The Embarrassment of the George Zimmerman Verdict

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by TadQueasy, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. TadQueasy

    TadQueasy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best thing I have read regarding this case. Thank you Mr. Tannebaum

    http://criminaldefenseblog.blogspot...assment-of-george-zimmerman.html?spref=fb&m=1
     
  2. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, OK, more biased drivel. Thanks. :love2:
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    What part was biased?

    I found the article very informative.
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,650
    Likes Received:
    312
    What's so biased about saying "The prosecution in the American system of criminal law can not appeal a not quilty verdict?" Or for saying CNN needed to have Floridia expert commentators rather than a bunch of outsiders.
     
  5. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing.

    But here is my point:

    His bias is in broad brushing everyone in his statements that they are ignorant of this story or of the facts. I disagree with that point.
     
  6. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with a great deal of what was said by Mr. Tannenbaum, but some of it is wishful thinking, too, and therefore represents some form of bias, deliberate or not.

    He says ...

    That represents his own bias, because as he says just a few sentences later, no one knows exactly what happened. He can't make these statements without engaging in personal bias, most likely based on news reports, because while he knows people "on both sides," he didn't have access to the evidence. That would be illegal. Also, saying he knows people "on both sides" is a misstatement, because there are more like four sides -- prosecution, defense, parents' civil attorneys, and the police. Of those, the police are probably the most reliable of all and they were originally not going to present a case to the prosecutor.

    Further, he says ...

    On the contrary, there were multiple witnesses, all of whom said they did not have a clear view of the events that led to Martin's death, but who stated with confidence that it was Martin ("the guy in the hoodie") on top of the "the other guy" beating the tar out of him and banging his head on the sidewalk. All said it was "the other guy" (Zimmerman) yelling for help. To say there "were no witnesses" is an outright misrepresentation of the facts.

    Finally, he says ...

    I'm sorry, but that's just plain naive. Any lawyer who thinks emotions don't play the largest part in deliberations is either trying to hide the truth, or isn't aware of how juries work. I've been on two. One was a murder trial. While we considered the facts, both decisions boiled down to our emotional reaction to the witnesses, both for the state and for the defense. Deliberations were most commonly settled by considering our own comments, "He just wasn't believable" or "She seemed to be concerned more with the accuracy of her statements than with how she came across." It's all emotion, with some perception mixed in.

    A lawyer who doesn't know that hasn't spent enough time in the courtroom.
     

Share This Page

Loading...