The "Hoodie" Incident: Controversial? Racist? - Part 2

[Scrandy Randy]

Originally Posted by roach

i agree...until this news came out no one was in this thread discussing it

New information = new discussion.

It will probably die down again until Zimmerman's lawyer gets a chance to speak to the judge or the rest of the discovery is released.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by roach

i agree...until this news came out no one was in this thread discussing it

There are much more awful stories about clear cut murder/rape/kidnapping but nobody gives a **** about those. This gets national media attention and suddenly everyone cares about it on a personal level. Zimmerman will go to jail or be free and then everyone will move on to the next sensationalized story. It's kind of sad.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Most of those stories have suspects that were arrested, charged, and convicted. There's nothing to talk about.

This is very controversial because he was not arrested and charged for months after killing an unarmed teenager. It is controversial because it could be anything ranging from a racially motivated profile and murder, to a case of self defense that should see him found not guilty and set free. There is plenty to discuss in this case, from the actual incident itself, to perceived police incompetence in handling the case after the fact.

[KalMart]

It's not quite the OJ case, but it's definitely a hot topic in public consciousness...or at least was. When the trial does happen, probably (and hopefully) the reporting will primarily be news, and not the sensationalism it was before.

[bullets]

Originally Posted by roach

i agree...until this news came out no one was in this thread discussing it

The conversation had run it's course. I'm going to follow this one closely though .

[Darthphere]

Other than my personal thoughts and feelings about this, I'm a law student so this type of thing interests me anyway. Especially as someone who lives in the same state. It's why the Casey Anthony trial interested me as well.

[Scrandy Randy]

As if the Zimmerman case needs more twists and turns, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz writes that States Attorney Angela Corey called Harvard Law School and went on a 40 minute rant, threatening to sue the University for Dershowitz having expressed his opinion that she misled the court by leaving exculpatory evidence out of the arrest warrant affidavit. She originally called the Dean, but got transferred to the Office of Communications:

She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander. She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.

The person she was transferred to tried to explain academic freedom to her, but according to Dersowitz, "she did not seem to understand."

She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility — without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career.
Her beef was that I criticized her for filing a misleading affidavit that willfully omitted all information about the injuries Zimmerman had sustained during the “struggle” it described. She denied that she had any obligation to include in the affidavit truthful material that was favorable to the defense.

She insisted that she is entitled to submit what, in effect, were half truths in an affidavit of probable cause, so long as she subsequently provides the defense with exculpatory evidence

Dershowitz says she should go back to law school.

She should go back to law school, where she will learn that it is never appropriate to submit an affidavit that contains a half truth, because a half truth is regarded by the law as a lie, and anyone who submits an affidavit swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As examples of the half-truths in the affidavit (available here), Dershowitz points out:

Before she submitted the probable cause affidavit, Corey was fully aware that Zimmerman had sustained serious injuries to the front and back of his head. The affidavit said that her investigators “reviewed” reports, statements and “photographs” that purportedly “detail[ed] the following.”.... It then went on to describe “the struggle,” but it deliberately omitted all references to Zimmerman’s injuries which were clearly visible in the photographs she and her investigators reviewed.

..... That a prosecutor would hide behind the claim that she did not have an obligation to tell the whole truth until after the judge ruled on probable cause displays a kind of gamesmanship in which prosecutors should not engage.

Dershowitz adds:

Even if Angela Corey’s actions were debatable, which I believe they were not, I certainly have the right, as a professor who has taught and practiced criminal law nearly 50 years, to express a contrary view. The idea that a prosecutor would threaten to sue someone who disagrees with her for libel and slander, to sue the university for which he works, and to try to get him disbarred, is the epitome of unprofessionalism.

Dershowitz also discusses the irony in the state's motion to revoke bond, considering the state's affidavit had the same misrepresentations by omission:

Ironically, Corey has now succeeded in putting Zimmerman back in prison for a comparably misleading omission in his testimony. His failure to disclose money received from a PayPal account requesting donations for his legal defense made his testimony misleadingly incomplete.
In her motion to revoke his bail, Corey argued that Zimmerman “intentionally deceived the court” by making “false representations.” The same can be said about prosecutor Corey. She too misled and deceived the court by submitting an affidavit that relied on a review of photographs and other reports that showed injuries to Zimmerman, without disclosing the existence of these highly relevant injuries.

Sources-
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/6/63420/28270
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zim...6/05/id/441305



I can't wait for the spin on this one.

[KalMart]

Just have them flip a coin.


But if she does actually admit to consciously not including evidence...........isn't that grounds for dismissal as counsel or something? Mistrial?

[bullets]

Zimmerman’s New Bond Hearing Scheduled for June 29

http://newsone.com/2019290/george-zimmerman-3/

[KalMart]

Ironically, Corey has now succeeded in putting Zimmerman back in prison for a comparably misleading omission in his testimony. His failure to disclose money received from a PayPal account requesting donations for his legal defense made his testimony misleadingly incomplete.

