Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz, on Zimmerman's arrest

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Old-T

When you are carrying a gun you don't have to throw a punch to threaten someone, do you?

And when you are carrying a gun you don't need to speak a lot to threaten someone either.

Before I respond directly to your post, please click on the link and read the article and listen to the eyewitness testimony. Let me know if you did or didn't Old-T.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

If you are simply carrying a concealed gun you are not threatening anyone. No we are not saying the same thing. Your argument appears to hinge on that Zimmerman threatened Martin with a concealed gun while it was still concealed. I haven't seen any testimony or evidence that before the fight, Zimmerman used the gun in a threatening manner or to provoke an attack. In your mind, having a concealed gun may embolden someone in certain situations and you may be correct but as long as the other person doesn't know it, there is no threat.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#2: At times the prosecution will ask defense counsel if the soon to be defendant would like to testify before the grand jury ... "said the spider to the fly" .... and I have yet to meet a "client" of any attorney who was capable of winning "their case" by their own testimony ... although I have met some that lost "their cases" ... because of their testimony ... so sure the defendant "can" be heard .... but why cooperate with the prosecution when there is an excellent chance that the grand jury will return an indictment anyway ....

I understanding about the "spider to the fly" and that Zimmerman waived his right to counsel when speaking to the police and tried to talk to the prosecutor and got up on the witness stand to apologize to the parents. He has in fact already admitted to shooting Trayvon since immediately after it happened.

My question more had to do with the defense (not the defendant) being able to present evidence and testimony countering the prosecutions claim. Is this possible? Also, clarify this: is self-defense not a justification/defense?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Old-T

When you are carrying a gun you don't have to throw a punch to threaten someone, do you?

And when you are carrying a gun you don't need to speak a lot to threaten someone either.

It all depends. Was the gun visable to Trayvon? If the gun was holstered and not visable to Trayvon how could he have perceived it as a threat. I think its likely that Trayvon did not know that Zimmerman had a gun. If he had known, I think it's unlikely that Trayvon would have attacked him. My guess is that Zimmerman had the gun stuck in the back of his pants.

I think it's amazing that so many people think Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Why would he call 911 if he intended to commit a crime himself?

[Old-T]

I don't know wo attacked whom--as I have said a number of times. The questions you ask are exactly the ones I believe need to be asked and addressed in public.

I DO think the dead guy has the right (moral, not legal) to a trial in this case just as much as the live guy does.

IF Zimmerman was in macho-mode then in his mind he wasn't about to commit a crime, even if it went down the way it did. I have never sai I In that mindset he may well have believed he was the empowered hero, so calling 911 would be perfectly reasonable to him.

[gnadfly]

And why would Trayvon not simply walk 70 yards to where he staying unless he wanted to confront Zimmerman?

Why would Zimmerman cry for help unless he was getting his ass beat?

Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't know wo attacked whom--as I have said a number of times. The questions you ask are exactly the ones I believe need to be asked and addressed in public.

You aren't asking those questions. Look at your questions.

He's not going to click on the link. Its apparent that Old-T is just some gun control nut.

[Old-T]

I don't doubt Zimmerman called for help after the fighting started--that isn't the issue. It is what happened up to the fight.

As to "why didn't Martin walk home"? Why should he? He has every bit as much right to be on the street in his own neighborhood as Zimmerman did, didn't he?

Let's see: 25+ years in the military--no, I'm not a gun control nut by any means. I DO believe using a gun is a serious rsponsibility and when someone is shot dead an open investigation is appropriate. And I've seen too many guys who ge a Rambo complex when they stap on a gun.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't doubt Zimmerman called for help after the fighting started--that isn't the issue. It is what happened up to the fight.

And yet you keep asserting he threatened Martin with a gun without any evidence or testimony. Why? You didn't click on the link did you? Why? Are you scared?

Originally Posted by Old-T

As to "why didn't Martin walk home"? Why should he? He has every bit as much right to be on the street in his own neighborhood as Zimmerman did, didn't he?

