanted to find him guilty of SOMETHING, which is why they deliberated for several hours and read the law over and over and over again."

Does anyone on either side hate this inclination, which was overriden by the facts at hand?
It doesn't thrill me -- but at the end of the day they did the right thing, which is what's most important.
   2902. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:22 AM (#4495483)
- Hearing the 9/11 tape, she didn't consider there was any kind of direction for Zimmerman to stay in the car - in fact she said that she felt the operator actually egged him on by asking him to tell what Martin was doing. And that while it would have been smarter for Zimmerman to stay in the car, the dispatcher should have given better, clearer advice.
1) It's not a 911 tape¹. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but we should be precise. (Don't know whether this is Dan's error, Cooper's, or hers.) It was a non-emergency dispatcher, not 911.
2) Of course there was no "direction for Zimmerman to stay in the car"; he was already out of the car at the time. The suggestion/advice/comment was about following Martin, not about staying in the car. (Again, don't know whose error this was.)

- Didn't place any credence on the family member IDs from both Zimmerman and Martin families.
Don't understand why the judge admitted this worthless testimony.


¹And definitely not 9/11, which was something else entirely.
   2903. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:26 AM (#4495484)
Anyone have any insight into the rules of professional conduct for lawyers, specifically prosecutors, specifically prosecutors in Florida, specifically public statements made by prosecutors in Florida, specifically following a verdict of not guilty?

Or any general ethical rules that might speak to this situation? I'm wondering if it is out of bounds to call a person who was acquitted of murder a "murderer," and to suggest that a defendant who doesn't take the stand is not "courageous."
   2904. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:27 AM (#4495485)
The juror confirmed what many of us have been saying for awhile now. The prosecution case was virtually non-existent and, as they have now admitted, they introduced the defense case in an attempt to minimize its impact. Why they didn't attempt to put on their own case is puzzling.
Why they put on so much of the defense case was puzzling. There were certain damaging witnesses who they absolutely had to put on to minimize the impact. But they didn't need, e.g., to play Zimmerman's Hannity appearance for the jury. What they did was enable Zimmerman to get his self-defense claim out there w/o having to take the stand at all, which meant they couldn't cross-examine him. Their only chance to prevail was to make him look bad on the stand, and they couldn't do it.
   2905. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:29 AM (#4495486)
Anyone have any insight into the rules of professional conduct for lawyers, specifically prosecutors, specifically prosecutors in Florida, specifically public statements made by prosecutors in Florida, specifically following a verdict of not guilty?
They're restricted in what they can say before the fact -- to be sure he gets a fair trial -- but I don't see that there's any restrictions on what they can say after it's over. (Other than the same things the rest of us can't say, like "Zimmerman's at 742 Evergreen Terrace! Let's go over there with pitchforks and gasoline and get him!")
   2906. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:32 AM (#4495487)
Why they didn't attempt to put on their own case is puzzling.

It appears they didn't have one. Certainly if they had anything better, they'd have used it.
   2907. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:37 AM (#4495488)
This isn't quite on point because it speaks to statements during trial (I can't find anything on post-trial statements) but:

ABA Model Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

COMMENT: [5] Paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor's extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is intended to restrict the statements which a prosecutor may make which comply with Rule 3.6(b) or 3.6(c).
   2908. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:41 AM (#4495489)
By the way, FWIW:

Advocate
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor


The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

   2909. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:43 AM (#4495490)
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense


The defense is complaining about this one.
   2910. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:49 AM (#4495492)
Well, there's this one, too:
Standard 3-5.10 Comments by Prosecutor After Verdict

The prosecutor should not make public comments critical of a verdict, whether rendered by judge or jury.

The prosecution seems to think they can get around this by saying they respect the verdict, but Zimmerman is a murderer, even if they had no evidence. Not sure how various jurisdictions feel about that.
   2911. Dale Sams Posted: July 16, 2013 at 02:56 AM (#4495493)
Their only chance to prevail was to make him look bad on the stand, and they couldn't do it.


David, could they not in summation say,

"Were Mr. Zimmerman to take the stand, I would ask him to explain why he felt the need to use lethal force. But he will not take the stand, so I have to ask you the jury. Were Mr. Zimmerman to take the stand, I would ask him why he felt the need to use lethal force, but not the need to go to a hospital. But he will not take the stand, therefore, I have to ask you the jury why this scratch (motions to pictures), this abrasion, and this bruise warranted putting a bullet in Trayvon Martin's heart."

Note, mentioning Zimmerman's invocation of the fifth is not the same as 'using his invocation as evidence of his guilt'...IMHO, I could be wrong.
   2912. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 16, 2013 at 03:17 AM (#4495496)
Pretty sure it is out of bounds for the prosecution to reference the defendant's not taking the stand. Too late to research case law, but the Supreme Court put a stop to comments such as those in #2911, IIRC.
   2913. Dale Sams Posted: July 16, 2013 at 08:32 AM (#4495515)
Well, I know it's certainly out of bounds to say, "What does he have to hide."
   2914. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:09 AM (#4495525)
Why they put on so much of the defense case was puzzling.


Again, you should consider the possibility that the purpose of this trial was not to convict George Zimmerman, but to ensure that the acquittal of George Zimmerman was a matter of jury trial and not a "back room" decision made by the state.
   2915. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4495528)
Again, you should consider the possibility that the purpose of this trial was not to convict George Zimmerman, but to ensure that the acquittal of George Zimmerman was a matter of jury trial and not a "back room" decision made by the state.

Wouldn't allowing a grand jury to decide on whether or not to indict have achieved the same thing?
   2916. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:30 AM (#4495536)
Wouldn't allowing a grand jury to decide on whether or not to indict have achieved the same thing?


No. The general public would perceive a GJ decision to not indict to be a decision of the state. (Ignore the technical details of if this is or is not a "correct" perception; the question at hand is the politics of perception, not how the legal system actually works in the weeds.)

