Posted on 07/12/2013 7:17:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ya must admit somebody who can do that is in pretty decent shape!
Zimmerman ain’t no Olympian
WHOA!
“the prosecution also claims a person “in decent shape” can run a 4 minute mile.”
If you were being pursued by either the “Scheme Team” or the Persecutor, you would easily make a mile in four minutes.
Above and beyond the ridiculous circus acts and magic tricks, Bernie de la Rionda has to be the most irritating person to listen to, and I only listened for a few minutes. If I was on that jury and had to listen to him for days, I’d have made my mind up a long time ago that this prosecutor would not succeed.
I read about that in a nifty little book about the history of dueling called Gentleman's Blood. It seems that the Germans had a form of trial by combat to settle marital disputes. Since it was assumed that the husband had a natural advantage in combat with his wife, they would even things up by digging a pit up to the man's waist and putting him into it. The wife would then whack him with a sword or club while he was stuck in the hole. Sound familiar?
That's right. The prosecution has a very different role than the defense. And this is in the ethics rules. The prosecution isn't supposed to take every case to the mat. The prosecution represents the People with all the force of the government on its side. Prosecution is supposed to show restraint. In sharp contrast, the defense is supposed to use every tool in its kit, including confusing issues, throwing up dust, playing on Prosecutorial mistakes.
That's the way it is in our Common Law jurisprudence, and it's right and good, because the whole point of the system is to limit state power enough that we don't get Stalinism. And it works really well. It's a finely balanced thing and like I said there are ethical rules about all of this that lawyers, as officers of the court, are required to follow.
Here the prosecution clearly broke all the rules. The only reason they even filed the case is political pressure from the White House. They filed charges that they knew they couldn't prove from the get-go, again due to political pressure. And then they got up there on national television and had the nerve to argue "reasonable doubt" like a defense attorney. I listened to the closing argument yesterday. His talk was filled with things like "it's possible that" and "one way to see it is" and "the defense didn't prove that". It's just nuts. They're telling the jury that they should convict based on the fact that Trayvon Martin is young and black and George Zimmerman isn't, and they should convict even when they're admitting that there's reasonable doubt. In fact, they want to switch roles with the defense and force the defense to prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's unethical, pure and simple. They should face discipline for it. So should the judge for allowing this farce to go forward.
So I guess we no longer need the witnesses to swear to tell “the Truth the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth” either!
Sorry but when you are trained to deceive and your entire income depends upon how good you can deceive you are not a good human. The only thing which separates lying lawyers from lying muslims is at least for now, lawyers are not in the beheading business.
No lawyer should ever be elected to office as they have proven their ability to tell half truths and only when the full truth is presented can an intelligent decision be made.
There are those who will disagree with my position but FACTS prove me right and I am proven right every day our elected lying lawyers craft legislation intended to deceive.
Nobody can prove otherwise and the legislation is on the books for all those not too lazy to see.
Here’s the problem with your idea. It assumes that the “whole truth” is obvious and immediately apparent to any reasonably intelligent person.
This has unfortunately proven not to be so throughout history. That is why historically those governmental organizations based on conflict and debate, such as Parliament and the Roman Senate, have over time been more effective than their Greek or French God-King opponents.
The truth is more readily arrived at by two sides contending than by one person deciding.
Consider it a free market in ideas and policies, similar to a free market in goods and services.
The economic market works because WE DON’T KNOW what something is worth until the market tells us what it is worth.
The free market in ideas, including those intentionally and unintentionally planned to deceive, works because WE DON’T KNOW what “good policies” are until they’ve been thrashed out in the market of ideas.
This doesn’t mean either free market always produces the best possible results. Only that over time each produces a greater percentage of good results than any alternatives we’ve ever found.
IOW, the best way to arrive at a full truth is to have both sides present their “half truths.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.