Posted on 04/13/2012 2:57:34 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
I strongly disagree with David French’s analysis. I’m inclined, instead, to agree with commentators ranging from former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin to Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz that the affidavit is stunningly weak — “unethical,” as Prof. Dershowitz puts it. In fact, I go further (which, after nearly 20 years of writing and supervising the writing of complaint affidavits, I think I’m qualified to do). This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop: invoking, for example, the explosive term “profiled” but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people don’t get hassled).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
A person who feels threatened enough may, in fact, initiate combat if they feel that the situation is rapidly deteriorating. That doesn't mean they are the aggressor.
then I doubt that either the judge, prosecutor, or defense would seat you. The only mindset acceptable would give the message:
"I will only know when I have heard all the testimony to be given."
In truth, pretty much whatever you have heard on this website or other media outlet is hearsay; and not fit, no matter how compelling, for causing one to be swayed from neutrality in the matter as regarding jury service. N'est ce pas?"
I am a scientist, not a lawyer, and my language reflects that. Scientists are not trained to say, "I'll wait until I see all the evidence to make up my mind." We are trained to express possibilities as a means of both saying that we don't have enough facts to decide, and of suggesting the kind of evidence that would enable a decision. That is what I did. Although maybe I was too certain in saying that I don't think this is a case of intentional murder.
I've no doubt that if I were being questioned as a part of jury selection, the lawyers would have all kinds of questions.
Yes, I understand, and again that’s one of the scenarios that first came to my mind a few weeks ago. But now, knowing quite a bit more detail about the timeline and locations, I just have a very hard time fitting that to the known facts.
Again, Martin was completely out of Zimmerman’s sight with more than enough time to walk home before Zimmerman’s call ended. Yet the shooting took place at nearly that exact spot five minutes later. He did not move at all.
I think we also need to consider what would actually be a reasonable assumption by either man under the circumstances, as well.
Martin, knowing he is a stranger in this neighborhood, has just seconds earlier walked past the “Neighborhood Watch, suspicious persons will be reported to the police” sign at the gate. The person he sees is in a vehicle inside the gate. His first reaction is to approach the vehicle, not run away. If he saw this person on the phone, given the facts above, would “gang member calling for reinforcements” really be the natural thing to assume?
By the time they are face to face, what does Zimmerman know? This guy was loitering in the rain, took off when he saw I was on the phone, and now, five minutes later, he’s still waiting for me right where I last saw him. What’s the reasonable assumption for him? Maybe that his initial suspicion was justified?
Al I am saying is that the one thing we know Martin did not do is try to run home. Another thing we can safely assume is that neither answered the other’s question. And I have a hard time jumping from that to second degree murder.
DeeDee’s Mom says she had never seen DeeDee so upset after she was informed she was the last to speak w/ TM. So upset she had to be hospitialized. Think about that, more upset than when she learned of his death. More likely it was that she could no longer keep secret she was on the phone. She’s going to have a tough time on the stand if it gets that far.
Yes, I read that, too. Zimmerman’s attorney will have to be careful cross-examining her. You’d have to think his questioning would try to point out that if she was so traumatized she had to be hospitalized, her recollections of the conversation are probably not that reliable. But he can’t appear to be picking on her.
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.