|
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. |
Hong Kong9165 Posts
I generally dislike General Forum, and I wandered into this thread seeking to solidify my dislike. The tone of this thread and posters, and the rationality exhibited (so far), is pretty extraordinary, I feel. Good job, guys.
|
On July 14 2013 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2013 12:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2013 12:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2013 12:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:38 wei2coolman wrote:On July 14 2013 12:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On July 14 2013 12:27 Ansinjunger wrote:
[quote]
It must suck for GZ to hear the state continue to say they think he's guilty. You'd expect that from the family's side and their lawyers, but GZ may encounter people that use that the state still thinks he's guilty as an excuse to harass him. Hate to say it but GZ's life is pretty much screwed over almost as bad as that lady that was acquitted a year ago that killed her baby. His best bet would be to move the hell out of the USA ASAP a long with a name change. Or make millions off of book deals + interviews. pretty much guaranteed O'Mare will write a book. has to get his money somehow. I forget exactly what the rule is, but there's some kind of ethical prohibition on writing books about cases. Are lawyers only prohibited from getting book rights as part of their fees or is there a broader prohibition? there are son of sam laws for defendants who are convicted. never heard of anything for attorneys or acquitted defendants. i imagine that would be unconstitutional (first amendment). No, it's definitely not. It's actually written into the model rules of professional conduct. ? Here it is: "1.8(d) Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation." (this is from Colorado, but I know it's in the model rules, too). I don't really know what the limitations are. I haven't looked at it in detail. unless there is an appeal and he has been retained for the appeal, he has concluded his representation. so, even if that applied, i dont know what you are getting at.
Nothing in particular. I was just asking about whether there are any limits to what O'Mara can do book-wise because I recalled there being a specific rule that dealt with these types of things. At first blush, it doesn't look this would limit O'Mara.
|
On July 14 2013 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2013 12:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2013 12:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:38 wei2coolman wrote:On July 14 2013 12:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On July 14 2013 12:27 Ansinjunger wrote:On July 14 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, I agree with this.
I was fairly skeptical of the charges from the getgo, but I kept an open mind to see what the state was going to present at trial. However, once I saw how grossly inadequate their evidence was, I turned pretty quickly and made up my mind. John Good's testimony sealed the deal. I was absolutely appalled that the State would push this case knowing that John Good was a witness who was going to say the things that he said.
Also, I have previously advocated some restraint in terms of dumping on the DA, but after seeing the entirety of the trial, closing arguments, and that post trial press conference, I really hope that someone takes a hard look what went on in this case. I'm glad O'Mara is gonna follow up with it. That's the second best news of the night after the acquittal. It must suck for GZ to hear the state continue to say they think he's guilty. You'd expect that from the family's side and their lawyers, but GZ may encounter people that use that the state still thinks he's guilty as an excuse to harass him. Hate to say it but GZ's life is pretty much screwed over almost as bad as that lady that was acquitted a year ago that killed her baby. His best bet would be to move the hell out of the USA ASAP a long with a name change. Or make millions off of book deals + interviews. pretty much guaranteed O'Mare will write a book. has to get his money somehow. I forget exactly what the rule is, but there's some kind of ethical prohibition on writing books about cases. Are lawyers only prohibited from getting book rights as part of their fees or is there a broader prohibition? there are son of sam laws for defendants who are convicted. never heard of anything for attorneys or acquitted defendants. i imagine that would be unconstitutional (first amendment). No, it's definitely not. It's actually written into the model rules of professional conduct. ? Here it is: "1.8(d) Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation." (this is from Colorado, but I know it's in the model rules, too). I don't really know what the limitations are. I haven't looked at it in detail.
Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client
Prior as in before the end. Your quote has nothing to do with a lawyer writing up a trial after the fact.
|
On July 14 2013 12:51 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:45 Esk23 wrote:
This case is a good example of how EVIL the mainstream media is. No one should trust the mainstream media again after this case, especially CNN and MSNBC.
The mainstream media do not report on things with an unbiased view or without an agenda.
