• 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.

Zimmerman 2nd degree murder

Alan Dershowitz says the 2nd degree murder charge is bogus, and there is no probable cause. This is just a railroad job, over-charging a defendant and hoping for a plea bargain, unethical but the usual tactic of prosecutors. That way the 'system' can pretend to be 'serving justice' by tossing the racist mobs a sacrifice, and cover up the fact that the state utterly failed to protect towns like Sanford from anarchy and criminal predators. With a rating of 3 out of 100, 100 being safest, the town would have been under martial law long before Martin assaulted Zimmerman and got himself shot in any civilized country, or even most uncivilized ones, but we know it's about Zimmerman being the wrong color, not 'justice', so why elaborate.

Here he is discussing it on MSNBC

Dershowitz: The charging instrument filed against George Zimmerman is “unethical” and will never make it past a judge « Hot Air
 
Whoa there!

Dershowitz is a Harvard Law prof. He didn't just fall off a banana truck

Never said he did. But, he is not an insider and may be missing something. We don't know. And frankly, very knowledgeable and smart people have on occasion been wrong.

But, I wasn't addressing him. I'm addressing you're "we all know" comment, which is a very different issue altogether.
 
You still watching MSNBC for unbiased news reporting? It made it past one judge already.

Nope... I haven't watched Hardball in 10 years and if I want news I can trust, NBC is not where I would go.
 
Never said he did. But, he is not an insider and may be missing something. We don't know.

You don't have to be an insider to discuss problems with the probable cause document as released by the prosecutor. I don't think he was talking about the evidence, as much as what she included and left out of the document.
 
You don't have to be an insider to discuss problems with the probable cause document as released by the prosecutor. I don't think he was talking about the evidence, as much as what she included and left out of the document.

So you are one of those that would have preferred Corey to do nothing and just let it go to the GJ? That would have been the easier route and she wouldn't receive the slack she is now.
 
one does not say they are going to be seeking justice - in which the possibility that the person being tried will be found 'not guilty' - and then make statements biased against the person being charged

what does the prospective juror think if they heard corey's remark that "the state is seeking justice for trayvon martin"
if she had stopped at saying the sate is seeking justice in this matter, no problem. it was when she effectively said this trial is to be a form of retribution for the loss of life that travon martin suffered, her objectivity - and that of the state, conducting the trial, was lost

You are confusing justice with retribution. Here in America justice is served whether the defendant is found guilty or not. Do you have another system in mind?
 
Never said he did. But, he is not an insider and may be missing something. We don't know. And frankly, very knowledgeable and smart people have on occasion been wrong.

But, I wasn't addressing him. I'm addressing you're "we all know" comment, which is a very different issue altogether.

Nonetheless, his arguments are very compelling plus Corey should know these procedures and strictly adhere to them at all times.

I have this *feeling* she's gonna **** up on a technicality with her over the top aggressiveness
 
So you are one of those that would have preferred Corey to do nothing and just let it go to the GJ? That would have been the easier route and she wouldn't receive the slack she is now.

I actually do think she should have let it go to the GJ, even though she clearly didn't need to. Without myself having seen much of the evidence, I would assume she probably could have gotten the indictment form the GJ, which would have taken the (accusations) of a political motivation out of the equation. However, that's really not the point.

The point was that a respected legal expert who would not be necessarily expected to be biased in this direction, has come out and said the arresting document was not well done. He specifically mentioned problems with it. I personally respect him for that decision. Now, had it been a right wing legal expert that said that, I would not have given the opion the same weight.
 
The point was that a respected legal expert who would not be necessarily expected to be biased in this direction, has come out and said the arresting document was not well done. He specifically mentioned problems with it. I personally respect him for that decision. Now, had it been a right wing legal expert that said that, I would not have given the opion the same weight.
I just want to say that our legal system has been getting away with, and allowing this type of crap to be acceptable, for a long time.
I would hope that this sheds light on the topic, and our congress critters take notice. But I know they wont.
No one in the correct position really cares that such crap is acceptable.
 
So stalking and pursuing an unarmed man who you find "suspicious" and shooting him dead does not show probable cause? Dershowitz is nothing but a publicity hound.
There was no stalking and pursuing.
You are making things up.
 
You don't have to be an insider to discuss problems with the probable cause document as released by the prosecutor. I don't think he was talking about the evidence, as much as what she included and left out of the document.

