Posted on 07/10/2013 5:43:17 AM PDT by SJackson
The verdict is in from Alan Dershowitz: if the renowned Harvard Law professor were on the jury hearing the George Zimmerman murder trial, he would find the defendant not guilty.
"I would say there's reasonable doubt. I would say nobody knows who started the initial fight," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"Remember, it's monumentally irrelevant who's morally guilty here."
Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager in Sanford, Fla.
Zimmerman, a 29-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer for his community, says he shot Martin, 17, in self-defense during an altercation. But prosecutors charge that Zimmerman profiled the African-American youth as he walked back from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiancée.
"Whether or not Zimmerman was a racist and racially profiled and shouldn’t have been doing it and didn’t listen to police, that's all irrelevant in Florida law," Dershowitz said.
"The case begins when the first blow was struck, essentially. And we don’t know who struck the first blow. We don’t know if Trayvon Martin came out from behind of a dark area and jumped him and got him down.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Writer is in the correct.
Alan is obviously a racist bigot.
If I were a juror I would find him not guilty too and my verdict would have nothing to do with the law. (it doesn’t need to)
My not guilty verdict would be a direct result of attempts to intimidate and threaten a guilty verdict out of the jury and it would be a direct result of the media driving the attitudes.
If more jurors knew they could do this we might finally put a stop to the media circus that sets up camp around trials they decide are high profile.
Duh.
The question I have is, did Trayvon Martin have a “legit” reason to even be in the area, because if my memory is correct, that was a gate community?
In other words, was he in the process of getting ready to do “b and e” or “breaking and entering” ?
When an armed man and an unarmed man get involved in fisticuffs, you can pretty much assume the unarmed man started it. There are a lot of reasons for this.
It doesn't matter if he profiled someone or threw the first punch or whatever. Had the prosecution somehow destroyed the theory that Martin was atop Zimmerman then it can get confusing. But they didn't.
This shouldn't even go to the jury; it should rightfully be ruled from the bench and the Florida state portion of this circus should be over with. Alas, it will likely be followed by some fast and furious announcement from Eric Holder of federal civil rights case being filed against Zimmerman.
I'd say Zimmerman's injuries go a long way toward answering that question.
The state was literally forced into indicting Zimmerman by the media in the first place. I wonder if, given the miserable job they’re doing, the prosecution was coached to throw the case rather than take the chance of a conviction?
Me too. He had to be arrested and charged so the Martins and the politicians could reap the benefits. Hope he gets off and sues every you know what and becomes the richest guy in the world.
Does it matter who started the fight? I disagree. I say it does matter. The argument that the answer is no is that even if Zimmerman had started a fight (meaning, a fist-fight), he had no avenue of escape at the time he pulled the trigger and, being in fear of his life, was justified in using deadly force. This would justify a lot of homicides by people who start fights and find, at some point, they’re getting beaten. I would say, however, that this construction of the crime wouldn’t be murder in the second degree, it would be manslaughter.
The real point is that we don’t know who started the fight. The burden is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. As to what the prosecution is trying to prove, I actually have no idea. During the trial, the prosecution has said they have multiple theories of the crime., meaning they themselves are not convinced by any one theory of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. According to one of their theories of the crime, Trayvon was on top and was attempting to pull away from Zimmerman at the time he was shot. Yet, they do not have a shred of evidence proving that Trayvon was attempting to pull away. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe, since the prosecution believes, that Trayvon was on top. And, in the absence of any evidence that Trayvon was pulling away, it is reasonable to believe he wasn’t pulling away. Indeed, via Di Maio’s testimony, it is unlikely that Trayvon was pulling away as the hole in the clothing would not have lined up with the hole in the young man’s body, if he had been trying to pull away and was being restrained by Zimmerman holding onto his clothing.
So, the verdict should be not guilty.
As for the controversy about whether Trayvon’s interest in guns and in fighting should be allowed in court, if the prosecution would stipulate as to what theory of the crime they are arguing, the evidence might not matter. As it is, the evidence of fight should come in, since the prosecution contends that Zimmerman was not being beaten in any serious way, and the jury needs to be able to compare the relative fighting abilities of the two. On the other hand, under no theory of the crime is the gun evidence relevant. And, in my own opinion, interest in guns and in fighting by young men are good things. Back in the day, I was proud to have young men with a fighting spirit in my unit and felt entirely confident that I and my NCOs could discipline them.
Never thought of it that way, but you're right cuban... Insightful.
I have the feeling that even if there was video evidence of Martin striking the first blow, and video evidence of him on top of Zimmerman, pounding away, the political pressure on the state to bring charges would’ve still been strong.
Too bad one of Obama’s drones wasn’t overhead at the time and captured the events.
For all we know, there was.
He was staying at his father's girlfriend's apartment in the complex.
But, according to none other than Rachel Jeantel, poor little Trayvon made it safely all the way to that apartment, then went back out to confront Zimmerman.
Reading between the lines of her testimony, Rachel Jeantel is the reason Trayvon Martin is dead.
She was on the phone talking trash to him about the "creepy-#%% cracker rapist" following him and how if he was a real gangster he'd give the cracker a beatdown he'd never forget.
When Trayvon was killed because of her she went dark.
It wasn't until Benjamin Crump hunted her down and gave her a script to follow that she resurfaced.
Case closed.
I hope the Defense uses your exact words.
Thank-you for your answer and now I have it all figured out. It was a planned attack on George Zimmerman.
She could very well get in trouble herself. Surprised she is not in trouble.
“Reading between the lines of her testimony, Rachel Jeantel is the reason Trayvon Martin is dead.”
The reason Trayvon died is because he had two lousy parents. Had the parents provided proper supervision and guidance he would not have been suspended from school and therefore would not have been in Sanford that night. Alternatively, if Trayvon’s father had been at home that night with the boy, instead of running around with his “fiancé”, Trayvon wouldn’t have been wandering around in the rain talking to Jeantel. Any decent parent would have grounded a teen suspended from school and taken his cell phone away. If he had been my kid, he’d have either been sitting at his desk in his room studying or doing chores around the house under my direct supervision.
I was just reading between the lines, but the fact is that Trayvon did make it home safely and went back out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.