I'm not sure the SP didn't have some real emotional investment in trying Zimmerman, but it would be needlessly restrictive to not ask if the state wanted the political fallout of the acquittal to be attributable to a jury trial, to be able to say "we think it's horrible too, but the process was allowed to play out, we tried him, and he was acquitted." The last thing the state wanted was to come in after the protests and say "no, we're not going to try him, the kid's dead, deal with it."
   2917. Mefisto Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:31 AM (#4495537)
"She said two jurors wanted to find him guilty of SOMETHING, which is why they deliberated for several hours and read the law over and over and over again."


This restores my faith in the jury. They recognized that Zimmerman was and is gravely morally culpable.
   2918. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:33 AM (#4495538)
No. The general public would perceive a GJ decision to not indict to be a decision of the state. (Ignore the technical details of if this is or is not a "correct" perception; the question at hand is the politics of perception, not how the legal system actually works in the weeds.)

Wouldn't it take the prosecutors about 30 seconds to explain that they wanted to indict but a jury decided not too?
   2919. Kurt Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:39 AM (#4495542)
Wouldn't it take the prosecutors about 30 seconds to explain that they wanted to indict but a jury decided not too?


Sam is right on this. There are no cameras in the GJ room, the public would have no idea what evidence was presented or how hard the state pushed for an indictment. Whether it's right or wrong to put someone on trial merely to placate the public, Sam's theory that they did it to get an acquittal rather than a conviction is plausible.
   2920. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:43 AM (#4495544)
Sam is right on this. There are no cameras in the GJ room, the public would have no idea what evidence was presented or how hard the state pushed for an indictment. Whether it's right or wrong to put someone on trial merely to placate the public, Sam's theory that they did it to get an acquittal rather than a conviction is plausible.

Sure, it's plausible the prosecutors just wanted a show trial to get the heat off them. That doesn't make it right.
   2921. Answer Guy Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:44 AM (#4495545)
"Were Mr. Zimmerman to take the stand, I would ask him to explain why he felt the need to use lethal force. But he will not take the stand, so I have to ask you the jury. Were Mr. Zimmerman to take the stand, I would ask him why he felt the need to use lethal force, but not the need to go to a hospital. But he will not take the stand, therefore, I have to ask you the jury why this scratch (motions to pictures), this abrasion, and this bruise warranted putting a bullet in Trayvon Martin's heart."


That's true...but how credible, objectively speaking, is a self-defense claim by someone who refuses to take the stand? I can see why most criminal defendants don't take the stand; it potentially opens the door to the introduction of damaging evidence the defense doesn't want the jury to see. But someone claiming self-defense is in a different situation.
   2922. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:51 AM (#4495548)
Sure, it's plausible the prosecutors just wanted a show trial to get the heat off them. That doesn't make it right.


George Zimmerman shot a kid to death for walking in the rain, Snapper. If all he has to deal with is a "show trial" that acquits him in a matter of weeks, he's got very little room to ##### about it. I would think you guys would be pleased that the jury agreed with your read of the evidence and made a decision in line with your reading of the law. This "yeah, he was acquitted, but my victimization complex as a 'conservative' is so overbearing and universal that I have to ignore the fact that the trial ended quickly and with the verdict I believed correct that I'm going to sit around complaining that the trial even happened in the first place" act is...I don't know, what's a way to describe "sour grapes" even after your side wins?
   2923. Mefisto Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4495549)
That's true...but how credible, objectively speaking, is a self-defense claim by someone who refuses to take the stand?


Depends on the other evidence.
   2924. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4495550)
That's true...but how credible, objectively speaking, is a self-defense claim by someone who refuses to take the stand? I can see why most criminal defendants don't take the stand; it potentially opens the door to the introduction of damaging evidence the defense doesn't want the jury to see. But someone claiming self-defense is in a different situation.


It is no less credible than a self-defense claim by someone who does not take the stand. The defense can present whatever evidence it chooses to establish a self-defense claim; in this case, the testimony of eyewitness and photos and testimony regarding Zimmerman's injuries was sufficient to establish self-defense BRD.

So much of the Zimmerman kvetching comes from non-lawyers complaining that the criminal justice system does not work as they "think" it should.
   2925. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4495554)
Standard 3-5.10 Comments by Prosecutor After Verdict

The prosecutor should not make public comments critical of a verdict, whether rendered by judge or jury.


Not that Angela Corey isn't reprehensible, but I have serious problems with this rule from a 1st Amendment perspective.
   2926. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4495556)
So much of the Zimmerman kvetching comes from non-lawyers complaining that the criminal justice system does not work as they "think" it should.


Yes, it's terrible that we have a legal system with its head so far up it's own ass that it requires "lawyers" to count the angels on the head of pins for every minor question or concept.
   2927. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4495561)
George Zimmerman shot a kid to death for walking in the rain, Snapper. If all he has to deal with is a "show trial" that acquits him in a matter of weeks, he's got very little room to ##### about it. I would think you guys would be pleased that the jury agreed with your read of the evidence and made a decision in line with your reading of the law. This "yeah, he was acquitted, but my victimization complex as a 'conservative' is so overbearing and universal that I have to ignore the fact that the trial ended quickly and with the verdict I believed correct that I'm going to sit around complaining that the trial even happened in the first place" act is...I don't know, what's a way to describe "sour grapes" even after your side wins?

No, a jury found that he shot Martin for physically assaulting him.

Anyone who cares about living in a free society should be appalled that the Gov't can bring a murder prosecution against someone w/o prima facie evidence, and w/o getting by a grand jury. A murder prosecution has the potential to ruin someone's life.

   2928. Dale Sams Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4495562)
Honest question: What the **** about Zimmerman's story is so unbelievable that some 100 million Americans feel the need to go out of their minds? This isn't Tawanna, or Duke Lacrosse, or Gary Condit or the Ramseys where it was open and shut.....errrr....

