• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Did politics drive prosecution in Trayvon Martin case?

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Did politics drive prosecution in Trayvon Martin case?

By Mark NeJame, CNN Contributor
updated 5:02 PM EDT, Tue June 19, 2012


Editor's note: Mark NeJame is a CNN legal analyst and contributor and has practiced law, mainly as a criminal defense attorney, for more than 30 years. He is the founder and senior partner of NeJame, LaFay, Jancha, Ahmed, Barker and Joshi, P.A., in Orlando. Follow him on Twitter: @marknejame


(CNN) -- Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz recently claimed that Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, who charged George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, threatened to sue Dershowitz for libel and slander and to have him disbarred.

[...]

According to this account, she went into a "40-minute rant" about how she could sue Harvard for his comments. She apparently was reminded that Dershowitz had a right to his opinion and that his comments were a matter of academic freedom. I hope that she was also sent a copy of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[...]

Corey, Dershowitz and I all might have varying interpretations of the law, but because Corey disagrees with Dershowitz, it surely doesn't subject him to being sued by her. If Corey made that threat, it's frightening for a prosecutor in power to act that way and smacks of prosecutorial overreaching in an effort to chill any critics. Corey has not publicly responded to Dershowitz's claim.

[...]
Did politics drive prosecution in Trayvon Martin case? - CNN.com







Just keeps looking worse for Corey.
I have to agree with this CNN legal analyst. Especially with the question he raises about the original prosecutor.


I am willing to say that Corey's that this case will be nothing but a black mark on her record.
 
It's a no-brainer. We really didn't need Dershowitz to point out the obvious.
 
It has been brought to may attention that this article was previously posted by buck, in a thread that I do not have access to at this time.

My apologies if you feel I was trying to usurp an article that you originally posted.
 
This is probably best characterized as a "Casey Anthony" type case where the hard cold truth will probably never been known.
 
This is probably best characterized as a "Casey Anthony" type case where the hard cold truth will probably never been known.
I understand that you do not believe there is enough information to draw any conclusions about this case.
Yet that information basically says you are wrong.
 
I understand that you do not believe there is enough information to draw any conclusions about this case.
Yet that information basically says you are wrong.

Of course I am. I'm just so grateful that you are the one to make that assessment. It brings joy to my heart! After all - you know everything there is to know about everything.
 
It sure want's you to think twice about joing neighborhood watch.
Move to Texas as they have law and order.
 
This is probably best characterized as a "Casey Anthony" type case where the hard cold truth will probably never been known.

The purpose of trials is not, and was never, *to find out what happened*


Get real
 
a man kills a young man under very questionable circumstances, and he doesn't face any criminal charges whatsoever?

that is what caused the uproar.

however, he should not be charged with Murder 2. That was a mistake.
 
a man kills a young man under very questionable circumstances, and he doesn't face any criminal charges whatsoever?

that is what caused the uproar.

however, he should not be charged with Murder 2. That was a mistake.

He will not be convicted of anything, in fact this case may not go to trial.
 
He will not be convicted of anything, in fact this case may not go to trial.

oh, he will MOST CERTAINLY be convicted of Manslaughter.

and if he opens his big mouth on the witness stand, his own stupid words are likely to get him convicted of Murder.
 
Of course I am. I'm just so grateful that you are the one to make that assessment. It brings joy to my heart! After all - you know everything there is to know about everything.
As you were told before, save your condescension.
You have no reason to purposely be blind.
The evidence, and what we know about it, says you are wrong.



a man kills a young man under very questionable circumstances, and he doesn't face any criminal charges whatsoever?

that is what caused the uproar.

however, he should not be charged with Murder 2. That was a mistake.
This is not "questionable circumstance".
It is you not believing the circumstances, that just happen to be consistent with Zimmerman's account.
That is a big difference.



He will not be convicted of anything, in fact this case may not go to trial.
You may be right.
By all accounts he shouldn't have been charged.

But with people like Corey at the helm, there will always be miscarriages of justice



oh, he will MOST CERTAINLY be convicted of Manslaughter.
Bet?
 
...This is not "questionable circumstance".
It is you not believing the circumstances, that just happen to be consistent with Zimmerman's account.
That is a big difference....

he stalked a young man, and then ends up shooting him dead in self-defense?

that is questionable.
 
Yeah...this whole show is political.

I kind of feel sorry for Corey. On the one hand, if she doesn't get involved she risks Zimmerman being let off the hook with the resulting turmoil from blacks. On the other, if she continues to go after Zimmerman, she risks extreme damage to her own career.

