Alan Derschowitz: Zimmerman Charge Wont Stand

[Old Rocks]

A couple of things here. Had Zimmerman not been packing, Martin would be alive. Had Zimmerman not confronted Martin, Martin would be alive.

A key issue will be who was calling for help. If it was Zimmerman, then he may get off with manslaughter and a very minor sentence. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman will almost certainly be convicted of second degree murder.

 

[Old Rocks]

So we see the bigots claiming Martin was committing assault. If it was Martin calling for help, here is one scenerio that might have taken place.

Zimmerman confronts the kid. The kid asks "Why are you following me?". Zimmerman asks "What are you doing here?". The kid replies, "What fucking business is it of yours?". Zimmerman pulls his gun out to show this punk that he is serious. Martin, faced with an older man he does not know, with a gun, grabs the gun arm, and forces Zimmerman back and Zimmerman falls backwards, striking his head on the ground. The kid is calling for help, because he is in fear of his life as they struggle for the gun, Zimmerman still on the bottom. Zimmerman fires the gun, the kid is dead.

Much depends on who was calling for help.

 

[Ariux]

A couple of things here. Had Zimmerman not been packing, Martin would be alive. Had Zimmerman not confronted Martin, Martin would be alive.

Had that African not been casing the neighborhood, he wouldn't have gotten Zimmerman's attention. Had the African not assaulted Zimmerman, he'd still be alive. Had Zimmerman not been packing, Zimmerman would have ended up in the hospital or killed. And, it's only in your racist and stupid imagination that Zimmerman confronted the African. It was the other way around.

A key issue will be who was calling for help. If it was Zimmerman, then he may get off with manslaughter and a very minor sentence.

Zimmerman will be acquitted. And, only racist idiots doubt it was Zimmerman screaming. Someone with a gun pointed at them doesn't scream like that. Only someone getting the shit beat out of them screams like that. And, if Zimmerman was beating the shit out of that African, he wouldn't have shot him. F-ing Moron.

 

[LockeJaw]

​

A couple of things here. Had Zimmerman not been packing, Martin would be alive. Had Zimmerman not confronted Martin, Martin would be alive.

A key issue will be who was calling for help. If it was Zimmerman, then he may get off with manslaughter and a very minor sentence. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman will almost certainly be convicted of second degree murder.

That's about the jist of it. I've listened to that 9-11 audio repeatedly and for me , I cannot tell if it's Zimmerman or not. He has a soft voice(Zimmerman)if you listen to his call to the police dispatcher and the voice mail he left his fellow neighborhood watch partner. I agree that's an important piece of evidence. Thing is, the 13 year old witness said it was Zimmerman yelling help, he saw him with his own two eyes. That Zimmerman was packing means nothing, that's just another purely emotion-based and useless point, he had his permit and could carry his pistol wherever he wanted in FL except where prohibited.

So let's atleast stop bringing that up since it really doesn't matter as far as the case is concerned .

 

[Ariux]

Zimmerman confronts the kid. The kid asks "Why are you following me?".

Don't be a moron, bigot. If Zimmerman did the confronting, he would have talked first. Zimmerman also had no reason to confront the African. But, your idiotic scenario, with the African speaking first, reveals that you believe that the African had reason to confront Zimmerman.

 

[LockeJaw]

So we see the bigots claiming Martin was committing assault. If it was Martin calling for help, here is one scenerio that might have taken place.
Listen asshole, I'm black so you can cut the bullshit with labeling me a bigot because I state a likely scenario that's supported by facts. Trayvon had no bruises on him that'd lead someone to conclude he was physically hit by Zimmerman, the guy who prepared Martin's body for viewing and burial made that clear. Quit with the emotional appeals and deal with the facts.

