Not often enough to get a job at a real firm though? lol, j/k.
Okay, let’s recap. Bricker was right about what the law said. Point for Bricker. Bricker wrongly identified Mark Halperin as “an administration official”, and his comments as “self-serving”. Point for Shayna.
Shayna flies a million miles off the fucking handle; a million points and the game to us, the amused onlookers.
Has the evidence against Zimmerman been released to the public yet? I don’t think so, but perhaps I’ve overlooked something. To have made such an assertion so matter-of-factly, you would have to have seen the cards they’re holding. Have you?
Why? Based on what the public knows, Zimmerman has as much evidence going for him as the average guy who shoots himself out of a fist fight that he started.
What an utterly fucking stupid remark.
And the idea that working at firm affords you more expertise or evinces greater ability in criminal trial practice shows only how little you know about legal practice and that your notions about the meaning of taking different sorts of legal career paths are entirely baseless, uninformed, and deserving of absolutely no weight.
Whoops! I forgot to add “lol! J/k!”
Interestingly, I’ve found that Bricker, more than any other person on this board that I’ve interacted with, is willing to admit error and change his mind. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, but I think those are just issues on which he hasn’t changed his mind yet. He’ll stick to a point like a lamprey to a shark, but if you play the same game as him, then besides mixing metaphors, he’ll recognize a better argument.
LOL, I think you were whooshed.
The prosecution will need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and do not have much evidence to rebut Zimmerman’s allegation of self-defense. Even if the jury rejects Z’s testimony as self-serving, you can’t sustain a conviction where a self-serving, but prima facie, affirmative defense goes unrebutted. That is far too short of BRD. Thompson v. State, 552 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).
Soooo, you really need another Zimmerman thread? Jerkoff.
The law itself, and the lack of witnesses. And the injuries sustained by Zimmerman.
From what we’ve seen so far, I think it’s going to be tough to get 12 people to agree, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty. Maybe there’s some super-secret evidence that will be the coup de grace, and if so, we’ll see it when the time comes. But if I had to bet one way or another right now, I wouldn’t bet on the super-secret stuff.
Once again, TG, IANAL. I am not bound to unnatural constraints, and can think and believe what the evidence indicates without reference to op. cit. or stark staring decisis. There are things I think he’s very likely guilty of, barring some Perry Mason revelation in the last ten minutes of the show.
Is he guilty of reckless endangerment, putting himself into a position of law enforcement he had neither the training nor the temperament to handle? Yes. Is a presumably innocent young man dead as a result? Yes. Was all of this entirely avoidable if he had simply made his phone call and stayed the hell out of it? Yes.
Is he likely guilty of premeditated murder? Probably no, since I find it hard to believe he could premeditate his into or out of a paper bag. All of these opinions can be reversed by the presentation of convincing evidence.
But the notion that my opinions, as a private citizen, are somehow bound by the arcane and sophistic legalisms of the courtroom is absurd. I am not obliged to consider the precedent of Tweedledum v Tweedledumber in my ruminations. Feh! as they say in Lubbock.
I get this impression as well, and I am a board newby
Sure. Asked if I think he might have committed a crime, I will say quite possibly. Asked if I think he will be convicted, I will say probably not. The prosector has to convince 12 people not that he probably committed a crime, but that he did so beyond a reasonable doubt. No easy task, given the facts we know.
The lack of witnesses that you know about.
Seriously, the guy has been charged not with manslaughter but with 2nd degree murder. And the charge has stuck, despite all the sticky wicketness associated with SYG. Just on that basis alone, I find it weird that it anyone can say–without seeing the State’s evidence–that the prosectution will have very difficult time proving their case. You don’t know what cards they have because those cards have been not been disclosed. Why? Because the defense doesn’t want them disclosed. Make of that what you will.
The only reason I’m calling you on this is because you called out BobLibDem for being blinded by bias for thinking Zimmerman is guilty. But to assert or imply that the prosecution’s case is too weak to score a conviction–when you don’t even know the content of their case–ain’t exactly a non-biased, objective interpretation of events either.
That’s neither here nor there as to the question of Bricker’s jackassity.
What do you mean, the charge has stuck?
Anyone who thinks he is guilty or innocent is being blinded, whether on the right or the left. What matters is that he gets his day in court and is judged by a jury of his peers. None of us in any situation to say, one way or another, whether he is guilty.
I like Bricker. He’s a swell motherfucker.
The charge against Zimmerman is second degree murder which means the prosecution will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt
Any murder conviction is a hard case, and this one, with the attendant national focus, and the stand your ground law, will be doubly so.
I think some of the rush to judgment in this case, in either direction, has been shameful, and a lot of people, regardless of the eventual outcome, are going to be very angry.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’m sorry, but this is 100% unmitigated bollocks. Believe it or not, it’s perfectly rational to form an opinion about someone’s likely culpability based on available information. Doing so doesn’t require one to be “blinded”. It only requires a working brainstem.
I guess you also think it takes an act of “blindness” to believe that John Edwards is guilty as hell, too.
Get outta here with this nonsense.
Remember remember the 5th of November,
The Gun Powder Treason Plot…
So, you’re not going to explain what you meant when you said the charges had stuck?
Certainly. But I wasn’t talking about someone who had an opinion of the likelihood of that. I was talking about someone who was certain of it.
Yes, it does, depending on what you think he is guilty of. We know he fathered the child-- guilty. We know he paid the woman to keep it secret-- guilty. We know he got the money from other people-- guilty. What we don’t know is if the law proscribes what he did, and that hinges on whether his motive was to hide it from his wife or to keep his candidacy viable. The law is not so crystal clear on this as most people think. Only the jury can tell us that after the trial. He’s the epitome of an unsympathetic defendant, and I wouldn’t want to be his defense attorney, but this isn’t a slam dunk case.
Yes, I’d say it does. The evidence against Edwards is not strong, and the application of the law this way is novel. He may be guilty, but if you take the position that he’s guilty as hell – which I understand to mean obvious, complete, clear, unmitigated guilt – i’d say you’re blinded.