Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz, on Zimmerman's arrest

"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


Everybody hailed the decision by this prosecutor to by-pass the grand jury and sign the charging documents herself as a great victory for justice. I see it as an admission that no grand jury would indict if presented with the evidence she has. And can't most prosecutors convince most grand juries to indict a ham sandwich?

This is the same ELECTED prosecutor who has brought adult first degree murder charges against a 12 year old.

Here's a not-too-flattering article on the prosecutor - not from Fox News, but from the ABAJournal - that's ABA as in American Bar Association.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...n_election_af/

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

Dershowitz is an unusual liberal. He actually makes sense on occation. I got a very bad feeling listening to the special prosecutor's remarks to the press when she announced the charges against Zimmerman. Right at the start she referred to talking to Trayvon's "sweet parents" and the "search for justice for Trayvon". If Trayvon was the agressor and Zimmerman was acting completely in self defence then there is no justice required for Trayvon. In that scenario, justice has already been accomplished. By saying that she's seeking "justice for Trayvon" she's telling us the fix is in.

Fair trial and hangin...

2 less votes for BO.

Folks get turned off when they see Sharpton and Jackson on TV.

He will not get 2nd degree.

He may walk...let the jury decide.

Oh and Fuc Alan D

WTF, I am shocked, shocked I tell you. You can't even write Dershowitz when he doesn't support your position. We all agree that as a liberal you are a closet anti-semitic. My estimation of the liberal Dershowitz has gone up in the last few years because it seems that he really cares about the law and it is not a situation belief. Like Joe Lieberman, Dershowitz is an honest liberal. The mere fact that it can be pointed out should demonstrate how rare an honest liberal is.

We all agree that as a liberal you are a closet anti-semitic. . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Just because I care for this country more than Israel does not make me antic-semitic.

I suggest you move there if you care for it so much. Just like assholes suggested that TTH move to France if he liked it so much.

A Prosecutors job, regardless of all the tripe they expound in public, is to get a conviction.

It is the job of the Defense Attorneys to get a 'not guilty' verdict. Not guilty does not mean innocent.

It's the Jury's job to impart justice.

Dershowitz has already been proven wrong, the Judge did see probable cause to let the 2d degree murder charge stand.

I quite fancy Alan D. I saw a lecture from him at University College London. He is quite clever I might add.

From what I got they didn't want to over charge with first degree murder because that would be much harder to prove. They apparently found enough evidence to bring the 2nd degree murder charge. With 2nd degree murder if convicted he could get life in prison.

I actually liked the special prosecutor and was impressed how she handled the press. She also did a fair amount of butt chewing with some of the press asking the same questions over and over that she had already answered.

She looks to be all business and no bones about it type. She was not going to talk badly about the prior prosecutor or the police department and I think that was the right thing to do.

I think Zimmerman will get a fair trial. I am glad that Al Sharpton and others got involved and brought this case to light because had they not this guy would have gotten away without ever haven been investigated or arrested.

I quite fancy Alan D. I saw a lecture from him at University College London. He is quite clever I might add. Originally Posted by liberaldevil

I would love to see Norm Finkelstien debate Alan!



Norman Finkelstein
{{MainMain|Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair} Shortly after the publication of Dershowitz's The Case for Israel (2003), Norman Finkelstein of DePaul University said the book contained plagiarism.[38] He offered several examples, one of which was a quote from Mark Twain appearing on pages 23–24 of The Case for Israel, which he said was the same as one on pages 159–160 of From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters, including with the ellipses in the same place.[39] Dershowitz said the quote was taken from Mark Twain, to whom he gave credit. Harvard's president, Derek Bok, investigated the allegation and determined that no plagiarism had occurred.[40]
In early 2004 it was announced that Dr Finkelstein would publish a study rebutting Professor Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel and documenting that extensive passages in his book had been plagiarized. Dershowitz and his attorneys entered into a protracted correspondence with the publisher, originally New Press and subsequently University of California Press also involving Governor Schwarzenegger. [41] Dershowitz had pressured the publishers suppressing the release of Beyond Chutzpah, yet refused to release his correspondence – indeed, falsely claiming that he had released it. Later in 2007 a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request was made to the University of California Press and the letters were released.[42][43]
In October 2006, Dershowitz wrote to DePaul University faculty members to lobby against Finkelstein's application for tenure. The university's Liberal Arts and Sciences faculty voted to send a letter of complaint to Harvard University.[44] In June 2007, DePaul University denied Finkelstein tenure.[45]
[edit] Mearsheimer and Walt