Zimmerman confronts the kid. The kid asks "Why are you following me?". Zimmerman asks "What are you doing here?". The kid replies, "What fucking business is it of yours?". Zimmerman pulls his gun out to show this punk that he is serious. Martin, faced with an older man he does not know, with a gun, grabs the gun arm, and forces Zimmerman back and Zimmerman falls backwards, striking his head on the ground. The kid is calling for help, because he is in fear of his life as they struggle for the gun, Zimmerman still on the bottom. Zimmerman fires the gun, the kid is dead.

Much depends on who was calling for help.

That could very well be what happened, but,like I said the witness said Zimmerman was yelling to him for help. It could be that both men were yelling for help fighting over the gun if your theory is correct that Zimmerman brandished his weapon and Martin went to grab it from him or get Zimmerman to the ground so he could get away.

Point is, is we don't know and probably never will. But we will find out what we can as this develops in court. I'm being completely reasoned,logical, and unbiasedin this post, so I don't even want to hear the word bigot or any other insult akin to that word in a response from you.

 

[LockeJaw]

Zimmerman confronts the kid. The kid asks "Why are you following me?".

Don't be a moron, bigot. If Zimmerman did the confronting, he would have talked first. Zimmerman also had no reason to confront the African. But, your idiotic scenario, with the African speaking first, reveals that you believe that the African had reason to confront Zimmerman.

Why do you keep calling Martin an "African"? He was not from Africa. You have a problem with calling black Americans what they are, which is american?

On to the topic, you raise a valid point. Trayvon's being the first to speak does seem to suggest he started the actual confrontation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[B][/B]

You sure like to pretend you know things none of us have any possible way of knowing for certain. You don't know if Martin was committing a crime, like car prowling or casing residences, you and I might believe that isn't the case, but we have no way of knowing for sure. And dumbfuck, If he did Infact attack Zimmerman then he was commiting a crime as soon as he hit Zimmerman, Rufus. That's number 1.
Number 2, my suspicions about fast & furious are based upon facts and backed up by Holder's own words in the video where he stated he wanted to "brainwash" people into being against gun ownership. So you can take your opinion on my theory and shove it up your ass.
And 3rd, this incident doesnt say anything about gun owners and we don't need to be ashamed for anything. You're just a big pussy who hates facts, in this case the fact that lax gun laws lead to less crime and you cannot prove otherwise.

All you have, like most leftists, is emotional appeals and feeeelings. Jackass.

If, if, if . . . you have no idea what GZ did TM, but prosecution is surely going to argue that once GZ dismounted from his car the Stand Your Ground defense went out the window unless TM unlawfully attacked GZ. We have no evidence of such a thing. We know an altercation occurred, and that is what we know.
That's true that is what we know. You're only mistake is thinking that the SYG law is the only thing Zimmerman's lawyer can use to claim self defense. That simply isn't so. He doesn't have to use SYG to claim self defense, self defense claims arent dependent upon SYG. Self defense is a seperate law and permitted in every single state in the union.
Most of the far right gun nuts have reacted emotionally and illogically. A very few have been tinged with racism (ignoring those dooshes is the best thing).
It's funny that you'd claim this while that's exactly what most of the far left gunophobes have done, use nothing but emotional appeals and feelings to form their opinions more so than the facts.
Far nut righties: start using logic, stop waving you hand in the air and stop running around in circles.

What exactly is your definition of "far right"? I never get an answer to that question. Is it limited government, pro-private property and pro-second amendment right wingers or what?

I am for limited government when possible, private property, and second amendment rights.

The far right neo-nazis, white supremacists, economic libertarians, those who refuse to recognize the imperatives that 21st century impose on us, those who want to go back to the 1950s, those who want to tell women how to conduct their reproductive lives (this last group is, of course, so-called small government conservatives that want to use progressive government statism to suppress women)).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Zimmerman confronts the kid. The kid asks "Why are you following me?".

Don't be a moron, bigot. If Zimmerman did the confronting, he would have talked first. Zimmerman also had no reason to confront the African. But, your idiotic scenario, with the African speaking first, reveals that you believe that the African had reason to confront Zimmerman.

