On June 29 2013 16:49 ConGee wrote: To anyone with a law background:
How objective is Legal Insurrection in criticizing the approach of the State? I just went through the recaps for the past 5 days and they all more or less completely slam the State's prosecution. Wanted to know if the site had some established bias or that the prosecution had literally been quite that bad.
Limited legal background here, so take my thoughts as you will.
I've read Legal Insurrection's past three recaps, and have viewed maybe 7-8 hours of live testimony on and off over the past three days. I've also read through articles on other sites so I have some basis for comparison. Legal Insurrection is slanted slightly towards the defence.
As far as event and testimony reporting and summary goes, their recaps are the most accurate I've seen. What they say happens in court really happens, and they don't cut out relevant bits. Many main-stream media articles I've read often omit or downplay the small but important negative bits that come out of the witnesses, but this site catches them all. Again, I've only seen 8 hours of testimony. The recap author is a FL lawyer who has written a book about self defence law, so I would tend to trust his interpretation of the legal issues as well. Nothing he has said about legal issues has really clashed with what I've read here from Daphreak and the other members of the TL Esquire Crew.
As far as their ratings of the relative performances of counsel, I think they are a bit harsh on the prosecution. I don't think the prosecution is coming off as incompetent or arrogant as the recaps imply, nor do their arguments fall exactly as flat (but they are often quite empty). Again, this is only based on 7-8 hours, and of those hours I estimate maybe 1.5 was direct testimony, so I didn't see a large amount of the prosecution's performance. The writer of the recap has a big man-boner for the two defence counsel, so if he tells you they are 10 feet tall, subtract 4 feet and you're about there. Note also that the prosecution is working with what the facts give them, and if you just think about the overall situation, they really don't have much.
The recaps might overestimate a bit on the efficacy of the defence's harpooning of the prosecution witnesses' testimony. The defence certainly discredited much of the prosecution's case in my eyes, and I can agree with much of the site's evaluations of the testimony that I've personally seen. However, reading around the web, especially on liberal sites, and even here in this thread, I can see how it is very easy to discount or overlook (or outright ignore!) bits and pieces and nuances of what the defence is arguing, or perhaps have a little more sympathy for those less educated or living in different circumstances. Thus I would hesitate, more than the recaps do, to guess how the jury is seeing everything.
You can trust what the site says about what was said by the parties in the court, nearly without reservation. They add a slight defence bias which you will need to adjust to, but 90% of the relevant info is there for you to judge for yourself.
I have to add that after reading these recaps and comparing them to what I actually saw myself in the 8 hours of testimony I watched myself and to the articles I've read in the mainstream media, I have come to the conclusion that I can never fully trust anything I read in the mainstream media sites again.
On June 29 2013 17:25 ConGee wrote: Sorry, should have phrased it better. But basically, saying that the case couldn't be going much worse for the prosecution would be spot on?
I think their case is going very poorly. But I've read many articles from seemingly rational, intelligent people who have seen the trial and who argue otherwise. So I am reluctant to say exactly what the jury is thinking or (seeing how they are six women) feeling.
On June 29 2013 14:03 dAPhREAk wrote: lol. thinkprogress..... keeping the hope alive.....
Witness Makes Key Admission That He Never Saw Trayvon Martin Throw A Punch At Zimmerman
On day five of George Zimmerman’s trial for the death of Trayvon Martin, a key witness who previously claimed to have seen Martin “throwing down blows” admitted he never saw an actual punch thrown. This admission from John Good could undermine Zimmerman’s claim he shot 17-year-old Martin in reasonable self-defense. According to the original police report, Good claimed he had seen a black male pinning Zimmerman down “just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA [mixed-martial arts] style.” But on Friday, Good told jurors he “could not see” any punches thrown, only that there was “downward movement.” He also admitted he was not 100 percent sure who yelled “help,” but assumed it was Zimmerman. It is not the first time Good has changed his account of the night Martin died. Three weeks after the incident, Good told a special prosecutor he couldn’t truly tell who yelled for help “because it was so dark out on that sidewalk.” The reliability of witness testimony has been a major focus for both the defense and state prosecution in the trial. Zimmerman’s defense attorneys have tried to highlight inconsistencies of another witness, 19-year-old Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin moments before the shooting. Asked repeatedly by Zimmerman’s attorney Don West why she lied about her reason for not attending Martin’s wake, Jeantel admitted she did not want to see his body. “You. Got. To. Un. Der. Stand,” Jeantel said. “I’m the last person—you don’t know how I felt. You think I really want to go see the body after I just talked to him?”