{{MainMain|The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy} In March 2006, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, co-wrote a paper entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," published in The London Review of Books.[46] Mearsheimer and Walt criticized what they described as "the Israel lobby" for influencing U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in a direction away from U.S. interests and toward Israel's interests. They referred to Dershowitz specifically as an "apologist" for the Israel lobby. In an interview in March 2006 for The Harvard Crimson, Dershowitz called the article "one-sided" and its authors "liars" and "bigots."[47] The following day on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, he suggested the paper had been taken from various hate sites: "every paragraph virtually is copied from a neo-Nazi Web site, from a radical Islamic Web site, from David Duke’s Web site."[48] Dershowitz subsequently wrote a report challenging the paper, arguing that it contained "three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted, and embarrassingly weak logic is employed."[49] In a letter in the London Review of Books in May 2006, Mearsheimer and Walt denied that they had used any racist sources for their article, writing that Dershowitz had offered no evidence to support what they said was his false claim.[50]

A Prosecutors job, regardless of all the tripe they expound in public, is to get a conviction. Originally Posted by Jackie S

True, but there is more to it than that. There are rules governing the conduct of ANY prosecutor. Such as that the bills of indictment MUST contain evidence that is favorable to the accused. Dershowitz's point here is that THIS prosecutor failed to do her duty, and in fact has handled this case unethically.

Dershowitz has already been proven wrong, the Judge did see probable cause to let the 2d degree murder charge stand. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You are WRONG. Zimmerman was arraigned, that's all. Yeah, the arraignment was in front of a judge, but the defense isn't exactly allowed to put on its case there. At an arraignment, it's only the prosecutor asking a judge to sanction the arrest. The preliminary hearing to which Prof Dershowitz referred, is scheduled for May 29. At THAT time a judge, after carefully examining all evidence submitted, and after reading/hearing the arguments from the defense, might very well dismiss. At THAT time, you may declare Prof. Dershowitz an imbecile if the judge allows this case to proceed to trial, but not before.

... Harvard's president, Derek Bok, investigated the allegation and determined that no plagiarism had occurred.[40] Originally Posted by WTF

So ... citing a Wiki article that covers various controversies involving Dershowitz somehow proves that Dershowitz is unqualified to state a professional opinion about a prosecutor's conduct? Interesting.

The specific controversy you bring up has to do with Israel and public/foreign policy issues. Nothing whatsoever to do with criminal defense. Nothing whatsoever that would cause an intelligent person to question Prof Dershowitz's opinion of the Zimmerman prosecutor's unethical conduct.

So you think character assassination is sufficient to win your argument? If so, I'm a little confused about what your argument IS. But let me give it a try.

WTF thinks Zimmerman must be guilty because Dershowitz is a scumbag.

There. Did I accurately state your argument? I hope so, because that's the only argument that could be made with the "evidence" you presented from that Wiki article.

You seem to be a fan of Wiki. But could you clarify something in the timeline for me, Kemosabe? Dershowitz's book appeared in 2003, and Finkelstein's charges shortly thereafter. But Larry Summers was president of Harvard from 2001 to 2006. If Derek Bok investigated and declared that there was no plagiarism, he must have done so while we was a private citizen and NOT while president of Harvard. His first tour was 1971 - 1991, and his second tour lasted 2006 - 2007. I think the investigation written about in this Wiki article that you copied so generously from MUST have taken place BEFORE Bok took over as acting president.

Not that it matters. Dershowitz would make mincemeat of Finkelstein in the debate you long for.

WTF cares about this country? He's already said he sees the disaster coming, but isn't willing to do anything about it. Then he criticizes Alan Dershowitz? I don't always agree with Dershowitz, but he is a straight shooter, and I respect that. He should be on the Supreme Court.

And there he goes with that junior high cheerleader "fuc". No credibility, he can't even keep his stories straight.

[Dershowitz] should be on the Supreme Court Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yikes!! What a thought!

I will give you this: Dershowitz is STRONGLY pro gun control, but at least he has made it clear that repeal of the second amendment is necessary to accomplish what he wants. He does not believe in creative reading of the clear language. The amendment is there, and it says what it says. If you don't like it, you MUST REPEAL IT. So says Alan Dershowitz, and for that I'd at least say he deserved to be considered for SCOTUS.

I am on my phone but I never said what either u or cuteoldliar said I said.lol