I’ve said too much already.
You didn’t cite any odds. You said your money is on a not guilty verdict for Zimmerman. This, even though the guy ain’t even had his pre-trial hearing yet, let alone gone to trial. This, even though you don’t even know what evidence the State has of probable cause, let alone the evidence they’ll be using to secure a conviction.
Just admit you have your own biases, John. Just like anyone else. Same with Bricker. Same with anyone who tries to pass themselves off as more objective than thou. The only one you’re fooling with that nonsense is yourself.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Just admit you have your own biases, John. Just like anyone else. Same with Bricker. Same with anyone who tries to pass themselves off as more objective than thou. The only one you’re fooling with that nonsense is yourself.
[/QUOTE]
You do see the irony inherent in this statement, right? 
-XT
We all have biases. But my particular biases would lead me to the opposite conclusion if I were following them. I am pretty “anti-gun”, if you don’t know that. In fact, I’ve even proposed that the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. I would be happy to see much more restrictive gun laws and much harsher punishments for using a gun.
So, what biases are clouding my views here?
Point out the irony please. I’ve never said I don’t have my biases.
As far as I know, John didn’t say he had no bias either. He’s attempted to explain to you why he THINKS the ZM case will be thrown out, and your disagreement seems to stem almost completely from YOUR bias…at least that’s my impression on skimming this hijack portion of the thread anyway. So…the irony level is pretty high from where I’m sitting. Not off the scale, as this is the Straight Dope, but certainly enough to get a nice tan.
-XT
You never answered my earlier question, so I’ll repost it.
I think it’s very possible to look at what we know about Zimmerman’s case and reach conclusions about what happened without being blinded by basis. There’s nothing so exceptional about this case that should make us turn off our brains and declare it all a mystery.
Merely having a bias doesn’t mean you’ll be blinded. Believe it or not, it’s possible to be anti-gun and believe that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Just like it’s possible for flaming liberals from SC to believe that Edwards acted illegally. Just like its possible to be an LA cop and think that the Rodney King verdict was unjust.
I know, I know, this is crazy talk. It only seems that way if you refuse to accept that people can draw these conclusions using rational thought processes as opposed to being “blinded by bias”.
To answer your question: My point all along is not that you are blinded by bias. It’s that you shouldn’t be accusing BobLibDem of being blinded on the grounds that you have. You are just as confident in your own position of rightness as he is. If he’s a fool, then so are you.
As for the OP, Bricker is not, IMHO, a Jackass Extraordinaire. It takes years of refinement plus a vast natural talent to reach the pinnacle of Jackassery, and, sadly, Bricker just doesn’t have the talent for it nor the drive to reach the top. Only a select few can attain such heights.
-XT
Yes, it possible. I think a lot of people can do that.
But that was exactly the point I was making in my response to Bob posting this:
He’s knocking Bricker because he (Bricker) can see an angle where Zimmerman might not be guilty. He can’t accept that Bricker is just giving straight up legal advice because he’s convinced anyone who defends Zimmerman must be blinded by an “extreme right wing agenda”. I’m saying anyone who thinks that is blinded by his own bias. That’s bullshit of the highest order.
John, you wrote this:
(bolding mine)
The condescending objective-than-thou attitude that I’ve been railing about? It’s right here.
Well, you kind of have to quote the whole thing to get the full effect:
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I hate to tell you this, Bob, but if you think Zimmerman is guilty, then it’s your political bias that is blinding you from the facts in the case. He may well be guilty, but the prosecutor is going to have a very difficult job proving that. My money would be on a jury acquitting Zimmerman.
Yes, he shot the kid. But that’s not the question before the court. The question before the court is whether or not he broke the law. That’s for a jury to decide. And one thing about Bricker, is that if the jury finds him guilty, he won’t say he isn’t. Only the jury can decide that.
[/QUOTE]
And you have to put it in the context of what he was responding to from Bob:
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Bullshit. We’re talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client. Now that there’s a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda. Others may have the patience for his little pissant games of endlessly parsing words until his opponent wears himself out, but not me. He’s just a condescending little douche with a political compass that points in the wrong direction.