Why do you keep calling Martin an "African"? He was not from Africa. You have a problem with calling black Americans what they are, which is american?

On to the topic, you raise a valid point. Trayvon's being the first to speak does seem to suggest he started the actual confrontation.

Ariux is a Storm Fronter type white supremacist doosh. Ignore him.

 

[LockeJaw]

[B][/B]

If, if, if . . . you have no idea what GZ did TM, but prosecution is surely going to argue that once GZ dismounted from his car the Stand Your Ground defense went out the window unless TM unlawfully attacked GZ. We have no evidence of such a thing. We know an altercation occurred, and that is what we know.
That's true that is what we know. You're only mistake is thinking that the SYG law is the only thing Zimmerman's lawyer can use to claim self defense. That simply isn't so. He doesn't have to use SYG to claim self defense, self defense claims arent dependent upon SYG. Self defense is a seperate law and permitted in every single state in the union.
Most of the far right gun nuts have reacted emotionally and illogically. A very few have been tinged with racism (ignoring those dooshes is the best thing).
It's funny that you'd claim this while that's exactly what most of the far left gunophobes have done, use nothing but emotional appeals and feelings to form their opinions more so than the facts.
Far nut righties: start using logic, stop waving you hand in the air and stop running around in circles.

What exactly is your definition of "far right"? I never get an answer to that question. Is it limited government, pro-private property and pro-second amendment right wingers or what?

I am for limited government when possible, private property, and second amendment rights.

The far right neo-nazis, white supremacists, economic libertarians, those who refuse to recognize the imperatives that 21st century impose on us, those who want to go back to the 1950s, those who want to tell women how to conduct their reproductive lives (this last group is, of course, so-called small government conservatives that want to use progressive government statism to suppress women)).

How the heck can you group any form of libertarianism with social conservative big government authoritarians as "far right"?Stuff like this proves far right is just catchy term thrown around by leftists that has no definition or meaning and the people who use it don't even know what the hell it means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just like far left is a catchy term thrown around by non-thinking righties.

Economic libertarians do try to hook onto the right to legitimize their miserable existences.

 

[LockeJaw]

Just like far left is a catchy term thrown around by non-thinking righties.

Economic libertarians do try to hook onto the right to legitimize their miserable existences.

I beg to differ, JS. Far left is any totalitarian statist ideology centering on the beliefs that every want and need should be provided by the state. So I can describe far left while the left cannot give me an exact definition of far right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right can be equally statist and totalitarian.

Progressivism for instance is a reform impulse far more than an ideology. We have conservative statist Progressives, like Santorum, who would use the weight of government to suppress women's rights or to enforce rigidly a right to religious expression in the public forum that the Founders would never have embraced themselves.

You paint yourself as you attempt to paint the so-called "far left."

 

[LockeJaw]

Just like far left is a catchy term thrown around by non-thinking righties.

Economic libertarians do try to hook onto the right to legitimize their miserable existences.

The far right can be equally statist and totalitarian.

Progressivism for instance is a reform impulse far more than an ideology. We have conservative statist Progressives, like Santorum, who would use the weight of government to suppress women's rights or to enforce rigidly a right to religious expression in the public forum that the Founders would never have embraced themselves.

You paint yourself as you attempt to paint the so-called "far left."

I know there are statists on the right and didn't argue that there aren't so I don't get how you came to your conclusion I painted myself into any corner. I'm simply saying either limited small government libertarianism is far right or big government social conservatism is far right. They cannot both be far right. They're not the same and have nothing in common. Get what I'm saying?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course they can both be far right. Show how they aren't, if I am wrong. I am willing to learn.

 

[rightwinger]

I find getting a second degree murder conviction improbable

By all accounts, Zimmerman was acting in what he thought were the best interests of his community. A good Samaritan on steroids.

