Speaking of comedy…
Even you’ve conceded that there was no basis for a murder charge, and have been arguing manslaughter for that last few months…
I accepted Bricker’s assessment of my conviction scenario, taken exclusively from trial evidence, as failing to meet the standards necessary for a conviction on murder 2. Close, but not the same as conceding there is no basis for the charge.
By the way…
Can you point me to the legal language that you are referring to? Because it doesn’t really match up with anything I’m familiar with or able to find in my research. “Allowable”?
Because he commited one, as you know.
The “necessary evidence” we’ve been over many times. The “chance of winning” is an ethical thing, and it’s against professional ethics for a prosecutor to take someone to trial when they know they can’t win. There’a a reason I said “allowable”, not “legal”.
Obviously not. There’s nothing wrong with killing in self defence, and no even vaguely convincing evidence that he did anything other than that.
So, in other words, you cannot provide any cite?
You’ve had thousands of cites, from several real lawyers, and you ignore them all. But if you’re so fucking stupid that you don’t accept that there’s something wrong with putting someone on trial when you can’t win, well, I hope you piss off the wrong DA sometime. I’m sure you’d have no problem with them putting you in a show trial to make them look better.
Been searching for three days and came up empty, huh? Bummer, dude. My sympathies.
Trial video, at time-tick 42:25 asks him exactly that question: what was the position of the two in relation to each other?
Dr. Bao replies that he has no idea.
So…?
I posted, on the other thread, the youtube video of Bao’s testimony where EXACTLY that question was asked. He’s lying.
So what is more, Brain Glutton? You seemed to endorse, or at least post with approval, this claim that Dr. Bao was simply never asked this critical question. But he was. Comment?
I have a cite.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t say precisely what Steophan is suggesting.
The only enforceable ethical rule is that a prosecutor may not proceed to trial when he knows there is no probable cause to support a trial.
However, the National Association of District Attorneys has released the linked PDF as “an aspirational guide to professional conduct in the performance of the prosecutorial function.”
In discussing the decision to charge, they say:
Moreover, 4-2.4(b) provides explicitly that prosecutors should consider the probability of conviction in determining whether to proceed to trial.
In my opinion, Corey’s decision to proceed to trial with second degree murder breached that guidance. However, Corey could defend herself even if this standard were mandatory – and, as I say, it is only aspirational.
Thanks.
And all of this misses the bigger point: That such a rule as it exists only in Steophan’s fantasies cannot exist in real life because the standards for the rule, as amply demonstrated in this case, cannot be agreed upon. Which of course, is completely impossible for our friend to comprehend, because he does not comprehend that reasonable, intelligent, wise and fair-minded people can and do see things completely differently than he does, because he labors under the sad conviction that if anyone sees things differently than he does, it is itself evidence that they cannot be reasonable, fair-minded, or intelligent.
And that all too common flaw in the human psyche is why we need and have trials and juries to begin with.
So, it says that for a prosecutor to proceed with a trial, they must reasonably believe that the charge is substantiated by admissible evidence, and that makes me wrong how exactly?
That is precisely what I claimed in the post you quoted. I, very specifically, did not say it was illegal. I said it was not allowed. They are not the same thing, and if I’d meant illegal I’d have said it.
I assume you are aware of what professional ethics are. Just because not following them doesn’t necessarily have a direct negative consequence doesn’t mean one is not obliged to follow them.
There are many things people can reasonably disagree with me about. There are also many that people cannot. To take the most obvious example, if someone were to claim that the world is flat, or that god created it 6000 years ago, their disagreement with me is unreasonable. One simply cannot reasonably disagree that the world is roughly spherical, and billions of years old.
Criminal guilt is rather less obvious, but ultimately, due to the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, and other such pesky nuisances, if anyone can reasonably argue that someone is innocent, then they are innocent. That is why we need juries, to protect the innocent from people who think that their views are the only correct ones. That may, in some cases, mean they are protected from me - or rather, those with power who may share my views - but also from you and others. The irony of you criticising anyone else for not changing their views is almost unbelievable, given the amount of times and the amount of subjects where you have been proven undeniably wrong by many, many people, yet clung to your bizarre beliefs.