But seriously, what?
   2929. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4495563)
So much of the Zimmerman kvetching comes from non-lawyers complaining that the criminal justice system does not work as they "think" it should.


I think most people recognize that the law is far too important a topic to be left to lawyers.
   2930. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM (#4495564)
Anyone who cares about living in a free society should be appalled that the Gov't can bring a murder prosecution against someone w/o prima facie evidence, and w/o getting by a grand jury. A murder prosecution has the potential to ruin someone's life.


So does a bullet through the heart.
   2931. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4495568)
Honest question: What the **** about Zimmerman's story is so unbelievable that some 100 million Americans feel the need to go out of their minds?


Most people think that a man who followed a teenager home and shot him dead in the walkway leading to his back door, for nothing more than wearing a hoodie while carrying Skittles, is guilty of something.
   2932. Ron J2 Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM (#4495572)
#2903 Restarted this several times. Mostly thinking out loud. I think a prosecutor has to be careful. I think it's totally in bounds to say that they thought the defendant was guilty and could prove it (beyond a reasonable doubt). Their own actions in bringing a case to trial are presumably proof of this belief.

And I'm fine with a prosecutors who then tacks on something to the effect that they didn't do a good enough job to convince the jury. I'm distinctly less than happy to hear them say (as is the case here) we made the case and the jury got it wrong.
   2933. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM (#4495574)
Pretty sure it is out of bounds for the prosecution to reference the defendant's not taking the stand.


Can't do it during a trial before a jury.
There's no reason* they can't do it after the fact.

*Except possibly for ethics rules that I find to be very dubious.

Anyway:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]


nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
That has evolved to mean that not only can't you force the defendant to take the stand you can't make any comment or inference regarding his refusal to take the stand. Of course that was not what the thing meant 200+ years ago, it was meant to prevent the state from piling rocks on top of a defendant, "confess to being a witch or we crush you to death," and stuff like that. It meant you couldn't be held in contempt and jailed for refusing to testify... and evolved to what we have now- in Civil cases if a party refuses to testify on 5th amendment grounds, that can be held against a party- especially on issues/questions where that party is the only witness or only "counter witness"

OTOH nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb the Government(s) violate this constantly, especially in Civil Rights Cases- they get around it with the dual sovereignty theory... it was most heavily used in the 60s prosecuting klan members and other white supremacists for civil rights violations after state courts acquitted them... rather than overriding the Constitution's double jeopardy bar with the double/dual sovereignty crap, the Feds either should have stopped the state trials from occurring or argued that the state justice systems were so corrupt that the defendants in these cases were not actually "in jeopardy of life or limb" (they weren't)

   2934. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4495585)
That's true...but how credible, objectively speaking, is a self-defense claim by someone who refuses to take the stand?

In this case, Zimmerman *did* de facto testify - the prosecution continually provided his statements during the case.
   2935. Answer Guy Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:25 AM (#4495586)
Anyone who cares about living in a free society should be appalled that the Gov't can bring a murder prosecution against someone w/o prima facie evidence, and w/o getting by a grand jury. A murder prosecution has the potential to ruin someone's life.


I'd be more concerned if/that someone could stalk and kill me and that even a trial that ends in acquittal is too much trouble (according to most of you) to put the poor, poor killer through.
   2936. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM (#4495588)
In this case, Zimmerman *did* de facto testify - the prosecution continually provided his statements during the case.


And they did so in order to keep him off of the stand, and thus avoid having him cross examined. Which is sort of the opposite of "testifying" in open court.
   2937. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM (#4495589)
Anyone who cares about living in a free society should be appalled that the Gov't can bring a murder prosecution against someone w/o prima facie evidence,


The had a prima facie case

George Zimmerman shot and unarmed 17 year old

what they didn't have was anything else, most importantly they really didn't have anything to rebut the defense contention that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that Martin beat Zimmerman.

   2938. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM (#4495590)
It's not a 911 tape¹. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but we should be precise. (Don't know whether this is Dan's error, Cooper's, or hers.) It was a non-emergency dispatcher, not 911.

My fault - it was late. I definitely know that it wasn't a 9/11 call, but I goofed typing it out. As you can see, a few other points barely resemble English.
   2939. ASmitty Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM (#4495593)
Most people think that a man who followed a teenager home and shot him dead in the walkway leading to his back door, for nothing more than wearing a hoodie while carrying Skittles, is guilty of something.

My favorite part of being an American is not allowing facts to get in the way of my righteous anger orgasm.
   2940. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4495594)
Anyone who cares about living in a free society should be appalled that the Gov't can bring a murder prosecution against someone w/o prima facie evidence, and w/o getting by a grand jury. A murder prosecution has the potential to ruin someone's life.


So in what "free society" or any other society has a Justice system with out any abuse? Where is this society that you claim we really should be, else we be appalled?

Every possible system of Justice will have flaws, checks, balances and in the end - once again - the right verdict (according to you and IMO) was reached. Do you expect perfection? Your complaining is the mirror image of the folks who are appalled that Martin was killed in the circumstances he was.

Neither is ideal. Both are from some perspectives terrible misscarriages of how things "should be". But the fact is things are not always that way. I think it fine that you want a better society and I think it fine the Martin protesters want a better society. Both sides are showing the impulse that drives us to be a better society. But the naive nature of many of the complaints is a bit tiresome.

So yes, we do not live in a perfect society, but I still manage not to live in a state of being appalled.
   2941. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM (#4495595)
Yes, it's terrible that we have a legal system with its head so far up it's own ass that it requires "lawyers" to count the angels on the head of pins for every minor question or concept.