[/QUOTE]
It’s pretty obvious which of these positions is partisan based, and which is more thoughtful…at least to my completely unbiased and non-partisan view anyway.
-XT
Bob does think Zimmerman is guilty. To the point where he thinks only someone with an “extreme right wing” bias would defend him. That’s absurd.
If me calling him on that is “condescending”, then so be it. I have no problem being condescending when I think it’s appropriate.
And, as everyone knows, only non-partisan views are truly objective and free from bias. Which is probably why so many people are eager to present themselves as non-partisan. There are those, of course, who dispute this received wisdom, but they are partisan, and can be safely ignored, as their opinions are clouded by biases.
Once one attains this Olympic perfection of unbiased non-partisan objectivity, it becomes much easier to ascertain which opinions are biased and partisan: they are different from one’s own.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
And, as everyone knows, only non-partisan views are truly objective and free from bias. Which is probably why so many people are eager to present themselves as non-partisan. There are those, of course, who dispute this received wisdom, but they are partisan, and can be safely ignored, as their opinions are clouded by biases.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly! Glad we are on the same page there, old boy! As with being a Jackass Extraordinaire, one has to be both born with the talent AND work at it ceaselessly in order to develop it to it’s full potential.
A cut above, no doubt. The only problem I’ve found is the nose bleeds from sitting at those Olympian heights. The perfection part though just comes naturally.
-XT
There are two meanings of the word “guilty” at play here. One is more colloquial, and is used in a non-criminal law sense. “That guy sure is guilty”. “I think he’s guilty as hell”
The other meaning is a criminal law one. “He will be found guilty of the charges.” “He will not be found guilty because no crime can be proven in court.”
It’s amusing that the parties cannot figure this out. I can see it now:
“I think that dog took my burger. Look at him - he looks guilty as hell.”
“No, you’re wrong. The dog cannot be guilty because as an animal he cannot be charged, tried and convicted in court as he lacks the requisite intent. Also he’s not a human. Therefore you cannot call him guilty.”
The boy’s got heart, though. Plenty of heart.
I think most of us area aware of that. That’s not at the core of disagreement, though.
Here’s his most fully-formed statement on this subject. Taken from a full thread started to clarify his original statement where no less than two prosecutors and about three other defense attorneys weighed in saying that having spent time as a PD and never having had an innocent client was entirely plausible.
Depending on how long he was a PD, the police in his area, and the DA, I have no doubt this could very well be true. What do you suppose the percentage of false arrests are? Subtract the number which are never prosecuted. Subtract the number which have the personal resources to afford their own attorney(as opposed to having a PD appointed).
The Innocence Project has identified 289 cases of wrongful convictions in cases dating back about thirty years. The ratio of convictions versus exonerations is enormous and it’s why exonerations make the news. While any miscarriage of justice is a terrible thing, it’s not hard for me to believe they’re rare enough that a particular PD might not have been exposed to one in his time as a PD, especially if it was short.
One of my best friends is a part-time PD(country lawyer, does a bit of everything) and I just sent him this same question. He said “Maybe 1-2% actually innocent, but maybe 15-20% are not as guilty as the DA tries to say.” A full-time PD may have 500 cases a year, which would be 5-10 with my friend’s estimate. Any department big enough to have that kind of caseload would have more than one PD though, so it’s possible someone else got the innocent ones in the batches for the time Bricker was a PD.
Enjoy,
Steven
It’s not amusing. It just reflects differing mindsets. Lots of people think OJ is objectively guilty of murder, even though he was exonerated.
This is a foolish argument, in that it undermines itself. If you’re positing that **Bricker **could be telling the truth here IF he has a sufficiently smaller number of clients as a PD, then you’re arguing that he served as a PD too briefly to speak authoritatively on the subject of clients’ innocence. Either way, his anecdotal testimony is just that.