Didn't say you did. Again, I'm addressing a very specific comment. Everything should be within that context. He said "we all know" what was being done. We don't. Some have formed opinions, but that is not the same as knowing.
 
Nonetheless, his arguments are very compelling plus Corey should know these procedures and strictly adhere to them at all times.

I have this *feeling* she's gonna **** up on a technicality with her over the top aggressiveness

They may be. That's another issue. As it is what Corey did or didn't do, how strong or weak her case is, and whether she will **** up or not. We we all don't know anything.

;)
 
Whoa there!

Dershowitz is a Harvard Law prof. He didn't just fall off a banana truck

He is a man of many parts (as are all of us) and to his credit he is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports its repeal. Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds, and maintains that consumption of pornography is not harmful, which would tend to indicate liberal (in the proper sense of the word) leanings. On the other hand, he is a bigoted champion of Israel and most things Jewish. Norman Finkelstein wrote that "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence—except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it. Dershowitz advocates the use of 'non-lethal' torture, and recommends the issuance of torture warrants in the case of suspected terrorists. He has many qualities, but I would not describe him as a man of absolute impartiality.
 
Didn't say you did. Again, I'm addressing a very specific comment. Everything should be within that context. He said "we all know" what was being done. We don't. Some have formed opinions, but that is not the same as knowing.

I agreed with your comment regarding the statement of "We all know", which is why I didn't address that in my post. Instead, I only addressed your comment that Dershowitz was not an insider to the case, which strongly implies that his comment doesn't have much bearing. However, being an insider is not required in order to reach a conclusion that the arresting document was crap -which is all he did. He did not really address the specifics or deatils ofthe evidence.
 
Last edited:
Being an attorney, he may have qualified his statements in ways that are not being reported here. idk. Just guessing.

Actually he based it on reading the affidavit, particularly re probable cause, and the evidence.

Of course, he might not have seen as many episodes of Law And Order, or CSI, to be considered as qualified to comment, according to Message Board wisdom, and naturally there is always all kinds of evidence discovered on those shows as the investigation continues, they have an hour so for the writers to fill up with all kinds of dazzling plot twists between commercials, so we know there just has to be a lot more evidence out there, especially since the actual evidence doesn't get Zimmerman the electric chair in an election year.
 
He is a man of many parts (as are all of us) and to his credit he is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports its repeal. Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds, and maintains that consumption of pornography is not harmful, which would tend to indicate liberal (in the proper sense of the word) leanings. On the other hand, he is a bigoted champion of Israel and most things Jewish. Norman Finkelstein wrote that "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence—except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it. Dershowitz advocates the use of 'non-lethal' torture, and recommends the issuance of torture warrants in the case of suspected terrorists. He has many qualities, but I would not describe him as a man of absolute impartiality.

Lol ... how dare a 'liberal' actually defy PC Orthodoxy and antisemitism by supporting those Jooooooossssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, that alone makes him utterly untrustworthy.

And lol at citing Norman Finklestein; yes, there's real 'scholar'. Can't get tenure, because hey, claiming to be a 'Mid East Scholar' while not speaking a single Middle Eastern language is no big deal if Noam Chomsky likes you, eh, so it has to be AIPAC keeping the mutt out of a job, and not his insane ravings, right? lol ...
 
On the other hand, he is a bigoted champion of Israel and most things Jewish. Norman Finkelstein wrote that "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence—except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it. Dershowitz advocates the use of 'non-lethal' torture, and recommends the issuance of torture warrants in the case of suspected terrorists. He has many qualities, but I would not describe him as a man of absolute impartiality.

LOL....Godwin's law surfacing from below
 
By the evidence that is known to us, yes we do know.

No, we don't. We don't know what happened at the curical moments. We really don't.
 
I agreed with your comment regarding the statement of "We all know", which is why I didn't address that in my post. Instead, I only addressed your comment that Dershowitz was not an insider to the case, which strongly implies that his comment doesn't have much bearing. However, being an insider is not required in order to reach a conclusion that the arresting document was crap -which is all he did. He did not really address the specifics or deatils ofthe evidence.

It speaks to the fact there may be evidence and information he is not aware of. Most opinions can logically change if they have more or different information.
 
It speaks to the fact there may be evidence and information he is not aware of. Most opinions can logically change if they have more or different information.

Again, he wasn't addressing the evidence or who was guilty or innocent. He was simply addressing the arresting document.
 
Back
Top Bottom