Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz, on Zimmerman's arrest

Yes, why?

'Stand Your Ground'........that's my opinion.......Panthers show up with the dead or alive attitude, 'Stand Your Ground'...again.....shoot..... again!

Or can you only 'Stand Your Ground' with teenagers?

Why run now? The dispatcher said do not pursue, that simple request followed and we all wouldn't be discussing this particular subject.

I'm sure there are details yet to come out that we as the general public have no knowledge of, but seriously?

You cower now? You want to hide now? You want to run the other way now?

It's a dead teenager too late......just my 2. Originally Posted by reesec

You are completely incoherent.

Some of the latest tapes that were release indicate that Zimmerman did do as the dispatcher said, he did not pursue. Which means Travon, after being "insulted" by this wanna be cop, decided to earn some "street gred" and do some ass wipping of his own.

It will dawn on every body as this case gets closer to trial that this "special prosecutor" is really not as bright as everybody thinks. In fact, she is a "victim's rights zealot" who tends to bring charges forth, hoping things get sorted out later.

She has now openned up a whole new can of worms by going for broke with the murder 2 charge, which will do nothing more than enrage the masses more when a jury comes back with a not guilty verdict.

Some of the latest tapes that were release indicate that Zimmerman did do as the dispatcher said, he did not pursue. Which means Travon, after being "insulted" by this wanna be cop, decided to earn some "street gred" and do some ass wipping of his own.

It will dawn on every body as this case gets closer to trial that this "special prosecutor" is really not as bright as everybody thinks. In fact, she is a "victim's rights zealot" who tends to bring charges forth, hoping things get sorted out later.

She has now openned up a whole new can of worms by going for broke with the murder 2 charge, which will do nothing more than enrage the masses more when a jury comes back with a not guilty verdict. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The special prosecutor is running for relection. She's just a politician who's willing to use the powers of her office to file false charges against an innocent man to pander to her constituants. When you kill someone to prevent him from killing you, you're innocent. It's not murder or manslaughter or any other crime. The only crime victim was Zimmerman. He was assaulted and defended himself. Whites are forty to fifty times more likely to be the victims of violent crime perpetrated by blacks than the reverse. Black on white violent crime is epidemic.

Some of the latest tapes that were release indicate that Zimmerman did do as the dispatcher said, he did not pursue. Which means Travon, after being "insulted" by this wanna be cop, decided to earn some "street gred" and do some ass wipping of his own.

It will dawn on every body as this case gets closer to trial that this "special prosecutor" is really not as bright as everybody thinks. In fact, she is a "victim's rights zealot" who tends to bring charges forth, hoping things get sorted out later.

She has now openned up a whole new can of worms by going for broke with the murder 2 charge, which will do nothing more than enrage the masses more when a jury comes back with a not guilty verdict. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You're exactly right. When the 911 operator told him to stop pursuing, she said "OK." He remained on the phone with the 911 operator to try to get an address so he could rendezvous with the police, who were on their way at his request. All of Zimmerman's movements after the 911 operator told him not to pursue were for the purpose of determining his location.

There's even more from those tapes that few people have bothered to listen to. When the 911 operator asked the guy's race, Zimmerman responded "he looks black." Not "He's black." Not "He's a n****." He said "He LOOKS black." In fact, the written transcript does not do justice to those words. Listen to the intonation of his voice on the tape and you'll see that Zimmerman WAS NOT SURE THE GUY (Trayvon) WAS BLACK. After all, it was dark and the guy was wearing a hoodie.

So the narrative the race hustlers, and their major media enablers, have been peddling is that Zimmerman hunted down a BLACK man ("like a rabid dog," according to one black U.S. Congresswoman) so he could kill him.

Now what kind of guy goes out to hunt down and kill a random black guy just for kicks, BUT calls 911 to get police to join him, and stays on the phone with the police while he hunts down his prey? And wouldn't he make SURE he was black before he did the deed, if indeed his intention was to kill a BLACK man? The fact is there's NOTHING about this case that says Zimmerman was hunting down anybody. Broken nose, grass stains on the back of his shirt, cuts on the back of his head. Zimmerman wouldn't have ANY of those if he'd had his gun drawn as he approached Trayvon for the purpose alleged by the race hustlers (or as Trayvon approached HIM, as was his testimony).

If you're hunting down a "rabid dog," would YOU wait until the rabid dog was on top of you, banging your head on a concrete sidewalk, before you drew your gun and fired? No.

The thing is, those tapes have been out there for a long time. I've listened to them, but they're not readily available, thanks to the race hustlers and their mainstream media enablers. It's good to see that at least SOME people on this board are willing to listen to the evidence (as well as expert Harvard opinion on the evidence). Kudos, Jackie S.

BTW ... and this is entirely beside the point ... I might be the only white guy in the country who believes the state didn't prove its case against OJ beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury's verdict was correct BASED ON THE LAW AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. Despite what some on this board believe, the system IS capable of rendering a correct outcome based on EVIDENCE (or lack thereof). But the OJ case is ancient history, so it's not worth starting a new thread to hash this out.