You're kvetching about procedures/process in the criminal justice system, the modern framework for which was invented and implemented by progressives(particularly the Warren court). You do realize that sometimes, especially when you want to string up a white hispanic guy, the defendant-friendly process may seem inconvenient, but when its a black guy on trial they can seem very important indeed.
   2942. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM (#4495608)
Yes, it's terrible that we have a legal system with its head so far up it's own ass that it requires "lawyers" to count the angels on the head of pins for every minor question or concept.


Is there a modern system which does not require experts to really understand what is truly going on?

EDIT: Heck baseball with its arcane rules, contracts and CBA, statistical analysis, draft and so on requires substancial expertise in multiple fields to the point people on this site are constantly making fun of folks (especially columnists) who do not at all get it. And that is just a game!
   2943. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4495611)
Every possible system of Justice will have flaws, checks, balances and in the end - once again - the right verdict (according to you and IMO) was reached. Do you expect perfection? Your complaining is the mirror image of the folks who are appalled that Martin was killed in the circumstances he was.

But the prosecution did an end-run around the grand jury. They didn't allow the system of checks and balances to work.

The had a prima facie case

George Zimmerman shot and unarmed 17 year old

what they didn't have was anything else, most importantly they really didn't have anything to rebut the defense contention that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that Martin beat Zimmerman.


Apparently not enough to take it to a Grand Jury, which will, proverbially, indict a ham sandwich.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

So, how was the special prosecutor allowed to bypass the grand jury?
   2944. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4495612)
From today's Washington Post:

Civil rights charges against Zimmerman would be difficult, Justice officials say

Current and former Justice Department officials said Monday that bringing civil rights charges against George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old in Florida, would be extremely difficult and may not be possible.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. vowed to continue a federal investigation of the matter, but other officials said in interviews that the government may not be able to charge Zimmerman with a federal hate crime because it’s not clear that he killed Martin because of his race.....
   2945. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4495617)
#2903 Restarted this several times. Mostly thinking out loud. I think a prosecutor has to be careful. I think it's totally in bounds to say that they thought the defendant was guilty and could prove it (beyond a reasonable doubt). Their own actions in bringing a case to trial are presumably proof of this belief.

And I'm fine with a prosecutors who then tacks on something to the effect that they didn't do a good enough job to convince the jury. I'm distinctly less than happy to hear them say (as is the case here) we made the case and the jury got it wrong.


Right. "We thought the evidence at trial showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of second degree murder." Fine. But "murderer" to me crosses a line, even if it doesn't run afoul of the ethical rules. And without having studied them I can't say. I suspect that _arguably_ it might, but it would be a very weak case, without more. The model rules do seem to focus on statements made during the trial.

Basically, the prosecutors are guilty of sour grapes here. The normal process found that Zimmerman shouldn't be charged. Corey got involved. She circumvented the grand jury and lied to a judge to get a probable cause warrant on murder charges. They took the case to the jury and the jury rejected it. And pretty much nobody serious who was paying attention and understood the facts and the law and the legal issues (so, in other words, not Sam) thought Zimmerman was guilty of murder. This is not a scientific survey, but all the talking heads I saw on tv who took the prosecution's side didn't think it was murder. So everything that happened after the initial decision not to charge him validated the initial decision not to charge him. And yet Corey calls him a murderer anyway.
   2946. SteveF Posted: July 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4495619)
So, how was the special prosecutor allowed to bypass the grand jury?

Florida only requires it for a capital murder (i.e. murder one) charge.
   2947. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM (#4495621)
You're kvetching about procedures/process in the criminal justice system, the modern framework for which was invented and implemented by progressives(particularly the Warren court).


I have no idea why you think dropping "the Warren court" into this, as if I'm concerned about the providence of problems rather than their solutions, is meaningful.

Is there a modern system which does not require experts to really understand what is truly going on?


Good question. My point is that lawyers are to legalism and the "justice system" as CPA's are to tax law. And just as many people believe that the tax code is overly complex and caters technicality, hoop-jumping and insider trading more than it caters to simplicity and common sense, so to do many believe the legal system is similarly obese. Of course *lawyers* will think the law needs to be opaque and thus require specialized resourcing to navigate. CPA's tend to think the same thing about tax law. People know where their bread is buttered.
   2948. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4495623)
Florida only requires it for a capital murder (i.e. murder one) charge.

How do they square that with the 5th Amendment? Is 2nd degree murder not an "otherwise infamous crime"?
   2949. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4495629)
Right. "We thought the evidence at trial showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of second degree murder." Fine. But "murderer" to me crosses a line, even if it doesn't run afoul of the ethical rules. And without having studied them I can't say. I suspect that _arguably_ it might, but it would be a very weak case, without more. The model rules do seem to focus on statements made during the trial.


But Ray, given your stated position on how much of a travesty it is to bring any case to trial unless you have overwhelming evidence, surely you will agree that "a very weak case" means no inquiry should be brought against Corey for these nebulous "ethics" violations?
   2950. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:04 AM (#4495631)
Florida only requires it for a capital murder (i.e. murder one) charge.


Then Florida doesn't require it for Zimmerman, which makes all of the "Corey went outside of the system and avoided a grand jury" kvetching a bit...dramatic. If the GJ wasn't required - i.e. if FL law allowed for her to circumvent it - then it's not a problem that she circumvented it. I mean, unless all of the "the law is the law" types are suddenly aghast that the law allowed someone to do something they don't like, personally, and want to punish her for that. Which would be...interesting.
   2951. SteveF Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4495632)
How do they square that with the 5th Amendment?

I'm not sure. Obviously it depends on how 'infamous crime' is defined. They still had to get the judge to sign off on probable cause, of course. If the judge signed off, a grand jury probably would have as well.

