Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz, on Zimmerman's arrest

You say you played quarterback? How many times did you get hit in the head playing that game? You should have looked into playing chess. Much less brain damage involved.
Originally Posted by mastermind238

You have to have a brain first in order to damage it.

yet I am willing to actually put money against what you and Alan D think should/will happen.

Sounds like easy money on your part.

Let's bet a grand.
Originally Posted by WTF

If I thought there's a chance you'd actually pay me, I'd bet 10 grand.

But what I don't understand is ... if you're willing to bet that kind of money, why would you not want to know as much as possible, get as many opinions as possible from learned counsel, to make an intelligent bet? You've made a point, several times now, of insisting that you will not watch that Dershowitz clip. It seems to me that you view making a wager as some kind of macho posturing designed to END debate.

No thanks. I'll continue to read, watch, and listen to as much about this subject as I can, so I can make an intelligent, informed decision if/when I ever decide to place a wager.

Is this "betting" thing some part of that macho football culture? News flash for WTF ... Taunting somebody to make a wager is NOT a substitute for reasoned argument. But if you refuse to listen to Dershowitz explain the finer points of law here, there's no chance you'll EVER come up with a reasoned argument for or against anything. All that leaves you is "Hey, asshole, wanna bet??" Laughable. And pathetic.

tough room lol

eta: I think Zimmerman should have got manslaughter, i don't think he was following martin with the intention on killing him. With a charge like this I feel like he is going to get off. Originally Posted by SkylarCruzWantsYou

Dershowitz addressed the issue of overcharging. In this case, with so little actual evidence, the overcharging seems to be an attempt to extort a plea to a lesser charge. Dershowitz made the point that this is unethical, and could get the prosecutor sanctioned. From other sources (not Dershowitz) it's apparent that this prosecutor has a history of overcharging, precisely to extort pleas to lesser charges.

"Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School

See this brief clip of the interview with Prof Dershowitz:
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2...unethical.html

.....

Zimmerman is in jail now for one reason only: racial politics and the need to pander to the race hustlers. Originally Posted by mastermind238

Wow. That's the last time he'll be allowed to speak on MSNBC. Especially if he can't push their narrative.

If I thought there's a chance you'd actually pay me, I'd bet 10 grand.

No thanks. I'll continue to read, watch, and listen to as much about this subject as I can, so I can make an intelligent, informed decision if/when I ever decide to place a wager.

. Originally Posted by mastermind238

LOL. Which is it? You scared I won't pay you or you scared you will have to pay me?


Make it easy on yourself. Zimmerman will either plead or go to trial.

.

But what I don't understand is ... if you're willing to bet that kind of money, why would you not want to know as much as possible, get as many opinions as possible from learned counsel, to make an intelligent bet? You've made a point, several times now, of insisting that you will not watch that Dershowitz clip. It seems to me that you view making a wager as some kind of macho posturing designed to END debate.



. Originally Posted by mastermind238

It is not my job to have you understand my POV. I have said that I understand human nature. Therefore I think (and am willing to bet) that he will either plead out or that it will go to trial.

I do not care how much you have or haven't read. At some point it comes down to will he go to trial or not. If you and Alan D think he will not and I think he will...WTF is there left to debate? Put your money up!

I am betting on the reality of what will happen and you want to discuss wtf should happen.

.





Is this "betting" thing some part of that macho football culture? News flash for WTF ... Taunting somebody to make a wager is NOT a substitute for reasoned argument. But if you refuse to listen to Dershowitz explain the finer points of law here, there's no chance you'll EVER come up with a reasoned argument for or against anything. All that leaves you is "Hey, asshole, wanna bet??" Laughable. And pathetic. Originally Posted by mastermind238

I have designated who I would like to receive my 1k should I win, could you tell me which male or female you would like to see and I will get them 1k should I lose.

My reasoned arguement is that public pressure will demand a trial or a plea. God Damn, is that to hard to understand. You can debate all the finer points of the law you want.

Are you willing to actually bet money that your reasoned arguement will hold up? That is WTF I am trying to get you to do...to put some money where your reasoned argument is.

