I agree it was probably foolish, but a great many people do similar foolish things, even police officers and lawyers. So I wouldn’t for a second infer that he did anything particularly differently because he was a criminal justice major. Even one a few hours away from his degree.
None at all, most likely.
What would a better thing to say be?
“Zimmerman’s statement is definitely contradicted by either the physical evidence or something else.”
“How do you know?”
“Because the evidence has been withheld from the public!”
No, I don’t agree that works at all. As with any claim, the person making the positive assertion needs to provide evidence for their view; the person denying the positive claim need not present any evidence of their own. In other words, the person with the positive assertion bears the burden of production of proof.
It’s better to clearly lay out the full sentence: Zimmerman’s statement isn’t contradicted by anything that we know about. Maybe better still to say: Zimmerman’s statement isn’t contradicted by anything that we know about, but of course all the evidence isn’t out yet.
Hmmm.
That line sounds real familiar. 
No.
This is precisely what the vast majority of my former clients, who were themselves basically guilty as hell, thought to themselves. “If I go down and talk to them voluntarily, they’ll think I have nothing to hide! I am a mastermind!”
There is almost nothing worthwhile to be concluded from the fact that he voluntarily talked to police.
Why? Is his father a lawyer?
Of course you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t infer that if O’Steen had evidence that that proved 2nd degree murder against Zimmerman he would mention it to Gilbreath. It is quite admirable. A “house is white on this side”, kind of statement.
The point about lawyers is quite apt. Even lawyers need to know when to lawyer up.
Depends on the context.
If I say something like, “The idea that Zimmerman reached for his phone rings as false to me. So too does the idea that Martin would just flip out on him without cause.”
And someone responds back with “It might ring false to ya, but nothing Zimmerman has said is contradicted by anything that we know about. So there!”
I’m calling that disingenuous.
You already know his dad is retired judge, so why are you asking me this?
/facepalm
Psst. He was a magistrate. Job requirements: high school diploma.
That’s life in America’s Wang.
Because his dad was a retired Magistrate, not a Judge. Here is a document explaining magistrates.
http://www.bvso.net/Documents/The%20Office%20of%20The%20Virginia%20Magistrate.pdf
Judge, magistrate. He still would be familiar with the law and the legal process. Zimmerman might not have contacted a lawyer that night because he trusted his father to tell him what to do.
Does anyone have a cite that Robert Zimmerman only has a high school diploma? I work with folks who have doctorates, but their jobs actually only require masters degrees. Requirements for a job aren’t synonymous with a person’s credentials.
Interesting quote in this Reuters article:
An interesting article. Certainly contrary to the “racist profiler” meme.
If you look closely at the alleged photo of Zimmerman’s bloody head, he appears to be talking on a cell phone.
The photo:http://cdn.hiphopstan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/George-Zimmerman-Bloody-Head.jpg
The photo brightened: http://i44.tinypic.com/34gq70y.jpg
It’s not disingenuous, it’s absolutely correct. What is wrong is the idea that his statement “rings false” to you is relevant. You don’t like it. Tough. Prove him wrong.
Yes, but so is George Zimmerman. Remember Criminal Justice Major? If Robert Zimmerman isn’t a member of the Florida bar, then he can’t be in the interrogation room with George.
Just asking questions is OK when some people do it, dontcha know.
It was taken with an iPhone 4S. Whoever took it didn’t remove the metadata. I assume we will be seeing it in court. If Zimmerman doesn’t remember who took the picture, then O’Mara can get a court order for a list of all the 4S owners in the neighborhood.
Is that a cell phone by his right ear?
Because you seem to be confusing a magistrate with a judge.