Actually, it isn't Martin's neighborhood. You aren't keeping up very well. Its his Father's girlfriend's neighborhood. It is Zimmerman's neighborhood. There's a big sign on the fenced in community saying they have a neighborhood patrol. You're right, he doesn't "HAVE" to walk "home". But him not walking home leads credence to him wanting to confront Z as Z has stated.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Let's see: 25+ years in the military--no, I'm not a gun control nut by any means. I DO believe using a gun is a serious rsponsibility and when someone is shot dead an open investigation is appropriate. And I've seen too many guys who ge a Rambo complex when they stap on a gun.

First thanks for your service. Second, you're a gun control nut. There was an open investigation. You have no evidence that Z brandished/threatened Martin with the gun until the few moments before Martin was shot. The police spoke to Z twice and extensively questioned him. Then they let him go. Either you're a gun control nut or you hate Hispanics. Or both.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

My question more had to do with the defense (not the defendant) being able to present evidence and testimony countering the prosecutions claim. Is this possible? Also, clarify this: is self-defense not a justification/defense?

The attorney for the defendant is not allowed to actively participate in the grand jury proceeding. So as a practical matter how is the defendant's evidence going to be "presented." Is it "possible"? To be case specific that will have to do with Florida's law and custom-practice.
Texas says:
"Art. 20.17. HOW SUSPECT OR ACCUSED QUESTIONED. (a) The grand jury, in propounding questions to the person accused or suspected, shall first state the offense with which he is suspected or accused, the county where the offense is said to have been committed and as nearly as may be, the time of commission of the offense, and shall direct the examination to the offense under investigation.
(b) Prior to any questioning of an accused or suspected person who is subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, the accused or suspected person shall be furnished a written copy of the warnings contained in Subsection (c) of this section and shall be given a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel or apply to the court for an appointed attorney and to consult with counsel prior to appearing before the grand jury.
(c) If an accused or suspected person is subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury prior to any questions before the grand jury, the person accused or suspected shall be orally warned as follows:
(1) "Your testimony before this grand jury is under oath";
(2) "Any material question that is answered falsely before this grand jury subjects you to being prosecuted for aggravated perjury";
(3) "You have the right to refuse to make answers to any question, the answer to which would incriminate you in any manner";
(4) "You have the right to have a lawyer present outside this chamber to advise you before making answers to questions you feel might incriminate you";
(5) "Any testimony you give may be used against you at any subsequent proceeding";
(6) "If you are unable to employ a lawyer, you have the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise you before making an answer to a question, the answer to which you feel might incriminate you.""

AND

"Art. 20.10. ATTORNEY OR FOREMAN MAY ISSUE PROCESS. The attorney representing the state, or the foreman (GRAND JURY FOREMAN), in term time or vacation, may issue a summons or attachment for any witness in the county where they are sitting; which summons or attachment may require the witness to appear before them at a time fixed, or forthwith, without stating the matter under investigation."

The Prof was talking about the probable cause affidavit. Not the grand jury. FYI: Generally, a defendant can testify at a bond hearing (which waives his 5th amendment for the limited purposes of the scope of the bond hearing, which is not whether or not he is guilty), which is different than what testimony might be within the scope of the grand jury.

Self-defense would generally fall within a "justification" in the sense that the person was "justified" in using deadly force to defend himself/herself.

The problem is that the vast majority of the posts on this thread involve discussions and arguments that would be entertained in a trial, which are premature in the arrest decision from LE or DA perspective....and may not have been known and verified prior to that decision being made.

The bottom line is, whether we like it or not, "the" prosecuting attorney is a political-elected position and prosecution decisions can be political in the sense of whether to charge someone for an offense.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The bottom line is, whether we like it or not, "the" prosecuting attorney is a political-elected position and prosecution decisions can be political in the sense of whether to charge someone for an offense.

People do not understand the difference between 'the law' and 'politics'.