Everyone who followed this case right from the beginning up until now, this should be an eye opener as to what the mainstream media really is. Look how much division they have created between races of people in this country over this case. It's been this way for years, the mainstream media has very clear social agendas and painting black people as helpless victims of the savagery and oppression of whites is all part of the plan. Look no further than their insistence on the use of "white hispanic" during this whole mess as a means to try and drag white people into a racially charged trial that had nothing to do with any white people.
I guess what ever sells in the end. Just look at them reporting every sordid detail of a kids life who shoots up a school. Sadly I feel this is somewhat like blaming McDonalds for being fat.
|
I fully believe that Zimmerman is not guilty but I have a question:
How did the defense go against the John Good testimony. Or did they?
|
On July 14 2013 12:55 Housemd wrote:
I fully believe that Zimmerman is not guilty but I have a question:
How did the defense go against the John Good testimony. Or did they?
i think you mean prosecutor. john good was good for defense. their "impeachment" of him was that it was dark and he didnt actually see punches, he just saw downward movements of the arm. it was ineffective.
|
On July 14 2013 12:55 Housemd wrote:
I fully believe that Zimmerman is not guilty but I have a question:
How did the defense go against the John Good testimony. Or did they?
They didn't John Good HELPED the defense. Which is a hilariously bad move by the prosecution.
|
On July 14 2013 12:57 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:55 Housemd wrote:
I fully believe that Zimmerman is not guilty but I have a question:
How did the defense go against the John Good testimony. Or did they? They didn't John Good HELPED the defense. Which is a hilariously bad move by the prosecution.
He was coming whether brought by either side.
|
On July 14 2013 12:49 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:41 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:36 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:34 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:30 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:20 Tewks44 wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Well, the problem is these questions aren't really relevant to the case. My opinion, I think it's likely that Zimmerman profiled Martin, and I think he definitely was acting as kind of a "wanna-be-cop" to use the prosecution's term. However the relevant question is whether or not Zimmerman felt as if he was in danger of severe bodily harm because this would justify the use of self defense. I'm not just interested in the trial, I'm interested in the full moral dimensions, and this thread is titled Shooting of Trayvon Martin, not Trial for the Shooting of Trayvon Martin so I think it's still within the scope. I asked if anyone wanted to convince me, not force you to convince me, I don't get the hostility. On July 14 2013 12:26 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:17 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Because there is no evidence that he was racial profiling. Reporting someone and them being black does not make it racial profiling. If that were the case you could call every instance of reporting a potential criminal of a different race as "racial profiling". Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be. I'm just asking for personal reasons. Can you convince me that there are no unicorns? We have no proof of unicorns but I'm still skeptical. No I don't care to. Does your intuition tell you there are probably unicorns, I don't really care? I just thought people might care to have an opportunity to enlighten me. My intuition is telling me that you are overtly judgmental. Did you even read the other people's post who made some valid reasons for why it makes no sense for him to have been racially profiling? I saw, I take it into account but it doesn't really convince me, which is fine. I'm out now, no need to argue directed at me anymore. You're right..George probably did all of those kind acts to African Americans to get off the "racist radar". I don't really know more to say. I don't expect any "evidence" of him not being racist will convince you. I'm not saying he's a raging racist, but people can do nice things for black people and also still have inherent attitudes about them that are negative and fearful. I believe this happens way more often than outright "I hate black people" racism. what makes you believe that zimmerman is a racist? i am curious. Oh I edited my previous to say part of what I'm thinking, and also that I just don't think it's natural behavior to follow someone just for walking in your neighborhood, and I just notice in my life that neighborhood watch types, especially ones that would be doing it in that a FL gated community (the whole philosophy of those places plays in--keep the "undesirables" out), have a bent toward vigilante-ism, which plays in with his whole repeated police calls and involvements in the past, and going against recommendation to follow him.
I think Zimmerman was a "wanna-be cop" and I think that's why he was following Martin. I think it's likely he profiled Zimmerman, but that doesn't mean he's racist. I'm not going to dance around the issue, a lot of suburban robberies are carried out by young black men, so it would make sense that Zimmerman sees a young black man and profiles him as a burglar (The oft repeated counter argument being it was night and Trayvon was wearing a hoodie so Zimmerman couldn't have known his race). That doesn't mean he's racist, as he has clearly shown an interest in fighting for racial equality and has even been involved in programs that benefit black people. The idea that his sincerity in these programs was questionable is absurd. Unless he had some grand scheme to murder a black child in the future, he had no purpose to participate in such activities if he wasn't sincere.
|
On July 14 2013 12:55 Housemd wrote:
I fully believe that Zimmerman is not guilty but I have a question:
How did the defense go against the John Good testimony. Or did they?
