Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A medical report by George Zimmermans doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.
There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmermans claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had a full face picture of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed a bloodied nose. The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.
Douchewitz has no say in what happens to George Zimmerman
Douchewitz has no say in what happens to George Zimmerman
Mr. Dershowitz certainly has no official say, one way or the other.
But what he's SAYING has merit in its own right.
And even though Mr. Dershowitz has no official say, the LAW does and the Judge will.
The special prosecutor might very well find herself on the wrong end of a judicial microscope in all of this if she doesn't make sure her conduct AS a prosecutor rises up to the level expected by the LAW. If she continues (as it appears so far that she's been doing) to worry more about the public reaction or what the press might say, she could end up being properly subject to sanction.
The Prosecutor has handed photos taken the night of the incident, clearly showing his injuries.
Does a Florida prosecutor actually have any ethical or legal responsibility to include potentially exculpatory facts in an affidavit? Dershowitz goes so far as to call the affidavit criminal and perjurious (Dershowitz: Prosecutor in Trayvon Martin case overreached with murder charge | Fox News). I rather doubt that, since I can't imagine why a non-insane prosecutor would so publicly and clearly commit perjury (and anyway so far as I know omissions rather than false statements aren't perjury).
The Prosecutor has handed photos taken the night of the incident, clearly showing his injuries.
Those pics look like they were taken in the doctors office the day after. I'm sure they will be compared to the video of him arriving at the police station.
Douchewitz has no say in what happens to George Zimmerman
Douchewitz has no say in what happens to George Zimmerman
Mr. Dershowitz certainly has no official say, one way or the other.
But what he's SAYING has merit in its own right.
And even though Mr. Dershowitz has no official say, the LAW does and the Judge will.
The special prosecutor might very well find herself on the wrong end of a judicial microscope in all of this if she doesn't make sure her conduct AS a prosecutor rises up to the level expected by the LAW. If she continues (as it appears so far that she's been doing) to worry more about the public reaction or what the press might say, she could end up being properly subject to sanction.
He has an opinion based on what he on what may or may not be partial facts.
Mr. Dershowitz certainly has no official say, one way or the other.
But what he's SAYING has merit in its own right.
And even though Mr. Dershowitz has no official say, the LAW does and the Judge will.
The special prosecutor might very well find herself on the wrong end of a judicial microscope in all of this if she doesn't make sure her conduct AS a prosecutor rises up to the level expected by the LAW. If she continues (as it appears so far that she's been doing) to worry more about the public reaction or what the press might say, she could end up being properly subject to sanction.
He has an opinion based on what he on what may or may not be partial facts.
First off, try to form actual English sentences. This provides a clue as to whatever it is you think you are trying to share.
Secondly, OF COURSE what he is saying is based on partial facts. So is what EVERYBODY else is saying.
But those partial facts DO INCLUDE what we know the prosecutor knew at the time she CHOSE to file charges, and what we know she chose not to include in her decision to file those charges.
He is whining that a LAW professor may not know the facts and have an erroneous opinion not based in fact, YET he has an opinion based on even less then the Law Professor has access to and states his OPINION has fact over and over on this board. As does Peach and a host of others.
He is whining that a LAW professor may not know the facts and have an erroneous opinion not based in fact, YET he has an opinion based on even less then the Law Professor has access to and states his OPINION has fact over and over on this board. As does Peach and a host of others.
If you want to argue that you're a fucking idiot, fine. I believe you, you're a fucking idiot. We know enough facts that show Zimmerman is innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone who isn't an idiot knows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Prosecution doesn't have some trump card that will paint a new picture.
The Prosecution's whole strategy will center around trying to make the Jury doubt Zimmerman's credibility. "Mr. Zimmerman's drivers licence says he's 5'9, but he's really only 5'8. He's a liar!" "Three weeks after the the shooting, he called Al Sharpton the n-word for rallying the black community against him. I rest my case."
I attacked the idiot claiming the professor was wrong. You may want to actually read what you are responding to.