In her motion to revoke his bail, Corey argued that Zimmerman “intentionally deceived the court” by making “false representations.” The same can be said about prosecutor Corey. She too misled and deceived the court by submitting an affidavit that relied on a review of photographs and other reports that showed injuries to Zimmerman, without disclosing the existence of these highly relevant injuries.

Can the defense bring this up during the bond hearing, or should they wait afterwards?

[Scrandy Randy]

You wonder if they'll ever bring it up at all if they haven't so far. I mean when the affidavit came out it was almost universally looked at as paper thin and a joke by most law experts that looked at it Dershowitz being the one most vocal about it. They've had plenty of time to bring it up now and still haven't. Maybe O'Mara is waiting for the actual trial if it goes that far(immunity hearing) to bring it up?

The way Angela Corey and co have handled the case so far is a joke really. Talking about justice and praying with the Martin family when she announced the charge, the paper thin affidavit that Corey also withheld evidence from, and now this recent incident putting Zimmerman back in jail even though he's no flight risk.

[thechangingman]

So, Zimmerman's actual actions in misleading the court ( in concert with his wife ) are somehow less reprehensible because Alan Dershowitz gives an opinion on a case he is not involved with?

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by thechangingman

A) So, Zimmerman's actual actions in misleading the court ( in concert with his wife ) are somehow less reprehensible because B) Alan Dershowitz gives an opinion on a case he is not involved with?

A) No one said they were reprehensible...but they are no less punishable. Reducing their culpability for that is not the point.

B) Dershowitz is an experienced lawyer and law professor, and he's correct about willingly withholding evidence in an affidavit. You don't have to be involved to identify that.

[Scrandy Randy]

Originally Posted by thechangingman

So, Zimmerman's actual actions in misleading the court ( in concert with his wife ) are somehow less reprehensible because Alan Dershowitz gives an opinion on a case he is not involved with?

Straw man argument, no one ever said that. I was bringing up the fact that the prosecution's work and specifically Corey's work on this case has been "reprehensible" yet it has escaped scrutiny and Corey has been able to get away with it because the majority of the public isn't unbiased and it's what the public wants.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Just have them flip a coin.


But if she does actually admit to consciously not including evidence...........isn't that grounds for dismissal as counsel or something? Mistrial?

It wouldn't be a mistrial at this stage but she could be dismissed or forced to "step down".

[Schlosser85]

Sounds like Corey should be booted off the case.

And threatening to sue Harvard for Dershowitz giving his legal analysis is ridiculous.

[thechangingman]

Originally Posted by KalMart

A) No one said they were reprehensible...but they are no less punishable. Reducing their culpability for that is not the point.

B) Dershowitz is an experienced lawyer and law professor, and he's correct about willingly withholding evidence in an affidavit. You don't have to be involved to identify that.

I think that you're misidentifying the term "withholding evidence", this would indicate that Corey and her group were the only ones aware of injuries to Zimmerman and that they omitted this information or stopped this information from reaching an interested party.

Now, as to Dershowitz? his experience as lawyer or professor doesn't change the fact that he is not privy to all information in the case, thus rendering his opinion as reliable as any other layman.

Originally Posted by Scrandy Randy

Straw man argument, no one ever said that. I was bringing up the fact that the prosecution's work and specifically Corey's work on this case has been "reprehensible" yet it has escaped scrutiny and Corey has been able to get away with it because the majority of the public isn't unbiased and it's what the public wants.

You brought up an opinion from someone you happen to agree with.
it's by no means "fact". what is fact? Zimmerman misrepresented his finances, he did so in concert with his wife and lawyer, that's "fact". A conclusion a judge actually involved in the case arrived at.

[dnno1]

Florida's Stand Your Ground Defense More Likely To Succeed If Victim Is Black: Study

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1575686.html

[Scrandy Randy]

Originally Posted by thechangingman

I think that you're misidentifying the term "withholding evidence", this would indicate that Corey and her group were the only ones aware of injuries to Zimmerman and that they omitted this information or stopped this information from reaching an interested party.

No leaving vital information out of an arrest affidavit definitely qualifies as withholding evidence. Please know what you're talking about. When filing an affidavit you need to include all information about the case ignoring who it benefits and Corey didn't do that.

Originally Posted by thechangingman

Now, as to Dershowitz? his experience as lawyer or professor doesn't change the fact that he is not privy to all information in the case, thus rendering his opinion as reliable as any other layman.

He criticized the arrest affidavit and Corey's work. This stuff is all definitive. There's nothing about Corey's work or the arrest affidavit that is hidden from anyone. So no he does know all the information about the affidavit which he criticized. Ignoring that the Martin defenders that use the "all the information isn't out" shtick need to stop, it isn't an excuse! That and pretty much all of the information is out bar Martin's autopsy photos and Zimmerman's statements which might never be released to the public.

Originally Posted by thechangingman

You brought up an opinion from someone you happen to agree with.
it's by no means "fact".

