Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor  D-MA, is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case — but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias.

    Dershowitz said the jury’s finding that Zimmerman was not guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter was “the right verdict.” He added, “There was reasonable doubt all over the place.”

    Immediately after the verdict was announced, however, the NAACP and outspoken activist Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to launch a federal civil-rights probe, charging that the case had been racially tainted.

    Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.

    “I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” said the criminal-law expert. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”

    He added: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations.”

    Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ppannos. Show ppannos's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated


    While I agree.. I suggest the country would be better off to simply move on. This is obfuscation away from critical issues.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    Clearly Dershowitz is racist...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    When the victim is a member of a minority group , someone always screams foul.

    When the victim is white, however....it is never a "racially tainted" scenerio.

    "There are lots of people who mistake their imagination for their memory.-Josh Billings

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GregoryFromMeffa. Show GregoryFromMeffa's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    Zim is gonna sue the pants off NBC for visciously editing the 911 call.  NBC's defense was when he is convicted, any defamation was the result of his own actions.

    That excuse just died

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    I think Zimmerman may have a case for civil right violations. No grand jury, the investigating officers found insufficient evidence for charges and then the AG aftyer media and racial uproar stepped in and demanded charges be filed and even went as far as to fire the officer who refused becaUse he says it would have violated Zimmermans rights.

    “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
    âۥ Socrates

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    Wow, now Harvard is a conservative approved institution and not some elitist bastion of librul dems like Obama and Liz Warren. Even ultra libbie ACLU favorite Alan Dershowitz gets a pass now? Id be confused but I think it's fairly obvious, if it supports your side it's all okay. We used to call it being a two faced hypocrit, now it's just called politics.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    At this point it wouldn't surprise me if Zimmerman's lawyers did ask for a review of the prosecution.  I beleive Zimmerman's team filed 6 motions relating to the conduct of the state DURING the trial.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

     The State of Florida is violating the civil rights of it's citizens ? No way Jose

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    Wow, now Harvard is a conservative approved institution and not some elitist bastion of librul dems like Obama and Liz Warren. Even ultra libbie ACLU favorite Alan Dershowitz gets a pass now? Id be confused but I think it's fairly obvious, if it supports your side it's all okay. We used to call it being a two faced hypocrit, now it's just called politics.

     



    "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
                                                               Socrates

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Wow, now Harvard is a conservative approved institution and not some elitist bastion of librul dems like Obama and Liz Warren. Even ultra libbie ACLU favorite Alan Dershowitz gets a pass now? Id be confused but I think it's fairly obvious, if it supports your side it's all okay. We used to call it being a two faced hypocrit, now it's just called politics.

     

     



    "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
                                                               Socrates

     

    [/QUOTE]

    where be the slander y'all.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    Wow, now Harvard is a conservative approved institution and not some elitist bastion of librul dems like Obama and Liz Warren. Even ultra libbie ACLU favorite Alan Dershowitz gets a pass now? Id be confused but I think it's fairly obvious, if it supports your side it's all okay. We used to call it being a two faced hypocrit, now it's just called politics.

     



    Who said "Harvard is a conservative approved institution"? And how is Dershowitz "getting a pass"? Basically...what the fcuk are you yapping about?

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    the same alan dershowitz that supports The People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), designated by the US State Dpt as a terrorist organization?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor  D-MA, is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case — but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias.

    Dershowitz said the jury’s finding that Zimmerman was not guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter was “the right verdict.” He added, “There was reasonable doubt all over the place.”

    Immediately after the verdict was announced, however, the NAACP and outspoken activist Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to launch a federal civil-rights probe, charging that the case had been racially tainted.

    Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.

    “I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” said the criminal-law expert. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”

    He added: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations.”

    Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.

     



    tvoter,

     

    I disagree with Dershowitz.

    IMO this is just Dershowitz being Dershowitz. This man has an enormous ego that needs constant feeding. Going in on the Martin side is a crowded field.

    But doing this on the Zimmerman side he has a lot of space. And a lot of attention.

    Obviously this is speculation on my part. However I have known quite a few people who have studied under him and a few who have have gone up against him. 