Edit: Ah. That clause of the 5th hasn't been incorporated. That's the answer.
Edit2: For those wondering, an infamous crime is basically any crime punishable by more than 1 year in prison, so essentially any felony counts.
   2952. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4495633)
“We are determined to meet division and confusion with understanding and compassion — and also with truth,” Holder said


Still waiting for this Truth Teller to tell The Truth about how Angela Corey lied to a judge and how the jury rightly acquitted on second degree murder and manslaughter.
   2953. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4495636)
But Ray, given your stated position on how much of a travesty it is to bring any case to trial unless you have overwhelming evidence, surely you will agree that "a very weak case" means no inquiry should be brought against Corey for these nebulous "ethics" violations?


"No inquiry?" I never said Zimmmerman's killing of Martin shouldn't be investigated. Anyway, depending on what the ethical rules are her comments would raise an eyebrow if I were in a position to make a decision about this. (As would her conduct in lying to a judge in an affidavit, which is the far more serious charge.)

But if there's no case or a very weak case re her murderer comment I would drop the inquiry.

(Also, I never said the prosecution should have "overwhelming evidence" to support a murder charge that they bring. Please try to follow along. I said they should have _enough_ evidence to support the charge.)

All in all, Sam, this is a very boring and lame gotcha attempt.
   2954. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4495638)
But the prosecution did an end-run around the grand jury. They didn't allow the system of checks and balances to work.


So I should "be appalled" living in this free society, because a check (which it sounds like it was not truly necessary) was avoided, but another check (Jury trial) ended up inthe right place?

The reason a system is built with multiple checks and balances is because it is expected that not any single one will catch everything. The system worked (still under the assumption the right verdict was reached) and yet I must be appalled?

Some folks would complain on winning the lottery, because it wasn't their favorite numbers that won or because they had to share their prize with someone else who also won, and of course they have to pay taxes on their winnings! It hardly makes winning worth while I guess.
   2955. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4495639)
As would her conduct in lying to a judge in an affidavit,


You keep saying this without citation.
   2956. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4495640)
Still waiting for this Truth Teller to tell The Truth about how Angela Corey lied to a judge and how the jury rightly acquitted on second degree murder and manslaughter.


Ray you are continuously telling us you expect politicians to act as politicians, and also surprised and annoyed when they do.
   2957. ASmitty Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:14 AM (#4495641)
Of course *lawyers* will think the law needs to be opaque and thus require specialized resourcing to navigate.

The law here is not opaque or techinical. I can tell you, as a lawyer, that anyone with a high-school education can handle the legal issues in this case if they want to.

People just...don't want to. The jury considered convicting Zimmerman before reading the jury instructions and realizing a conviction was preposterous. This isn't complicated stuff, but I guess anything is complicated if you refuse to try and understand it.

Legally, this case is incredibly non-interesting. Morally I think there are fascinating aspects to it, but legally, not so much.
   2958. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4495648)
Edit: Ah. That clause of the 5th hasn't been incorporated. That's the answer.

Really? I thought the whole of the Amendments had been applied to the States?
   2959. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4495650)
So I should "be appalled" living in this free society, because a check (which it sounds like it was not truly necessary) was avoided, but another check (Jury trial) ended up inthe right place?

The reason a system is built with multiple checks and balances is because it is expected that not any single one will catch everything. The system worked (still under the assumption the right verdict was reached) and yet I must be appalled?


Yes. Just like you should be appalled at the NSA wiretapping, even if they haven't used the info in an abusive manner yet.

If the State can bring prosecutions for purely political reasons, that is a threat to everyone's freedom.
   2960. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4495652)
The jury considered convicting Zimmerman before reading the jury instructions and realizing a conviction was preposterous.


And this is what is damning to the prosecutors. It's not like all six of the jurors went in to deliberations and were like, "not guilty not guilty not guilty why did they waste our time?" One of them wanted murder. Two of them wanted at least manslaughter. One or two of them wanted him to be convicted "of something." But after reading the jury instructions and re-reading them and discussing the case they all concluded, "we have to aquit; there's just nowhere else we can go with this."
   2961. Answer Guy Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4495656)
It's not like all six of the jurors went in to deliberations and were like, "not guilty not guilty not guilty why did they waste our time?"


But wait....I thought the evidence was so flimsy that anyone involved in the prosecution should face ethics charges!
   2962. AROM Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4495658)
http://news.yahoo.com/wis-man-faces-trial-shooting-teenage-neighbor-204541976.html

Don't see any way this guy gets acquitted. But he's 76 and dying of cancer, at least according to the reporting. The law can't do anything to him that wasn't already coming.
   2963. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM (#4495659)
If the State can bring prosecutions for purely political reasons, that is a threat to everyone's freedom.


A dead body is not "purely political reasons."
   2964. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4495662)
Am I misremembering or did Al Sharpton get insulted pre-verdict and deem racist the notion that black people might riot over a not guilty verdict? Because unless the Daily News only showed pictures of black people rioting and not white or "white hispanic" people rioting ("white hispanic" being the term newly delivered to us by the left), I am not seeing any/many white people in these photos.

Helicopter footage showed angry rioters jumping on cars, breaking storefront windows, setting fires in curbside trash cans and attacking bystanders, including two people sitting on a bus bench at Slauson Avenue.

Several of the rioters stormed a Wal-Mart and a mall at the Crenshaw Baldwin Hills shopping plaza, where witnesses said the goons stole merchandise, knocked down store displays and smashed furniture, local NBC4 reported.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/zimmerman-protest-turns-violent-article-1.1399750#ixzz2ZDrI7ASa
   2965. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4495663)
A dead body is not "purely political reasons."

It is if you don't believe you have enough evidence to convict, or even indict before a grand jury.

You yourself said the decision may have been political [2916]!
   2966. Lassus Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4495664)
I admit I'm still a little surprised - unless SteveF is wrong in 2946 - that the OMG NO GRAND JURY thing was repeated here as often as it was.


...the jury...realizing a conviction was preposterous.
But after reading the jury instructions and re-reading them and discussing the case they all concluded, "we have to aquit; there's just nowhere else we can go with this."