Them(prosecution) leaving vital information out of the affidavit is most definitely a fact. It was revealed after the first discovery was released that Corey and her team had Zimmerman's medical records available to them prior to filing the affidavit yet they left his medical records out. Unless you're going to try and tell me Zimmerman's medical records aren't vital to the case? (I hope you don't try and do this)

Originally Posted by thechangingman

what is fact? Zimmerman misrepresented his finances, he did so in concert with his wife and lawyer, that's "fact".

I'll wait for the next hearing where Zimmerman's lawyer actually gets a chance to respond to these claims instead of making a definitive conclusion when this information was sprung on him in court without his client even present. But I've already said if it's true he's an idiot.

Originally Posted by thechangingman

A conclusion a judge actually involved in the case arrived at.

Funny you say that when Martin's defenders choose to ignore a judge in the case saying he was dismissing Zimmerman's one altercation with a police officer instead clinging to it and bringing it up to prove Zimmerman has "anger issues".

[Scrandy Randy]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Florida's Stand Your Ground Defense More Likely To Succeed If Victim Is Black: Study

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1575686.html

The difference is negligible really. Stupid article just trying to get views. What's more alarming is that the law itself hasn't come under as much scrutiny as it should have after this incident(and probably incidents before this one) and that a majority of Florida residents still support the law.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Scrandy Randy

No leaving vital information out of an arrest affidavit definitely qualifies as withholding evidence. Please know what you're talking about. When filing an affidavit you need to include all information about the case ignoring who it benefits and Corey didn't do that.


He criticized the arrest affidavit and Corey's work. This stuff is all definitive. There's nothing about Corey's work or the arrest affidavit that is hidden from anyone. So no he does know all the information about the affidavit which he criticized. Ignoring that the Martin defenders that use the "all the information isn't out" shtick need to stop, it isn't an excuse! That and pretty much all of the information is out bar Martin's autopsy photos and Zimmerman's statements which might never be released to the public.



Them(prosecution) leaving vital information out of the affidavit is most definitely a fact. It was revealed after the first discovery was released that Corey and her team had Zimmerman's medical records available to them prior to filing the affidavit yet they left his medical records out. Unless you're going to try and tell me Zimmerman's medical records aren't vital to the case? (I hope you don't try and do this)


I'll wait for the next hearing where Zimmerman's lawyer actually gets a chance to respond to these claims instead of making a definitive conclusion when this information was sprung on him in court without his client even present. But I've already said if it's true he's an idiot.


Funny you say that when Martin's defenders choose to ignore a judge in the case saying he was dismissing Zimmerman's one altercation with a police officer instead clinging to it and bringing it up to prove Zimmerman has "anger issues".

I think we are looking into this a little too hard. An Affidavit of Arrest is just a police report that states the probable cause for arrest. It should be filled out in detail, but it does not necessarily mean that all the facts about the case need to be reported. It only needs to report those facts that led to the probable cause for an arrest warrant to be issued. In some cases an affidavit does not even have to be submitted. Now, grated, if any of the information presented in the case was false or if the information was convoluted such that the facts were obscured, then there could be perjury charges, but that is not the case here.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Scrandy Randy

The difference is negligible really. Stupid article just trying to get views. What's more alarming is that the law itself hasn't come under as much scrutiny as it should have after this incident(and probably incidents before this one) and that a majority of Florida residents still support the law.

What difference? The article is stating the fact that most of these cases where self defense is invoked get acquittals. I don't see how that is stupid. It is fact.

[DrCosmic]

from another thread:

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...1#post23465825


[QUOTE=Spider - Man;23462719]
I wouldn’t put as much faith in statistics as you do if I were you. Problem with statistics is they’re only as good as the data they’re built with. The book Bell Shaped Curve would dictate that I am more intelligent than you based on statistics. Do you believe that I should be smarter than you just because I am white and you are black? I should hope not. I mean after all, you are a phd in metascience! There are other things more esoteric that make up the opinions I have than just statistics.

Bell curves aren't statements about individuals, so either the Bell Curve is not about bell curves or it doesn't say what you think it said. People's ability to apply and refer to statistics is not true, however, statistics have specific input and output that can be analyzed rationally, and actually makes definitive statements about their samples. The same cannot be said for more... esoteric methods.

[Scrandy Randy]

Originally Posted by dnno1

I think we are looking into this a little too hard. An Affidavit of Arrest is just a police report that states the probable cause for arrest. It should be filled out in detail, but it does not necessarily mean that all the facts about the case need to be reported. It only needs to report those facts that led to the probable cause for an arrest warrant to be issued. In some cases an affidavit does not even have to be submitted. Now, grated, if any of the information presented in the case was false or if the information was convoluted such that the facts were obscured, then there could be perjury charges, but that is not the case here.

Not including Zimmerman's medical records is huge and could definitely fall under intentionally obscuring the truth. An affidavit also needs to establish probable cause and where in the affidavit did they do that for a murder 2 charge?

[Scrandy Randy]

Originally Posted by dnno1

What difference? The article is stating the fact that most of these cases where self defense is invoked get acquittals. I don't see how that is stupid. It is fact.

The difference between white and black victims is 59%(white) and 73%(black). The difference is negligible and isn't really important. It's a useless piece adding more fuel to the race agenda. It's stupid.