It may be that a reasonable argument for Zimmerman’s guilt exists, although neither you, the prosecution at the trial, nor anyone else I’ve seen has presented it, but that’s not really relevant. What needs to happen is, in addition to that, they would need to prove that my argument, and any other argument against guilt, is unreasonable. Which has not been done.
For whatever reason, you have a complete, fundamental, failure to grasp both how the criminal justice system works, and how reason and debate work. Dismissing arguments, and facts for that matter, because you either dislike the bearer of them or the conclusions they lead to, is not the way either work. That you continue to contradict any assertion I make solely because I make it, despite the fact that your own fucking cites usually show me to be correct, and the times I’m shown to be wrong (usually on this subject by Bricker) I quickly acknowledge it and, where necessary adjust my views, just show that you care more about the name above the post than the content.
As for the idea that my views on Zimmerman are fixed and immutable, that’s simply absurd. Mainly because I started off thinking he was probably guilty of manslaughter, and changed my mind only after seeing the evidence. Which was actually a rather humbling experience, showing how easily I could be lead by the crowd and (as it turn out) demonstrably false news reports.
Yes, I want to be right all the time. Yes, I strive to do that. Obviously, I fail regularly, sometimes massively and embarrassingly. But when I do have an informed opinion on something - and, after the last 18 months arguing about this, I’m far more informed about the Florida legal system than I ever expected to be - I’m not going to change it based on some bullshit from someone who can’t even read their own cites, and has been shown to be catastrophically ignorant about legal matters.
TL;DR - Stoid is, unsurprisingly, incorrect.
The problem, in my opinion, arises from the use of the word “allowable.” I grant that this is not a synonym for “illegal.” Still, though, it carries with it a certain sense of finality that I don’t believe these guidelines convey. They are aspirational – meaning that prosecutors should aspire to the conduct described by them. But there is no sanction, penalty, or consequence to a prosecutor who disregards them. In contrast, a prosecutor who violated the ethical standards of the bar can be brought up on bar charges and sanctioned, with the sanctions ranging from a private reprimand to suspension to disbarment. And even these are not criminal penalties; they are violations of the professional standards of the law.
I agree with you that a prosecutor who knows s/he can’t win but brings charges anyway is not following what might be called the “best practices” of the profession, but in my opinion, “allowable,” is simply not the right word to describe this standard.
I take your point, they should not do it rather than may not.
I remember reading a discussion on these boards with another lawyer, who claimed that he did not have to do any pro bono work despite it being part of his ethical code to do so, as there was no penalty for doing so. The general consensus was that he was completely missing the point, and was a terrible human being. If you know of whom I speak, I suspect you’ll agree with that assessment.
Point being, whilst there may be no mechanism to directly ensure that someone lives up to an ethical code they commit to follow, or attempt to, failure to do so is at minimum a sign that they are not right for the job, and depending on the code, a sign that they are a terrible person.
The exact nature of my phrasing is a tangent, ultimately, because my claim is that if Angela Corey did not have a good faith belief that Zimmerman would probably be convicted, it was wrong of her to prosecute him. Further, I claim that no-one could see the evidence and reasonable have that belief. That she can get away with doing it is not really the point.
We shall see what happens with the current investigation by the Ethics Commission, which if I understand correctly does have the potential for sanctions.
And here we have, demonstrated, the utter pointlessness of engagement with friend Steophan.
But you haven’t been engaging with me. You haven’t actually responded to my claims. Most importantly, you’ve failed to provide the explanation of the evidence that shows the only reasonable conclusion is guilt. You’re not alone, no one has. So, based on that and my own study of the evidence, I conclude that it can’t be done.
Your one attempt to prove me wrong failed dismally at the first hurdle, and you’ve refused all requests to correct that, preferring as hominem attacks that any sensible reader will see straight through.
I see you ignored the majority of my post. Not surprising really as it defends my position, and you’d have to actually reason to refute it.