Were these words and sentiments in the one juror interview so far, or are people rather inventing the moods and thoughts of the entire jury?



   2967. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4495665)
Yes. Just like you should be appalled at the NSA wiretapping, even if they haven't used the info in an abusive manner yet.

If the State can bring prosecutions for purely political reasons, that is a threat to everyone's freedom.


So I'll ask again, in what society, free or otherwise, is their not a political/human element? What change do you think could be made to eliminate it?

And I think the linkage between this and the NSA is apples and the Moon. The Justice system everywhere is flawed but with numerous checks and balances, and in this case it worked. The NSA basically is operating with any real checks and balances and the system is working, only in the sense that they are running amok and are periodically exposed by whistleblowers and investigations, and then the public forgets about it.

The main reason to be appalled by the NSA fiasco is the public is mostly (though there are signs this is changing) apathetic and so the NSA gets away with it. Apathy is deadly in a democracy. I am not seeing apathy in the Martin case, there is plenty of civic engagement.

And unbridled prosecutions would be a threat, but this is a single instance (if it is even that, since I for one am OK with the fact they had a trial) and it failed. Not so much a threat to freedom.
   2968. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4495667)
@2962:

Spooner suspected Simmons of breaking into his Milwaukee home and stealing guns, prosecutors said. Spooner confronted the teen on the sidewalk two days after the weapons came up missing and demanded that he return them. When Simmons denied stealing anything, Spooner shot him in the chest from five feet away as the teen's mother watched, according to the criminal complaint.

Spooner then fired a second shot as Simmons tried to run away, the complaint said. Police recovered a weapon and two spent bullet casings.


This case has absolutely nothing in common with the Zimmerman case other than the race of the victims. This guy deserves to die in prison.
   2969. Ron J2 Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4495668)
#2950 The issue here is that to bypass the Grand Jury, Corey had to submit a probable cause affidavit. Said affidavit is somewhere between intentionally misleading (mostly through omission) and actual perjury (probably stopping well short of perjury though)

A lot of the Corey critics are probably uncomfortable with finding themselves on the same side of the issue as Alan Dershowitz. Quoting Dershowitz again, "She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I’ve seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I’ve seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor, [Angela] Corey."

Now personally I'm baffled about the decision to skip a grand jury. As in what the tactical gain. Up here (Canada) when the equivalent of a grand jury is skipped it's "always" a defense request. To get to trial sooner.

If the prosecutor can't convince a grand jury there's simply no chance of securing a conviction by skipping one.
   2970. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:34 AM (#4495670)
Good question. My point is that lawyers are to legalism and the "justice system" as CPA's are to tax law. And just as many people believe that the tax code is overly complex and caters technicality, hoop-jumping and insider trading more than it caters to simplicity and common sense, so to do many believe the legal system is similarly obese. Of course *lawyers* will think the law needs to be opaque and thus require specialized resourcing to navigate. CPA's tend to think the same thing about tax law. People know where their bread is buttered.


Someone already pointed this out, but it's not applicable in this case. The law here is not particularly arcane or complex. Rather, there are defendant-friendly protections built in the law in response to not just this one case, or some guy on the internet's internal sense of "justice", but based on the abuses and injustices that have been identified in the collective experience of thousands of criminal cases. There's nothing arbitrary or technical about setting the burden for self-defense at "defendant must establish prima facie case, then prosecution must prove no self-defense BRD". Its not some arcane provision of a labyrinthine code, like in tax or securities law. Rather, it's something that evolved to provide the best balance of the defendant's and prosecution's rights in all self-defense cases.

Law formulated ad hoc for each case, to satisfy the sense of justice of the judge, the jury, or any other observer, is not law at all, and it certainly is not just. The single most important aspect of justice, more important than morals, a "just sense", or whathaveyou, is a consistent framework applied equally to all comers. It's a hell of a lot more compelling to argue that self-defense law wouldn't have been applied in the same way to a black defendant than to argue, as you continuously do, that the "law" is unjust based on the impressions of some vocal minority, and therefore illegitimate and the province of arcane "lawyers" who simply stand between murderous monsters and your justice. We are the justice, and you're the problem.
   2971. SteveF Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4495672)
I admit I'm still a little surprised - unless SteveF is wrong in 2946 - that the OMG NO GRAND JURY thing was repeated here as often as it was.

Well, the first prosecutor had impaneled one for the case but Corey dismissed it. That and the fact they allowed Zimmerman to post bond were the first indicators of just how weak the prosecution's case was going to be. I think that's why the grand jury thing was part of the narrative; it highlights just how weak the case was given a grand jury will indict...you know the rest.
   2972. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4495674)
I admit I'm still a little surprised - unless SteveF is wrong in 2946 - that the OMG NO GRAND JURY thing was repeated here as often as it was.


The fanatics on both sides of this trial long ago decided what this case was REALLY about and facts and such just get in the way of the narrative: "There is a misscarriage of justice somewhere here and by gum we will find it and be angered by it, because it shows us what is wrong with today's society."
   2973. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4495675)
It is if you don't believe you have enough evidence to convict, or even indict before a grand jury.


But not if you believe you have enough evidence to convince a jury that the guy is guilty of something, and the law allows you to go around grand jury proceedings.

You yourself said the decision may have been political [2916]!


Yes, I did. I said it may have been political. You said the state brought charges for "purely political reasons." I was discussing possibilities, you were assigning definitive motivation.
   2974. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4495678)
I admit I'm still a little surprised - unless SteveF is wrong in 2946 - that the OMG NO GRAND JURY thing was repeated here as often as it was.


It was skipped and she lied to a judge in the process of obtaining the workaround, the probable cause warrant.

And the fact that she didn't think she could convince a grand jury -- or a judge without lying to him -- should have clued her in that she would likely not be able to convince a jury either.