I had a friend that had some inside knowledge on some disposable waste well here in Houston. The company had all the permits in place and the law on their side. He would have been long retired. I told him I did not think it was going to happen because of a couple of things, one being the principial investor local investor was not well liked at all and the other that their was an ever so slight chance that it could harm underground drinking water. The law was on his side but please do not ask him how much he lost on that investement. I am talking reality here and you are talking fantasy. You sound like that Freedom loving CuteOldPeckerhead

Wow. That's the last time he'll be allowed to speak on MSNBC. Especially if he can't push their narrative. Originally Posted by gnadfly

If Zimmerman is put in jail for self defence it will be the moral equivalent of a lynch mob. Instead of letting the angry mob kill him, the state throws him in jail. The state will be acting as a surrogate for the mob. Either way it's mob rule. A black lynch mob doesn't have any more claim to the moral high ground than a white lynch mob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaVuVu5KXuE

What they're doing to Zimmerman is the moral equivalent of a lynch mob. Instead of letting the angry mob kill him the state throws him in jail. Either way it's mob rule. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Maybe you can write a book on it....I think the title , ''To Kill a Mockingbird" has been taken though.



How is it Mob rule? He hasn't even went to trial as of yet!

Maybe you can write a book on it....I think the title , ''To Kill a Mockingbird" has been taken though.



How is it Mob rule? He hasn't even went to trial as of yet! Originally Posted by WTF

"hasn't even went"

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln

This also applies to posting. Step away from the keyboard before you make a fool of yourself again.

You forget, WTF knows human nature, and is the most reasonable among us. He said so himself. He read a book once. The fact that he has trouble with English doesn't matter. He learned from his BFF's in homeroom. Fuc'r! LOL! You gotta love it!

I don't know the facts of this cases (and neither does anybody posting here). They'll have to come out when the witnesses testify under oath. However, based on the very sketchy information that has come out in the media (which is often wrong, incidentally), it does look like a difficult case to prosecute. That is not necessarily the same thing as a Defendant being morally innocent, of course. But I think Dershowitz, as usual, is correct on his reading of the case.

As for the irrational hatred of Prof. Dershowitz that has been shown here, I have no idea what to say. He's a very bright guy and whether you agree or disagree with him on any given issues, when you choose to disagree with him, you damn well better think about it carefully. He is very bright and is a skilled advocate. For every time he's wrong, there are dozens and dozens of times where is is right.

Dershowitz addressed the issue of overcharging. In this case, with so little actual evidence, the overcharging seems to be an attempt to extort a plea to a lesser charge. Dershowitz made the point that this is unethical, and could get the prosecutor sanctioned. From other sources (not Dershowitz) it's apparent that this prosecutor has a history of overcharging, precisely to extort pleas to lesser charges. Originally Posted by mastermind238

Yeah I should have mentioned I didn't watch the video, I was just here too watch the hot man on man action lol.

TTH, I rarely agree with Dershowitz, but I respect him as one of finest legal minds in the country. The same goes for Lawrence Tribe. Even though I disagree with them, I would be hard pressed to oppose either one of them for the Court. You don't have to agree with me to be brilliant, although it does help.

As for the irrational hatred of Prof. Dershowitz that has been shown here, I have no idea what to say. He's a very bright guy and whether you agree or disagree with him on any given issues, when you choose to disagree with him, you damn well better think about it carefully. He is very bright and is a skilled advocate. For every time he's wrong, there are dozens and dozens of times where is is right. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I just said Fuc him.

I do not care for him, that has nothing to do with not giving the man his due. I never said he was stupid nor wrong in this regard. In fact I do understand a smart person when presented. I know the difference between Sara Palin and Barrack Obams in the smarts department. So I was not selling Alan D short.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, JD called me anti-semitic just because I said Fuc Alan D.

I am very famaliar with Prof. Dershowitz stance on Israel as I am with Norman Finkelstein. From my POV, Finkelstein not only stands his ground, he takes Dershowitz to the woodshed on the matter. Alan D can barely contain himself when discussing Finkelstein. So I posted a link and said it would be great to see those two go at it. Most are not as Famaliar with Norman Finkelstein as you average bear but he is no lightweight. I love it when a person like Alan D has to actually debate another brilliant mind that can counterpunch Dershowitz body blows.

Dershowitz does a whole lot of name calling when people do not agree with him on this issue, thus Fuc Alan D.

I hope that takes the ir out of irrational.

btw TTH, Do you think this will go to trial or a plea will be had or will it be dismissed?

My question is "What will happen?" not "What should legally happen?"

Some folks are having a hard time with the distinction.

"Fuc" him. LOL!

I got "K"s for sale if anyone is interested.