I tried to tell the thread starter this back a the start of this thread. I even tried to bet him on what would happen....the reality of life, not the fairy tale.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

And yet you keep asserting he threatened Martin with a gun without any evidence or testimony. Why? You didn't click on the link did you? Why? Are you scared? I checked the link, and I have not said Zimmerman DID threaten him. I just keep pointing out to some people on here that question and doubt can be seen on both sides. Some folks on here need to learn the definition of a few words such as "IF".

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Actually, it isn't Martin's neighborhood. You aren't keeping up very well. Its his Father's girlfriend's neighborhood. It is Zimmerman's neighborhood. There's a big sign on the fenced in community saying they have a neighborhood patrol. You're right, he doesn't "HAVE" to walk "home". But him not walking home leads credence to him wanting to confront Z as Z has stated. My neighborhood has a neighborhood watch sign up as well. Does that mean people have to apply for admission to visit me? And you are correct, I have a real job that doesn't allow me to spend 15 hrs a day scouring the internet to follow a story such as this. Most my comments are really directed much more at the posters on this board, many of whom have a very deep down burn on the back of their necks. I know a lot of southerners are still mad they lost the civil war--and a lot of us non-southerners are mad they lost too.
First thanks for your service. Second, you're a gun control nut. There was an open investigation. You have no evidence that Z brandished/threatened Martin with the gun until the few moments before Martin was shot. The police spoke to Z twice and extensively questioned him. Then they let him go. Either you're a gun control nut or you hate Hispanics. Or both. A comment so stupid it's beyond belief. The police Zimmerman was working with as part of the watch questioned him and released him. Oh joy! That should be good enough for anyone, shouldn't it? If I'm ever questioned about a possible crime can I have the folks I work with do a closed doors investigation, not find anything wrong, and just go on with my life? What a blind spot you have. That is NOT remotely close to an objective investigation.

--You have no concept of who I am or what I have done, but you claim to know my views on guns because I think a lethal shooting should be investigated by people who don't already have a relationship with the shooter?
--You don't even know my race yet you imply I hate Hispanics because I question the guilt or innocence of one person who is part Hispanic? You, on the other hand, have no ethnic or racial biases I'm sure. Yes, said with dripping sarcasm. (By the way, there is a world of difference in how the various Spanish speaking peoples see themselves and many would consider the use of the word "Hispanic" as derogatory, if you care.)

[I B Hankering]

[quote=Old-T;2443236] --You have no concept of who I am or what I have done, but you claim to know my views on guns because I think a lethal shooting should be investigated by people who don't already have a relationship with the shooter?
--You don't even know my race yet you imply I hate Hispanics because I question the guilt or innocence of one person who is part Hispanic? Now there is a hypocritical statement, you did exactly the same thing in other threads, Old-goaT!You, on the other hand, have no ethnic or racial biases I'm sure. Yes, said with dripping sarcasm. Yet more hypocrisy!!!(By the way, there is a world of difference in how the various Spanish speaking peoples see themselves and many would consider the use of the word "Hispanic" as derogatory, if you care.)[/quote]

Old-goaT, here is a little factoid for you:

Zimmerman's father , 64-year-old Robert Zimmerman of Lake Mary delivered a one-page letter to the Sentinel on Thursday, saying that the depiction of his son in the media has been cruel and misleading.

George Zimmerman is Hispanic and grew up in a multiracial family, the statement says.

"He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever ...," the letter says.

"The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be further from the truth." http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...black-teenager

Again with your 'racist' taunts, Old-goaT. Every time others challenge YOU on your baldly false assertions and your failure to grasp the elemental facts of the case, you call them a 'racist'.

In this case, both parties were minorities. Old-goaT, you keep pointing your finger at others and calling them racists, you really need to go look at yourself in the mirror. Zimmerman is Hispanic.

