You gotta admit though, you do have a habit of avoiding direct answers to questions. 
The only time I do that is when the question is framed in such a way as to back me into a position I don’t hold, or is otherwise not genuinely representative of what my view is.
Cuz c’mon, for all the things that people have come up with to be annoyed with me about, not being forthcoming with my opinion is hardly one of them! (Although, upon reflection, there have been a few times when I either specifically stated I did not intend to share my personal thoughts on a thing or when I genuinely did not have a specific and clear opinion about a thing and people were pressing me as though I had one and would not accept that I didn’t).
Brazil84 thinks he’s being clever with his questioning, but he’s actually being very obvious in his attempts to back one into a specially-prepared corner where he will then spring out with a very Snidley sort of “AHA!”. When all he’s actually done is…well, seriously, everything he says on his “Rules for Debate” that no one else is to do. It’s kind of freaky, except that people do have a strong tendency to see the world as a mirror, especially when they aren’t self-aware. And B84’s behavior suggests to me that he is not at all self-aware. At least I hope not, because if he were and behaved this way anyway it would reflect extremely poorly on him.
The standard for trial is probable cause, and a good-faith belief in the factual guilt of the accused.
There is absolutely nothing unethical in trying a case even if you believe you have only a small chance at conviction.
No. The criteria is not “good faith belief”. It is “moral certainty”.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=ulj
Anyone who thinks that the prosecutors in this case, and Angela Corey, had such certainty, is a gullible fool.
To not answer is to buy into your dishonesty.
Actually, you were asking me to back up your interpretation of the conclusion I drew.
Not in the example you give, but others, yes.
The age of the cite doesn’t matter as long as it is consistent with the law, and it is as far as we can see, since it doesn’t conflict with the force requirements.
Looks like you don’t know what you think or say you know. fancy that.
I presented a coherent scenario directly from the evidence, which Bricker confirmed as being sufficient to stand up to a challenge of insufficient evidence. You have a right to have a different opinion, but not a right to assert that it is correct.
.
Strawman is a noun, not a verb.
Of course it does, and you know ex
Tly what I meant, you’re just playing a stupid game.
You don’t know that there was no way for him to retreat. Even if you buy his bullshit he could have made an attempt to do any number of things before killing Martin.he didn’t try, didn’t claim to try.
If I believe something, I don’t insinuate: I say it. If I believed that Zimmerman was beating up on Martin, I would say so. I would have no reason not to. I don’t believe Zimmerman was beating up on Martin. I believe the Zimmerman pulled out his gun much earlier than he admits, threatening Martin and leading to Martin trying to prevent him from using it. And if that is true, no, provocation wouldn’t matter legally, but it would still be true and still matter morally.
False. You do not engage people who see your manipulative crap and sidestep it, taking away your fun. And you’re entitled.
That essay is a proposal of a standard, not the standard. From the Abstract:
No one was suggesting that Corey’s office had a moral certainty for their charge, so I’m not sure why you are going there. I was referring to Bricker’s hypothetical.
Regarding Zimmerman being prepped by his attorneys for cross: While I believe the prosecution was out-lawyered by O’Mara and West, I still recall Zimmerman’s blunders during the Hannity interview (with O’Mara sitting right there). If O’Mara couldn’t control Zimmerman during a puff interview like that, how could you be so certain they could prevent him from screwing up during a stressful cross?
Hannity’s is much more open-ended than a cross. It is hard to prepare for an open-ended interview. A lot easier to prepare for a cross where you know what can be asked and what can’t be.
From The Nation: “The Monsterization of Trayvon Martin.”
- I read about that once – a psychological study done in the 1960s: A group of (white) test subjects were shown – for just a moment on the screen – a photo of a white man and a black man fighting, the white man wielding a straight razor. Asked to describe the scene afterwards, most of them said the razor was in the black man’s hand.
You don’t think the questions were vetted in advance by O’Mara for the Hannity interview?
You know who was a great witness during cross? Your “Black Zimmerman” example, Roderick Scott. His testimony on the stand (and retaining the best attorney in the county), was a key factor in his acquittal.
Zimmerman was sweating like a glass of iced tea in August when the judge was asking him simple questions. If you recall, he had to confer with West before answering (and West had to jump in). His cross testimony would have been much more stressful.
I don’t share your certainty.
This would be an example of not being direct. You hedge and you elaborate and expose various alternatives ensuring it is very difficult to say precisely what your point is. It is weasling taken to the level of art form.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you are a weasel. And I am not saying you do it with an intent to deceive. I doubt you are even conscious of this tendency.