... I don't know what kind of Alternate Reality these Zimmerman supporters live in, but what I see at this trial and I've watched almost the entire thing, is NOTHING near what you guys are seeing. Zimmerman is going to be convicted easily.
Seems the only way to interpret what's happening in Zimmerman's favor is if you're just going to blame the "black guy" no matter what you hear --
I wonder if Zimmerman's injuries were self-inflicted, as he worried about getting charged with murder.
What a joke.
Why are there so many idiots rooting for someone who is still innocent until proven guilty to be put in jail? It just boggles the mind. It's not like we don't have enough people in jail already (something that I bet those fools at ThinkProgress have complained about in other contexts).
Because ... people that hate themselves seek reasons outside of themselves to blame for their problems and misfortune, and the meta-narrative that the World is shitting on black people/visible minorities appeals to a certain demographic?
I saw no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin in the first place. No wittness tesified elsewise either.
Evidence: -Martin only got a gunshot wound, during the autopsy, only old scars AND WOUNDS ON HIS KNUCKLES were found -Zimmerman got beaten up (blackeye, wound on the back of his head and nose), he was photographed minutes after the shot by an police officer
Made up by (public) opinion: Zimmerman commited a hate crime because he is racist. (Not backed up and none of matter if Treyvon attacked him)
The whole Racist thing was made up, because a "murderer" was set free. But that is just the law in florida
Law in Florida: -You are allowed to carry a loaded gun -You are allowed to shoot anyone who (in your opinion) does you harm (assaults you, scares you, steals from you)
And if you check statistics, it´s poor uneducated people who are more often involved in violent crimes, robbery, assault murder and drugs. Also poor uneducated people happen to get poor uneducated children. It is not the systems who keeps them down, the parents themselves bring doom upon them because they are just to stupid to raise them to higher standards.
Because. People that hate themselves seek reasons outside of themselves to blame for their problems and misfortune, and the meta-narrative that the World is shitting on black people/visible minorities appeals to a certain demographic?
This.
And if you check statistics, it´s poor uneducated people who are more often involved in violent crimes, robbery, assault murder and drugs. Also poor uneducated people happen to get poor uneducated children. It is not the systems who keeps them down, the parents themselves bring doom upon them because they are just to stupid to raise them to higher standards.
And this are pretty much how most people I know feel, but are too scared to say because of backlash. I live in a mostly upper middle class, mostly black neighborhood in Philadelphia, and I hear them complain more about "black youth/thugs/bad parenting", than anyone. I am close friends with three black physicians and they all come from very poor backgrounds, and argue it had everything to do with their parents, and not how much money they had, or someone oppressing them.
Because. People that hate themselves seek reasons outside of themselves to blame for their problems and misfortune, and the meta-narrative that the World is shitting on black people/visible minorities appeals to a certain demographic?
And if you check statistics, it´s poor uneducated people who are more often involved in violent crimes, robbery, assault murder and drugs. Also poor uneducated people happen to get poor uneducated children. It is not the systems who keeps them down, the parents themselves bring doom upon them because they are just to stupid to raise them to higher standards.
And this are pretty much how most people I know feel, but are too scared to say because of backlash. I live in a mostly upper middle class, mostly black neighborhood in Philadelphia, and I hear them complain more about "black youth/thugs/bad parenting", than anyone. I am close friends with three black physicians and they all come from very poor backgrounds, and argue it had everything to do with their parents, and not how much money they had, or someone oppressing them.
Please do not derail this thread and start making it about the poor socioeconomic issues with parts of the US. It is considerably more complicated and in some cases can be traced solely to parents and others to other issues. It's border line insulting to say a group of disenfranchised people, who had been put down a majority of their lives, are now just "to[o] stupid" to understand how to raise their children properly. Lets keep this about the trial.