[quote=Old-T;2443236] It's about a guy with a gun getting into a macho vigilanti mindset. Your predisposed bias against Zimmerman is showing. [/quote]
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=70

[quote=Old-T;2443236] To me the most telling comment in all this was in the call when Z was told not to engage but he did. That is the mark of a guy looking to be macho rather than do his part. Contrary to ‘known’ evidence. [/quote]
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...3&postcount=71

[quote=Old-T;2443236] I only look at what posters say and what is addressed in the media.

It is clear Z was told not to follow. Magically a kid teleports to attack him? Ever wonder why he would do so? I was not there, but I have seen nothing indicating the kid chased Zimmerman, so a reasonable situation is the Zimmrman kept following him, because I for one do not subscribe to the teleport option or the one that has humans acting like quantum particles.Your assertion is contrary to ‘known’ evidence.

Your posts about height and weight are meaningless drivel. In a fight, height and weight is never ‘meaningless’ They (as with the original post about bench pressing weights) is still a red herring. "He's lighter than what the press reported, so he's inocent!" "No, wait a minute, the kid was lighter so HE must be the guilty one!" You bring up a topic and can't even figure out if heavy is good or if heavy is bad. Oh, I see, now you are saying to be in shape is BAD, and a guy who is not in shape is a victim. By the way, do you know what condition Zimmerman is or is not in? Persoanlly I do not know and I don't care, but you seem to believe that he must be out of shape because that increases his victim status.

As to prejudging, I have done none of it as far as Zimmerman goes. You’re a liar As far as the majority of posters on here I don't have to, their comments condemn themselves. The bigots are quite ready to give Zimmerman a medal and declair him a national hero because he shot a thuggish black boy.

If you don't see bias and racial stereotyping in this thread it is only because you don't want to.You’re a liar if you believe you haven’t prejudged Zimmerman based on racial stereotyping . . . since I'm posting on HERE, my comments are directed to the posters HERE, many of whom look only at skin color to tell who is right and who is wrong--just as they are accusing the press of doing. They just don't agree on which color is which. You are the one focusing on ‘skin color’. All together, your posts reveal your predisposed bias against Zimmerman: by your own standard you are being ‘racist’![/quote] http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...0&postcount=75

[quote=Old-T;2443236] Folks on here can regurgitate all they want, I still think many (not all) of them are giving Zimmerman a pass because he was the less black of the two You automatically assume all Southerners are racists, but you don’t know the race or the birth place of most who post here. So that makes you the truly ignorant one here, Old-goaT. [/quote] http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=137

[quote=Old-T;2443236] When you are carrying a gun you don't have to throw a punch to threaten someone, do you?

And when you are carrying a gun you don't need to speak a lot to threaten someone either. Your assertion that Zimmerman pulled his pistol and threatened Martin is contrary to ‘known’ evidence. [/quote] http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=179

[quote=Old-T;2443236] I don't know wo attacked whom--as I have said a number of times. The questions you ask are exactly the ones I believe need to be asked and addressed in public.

I DO think the dead guy has the right (moral, not legal) to a trial in this case just as much as the live guy does.Zimmerman has a right to a trial by his peers and not to be publicly tried and convicted by the MSM – and executed by the NBBP IF Zimmerman was in macho-mode then in his mind he wasn't about to commit a crime, even if it went down the way it did. I have never sai I In that mindset he may well have believed he was the empowered hero, so calling 911 would be perfectly reasonable to him. [/quote] http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=183

Face it Old-goaT, you are an MSM, Kool-Aid drinking biased, and you won’t admit it.

[Old-T]

Well, I suppose it was too unrealistic for me to think you would keep to you new found victims on here.

Your posts are so asinine I won't spend a lot of time going through your delusions and lies line by line. YOU are not worth more than five minutes of my time.

I did not berated Zimmerman because he is Hispanic, and I never said he was not Hispanic--but truth has no meaning to you so you lie with no guilt at all.

"all together" my posts do not show what you wish they would show; they show that I am sick of the right wing wackos who are overly represented on here. I would be just as vocal against left wing wackos, but they are harder to find on Eccie. I have to look elsewhere to needle them.

