Posted on 07/16/2013 3:27:25 PM PDT by clintonh8r
Please indulge me in a very infrequent vanity. In all the uproar following the trial, I may have missed something. While I believe that the facts show Zimmerman's innocence beyond ANY doubt, I still think the state's case was hurt by what appeared to this layman to be an inept and incompetent prosecution. (Yes, I believe they are corrupt and unethical too, but that isn't the question here).
So here's my question: Has anyone on the left or any black organizations or leaders, had any criticism at all of the prosecution team? If they care so much about Trayvon, why haven't they criticized the poor case presented by the prosecution?
The facts in the case as related by witnesses for both the defense and prosecution only served to prove the defense's claim.
Mark O'Mara and Don West laid waste to the prosecution's case. I haven't seen a legal ass-kicking like that since Alan Gura tore Duke University law professor Walter E. Dellinger to shreds in oral argument before US Supreme Court in 'District of Columbia v. Heller' -- yet another case like 'State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman' in which everyone studying the arguments told the left wing they'd lose the case.
But, they wouldn't listen and went ahead with the case anyway.
BINGO
Wasn’t one of those jurors “Obama” Black? Seems to me there was.
Because they can criticize a lot of things, but complaining about someone else being incompetent is hitting too close to home for them.
Too much if this doesn’t make sense. I think that means we should probably be paying attention to what the other hand is doing.
It would not surprise me a whole lot if the jurors are subjected at least to IRS audits.
I get it but obviously you don’t. The mere fact that “they had nothing to prosecute” normally wouldn’t matter to somebody like Sharpton, who normally condemns everything in sight, yet he has let the prosecutors off the hook. Get it?
The prosecutor was unable to fabricate other evidence, so every question would backfire and exonerate Zimmerman. Thus he ignored areas and passed on things he thought would backfire the most.
It looked like incompetence, but it was desperation.
Trayvon wasn’t on trial therefore he did not deserve any jury of his peers. Jesse Jackson is an ass.
Your premise of incompetence is invalid. They were simply corrupt and unethical. When you have no evidence to work with, corrupt and unethical is all you have left.
All I'm trying to find out is if any of the lefties and black agitators/organizations have had anything to say about the conduct of the prosecution. I don't know why that's so difficult fot some here (not you, Chaguito) to grasp.
You are mistaking incompetence with corruption.
These prosecutors were not inept, they were crooked.
They tried to railroad man innocent man and they almost succeeded.
To chalk this acquittal up to prosecutorial incompetence is to suggest that they really had the goods on Zimmerman.
Don’t insult the jury by suggesting that they would have convicted Zimmerman if only the prosecution had done a better job. Given that they were trying to frame an innocent man, they did a bang up job.
Exactly. (On the comedic side, could you imagine a jury of Trayvon equivalents?)
The persecution was actually fairly clever at doing UNDERHANDED things (Brady violations during discovery, slipping in the charge of “child abuse” at the eleventh hour, low-blow comments in court, etc.
They had NOTHING. A justice oriented DA would have refused to prosecute this case, it was that bad.
So, granted they’re not the highest caliber of attornies (the “A” lawyers don’t become persecutors; the “C” lawyers do); but it’s not like the crooked immoral bastards didn’t try their best.
“Trayvon was denied a jury of his peers”.
See how dumb they are? Jesse thinks when a black is killed by a white man, or Hispanic, the jury should be black. If the killer is black the jury should be a black. According to him, the only time the jury should have any white people on it is when a cracker kills a cracker.
I’ve watched lawyer after lawyer point out that this jury could not relate to Rachel and Trayvon. They aren’t supposed to. They’re supposed to relate to Zimmerman.
“He went on to say that when a victim is black, the jury should also be black because “Trayvon was denied a jury of his peers”
“There WERE blacks in the jury pool and the prosecution didn’t want them.”
Idiot Je$$e: “jury of his peers” refers to the defendant!
Not even when a cracka kills a cracks. The Sharpton et al definition of Peer is Black.
If there had been blacks on the jury and Zimmerman was found not guilty, there’d be no reason to complain. So they went for 6 women with white guilt.
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.