On June 29 2013 16:49 ConGee wrote: To anyone with a law background:
How objective is Legal Insurrection in criticizing the approach of the State? I just went through the recaps for the past 5 days and they all more or less completely slam the State's prosecution. Wanted to know if the site had some established bias or that the prosecution had literally been quite that bad.
Limited legal background here, so take my thoughts as you will.
I've read Legal Insurrection's past three recaps, and have viewed maybe 7-8 hours of live testimony on and off over the past three days. I've also read through articles on other sites so I have some basis for comparison. Legal Insurrection is slanted slightly towards the defence.
As far as event and testimony reporting and summary goes, their recaps are the most accurate I've seen. What they say happens in court really happens, and they don't cut out relevant bits. Many main-stream media articles I've read often omit or downplay the small but important negative bits that come out of the witnesses, but this site catches them all. Again, I've only seen 8 hours of testimony. The recap author is a FL lawyer who has written a book about self defence law, so I would tend to trust his interpretation of the legal issues as well. Nothing he has said about legal issues has really clashed with what I've read here from Daphreak and the other members of the TL Esquire Crew.
As far as their ratings of the relative performances of counsel, I think they are a bit harsh on the prosecution. I don't think the prosecution is coming off as incompetent or arrogant as the recaps imply, nor do their arguments fall exactly as flat (but they are often quite empty). Again, this is only based on 7-8 hours, and of those hours I estimate maybe 1.5 was direct testimony, so I didn't see a large amount of the prosecution's performance. The writer of the recap has a big man-boner for the two defence counsel, so if he tells you they are 10 feet tall, subtract 4 feet and you're about there. Note also that the prosecution is working with what the facts give them, and if you just think about the overall situation, they really don't have much.
The recaps might overestimate a bit on the efficacy of the defence's harpooning of the prosecution witnesses' testimony. The defence certainly discredited much of the prosecution's case in my eyes, and I can agree with much of the site's evaluations of the testimony that I've personally seen. However, reading around the web, especially on liberal sites, and even here in this thread, I can see how it is very easy to discount or overlook (or outright ignore!) bits and pieces and nuances of what the defence is arguing, or perhaps have a little more sympathy for those less educated or living in different circumstances. Thus I would hesitate, more than the recaps do, to guess how the jury is seeing everything.
You can trust what the site says about what was said by the parties in the court, nearly without reservation. They add a slight defence bias which you will need to adjust to, but 90% of the relevant info is there for you to judge for yourself.
I basically agree with this assessment of Legal Insurrection. Because the author is a defense attorney, his perspective is going to be slightly slanted in favor of the defense in terms of his evaluation of the trial (this is just how it is in the world of DAs and defense attorneys). However, his reporting of the facts and testimony at trial has been dead accurate. He has done a great job of highlighting the most important parts of the testimony, regardless of whether his takes on those highlights are completely impartial.
As for the performance of the attorneys, the most important thing that people have to remember is that the outcome of a trial is not necessarily indicative of the quality of the attorneys on either side. The prosecution in this case is very competent. Their presentation has been very thoughtful in terms of developing a nuanced narrative. The problem for the prosecution (and why they look bad to the untrained eye) is that the facts just don't seem to be there to support a conviction.
On this last point, keep in mind that there is a whole wealth of evidence that the prosecution and defense has access to that has yet to be admitted at trial and may never see the light of day at trial. It is very common for the prosecution to "know" that a particular defendant committed a crime, but be unable to prove it at court with competent evidence. More importantly, the prosecution may still have great evidence up its sleeve that can secure a conviction against Zimmerman. We just have to wait and see what they present.
I will say that I truly hope that they have some extra evidence that justifies bringing this case to trial. What has been presented so far is completely inadequate in terms eliminating reasonable doubt. Bear in mind that none of what has been presented or testified to at trial is a surprise to either the state or to the defense. Each has deposed and gotten statements from every witness at least once. For example, both sides knew that the neighbor who testified yesterday was going to say that Trayvon was doing the "ground and pound" on Zimmerman. Because all of the cards are already out on the table, one must presume that the state knows exactly what evidence that it has available to secure a conviction going into trial. If they really don't have anything better than what they have presented, you can bet that there will be a rather large spotlight shined on whoever is in charge of the prosecution and the decision to try this case.