But of course since she is corrupt none of that gave her pause.
   2975. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4495681)
t's a hell of a lot more compelling to argue that self-defense law wouldn't have been applied in the same way to a black defendant than to argue, as you continuously do, that the "law" is unjust based on the impressions of some vocal minority


I haven't argued anything about the "impressions of some vocal minority."
   2976. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4495683)
It was skipped and she lied to a judge in the process of obtaining the workaround, the probable cause warrant.


You keep saying this without citation.
   2977. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4495685)
I ask you again, Lassus, and maybe you'll answer it this time: Do you see nothing wrong with a prosecutor committing borderline perjury in an affidavit -- lying by omitting exculpatory evidence such as the defendant's injuries in a self defense case -- in order to secure a probable cause warrant?
   2978. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4495690)
I haven't argued anything about the "impressions of some vocal minority."


Alas, Sam, you have:

"In fact, I've gone to huge lengths to specifically distinguish what about the Zimmerman affair and the failures of the criminal justice system I find problematic, and where, if the situation was significantly different, I would exit the arbitrary restrictions of state-sanctioned "justice" and act in service of actual justice."
   2979. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:44 AM (#4495692)
Do you see nothing wrong with a prosecutor committing borderline perjury in an affidavit -- lying by omitting exculpatory evidence such as the defendant's injuries in a self defense case -- in order to secure a probable cause warrant?


I am not Lassus, but heck I'll answer what I think.

Given your assumptions as true in this case (I have no idea either way), then it is troublesome. I hope there is a system to evaluate prosecutors in Florida, checks and balances on their job beyond just political/election type consequences. If there are not I think there should be a non-political review board of some sort to investigate malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in such public officials. Fortunately the system in large part worked and the verdict was not guilty.
   2980. SteveF Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4495693)
Do you see nothing wrong with a prosecutor committing borderline perjury in an affidavit -- lying by omitting exculpatory evidence such as the defendant's injuries in a self defense case -- in order to secure a probable cause warrant?

Well, strictly speaking prosecutors aren't required to present exculpatory evidence to grand juries, right? They get to basically pick and choose what evidence to present, which is why the whole process is a bit of a joke anyway.

Edit: The unwritten (now written) point being, I imagine the affidavit works similarly -- though perhaps not.
   2981. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4495695)
Alas, Sam, you have:


That's not what I'm arguing in that quote.
   2982. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4495697)
This case has absolutely nothing in common with the Zimmerman case other than the race of the victims. This guy deserves to die in prison.

If those are the facts, concur.
   2983. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:50 AM (#4495698)

That's not what I'm arguing in that quote.


Whose justice, Sam? You always ignore that problem, and its a big one. The law exists to answer that question.
   2984. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4495701)
You keep saying this without citation.


Again with this. What do you mean by "citation"? Do you want me to produce the affidavit that she submitted in which she ommitted Zimmerman's injuries? I can do so, but I typically think it's a waste of time to produce information that anyone involved in a serious conversation can look up themselves.

But whatever. Here. Click on this link.

After you read it, please point out where in the affidavit Corey explains that Zimmerman suffered injuries. Please also point out where in the affidavit Corey informs the judge of any other exculpatory evidence, such as Good's witness account that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

I'm looking forward to you telling me where in the affidavit these things are, so that I can stop saying that Corey lied to the judge in submitting the affidavit.

And if you can't point these things out, Sam, then stop asking for "citations" to challenge established facts for no other reason than to bog down a conversation and make it appear that the established facts aren't true. That should be beneath you, but you've been nonserious about this case all the way through.
   2985. Morty Causa Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:55 AM (#4495703)
2982:

Unless he's insane, right?
   2986. Ron J2 Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:55 AM (#4495704)
#2955, Dershowitz has claimed (for some time now) the fact that Corey's Affidavit of Probable Cause omitted material (exculpatory) facts. Among those he cited.

No mention of Good (an eventual prosecution witness remember), no mention of any of Zimmerman's injuries (always going to be a factor in any self-defense claim).

The affidavit claims the voice calling for help is Martin (relying only on Martin's mother's testimony). No mention that other people called it differently.

The affidavit also includes the bit about the operator “instructed Zimmerman not” to follow Martin.

Dershowitz is calling for Corey to be disbarred. Looks like an overbid to me. Corey has threatened a libel lawsuit against Dershowitz (and privately asked Harvard to discipline him) which looks like an absolute non-starter to me.
   2987. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4495705)
2982:

Unless he's insane, right?


Seems unlikely, but then he'll die in a mental hospital.
   2988. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4495706)
Whose justice, Sam? You always ignore that problem, and its a big one. The law exists to answer that question.


Mine. Not a "vocal minority." Mine. When systemic law fails to render justice, and the stakes are high enough, justice demands recourse outside of systemic law. We can run around this rabbit hole a few more times if you like, but the bottom line is I don't accede all questions of justice to systemic legalism. Most, yes. But not all. To do so would be to eliminate individual judgement and action in the world.
   2989. ASmitty Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4495708)
Mine. Not a "vocal minority." Mine.

Quoted for irony.
   2990. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4495713)
But whatever. Here. Click on this link.

After you read it, please point out where in the affidavit Corey explains that Zimmerman suffered injuries. Please also point out where in the affidavit Corey informs the judge of any other exculpatory evidence, such as Good's witness account that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.


So your argument is the "lie" is one of omission, because she didn't present the defense's case to the judge?

Can someone tell me if a prosecutor making a statement such as the linked one is required to present exculpatory evidence?

Nothing she says in that statement is a lie. The only "lie" is not presenting the defense's case. Is she required to do that to the judge, or is Ray off the deep end?
   2991. SteveF Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4495714)
It looks like the standard is that an omission in the affidavit is only a problem if admitting the evidence would eliminate probable cause. Probable cause is a pretty low barrier. I doubt there's anything there, but reasonable people could disagree.