You're exactly right. When the 911 operator told him to stop pursuing, she said "OK." He remained on the phone with the 911 operator to try to get an address so he could rendezvous with the police, who were on their way at his request. All of Zimmerman's movements after the 911 operator told him not to pursue were for the purpose of determining his location.

There's even more from those tapes that few people have bothered to listen to. When the 911 operator asked the guy's race, Zimmerman responded "he looks black." Not "He's black." Not "He's a n****." He said "He LOOKS black." In fact, the written transcript does not do justice to those words. Listen to the intonation of his voice on the tape and you'll see that Zimmerman WAS NOT SURE THE GUY (Trayvon) WAS BLACK. After all, it was dark and the guy was wearing a hoodie.

So the narrative the race hustlers, and their major media enablers, have been peddling is that Zimmerman hunted down a BLACK man ("like a rabid dog," according to one black U.S. Congresswoman) so he could kill him.

Now what kind of guy goes out to hunt down and kill a random black guy just for kicks, BUT calls 911 to get police to join him, and stays on the phone with the police while he hunts down his prey? And wouldn't he make SURE he was black before he did the deed, if indeed his intention was to kill a BLACK man? The fact is there's NOTHING about this case that says Zimmerman was hunting down anybody. Broken nose, grass stains on the back of his shirt, cuts on the back of his head. Zimmerman wouldn't have ANY of those if he'd had his gun drawn as he approached Trayvon for the purpose alleged by the race hustlers (or as Trayvon approached HIM, as was his testimony).

If you're hunting down a "rabid dog," would YOU wait until the rabid dog was on top of you, banging your head on a concrete sidewalk, before you drew your gun and fired? No.

The thing is, those tapes have been out there for a long time. I've listened to them, but they're not readily available, thanks to the race hustlers and their mainstream media enablers. It's good to see that at least SOME people on this board are willing to listen to the evidence (as well as expert Harvard opinion on the evidence). Kudos, Jackie S.

BTW ... and this is entirely beside the point ... I might be the only white guy in the country who believes the state didn't prove its case against OJ beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury's verdict was correct BASED ON THE LAW AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. Despite what some on this board believe, the system IS capable of rendering a correct outcome based on EVIDENCE (or lack thereof). But the OJ case is ancient history, so it's not worth starting a new thread to hash this out. Originally Posted by mastermind238

I agree with 99% of what you said. I think a grand jury would have no billed this case and that's why they didn't take it to a grand jury. The state is frightened of racial violence. The one percent I disagree with is, of course, the OJ comment; I find that puzzling. I do think the paralles between the OJ case and the Trayvon case are interesting. I think the threat of mob violence was a factor in the OJ case as it is in the Trayvon case. If the DA had filed charges against OJ in the district where the crime was committed (which is the usual procedure), it would have almost certainly got a predominantly white jury. Instead charges were filed in downtown LA which insured a predominantly black jury. The DA's office knew that if they got a guilty verdict against OJ with a white jury there would have massive rioting. I think the jury's verdict was an outrage. If OJ had been a white celebrity and he had killed to two black people, with the same evidence, that jury woud have found him guilty in a heartbeat and the DA would have gone for the death penalty. White people would have been perfectly satisfied with the verdict in that scenario.

I agree with 99% of what you said. I think a grand jury would have no billed this case and that's why they didn't take it to a grand jury. The state is frightened of racial violence. The one percent I disagree with is, of course, the OJ comment; I find that puzzling. I do think the paralles between the OJ case and the Trayvon case are interesting. I think the threat of mob violence was a factor in the OJ case as it is in the Trayvon case. If the DA had filed charges against OJ in the district where the crime was committed (which is the usual procedure), it would have almost certainly got a predominantly white jury. Instead charges were filed in downtown LA which insured a predominantly black jury. The DA's office knew that if they got a guilty verdict against OJ with a white jury there would have massive rioting. I think the jury's verdict was an outrage. If OJ had been a white celebrity and he had killed to two black people, with the same evidence, that jury woud have found him guilty in a heartbeat and the DA would have gone for the death penalty. White people would have been perfectly satisfied with the verdict in that scenario. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Like I said, I don't want to re-hash OJ. I brought it up for exactly the reason you stated. Given enough time I think I could persuade you that there was more than enough reasonable doubt in that case. But for now let's agree to disagree.

BTW ... and this is entirely beside the point ... I might be the only white guy in the country who believes the state didn't prove its case against OJ beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury's verdict was correct BASED ON THE LAW AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. Despite what some on this board believe, the system IS capable of rendering a correct outcome based on EVIDENCE (or lack thereof). But the OJ case is ancient history, so it's not worth starting a new thread to hash this out. Originally Posted by mastermind238

I thought he would get off at the time. I think/thought he was guilty as fuc but that he would walk. It is all about jury selection or in the current Zimmerman case, special prescutor selection! LOL

Dennis Green had OJ nailed

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...ail&FORM=VIRE3


It remains to be seen if Zimmerman winds up like the Bears or the Arizona Cardinals

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. Originally Posted by WTF

No idea. Unlike most folks, I don't bother to read much in the popular media about legal disputes because I know that most of what is represented as facts are no more than impressions at best. Facts are hard to pin down under the best of circumstances, and journalism isn't even close to the crucible of cross examination.

