Posted on 07/25/2013 3:53:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The trauma nurses who took care of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after his arrest have a straightforward explanation. “I don’t get to pick and choose my patients,” one told the Boston Globe.
The three public defenders assigned to Tsarnaev would have been similarly constrained. But what about the two prominent defense lawyers who have offered their services? Why choose to represent a man accused of turning the Boston Marathon finish line into a war zone?
Likewise, how can the lawyers representing Cleveland’s Ariel Castro fight for the alleged serial kidnapper and rapist? And what about the attorneys for the recently acquitted but still controversial George Zimmerman? Do they really believe he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in shooting an unarmed teen?
I have been a criminal defense lawyer for more than 30 years, first as a public defender and now as a law professor running a criminal defense clinic. My clients have included a young man who gunned down his neighbor in front of her 5-year-old daughter while trying to steal her car, a man who beat a young woman to death for failing to alert drug associates that police were coming and a woman who smothered her baby for no apparent reason. These are the kinds of cases that prompt people to ask: “How can you represent those people?” All criminal defense lawyers are asked this; it’s such a part of the criminal defense experience that it’s simply known as “the question.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Zimmerman is the Regime’s Goldstein.
My guess... Zimmerman might end up being the left’s nemesis. They look stupider and stupider piling up on him.
I can imagine that it is the sort of thing that would make your career if you succeed and generate publicity even if you fail, since you’d have a pretty good excuse.
My understanding is that the system really requires that EVERYONE have the best defense possible; if they are truly guilty the truth will out, unless the cops/prosecutor made a mistake.
“Better to have 100 SKM’s or Mansons walk free than one innocent person be punished” as my lawyer friends put it.
They aren't subtle. They really don't have to be.
How about “What motivates a reporter to write for a rag like The Washington Post?”
I think it must be hard to be a criminal defense attorney. But they are essential rocks against a tyrannical state. The State must be put to the test of proving guilt. DA’s have enormous power. Without being put to the test, out of control DA’s (and there are plenty of examples) will exercise that power for evil. Power will inevitably be abused.
That’s why I get so torqued at DA’s who overcharge and then pleading a defendant down to what they really wanted. It’s lazy and very prone to abuse. It’s a very serious watering down of the protection of right to trial by jury.
My observation is that only the extremes of the right or left really care. Most people I know feel he should have followed the advice of 911 and only observed, but also that Treyyvon was up to no good.
It makes good journalistic theater but I don’t know anyone personally who actually cares. One thug, one wannabe cop, IMHO.
I mean good thug=dead thug but what if someone shoots you or me and then claims ‘stand your ground’?
It would be very interesting what would happen to the law if it would be possible to “overdefend” as well. Like get damages back if your innocence can be shown to a “preponderance of the evidence.”
They know he is innocent but they do not care.
Well it was a risk, but GZ didn’t commit any crime and it seems the reason he was out of his truck is that he was looking for a street sign or house number to tell the NON emergency dispatcher, who ASKED the information, where he was.
The problem has been the focus on irrelevant arguments – some of which are actually unsupported by the evidence.
1. ‘GZ racially profiled TM’ There is no evidence of this.
2. ‘GZ disobeyed an order by the police’ * First off, it wasn’t “9-1-1” it was the non-emergency number. The civilian dispatcher, Sean Noffke, testified that he did not give GZ an order and, in fact, he, like his fellow dispatchers, are trained not make comments that sound like commands. * Noffke also testified under cross that, as a result of his asking GZ which way TM was going, GZ could have reasonably interpreted this as being asked to follow Martin. * It is also not a crime in Florida to disregard a comment made by a civilian dispatcher.
3. ‘GZ got out of his car’ Not a crime on public property and not negligent either.
4. ‘GZ followed TM’ Again, anyone can follow anyone on a public street unless the followee has obtained a restraining order against the follower and even there, the RS only places time, place, and manner restrictions on the person enjoined.
5. ‘GZ wasn’t really injured’ * Under Florida’s self-defense laws, one doesn’t have to be injured AT ALL to use deadly force * No one is required to refrain from defending himself while another is engaged in or attempting to commit a felony.
6. ‘TM is dead through no fault of his own’ * If you believe that TM assaulted GZ, then he IS dead as a result of his own actions.
7. ‘GZ could have left’ * Under Florida law, there is not a duty to withdraw rather than use deadly force * TM was straddling GZ so how the latter was supposed to leave the scene is unanswered.
8. ‘GZ was armed and TM wasn’t’ * One’s fists can be considered weapons and can result in severe bodily harm or death. * GZ was legally carrying a weapon * There is no requirement under the law that the same weapon be used by the assailant * A homeowner can kill an intruder whether or not he has been threatened * Those that attack cannot feign surprise if they are met with superior firepower.
9. ‘Stand Your Ground!’ * SYG is NOT at issue in this trial. * The defense is a classic self-defense case.
10. ‘Black men NEVER get to use SYG!’ * Wrong http://tinyurl.com/nboht35
11. ‘GZ is a man and TM was a boy!’ * As if ‘boys’ don’t commit murder, rape, and assault everyday in this country.
Scumbags, Why not line him up with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot?
Sheesh
I think you hit the nail on the head. Appearing in a widely publicized case is a time honored way to get advertisement. It used to be lawyers were forbidden to advertise so they would run for office, do pro bono work, take on a widely talked about matter etc.
> “And what about the attorneys for the recently acquitted but still controversial George Zimmerman? Do they really believe he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in shooting an unarmed teen?”
Disgusting.
Very well stated, succinct summary. Thank you.
Life's tough, then you die.
The choice is actually: should you limit the power of the state or should you not?
To paraphrase Winston Churchill:
You have been offered the choice between liberty and security, you have chosen dishonor and you shall have tyranny.
What motivates a journalist to write for Hustler, the National Perspirer, or the Washington Post?
The thugs on the left have gone so far over the limits of decency that they are no longer entitled to a presumption of legitimacy. The far left fringe can compel us to do only what they have to power to enforce. They will get no willing compliance or cooperation from me.
Aren’t they clever...
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.