I have to add that after reading these recaps and comparing them to what I actually saw myself in the 8 hours of testimony I watched myself and to the articles I've read in the mainstream media, I have come to the conclusion that I can never fully trust anything I read in the mainstream media sites again.
This is the real lesson to take away. The mainstream coverage of this case is outright yellow journalism.
Because. People that hate themselves seek reasons outside of themselves to blame for their problems and misfortune, and the meta-narrative that the World is shitting on black people/visible minorities appeals to a certain demographic?
This.
And if you check statistics, it´s poor uneducated people who are more often involved in violent crimes, robbery, assault murder and drugs. Also poor uneducated people happen to get poor uneducated children. It is not the systems who keeps them down, the parents themselves bring doom upon them because they are just to stupid to raise them to higher standards.
And this are pretty much how most people I know feel, but are too scared to say because of backlash. I live in a mostly upper middle class, mostly black neighborhood in Philadelphia, and I hear them complain more about "black youth/thugs/bad parenting", than anyone. I am close friends with three black physicians and they all come from very poor backgrounds, and argue it had everything to do with their parents, and not how much money they had, or someone oppressing them.
Please do not derail this thread and start making it about the poor socioeconomic issues with parts of the US. It is considerably more complicated and in some cases can be traced solely to parents and others to other issues. It's border line insulting to say a group of disenfranchised people, who had been put down a majority of their lives, are now just "to[o] stupid" to understand how to raise their children properly. Lets keep this about the trial.
If you don't want to derail the thread, don't inject your opinion into the off-topic discussion. That should be common sense.
On June 30 2013 02:45 Kakaru2 wrote: Can somebody write what that girl said? I can't understand.
She's hard as hell to understand. But the gist of it is that it would have been "real retarded" for Trayvon to lie while he was on the phone with her the night of the shooting. She asks why he would lie to her and then says, "That's real retarded, sir." when the attorney provides a hypothetical reason why.
On June 29 2013 16:49 ConGee wrote: To anyone with a law background:
How objective is Legal Insurrection in criticizing the approach of the State? I just went through the recaps for the past 5 days and they all more or less completely slam the State's prosecution. Wanted to know if the site had some established bias or that the prosecution had literally been quite that bad.
i recall a criminal defense attorney writes it, so take it with a grain of salt. take all the newspaper articles with a grain of salt as well. everything is biased.
On June 29 2013 16:49 ConGee wrote: To anyone with a law background:
How objective is Legal Insurrection in criticizing the approach of the State? I just went through the recaps for the past 5 days and they all more or less completely slam the State's prosecution. Wanted to know if the site had some established bias or that the prosecution had literally been quite that bad.
i recall a criminal defense attorney writes it, so take it with a grain of salt. take all the newspaper articles with a grain of salt as well. everything is biased.
Thanks, I think I'm still going to use it as my primary source since it does seem the most unbiased source I've come across so far.
On June 29 2013 16:49 ConGee wrote: To anyone with a law background:
How objective is Legal Insurrection in criticizing the approach of the State? I just went through the recaps for the past 5 days and they all more or less completely slam the State's prosecution. Wanted to know if the site had some established bias or that the prosecution had literally been quite that bad.
i recall a criminal defense attorney writes it, so take it with a grain of salt. take all the newspaper articles with a grain of salt as well. everything is biased.
Thanks, I think I'm still going to use it as my primary source since it does seem the most unbiased source I've come across so far.
You should also consider anything that I write....
On June 29 2013 12:47 OuchyDathurts wrote: On top of that, lets not kid ourselves, in general the black population isn't exactly in love with the police so that probably wasn't going to be the first move.
I just want to jump in here with some anecdotal evidence:
My father is a DA, been one for about 35 years now. Won't say which city, but it's a major one. He worked gangs for about... 8-10 years. According to him, the idea that blacks don't call the police is largely a myth. He said blacks call the cops all the time when they need them.
On June 30 2013 03:27 Kakaru2 wrote: Thank you so much. I thought I knew very good English but this girl drives me mad.
Don't blame yourself. English is my first language and I can hardly understand a word she says.
That would be "ebonics", not real English.
The notion of "real" English is silly, though. You might as well say that the attorneys aren't speaking real English because they don't sound like the Queen (who herself incidentally is speaking questionably "real" English since she has started to sound less Oxonian over the years).
EPT