Simple question:
Given the trouble people here seem to be having following your reasoning here, do you think it likely 5 other typical jurors would concur with your finding?
The author depends on the Marissa Alexander case to make his point, but either lies or deliberately deceives the reader about the facts of that case. As has been demonstrated here on this message board, the case against Alexander was quite strong. Three eyewitnesses testified that it was no warning shot: she was aiming at Rico. And to get the gun, she left the kitchen, went into the garage, got the gun, and then returned, saying, “I have something for you,” and then firing at Rico.
Did you know that?
Terr, if Stoid did what you just did, you’d be all over her, howling like a demon.
That’s a law review article in which the author proposes a standard. The author does not claim his proposed standard is actually in use anywhere.
Your attempt to use it as a cite for your claim is misplaced.
I’m always amazed that authors, pundits, media newsreader, bloggers, etc use Marissa Alexander as an example of anything other than an incrediably stupid person.
Marissa Alexander was NOT facing “imminent danger”.
Marissa Alexander WAS the “imminent danger”.
This is very strange to me in so many ways.
First, I am very self-aware. I know what I do and why I do it. What I don’t always know is how others perceive it. That you, or anyone, would perceive it as any kind of weaseling or avoidance of being direct is truly shocking to me.
I assume you were specifically referring to this:
When you said this:
How can I be direct if the facts are not “direct”? I assume by direct you mean simple, black and white, yes or no? If it’s something else, please help me understand.
All I am doing is my best to be as scrupulously honest, thorough and fair as I can be. This will usually lead to exceptions, alternatives, etc. I am not comfortable with saying “Yes, that’s true” if it’s only true sometimes, or under certain circumstances, or partially true.
If I’m wandering off into some desert of misunderstanding, please lead me back.
I’ll bet this is the sort of thing where you think I should be able to just say yes or no, and you signaled that by saying it was a simple question.
But a question may be itself simple and the answer to it not. Is this a test to see if I can give you the yes or no you think is fair to ask of me? Because I can’t, I have to fill in what’s missing and clarify my answer. (Starting with the fact that I don’t agree that people are having trouble following my reasoning. They mostly seem to follow it, they just reject it.)
Honestly not trying to be pain, honestly trying to understand, and appreciate that you are not trying to be attacking. To the extent you are willing to continue helping me understand your point of view, I welcome it.
(I just asked my roommate about this; I read him the exchange. He said that if he had to come up with a list of faults about me, “not being direct” wouldn’t even cross his mind, and that no one who knows me would ever say that about me. Shows ta go ya.)
As far as I know, a prosecutor does need to be satisfied that the defendant is guilty. The trouble is that it’s pretty easy for most people to fool themselves into believing things if it’s in their interests to do so. Even to the point where they are absolutely sure of their position and that no reasonable person could see otherwise.
So I believe that Corey believes that Zimmerman is a murderer. Although deep down, she probably knows he is not. If it emerged that there was a surveillance tape of the entire exchange and before watching the tape she had to bet her life one way or another, I’m pretty confident she would choose “not guilty.”
No, SHE really doesn’t.
If you actually read it you might have noticed.
Just for the record,
CMC fnord!
Correction noted as to the author’s gender.
But her recitation of the facts in the Marissa Alexander case is deceptive.
Nor is that the only deceptive element in her narrative. Judges in Florida are elected, and Judge Nelson was elected to her post. It’s true that she was appointed to fill a judicial vacancy earlier by then-Governor Jeb Bush, but Williams calls Nelson a Republican-appointed judge without disclosing the intervening election, suggesting she sat on the bench at Martin’s trial because a Republican chose her, rather than her having to face the electorate. (Her election was unopposed, interestingly).
She continues:
Although she teaches law, she never draws the lay reader’s attention to the single most salient fact in this attempt to show a racial double standard in the operation of law: New York and Florida have dramatically different laws, both as regards firearms and as regards manslaughter.
About photos, she writes:
It’s true that false pictures were circulated purporting to show Martin. But the photos of Martin bare-chested, and giving the finger, were not Photoshopped; they were extracted from his phone.
I guess attorneys for the defense will object that this is irrelevant, immaterial, without a proper whatever but it is interesting that GZ had a severe domestic quarrel the night before he killed TM.
It is interesting. It is as interesting as Martin’s sending those violent texts. Do you find them interesting?