One of my pet peeves is the tendency of people to have to have an opinion on everything and to have to have it instantly. Obviously someone is dead. Obviously the guy who is in the news is the guy who killed him. Beyond that, I wouldn't put much money on anything that we've heard represented to be fact as really being a fact.

The bottom line is we don't know the facts. As to what happens, it's hard to predict. It depends on the facts (which we don't know), it depends on the actions of the prosecution team (who I don't know), the defense team (who I don't know), the trial judge (who I don't know), the risk tolerance of the Defendant (who I don't know), and possibly the composition of the jury (which I don't know). How the hell should I know what will happen.

Only in the fullness of time will we know. And frankly, why shouldn't that be good enough for us? Who would want instant judgment in a matter so serious? The seeming need for instant answers makes no sense to me. Frankly, I think it's media driven and terribly destructive to our justice system.

I would also point out that in the dark Zimmerman probably had no idea of the age of Martin. It was dark, his face was hidden by a hood, and he was over six feet tall. So when someone says that this MAN followed this BOY there is not exactly true. Hell, given the circumstances it could have been a women inside the hood. I guess that is the point of the hoodie, you can hide your identity by pulling it up.

No idea. Unlike most folks, I don't bother to read much in the popular media about legal disputes because I know that most of what is represented as facts are no more than impressions at best. Facts are hard to pin down under the best of circumstances, and journalism isn't even close to the crucible of cross examination.

One of my pet peeves is the tendency of people to have to have an opinion on everything and to have to have it instantly. Obviously someone is dead. Obviously the guy who is in the news is the guy who killed him. Beyond that, I wouldn't put much money on anything that we've heard represented to be fact as really being a fact.

The bottom line is we don't know the facts. As to what happens, it's hard to predict. It depends on the facts (which we don't know), it depends on the actions of the prosecution team (who I don't know), the defense team (who I don't know), the trial judge (who I don't know), the risk tolerance of the Defendant (who I don't know), and possibly the composition of the jury (which I don't know). How the hell should I know what will happen.

Only in the fullness of time will we know. And frankly, why shouldn't that be good enough for us? Who would want instant judgment in a matter so serious? The seeming need for instant answers makes no sense to me. Frankly, I think it's media driven and terribly destructive to our justice system. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That is pretty much what I said in my first few posts. That and Fuc Alan D.

This is my intial post.

He will not get 2nd degree. IMHO

He may walk...let the jury decide.

Oh and Fuc Alan D Originally Posted by WTF

So in summary, I do not care what Alan D thinks about the matter. I do not really care what you think about the matter. The law will run its course. That was my point in this thread
I do not even care that much about the matter. It is yesterdays news as far as I am concerened. Post away about it as you see fit and I will do the same.

. Originally Posted by WTF

At least TTH can sat things without sounding like a teenage girl, fuc'r.

At least TTH can sat things without sounding like a teenage girl, fuc'r. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I can sat what I wanna say and sat it when I wanna sat it.

COG you ever heard of the book, "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff"?

It isn't about your weenie, it is about chilling. You worry about the most mundane things.

I have said before, I am here for the entertainment. You're use of junior high contractions is hysterical. You try to come off as this reasonable, thoughtful person, and then you blow it with these ridiculous spellings of "fuc" or "fuc'r" which you think are cute, and they are, if you are a 14 year old girl. It's funny! You have no credibility, because you show your true maturity level when you do that. I makes me laugh more than anything else others post. You, this pompous, arrogant blowhard buffoon, taking on the persona of blonde airhead cheerleader - It's classic! It's like the arrogant bastard getting a pie in the face, it never gets old, and it is always funny. So keep it up, and I will keep laughing.

I have said before, I am here for the entertainment. You're use of junior high contractions is hysterical. You try to come off as this reasonable, thoughtful person, and then you blow it with these ridiculous spellings of "fuc" or "fuc'r" which you think are cute, and they are, if you are a 14 year old girl. It's funny! You have no credibility, because you show your true maturity level when you do that.. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How do you know what 14 year old girls text?

I sure don't!

And I do not try and come off reasonable or thoughtful. I come off as someone who makes fun of hypocrites. If you think I try and make fun of you it is because I think you are a hypocrite. You notice that I do not do it to all the righties that post on this board. Many are reasonable or thoughtful or both. Try it sometime COG. Fake it 'till ya make it.

I am a parent. I know what they do. You make fun of hypocrites, and you're the biggest one. A pompous arrogant buffoon, with the mentality of a teenager. It's funny. And I'm not a righty. That's part of what makes you a hypocrite, you only read what you want, not what is said. Then you include your immature little contractions. It completes the picture.

You of course don't see it, arrogant buffoons rarely do, but others here do, and you are funny.