Sucks to be her, I guess.
 
he stalked a young man, and then ends up shooting him dead in self-defense?

that is questionable.
And there you go again with that false narrative.
It is not questionable.
You have made that up in your own mind.

He did not stalk Tryavon.
And he shot Trayvon in self-defense because Trayvon had attacked him and repeatedly slammed his head into the ground.
 
Last edited:
And there you go again with that false narrative.
It is not questionable.
You have made that up in your own mind.

He did not stalk Tryavon.
And he shot Trayvon in self-defense because Trayvon had attacked him and repeatedly slammed his head into the ground.

He stalked him like a ****ing Cheetah. That no limit gringo was ****ing chasing like a lion and Martin was a gazelle. It's obvious if you look at the evidence. The evidence says you are wrong. Derp.
 
Martin was a gazelle. It's obvious if you look at the evidence. The evidence says you are wrong. Derp.
:doh
Derp, is right!
The evidence does say you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
he stalked a young man, and then ends up shooting him dead in self-defense?

that is questionable.

Theres no stalking offense. The DA/SP has not and will not go with, the stalking charge because *legally* it simply does not apply in this case

Do you understand? You making yourself a bigger fool by repeating such nonsense.

Admit your errors and move forward. Try to learn from your mistakes
 
In my opinion, if you kill another human being, the very least that should be asked of you is that you stand tall before a jury of your peers and explain yourself no matter what the circumstances were. For a case like this where we have such conflicting evidence, absolutely, of course, you go to trial. If he's innocent, by all means, I hope he goes free. But that isn't something we just leave to some cop's intuition. That is what our court system is for.
 
In my opinion, if you kill another human being, the very least that should be asked of you is that you stand tall before a jury of your peers and explain yourself no matter what the circumstances were. For a case like this where we have such conflicting evidence, absolutely, of course, you go to trial. If he's innocent, by all means, I hope he goes free. But that isn't something we just leave to some cop's intuition. That is what our court system is for.

Thats what a grand jury is for. Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone should be charged with a crime.

The prosecutor wasn’t required to go to the grand jury for the indictment, but the fact that she didn’t in such a prominent case is worrisome and troublesome

Too much power in one person's hands leads to corruption in any position
 
Thats what a grand jury is for. Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone should be charged with a crime.

The prosecutor wasn’t required to go to the grand jury for the indictment, but the fact that she didn’t in such a prominent case is worrisome and troublesome

Too much power in one person's hands leads to corruption in any position

Choosing to take something to trial isn't really an exercise of personal power. That's the option to let the courts decide. The only real personal power a prosecutor has is the discretion not to go to trial. IMO that would be insane to just assert one's personal authority to prevent a high profile murder trial from reaching the court.

Theoretically she could have requested a grand jury, but in Florida they don't usually use one unless it is 1st degree murder, which she isn't charging Zimmerman with.
 
Theres no stalking offense. The DA/SP has not and will not go with, the stalking charge because *legally* it simply does not apply in this case

Do you understand? You making yourself a bigger fool by repeating such nonsense.

Admit your errors and move forward. Try to learn from your mistakes
Hear hear!


following someone in your car and on foot, while making angry statements to yourself, is indeed stalking.
(See above)
In addition, your narrative is off.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon for a legitimate reason. That is not stalking.
And speaking words of frustration, matters not.




In my opinion, if you kill another human being, the very least that should be asked of you is that you stand tall before a jury of your peers and explain yourself no matter what the circumstances were. For a case like this where we have such conflicting evidence, absolutely, of course, you go to trial. If he's innocent, by all means, I hope he goes free. But that isn't something we just leave to some cop's intuition. That is what our court system is for.


Choosing to take something to trial isn't really an exercise of personal power. That's the option to let the courts decide. The only real personal power a prosecutor has is the discretion not to go to trial. IMO that would be insane to just assert one's personal authority to prevent a high profile murder trial from reaching the court.

Theoretically she could have requested a grand jury, but in Florida they don't usually use one unless it is 1st degree murder, which she isn't charging Zimmerman with.

The law should be followed.

Florida has a law whichgives those like Zimmerman complete immunity.
You do not charge someone or let the Courts decide it when they have immunity.
 
Zimmerman followed Trayvon for a legitimate reason. That is not stalking....

Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them

Stalking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

following someone because you think they are an asshole and a ****ing punk, is indeed stalking.
 
Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them

Stalking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

following someone because you think they are an asshole and a ****ing punk, is indeed stalking.
lol
Holy ****.

Now you even have the reason he followed Trayvon wrong.

Grasping!

It is not stalking.
 
Back
Top Bottom