|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!"
The media has been very consistently dishonest about this case. It's quite disgusting, really.
Lost a lot of respect for media over this trial.
|
On July 03 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 04:10 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:08 plgElwood wrote:
I guess ppl in law get paid per word...oh man what a bunch of blah blah.
We get to charge by the hour and court room hours are the best to bill. Its why the world of law loves words. All of them. prosecutors are salaried and paid by gov't. O'Mara is pro bono. Thanks for clearing that up, because I just rolled in from my small country town on the back of a potato truck and I don't know how you folks do stuff in this big city... But what makes O'Mara a professional bono? not sure why you bothered to make the point that lawyers like to bill when it is clearly inapplicable to this case. they are taking this long because they feel what they have to say is important, not because they are trying to make more money.
It as a joke about why attorneys are so wordy by nature. Of course it doesn't apply in a criminal case. Did you put on your super serious suit this morning?
|
Canada5052 Posts
On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage.
I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle.
That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position.
|
On July 03 2013 04:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 04:10 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:08 plgElwood wrote:
I guess ppl in law get paid per word...oh man what a bunch of blah blah.
We get to charge by the hour and court room hours are the best to bill. Its why the world of law loves words. All of them. prosecutors are salaried and paid by gov't. O'Mara is pro bono. Thanks for clearing that up, because I just rolled in from my small country town on the back of a potato truck and I don't know how you folks do stuff in this big city... But what makes O'Mara a professional bono?
So... you make a statement about billing when it's completely irrelevant, someone tells you why it's irrelevant and you respond with a sarcastic remark? last time I checked, paralegals don't get to consider themselves big shots.
|
This should be good. A real criminal defense attorney cross-examining a community college instructor of criminal law issues.
|
On July 03 2013 04:36 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 04:10 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:08 plgElwood wrote:
I guess ppl in law get paid per word...oh man what a bunch of blah blah.
We get to charge by the hour and court room hours are the best to bill. Its why the world of law loves words. All of them. prosecutors are salaried and paid by gov't. O'Mara is pro bono. Thanks for clearing that up, because I just rolled in from my small country town on the back of a potato truck and I don't know how you folks do stuff in this big city... But what makes O'Mara a professional bono? So... you make a statement about billing when it's completely irrelevant, someone tells you why it's irrelevant and you respond with a sarcastic remark? last time I checked, paralegals don't get to consider themselves big shots.
Hey, you're out of line here. His sarcasm wasn't really that unfriendly.
|
On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position.
So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage.
|
On July 03 2013 04:36 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 03 2013 04:10 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:08 plgElwood wrote:
I guess ppl in law get paid per word...oh man what a bunch of blah blah.
We get to charge by the hour and court room hours are the best to bill. Its why the world of law loves words. All of them. prosecutors are salaried and paid by gov't. O'Mara is pro bono. Thanks for clearing that up, because I just rolled in from my small country town on the back of a potato truck and I don't know how you folks do stuff in this big city... But what makes O'Mara a professional bono? So... you make a statement about billing when it's completely irrelevant, someone tells you why it's irrelevant and you respond with a sarcastic remark? last time I checked, paralegals don't get to consider themselves big shots.
Or it was just a joke about attorneys being trained to be wordy so they can bill for it. This is clearly not the thread for bad law humor.
|
If the prosecution can go after Zimmerman's school background...then is that a green light for the defense to go after Trayvons?
This might not go as planned for the prosecution.
|
I got here a bit late. What exactly is the main point being debated in this exchange?
|
On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage.
From what I have seen, Fox's coverage of the trial has sucked balls as well.
|
so, they want to say he had access to self defense information, but they dont want to (or cant) show that he actually read or considered the information.....seems irrelevant to me. everyone has access to self defense information.
|
On July 03 2013 04:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage. From what I have seen, Fox's coverage of the trial has sucked balls as well.
Is there a single network with good coverage? I looked last night and they all seem to be pretty crap.
|
On July 03 2013 04:44 dAPhREAk wrote:
so, they want to say he had access to self defense information, but they dont want to (or cant) show that he actually read or considered the information.....seems irrelevant to me. everyone has access to self defense information.
What exactly does having access to self defense information prove?
|
On July 03 2013 04:44 dAPhREAk wrote:
so, they want to say he had access to self defense information, but they dont want to (or cant) show that he actually read or considered the information.....seems irrelevant to me. everyone has access to self defense information.
imo depends on his grade, i mean if the dude got a 98% or something theres a good chance he studied the material?
edit: its not self defense material, i think they are trying to say he was overly familiar with the stand your ground law or something.
|
On July 03 2013 04:41 RCMDVA wrote:
If the prosecution can go after Zimmerman's school background...then is that a green light for the defense to go after Trayvons?
This might not go as planned for the prosecution.
I think only if they can draw a line of reasoning why his school record would be relevant to the proceedings that lead up to the death of Trayvon Martin.
If he was known for being aggressive in school maybe, or something like that.
|
On July 03 2013 04:44 dAPhREAk wrote:
so, they want to say he had access to self defense information, but they dont want to (or cant) show that he actually read or considered the information.....seems irrelevant to me. everyone has access to self defense information.
I was thinking this as they argued. It's not like these laws are secret. With the internet, everyone has access to the information, let alone anyone can buy a book on it. Seems they should have to show that he consumed the knowledge, but I'm no lawyer.
|
On July 03 2013 04:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:43 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage. From what I have seen, Fox's coverage of the trial has sucked balls as well. Is there a single network with good coverage? I looked last night and they all seem to be pretty crap.
In general, the best way to follow major criminal court proceedings is to go by primary source material only, that being a video of the proceedings themselves or transcripts. Everyone sees something slightly different when in a courtroom. and that combined with the media's interest in drumming up viewership/interest makes for an almost inevitable bias no matter what. In other words, I don't think I've once seen a media outlet truly cover a case in an acceptably unbiased manner.
|
On July 03 2013 04:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:44 dAPhREAk wrote:
so, they want to say he had access to self defense information, but they dont want to (or cant) show that he actually read or considered the information.....seems irrelevant to me. everyone has access to self defense information. What exactly does having access to self defense information prove?
In the roundabout way that has been the prosecution of this case, he knew exactly what he needed to tell the police at the time so as to be covered under the requirements of self-defense.
edit: It's prosecution by "pants on fire".
|
On July 03 2013 04:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:44 dAPhREAk wrote:
so, they want to say he had access to self defense information, but they dont want to (or cant) show that he actually read or considered the information.....seems irrelevant to me. everyone has access to self defense information. What exactly does having access to self defense information prove?
they want to impeach his credibility i assume. they want to show that he knows what to say and what to do to make his case look like it was in self defense. "normal" people wouldnt know what to do to fabricate a self defense claim, but zimmerman was trained and would know how to fabricate. i assume that is their argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