John Good's testimony was an absolute disaster for the State. Again, I can't believe that they chose to prosecute this case knowing what he was going to say in court.
|
On July 14 2013 12:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:55 Housemd wrote:
I fully believe that Zimmerman is not guilty but I have a question:
How did the defense go against the John Good testimony. Or did they? i think you mean prosecutor. john good was good for defense. their "impeachment" of him was that it was dark and he didnt actually see punches, he just saw downward movements of the arm. it was ineffective.
Oh shit. Lol. No, I was under the impression that John Good was for the proseuction. Well, then it seals this case pretty easily.
|
I thinks its almost miraculous that Zimmerman got the Not-guilty verdict despite how tainted jury pool was; due to media coverage.
|
On July 14 2013 12:55 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:51 forsooth wrote:On July 14 2013 12:45 Esk23 wrote:
This case is a good example of how EVIL the mainstream media is. No one should trust the mainstream media again after this case, especially CNN and MSNBC.
The mainstream media do not report on things with an unbiased view or without an agenda.
Everyone who followed this case right from the beginning up until now, this should be an eye opener as to what the mainstream media really is. Look how much division they have created between races of people in this country over this case. It's been this way for years, the mainstream media has very clear social agendas and painting black people as helpless victims of the savagery and oppression of whites is all part of the plan. Look no further than their insistence on the use of "white hispanic" during this whole mess as a means to try and drag white people into a racially charged trial that had nothing to do with any white people. I guess what ever sells in the end. Just look at them reporting every sordid detail of a kids life who shoots up a school. Sadly I feel this is somewhat like blaming McDonalds for being fat.
It's an interesting thing to think about, one media bias that has been well examined is missing white woman syndrome, which I guess makes sense in a country whose racial makeup is primarily white. I would think that based on that, there would be higher reporting of black on white or non-white on white crime since we're talking about the same audience, but for whatever reason it's the reverse that usually commands attention.
|
#Chicago: Police en route, responding to a large crowd forming at Daley Plaza. #Zimmerman
|
On July 14 2013 12:51 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:49 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:41 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:36 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:34 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:30 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote:On July 14 2013 12:20 Tewks44 wrote:On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?
I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored. Well, the problem is these questions aren't really relevant to the case. My opinion, I think it's likely that Zimmerman profiled Martin, and I think he definitely was acting as kind of a "wanna-be-cop" to use the prosecution's term. However the relevant question is whether or not Zimmerman felt as if he was in danger of severe bodily harm because this would justify the use of self defense. I'm not just interested in the trial, I'm interested in the full moral dimensions, and this thread is titled Shooting of Trayvon Martin, not Trial for the Shooting of Trayvon Martin so I think it's still within the scope. I asked if anyone wanted to convince me, not force you to convince me, I don't get the hostility. On July 14 2013 12:26 kmillz wrote:On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:
[quote]
Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be.
I'm just asking for personal reasons. Can you convince me that there are no unicorns? We have no proof of unicorns but I'm still skeptical. No I don't care to. Does your intuition tell you there are probably unicorns, I don't really care? I just thought people might care to have an opportunity to enlighten me. My intuition is telling me that you are overtly judgmental. Did you even read the other people's post who made some valid reasons for why it makes no sense for him to have been racially profiling? I saw, I take it into account but it doesn't really convince me, which is fine. I'm out now, no need to argue directed at me anymore. You're right..George probably did all of those kind acts to African Americans to get off the "racist radar". I don't really know more to say. I don't expect any "evidence" of him not being racist will convince you. I'm not saying he's a raging racist, but people can do nice things for black people and also still have inherent attitudes about them that are negative and fearful. I believe this happens way more often than outright "I hate black people" racism. what makes you believe that zimmerman is a racist? i am curious. Oh I edited my previous to say part of what I'm thinking, and also that I just don't think it's natural behavior to follow someone just for walking in your neighborhood, and I just notice in my life that neighborhood watch types, especially ones that would be doing it in that a FL gated community (the whole philosophy of those places plays in--keep the "undesirables" out), have a bent toward vigilante-ism, which plays in with his whole repeated police calls and involvements in the past, and going against recommendation to follow him. so, he is racist because he allegedly followed him over the recommendation of the police dispatcher?
