|
Subtlycaptivated -> RE: Is the prosecution a bunch of slimeballs? (7/11/2013 3:14:42 PM)
|
Okay, let's take that term "caregiver". Zimmerman is a supposed what...neighborhood watch guy? Wouldn't that put him into a position, even if vicariously, of being a care giver?
Just playing devils advocate here because as I said, it's a bit of a double edged sword.
Yes, Language is absolutely the name of the game; it's all in the twist you put on it and how you utilize the various meanings of each word in the English Language.
At the end of the day, Zimmerman was instructed by 911 to not follow the victim. He was told police were in transit. He was not supposed to even be in possession of a fire arm. Why was he?
I mean, there is no doubt that the man will walk. It won't be a hate crime like some people seem to think it is. Which, I don't see why it would have been chalked up to that and not profiling anyway, but there again, I am just a student and I only replied because of my interest in the law, though, not specifically the case.
Bismark? Hm. I shall have to research that one, as I am certain my text stated it as Ben. Oh. Well. Not the first text to be wrong, I assume. And most definitely not the last.
Either way, if we follow your line of thinking, this is going to set some case law for which future cases will argue foundation, which in essence will create law, which means we have a case of how law is made and how no one wants to see it made since it is created and drafted from the blood of a kid walking home carrying Skittles and Ice tea.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
Bismark, but he was talking more about legislators.
The language is the game. Defense attorneys are paid to talk a jury into thinking that guilty (allegedly) people are innocent, and prosecutors are paid to talk juries into thinking that innocent (presumed) people are guilty.
Standard exercise in law school is to take identical sets of facts and successfully argue opposing conclusions.
On the child abuse claim, as I pointed out before the prosecution tried it, the wording of the statute specifically names 'a caregiver'. The judge would have to be sound asleep to let that one slide, and yes, it crossed the ethical line. The clear intent was dishonest, knowingly making false charges trying invoke the photograph of the 12 year old Martin.
Will anything happen to the prosecution for it? Or for some of the false testimony that it seems likely they coached? Or the evidence they apparently withheld?
In Pink Slip Rick's state? Nope
quote:
ORIGINAL: Subtlycaptivated
American law is bastardized English Common Law, and over time has graduated into blatant sin and corruption. It is loosely interpreted, seldom upheld to the exact letter, and sadly, short sighted in it's inception.
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said there are two things you don't want to see made; Sausage and law.
That should give you some indication as to how wonderful the adversarial system works. There is a reason you have to have a strong English background to get into law school. You have to know how to play on the words and how to make the language the law is written in work for you.
ETA:
More to the point, the question was; is the prosecution slime for seeking child abuse charges in a murder case?
Well, yes and no. It's a lame charge, too late in the game and should have been included in the original indictment in order to even pray to make it stick. Though, Zimmerman's defense would have plainly been that he was under attack by the boy, and thereby was not guilty of abuse, rather self defense. Which, we can not prove or disprove, other than by means already shown in this court. And no, because they are grasping at straws to get a killer put in jail. However, had they been more adequately prepared for the trial, then perhaps they wouldn't have had to use such weak 4th quarter tactics.
|
|
|
|