I quite clearly stated I do NOT consider all Southerners to be racist--you ignore little words like "not" when you care to, just like you seem ignorant of a small word spelled "I F". But I stand by my personal experience that I find more racism among Southerners. Are you going to say I don't have a right to my opinion about what I have experienced first hand? (Actually you will, but that's just you). I have only called a few specific people racists on here, and all of them based upon their posts, not their skin. But you claim I'm prejudiced against Hispanics without knowing my ethnicity (though I have dropped a hint or two) and you see no issue with that--nor do you see your complete hypocritical self.

You work very hard at being a jerk, a liar, a hypocrite (I've yet to see your righteous indignation at those folks who have applauded Zimmerman's activities before the trial, even though I've pointed them out to you). Years and years of practice have made you quite good at it.

Enjoy your miserable life, wallowing in hate for anyone who thinks differently than you do. I wonder how many hours a day you sit and fume at the world from your little existence.

For as much time you spend posting and droning and trying to convince everyone we should bow down to your superior intellect, you can't have time for a JOB. What an irony it would be if you were one of those welfare recipients you hate so much.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I quite clearly stated I do NOT consider all Southerners to be racist--you ignore little words like "not" when you care to, just like you seem ignorant of a small word spelled "I F". These are your words, Old-goaT: But I stand by my personal experience that I find more racism among Southerners. Are you going to say I don't have a right to my opinion about what I have experienced first hand? (Actually you will, but that's just you). I have only called a few specific people racists on here, and all of them based upon their posts, not their skin. But you claim I'm prejudiced against Hispanics without knowing my ethnicity (though I have dropped a hint or two) and you see no issue with that--nor do you see your complete hypocritical self. Cite where I posted my ethnicity, Old-goaT. HINT: it was before your time in this forum, so how do you presume to know my ethnicity?

These are some more of your words, Old-goaT: Most my comments are really directed much more at the posters on this board, many of whom have a very deep down burn on the back of their necks. I know a lot of southerners are still mad they lost the civil war--and a lot of us non-southerners are mad they lost too.
You work very hard at being a jerk, a liar, a hypocrite, You are everything if not worse than what you are calling me. (I've yet to see your righteous indignation at those folks who have applauded Zimmerman's activities before the trial, even though I've pointed them out to you). Years and years of practice have made you quite good at it. Zimmerman was the one being unjustly crucified by the MSM, and then you joined in spewing forth the MSM swill as if it was the gospel truth. Plus, you had the audacity to claim you were being "non-judgmental". "Non-judgmental!?! Bullshit! You are the definition of a liar and a hypocrite, Old-goaT. Then, every time someone disagrees with you, Old-goaT, you immediately call them a 'racist' -- more of your 'non-judgmental' bullshit.
Enjoy your miserable life, wallowing in hate for anyone who thinks differently than you do. I wonder how many hours a day you sit and fume at the world from your little existence.

For as much time you spend posting and droning and trying to convince everyone we should bow down to your superior intellect, you can't have time for a JOB. What an irony it would be if you were one of those welfare recipients you hate so much.

Old-goaT, you are only lagging about 2.5 posts per day behind, but you are catching up!

So how much is YOUR 'welfare' check, Old-goaT?

[Old-T]

I never claimed to know your race, and I don't care. I said you (and a few others on here) are bigoted. Bigots come in all colors.

As to: "Most my comments are really directed much more at the posters on this board, many of whom have a very deep down burn on the back of their necks." Sure I said it. Get your dictionary out and look up the word "many". If you think there are few to no rednecks in todays south you are too stupid for words.

