Ok, so your position is that lawyers should not be able to be friends with other lawyers? Is that right? You find it shocking that a lawyer has friends that are lawyers? Do you have any friends that do the same kind of work that you do?
Your ability to manufacture outrage is quite impressive.
I don’t understand. Lawyers work together. Lawyers have friends among the people they work with, even prosecutors and defense attorneys. They don’t take these cases personally, you know. I don’t find this suspicious in the least.
Apparently, I need to go a step further.
That she would describe the attorneys representing one of the two sides in this case as her friends is, at the very least an example of blatant kowtowing in their favor.
Could you* imagine* if she had said, “I’ve spoken to George Zimmerman and his parents- they are amazing people, and his lawyers, who are friends of mine…”?
Of course not. She would have never said such a thing, even if it were true.
Which it would not be true since neither she, nor Angela Corey, nor the governor ever bothered to even talk to George Zimmerman (or his parents), much less offer any assurances that there would be justice for them.
Not to mention that Zimmerman had not even hired a lawyer at that point for her to be friends with because he apparently had confidence in the fairness of the judicial system. (I bet he’ll never make that mistake again.)
The bias that came from the governor on down in this case is staggering and blatant. You can pretend not to see it and keep framing little straw-men questions, but it speaks for itself to all but the willfully ignorant.
Which side of the George Zimmerman murder trial are the lawyers for Trayvon Martin’s family representing? Who will they be arguing in court on behalf of during the trial?
This case is the state of Florida against George Zimmerman. The lawyers for Trayvon Martin’s family are not involved in this case any way. Italics or not.
Rather then taking any further steps, might I suggest that perhaps you may have already taken a step or three too far already?
At the time these statements were made? They were blatantly and aggressively advocating on behalf of Trayvon Martin’s parents for the state to arrest and prosecute George Zimmerman.
It sure is- and we know exactly how that came about.
They will argue in court on behalf of Trayvon’s parents of course, in future civil trials. Regarding the criminal case, they argue on behalf of the prosecution- outside of the court room.
Really? Then that makes it all the more odd that Bondi would mention they were friends of hers.
And didn’t I see them standing next to Mary Cutcher, her roommate, and other witnesses in the criminal case? Didn’t they talk to the prosecution’s “star witness” Dee Dee before Corey’s “impartial investigator” did? Don’t they speak out on every development in the case- and doesn’t the media often quote them?
Hmm, seems to me that they are extremely involved in this case, particularly before its very inception.
It truly is an outrage that the State of Florida didn’t reach out to the murderers parents.
Conservative tree house = white-supremacist shithole.
I’ll interpret the specious counters as an indication that the Trayvengers can dispute neither the truth of the premises nor the validity of the conclusion drawn from them.
Well we have several parts breathless speculation over quotes that suggest our criminal justice system is involved with scary politicizations like “justice” and “due process.”
Not seeing the hard evidence that GZ wouldn’t’ve been prosecuted outside of political concerns though.
Surely there’s some ration of hard evidence which is called for in this recipe?
First, they aren’t going to charge him with anything. Then people protest and demand he be charged. A.G. takes over, obviously inclined to charge him before the investigation has even begun. It’s pretty simple, pretty obvious.
This is where your argument falls apart. Nothing is obvious just because you desperately want it to be so.
It truly is an outrage that the State of Florida didn’t reach out to the parent’s of the victim of a serious, potentially life threatening, unprovoked attack, and instead reached out to the parents of the attacker.
Well, no it isn’t, but it’s more true than your statement.
Iirc, it as because they had not finished their investigation.
This was patiently explained by GZ supporters at the time. They don’t arrest someone and then gather evidence to support the arrest.
The AG “took over” on February 25th? Or earlier in the day on the 26th?
Didn’t the investigation begin on the night of the shooting?
Since Trayvon’s body was likely moved, by those applying first aid, by Zimmerman’s tackling him, and perhaps the fact you don’t die immediately, even from a bullet to the heart, and could conceivably take some steps, how would they know exactly whose place the fatal shot was fired? Just because the body ended up there, doesn’t mean that’s where the shooting occurred.
Here is the “About” section from that blog:
And I have found a declaration from Mr. Leatherman in which he acknowledges prejudging a specific client’s guilt and therefore failing to investigate the client’s claims of actual innocence, or even representing him in any effective way.
I have also read much of his commentary.
The post in which he called for the state to indict Zimmerman was made before the evidence was released. No matter what his skills, I don’t see how you can advance this as an example of someone who believes the state has a string case, since his opinion was formed without an examination of all the available evidence.
You asked me for evidence that there are lawyers who disagree with your assessment about Zimmerman’s case.
I provided such evidence.
The only thing you should say be saying right now is thanks. Not posting an amazingly transparent strawman.
I’m so very, very sorry to say that it doesn’t get much more obvious. I’ve heard from Zimmerman (he is such an amazing person), and his lawyers (who are friends of mine), and they say the same thing.
From Wikipedia- check the citations yourself:
Oh, I’m sure she did indeed ‘foresee’ that. 
Actually, you are the one creating the strawman. You didn’t just say “there are lawyers that disagree with your assessment”. You said that there was not a consensus among attorney’s that the State’s case is currently weak.
The evidence you provide in support of this claim amounts to a single attorney, who happens to be a crackpot, that obviously rushed to judgement. I listed four off the top of my head. And the nutty professor is all you are able to come up with?
Seems like the investigation was underway starting February 26th and whatshernose took the case after the investigation started, not before it had begun.
You’ll have to do some more work to convince me that she took the case before the investigation began on February 26th.