I suppose if you are of the opinion Zimmerman shouldn't have been arrested, you are by definition of the opinion there was no probable cause. So that position (Edit: the position being that Corey should face discipline and Zimmerman should not have been arrested) is entirely consistent, whether one agrees with it or not.
   2992. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4495718)
Mine. Not a "vocal minority." Mine. When systemic law fails to render justice, and the stakes are high enough, justice demands recourse outside of systemic law. We can run around this rabbit hole a few more times if you like, but the bottom line is I don't accede all questions of justice to systemic legalism. Most, yes. But not all. To do so would be to eliminate individual judgement and action in the world.

Even if one was to grant that position has merit, when your system of individual "justice" has no standard of proof higher than "he killed my kin", it is mere barbaric tribalism.

Read the story in Foreign Policy today about Pakistani tribal "justice".

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/12/malalas_forgotten_sisters_girls_marriage_pakistan

You should find some of it hits uncomfortably close to home.
   2993. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4495719)
But not if you believe you have enough evidence to convince a jury that the guy is guilty of something, and the law allows you to go around grand jury proceedings.


Holy crap! Do you really want to live in a world where a prosecutor brings someone to trial that they know committed no crime but they think they can trick a jury anyway? I agree with you 100% that the majority of the fault lies with Zimmerman (well you think it all the fault, but we're close), but if he violated no law, then he should never have been brought to trial, and if the prosecutor knew this, and went ahead anyway, she's more despicable than Zimmerman
   2994. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4495720)
Quoted for irony.


Fine. If the reference to "vocal minority" was to "me" then fine. I read "vocal minority" to be a reference to the activists calling for a civil rights case or something like. To be clear, I am not interested in a civil rights trial, nor am I interested in agitating to change state law. My position has never pivoted on such things.
   2995. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4495721)
Dershowitz is calling for Corey to be disbarred. Looks like an overbid to me. Corey has threatened a libel lawsuit against Dershowitz (and privately asked Harvard to discipline him) which looks like an absolute non-starter to me.

Dershowitz is pretty much a reprehensible scumbag as well (although he may well be right about Corey), I vote for a real life celebrity deathmatch between the 2.


I'm not gonna cry for Dershowitz, but FWIW I assume Harvard and the Mass Bar will treat Corey's requests with the contempt that they deserve, but what if she (a state prosecutor) went after a non-tenured professor at a Florida University in this manner? Abuse of authority, the appearance of an abuse of authority?

She just fired someone in her office who testified that he was uncomfortable with the way her office withheld docs from the defense- it's pretty clear that she's not "fit" to be a prosecutor, she should not have such power or authority.
   2996. ASmitty Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4495722)
Nothing she says in that statement is a lie. The only "lie" is not presenting the defense's case. Is she required to do that to the judge, or is Ray off the deep end?

The affidavit gets a big old *shrug* from me. It's unprofessionally editorialized and unnecessarily misleading, but she's a partisan; no judge would read that affidavit and say "Welp, I guess that's basically everything that happened."

The omission of Good's testimony is probably the worst offense. I don't find the omission of the injuries to be as problematic, since the affidavit makes it clear that the shooting was preceded by a lengthy physical confrontation.
   2997. ASmitty Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4495724)
Fine. If the reference to "vocal minority" was to "me" then fine.

I was merely teasing with that blurb. You are nothing if not vocal, sir.
   2998. AROM Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4495725)
"This case has absolutely nothing in common with the Zimmerman case other than the race of the victims. This guy deserves to die in prison."

In my opinion he deserves worse than that, but the law won't go that far. In his case, dying in prison is not going to be much different than dying in a hospice.. He had nothing to lose, so no need to even try and hide it. Just gunned down a kid in front of his mother.
   2999. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4495726)
So your argument is the "lie" is one of omission, because she didn't present the defense's case to the judge?

Can someone tell me if a prosecutor making a statement such as the linked one is required to present exculpatory evidence?

Nothing she says in that statement is a lie. The only "lie" is not presenting the defense's case. Is she required to do that to the judge, or is Ray off the deep end?


Go to law school. Omitting material facts or telling half truths in an affidavit amounts to lying. (Not to mention that there are questions with regard to some of the "facts" she did present.) She intentionally misled the judge who was deciding whether to charge a defendant with murder, by failing to disclose crucial physical and other exculpatory evidence.

Do you approve of this, Sam? If it were done to railroad a black man would you approve?
   3000. Lassus Posted: July 16, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4495727)
flip
Page 30 of 58 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogEx-MLB star Chuck Knoblauch accused of assaulting ex-wife
(3 - 5:39pm, Jul 24)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3011 - 5:35pm, Jul 24)
Last: spike

NewsblogYadier Molina serves his brother crackers on a plate — home plate
(31 - 5:32pm, Jul 24)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogBuck Showalter, Tommy Hunter bemoan shrinking strike zone in Orioles loss
(9 - 5:27pm, Jul 24)
Last: DKDC

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(42 - 5:25pm, Jul 24)
Last: SOLockwood

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(8 - 5:24pm, Jul 24)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(909 - 5:17pm, Jul 24)
Last: HMS Moses Taylor

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(88 - 5:16pm, Jul 24)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: 7-24-14
(30 - 5:11pm, Jul 24)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-24-2014
(9 - 5:01pm, Jul 24)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogIntentional Walk Issued to Bonds Yields Unintentional Disbelief (Happy Birthday, Barry)
(6 - 4:57pm, Jul 24)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(381 - 4:56pm, Jul 24)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogFivethirtyeight: Billion-Dollar Billy Beane
(10 - 4:54pm, Jul 24)
Last: AROM

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(68 - 4:18pm, Jul 24)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogPaper of Record Archives (Vintage Sporting News) Gone
(31 - 4:14pm, Jul 24)
Last: Batman

Page rendered in 0.6575 seconds
52 querie(s) executed