"Zimmerman was the one being unjustly crucified" Yep, that's right, good ol' IB the anti-judging vigilante is whacking on the dead guy in a very pre-judgmental way. But Martin is DEAD, but that's a minor inconvenience to you. No surprise! You are fine with pre-judging Martin because YOU prejudged him, and people who jump to the same conclusion you do are beyond reproach. I've pointed out numerous opportunities but now the real IB comes out and admits prejudging is just fine so long as it the prejudging agrees with your all-knowing judgment. More IB BS.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

"Zimmerman was the one being unjustly crucified" Yep, that's right, good ol' IB the anti-judging vigilante is whacking on the dead guy in a very pre-judgmental way. But Martin is DEAD, but that's a minor inconvenience to you. No surprise! You are fine with pre-judging Martin because YOU prejudged him, and people who jump to the same conclusion you do are beyond reproach. I've pointed out numerous opportunities but now the real IB comes out and admits prejudging is just fine so long as it the prejudging agrees with your all-knowing judgment. More IB BS.

Yeah. Martin is dead. Just before he was shot, two witnesses (three counting Z) claimed Martin was beating the shit out of Z. That's a documented fact: not 'prejudging'. No doubt while Z was having his head beat against the pavement, he really didn’t think about the ‘future’ ‘political’ implications of shooting his assailant. Yet the MSM more than insinuated Z chased Martin down and shot him in cold blood. When the MSM claimed the victim was 14 year old child: that was a lie. When the MSM published employed a picture of a 14 year old Martin and Z’s five year old mug shot with Z in an orange jumpsuit: that was a distortion. When the MSM claimed Z made hundreds of 911 calls in one year: that was a lie. When the MSM claimed Z weighed 250 and Martin weighed only 140: that was a lie. When the MSM claimed Z was "proffering" Martin's race based on an edited 911 tape: that was a fraud and a lie. When the MSM proffered grainy surveillance images as ‘proof’ Z had no injures: that was a lie. When the MSM claimed Z used a racial slur in the 911 call: that was a lie. When you and the MSM claimed Z stalked Martin after being told not to do so, you and they were jumping to conclusions not supported by known facts; therefore, you and they were being judgmental, and when you and they advanced it as ‘fact’, you and they lied. So when you came into this forum repeating those lies, you de facto became a liar. And you lied you when you claimed you were not ‘judgmental’.

[Cpalmson]

I'm so sick of the black community DEMANDING justice everytime a young black kid dies under unusual circumstances. The problem is the politicians can't help themselves as they seek to get rid of the stink of being called a racist. It is worse if the politician involved is a Republican. For full disclosure, I'm card carrying Republican, so I'm pissed at my own party when they pander to minorities. It is shameless and disgusting. Simply put, no special prosecutor should have EVER been assigned. By assigning a special prosecutor, the die is cast. Of course they are going to charge Zimmerman-- which was utterly useless after the police determined an arrest was not needed. Enter some naive GOP governor who wants the black vote in the next election. Doesn't Gov. Scott know that blacks only vote for DemoRATS because the black preachers and civil rights leaders tell the blacks for whom to vote. Zimmerman's freedom should not be in jeopardy. But it is because of race and politics.

The sad thing is that we have seen this shit before. Back a few years ago, a young black kid died in juvenile boot camp down in Florida. It was just the same as the Zimmerman case. All the usual suspects got all up in arms with the "blame whitey" for this death. Back then, another GOP governor (Jeb Bush) decided to appoint a special prosecutor to "investigate" the situation. Again the die was cast as several corrections officers and the nurse at the juvenile facility were put on trial for manslaughter. Thankfully, the smart jury saw completely through the political charade and came back with a not guilty verdict. The shame though was that the lilly-white Florida legislature in some idiotic sense of "white-guilt" approved a settlement with the family in the millions of dollars. Why did that kid die? He died because he was a juvenile offender and his family didn't disclose a genetic disorder. In essence, the family is guilty of the kid's death because they were poor parents and ignorant to report a complete medical records to authorities.

We also saw this same racial bias in the Duke La cross case. Those kids were put through the ringer because of the lies of a black "victim". It was ironic that the state leaders in that case actually apologized profusely to the falsely accused.

I just hope the judge tosses the case come the next hearing. There was no crime here.