Didn't you know? Every instance where you suspect someone (not your race) of criminal activity it is because of their race. Human beings don't make judgments on behaviors, only race!
This is exactly what is wrong with all of the media sensationalizing of this case.
|
|
|
O'Mara said 'we will seek and we get get civil suit immunity'. Can someone expound on that? Is Zimmerman immune from civil suits?
@Lockitupv2 thanks
|
|
|
On July 14 2013 12:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
i wonder if the jurors will talk. i would like to hear what they say. they won't, it's been reported that they will not talk to media.
Nonsense. They might say that for now, but someone will come along with a book deal and with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line someone will open their mouth. It's the way of the world.
|
On July 14 2013 12:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2013 12:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:38 wei2coolman wrote:On July 14 2013 12:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On July 14 2013 12:27 Ansinjunger wrote:On July 14 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2013 12:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 12:07 Ansinjunger wrote:On July 14 2013 12:05 Blennd wrote:
[quote]
I'm glad we were able to have such an unbiased unofficial moderator for this discussion. That's more or less what I was thinking. I appreciate xDaunt for not being on a high horse when posting in this thread. On July 14 2013 12:07 Tewks44 wrote:
[quote]
dAPhREAk was a fantastic unofficial moderator, constantly updated with relevant stories and put more dedication into this thread than most people put into their day jobs. His updating of the thread was indeed fantastic, and you could argue that the moderator note set him apart as kind of a moderator for this thread. However, I don't particularly feel the need to be guilt-tripped for initially thinking GZ was guilty back when the other thread was posted. I'd rather thank the informative people in this thread for helping me learn a lot, so this type of remark stings. i have been holding my disgust in check for some of the people in this and the original thread for a long time trying to be objective. now that the case is over, i am not holding back. the ignorance of people continues to amaze me. and before you get on your high horse, pre-trial, i thought zimmerman would be convicted of manslaughter. only after this shitty trial did i change my mind. Yeah, I agree with this. I was fairly skeptical of the charges from the getgo, but I kept an open mind to see what the state was going to present at trial. However, once I saw how grossly inadequate their evidence was, I turned pretty quickly and made up my mind. John Good's testimony sealed the deal. I was absolutely appalled that the State would push this case knowing that John Good was a witness who was going to say the things that he said. Also, I have previously advocated some restraint in terms of dumping on the DA, but after seeing the entirety of the trial, closing arguments, and that post trial press conference, I really hope that someone takes a hard look what went on in this case. I'm glad O'Mara is gonna follow up with it. That's the second best news of the night after the acquittal. It must suck for GZ to hear the state continue to say they think he's guilty. You'd expect that from the family's side and their lawyers, but GZ may encounter people that use that the state still thinks he's guilty as an excuse to harass him. Hate to say it but GZ's life is pretty much screwed over almost as bad as that lady that was acquitted a year ago that killed her baby. His best bet would be to move the hell out of the USA ASAP a long with a name change. Or make millions off of book deals + interviews. pretty much guaranteed O'Mare will write a book. has to get his money somehow. I forget exactly what the rule is, but there's some kind of ethical prohibition on writing books about cases. Are lawyers only prohibited from getting book rights as part of their fees or is there a broader prohibition? there are son of sam laws for defendants who are convicted. never heard of anything for attorneys or acquitted defendants. i imagine that would be unconstitutional (first amendment).
I feel like the first thing he does is run to england or australia or new zealand. After he stays quiet for a little bit, a few years later that he writes a book, sells in the U.S., makes some money, then stays really quiet again, then writes one as a memoir, sells it, makes some money, dies quietly off somewhere not in the U.S. I can't see any reason for him not to write a book and leave the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