He was guilty of overstepping his responsibilities as a neighborhood watchman and creating a situation that led to the death of an innocent person. I think they are overcharging second degree murder in the hopes he will plea to manslaughter

 

[LockeJaw]

Of course they can both be far right. Show how they aren't, if I am wrong. I am willing to learn.

Okay, This is the political spectrum from my understanding:

AUTHORITARIAN




LEFT WING. CENTRISM RIGHT WING




LIBERTARIANISM

Now, where would a big government social conservative fit in there? I'm guessing in the North/Authoritarian area and probably more towards the middle right, since the further right you go, atleast in the American sense would be less government, right? And where would a minarchist libertarian fit in? Probably in the south/Libertarian section and at the far right corner. So to me, far right would be minarchist libertarian. Which I am to a certain degree. But what do you think? Libertarian on this chart(lol I tried) just means socially, as well as the authoritarian. I base this off the American political persuasions specifically. The left in America is for big government, so that's how you should interpret this. Right= less government intervention, left= more government intervention. A right wing statist would be for economic freedom more than social freedom. Follow me? Hope the chart stays in place after I hit send. Lol

 

[LockeJaw]

I find getting a second degree murder conviction improbable

By all accounts, Zimmerman was acting in what he thought were the best interests of his community. A good Samaritan on steroids.

He was guilty of overstepping his responsibilities as a neighborhood watchman and creating a situation that led to the death of an innocent person. I think they are overcharging second degree murder in the hopes he will plea to manslaughter

Yes, I'm thinking the same thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course they can both be far right. Show how they aren't, if I am wrong. I am willing to learn.

Okay, This is the political spectrum from my understanding:

AUTHORITARIAN




LEFT WING. CENTRISM RIGHT WING




LIBERTARIANISM

Now, where would a big government social conservative fit in there? I'm guessing in the North/Authoritarian area and probably more towards the middle right, since the further right you go, atleast in the American sense would be less government, right? And where would a minarchist libertarian fit in? Probably in the south/Libertarian section and at the far right corner. So to me, far right would be minarchist libertarian. Which I am to a certain degree. But what do you think? Libertarian on this chart(lol I tried) just means socially, as well as the authoritarian. I base this off the American political persuasions specifically. The left in America is for big government, so that's how you should interpret this. Right= less government intervention, left= more government intervention. A right wing statist would be for economic freedom more than social freedom. Follow me? Hope the chart stays in place after I hit send. Lol

I know which paradigm you are using. I don't happen to agree with the parameters, the labeling, or the questions of the assessment. Though I gather quite a number of academics use it in their college classes: www.politicalcompass.org/test. However, one can argue that as one slides south but farther east, the libertarian and the right wing still intersect.

 

[LockeJaw]

Of course they can both be far right. Show how they aren't, if I am wrong. I am willing to learn.

Okay, This is the political spectrum from my understanding:

AUTHORITARIAN




LEFT WING. CENTRISM RIGHT WING




LIBERTARIANISM

Now, where would a big government social conservative fit in there? I'm guessing in the North/Authoritarian area and probably more towards the middle right, since the further right you go, atleast in the American sense would be less government, right? And where would a minarchist libertarian fit in? Probably in the south/Libertarian section and at the far right corner. So to me, far right would be minarchist libertarian. Which I am to a certain degree. But what do you think? Libertarian on this chart(lol I tried) just means socially, as well as the authoritarian. I base this off the American political persuasions specifically. The left in America is for big government, so that's how you should interpret this. Right= less government intervention, left= more government intervention. A right wing statist would be for economic freedom more than social freedom. Follow me? Hope the chart stays in place after I hit send. Lol

I know which paradigm you are using. I don't happen to agree with the parameters, the labeling, or the questions of the assessment. Though I gather quite a number of academics use it in their college classes: The Political Compass - Test. However, one can argue that as one slides south but farther east, the libertarian and the right wing still intersect.

I like the parameters, but agree with you on the questions. The way they set up the chart is about right to me.