    The man is always in broadcast mode. The most dangerous place on earth is the place between Dershowitz and a camera. Any camera.  Esp. now as his career winds down.

    [/QUOTE]

    What is the nature of your disagreement, other than taking a swipe at Dershowitz credibility?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    Wow, now Harvard is a conservative approved institution and not some elitist bastion of librul dems like Obama and Liz Warren. Even ultra libbie ACLU favorite Alan Dershowitz gets a pass now? Id be confused but I think it's fairly obvious, if it supports your side it's all okay. We used to call it being a two faced hypocrit, now it's just called politics.

     




    I think the point you are looking for is that conservatives look at the evidence, and can agree with people outside their general political persuasion from time to time, unlike you.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    Except that Zims head wasn't bashed in.  His nose was broken, but the scratches on the back of his were nothing.  No concussion.  No stitches.  Probably not even a headache.  

    1/2 of the jury initially wanted to convict.  It was almost a hung jury.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

     

    Except that Zims head wasn't bashed in.  His nose was broken, but the scratches on the back of his were nothing.  No concussion.  No stitches.  Probably not even a headache.  

    1/2 of the jury initially wanted to convict.  It was almost a hung jury.

     



    What does the "scratches being nothing and no stitches or no concussion" have to do with anything? Where are you going with this?

    Btw...how long did the fight between Zimmerman and Trayvon last before the gun was fired?

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    Except that Zims head wasn't bashed in.  His nose was broken, but the scratches on the back of his were nothing.  No concussion.  No stitches.  Probably not even a headache.  

    1/2 of the jury initially wanted to convict.  It was almost a hung jury.




    So, now you are a doctor.

    Face it, you prejudged Zimmerman, and when the evidence doesn't meet your dubious standards, you take pot shots at Zimmerman.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

    You're in luck. They ran another article updatnig it.

     

     

    Juror B37 dominated her fair share of the post-verdict news cycle earlier this week with her since-aborted plans to write a book and her sit-down interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, the first public (albeit anonymous) comment from any member of the six-woman jury who found George Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin's death. Late Tuesday, four of the other five women spoke out to say they won't be speaking out—and to make it clear that Juror B37 doesn't speak for them. Their full statement:

    We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives. We also wish to point out that the opinions of Juror B-37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show, were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below.
    Serving on this jury has been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of us. The death of a teenager weighted heavily on our hearts but in the end we did what the law required us to do.
    We appeal to the highest standards of your profession and ask the media to respect our privacy and give us time to process what we have been though.
    Thank you,
    Juror B-51
    Juror B-76
    Juror E-6
    Juror E-40

    Their effort to distance themselves from their fellow juror comes after B37 told Cooper that she thought Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place," and that she had no doubt that he feared for his life when he shot and kill Martin.

    She also shared a few details about what went on behind closed doors, including that a preliminary vote at the very start of the deliberations was split with three jurors—including B37—in favor of acquittal, two supporting a manslaughter conviction, and the other believing Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder. Given the numbers, that means at least one of the jurors who signed Tuesday's statement was on the same side as Juror B37 during the preliminary vote—although she obviously may have taken a very different path to reach that conclusion.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/17/zimmerman_jurors_speak_four_of_six_women

    _release_statement_saying_b37_doesn.html

     

     

     




     

     

    The written statement and the "opinion" of slate are two completely different things and match up to: ""1/2 of the jury initially wanted to convict.  It was almost a hung jury." about as much as an apple matches up to an alligator.

    But, nice try though................




     

    Oh my good LORD you are a hopeless idiot.

    OPINION of slate?

    No, genius, read again:

    Their effort to distance themselves from their fellow juror comes after B37 told Cooper that she thought Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place," and that she had no doubt that he feared for his life when he shot and kill Martin.

    She also shared a few details about what went on behind closed doors, including that a preliminary vote at the very start of the deliberations was split with three jurors—including B37—in favor of acquittal, two supporting a manslaughter conviction, and the other believing Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder.

     

     

    It isn't slate's opinion. It's WHAT JUROR B37 REPORTED.

     

     

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:


    " 1/2 of the jury initially wanted to convict.  It was almost a hung jury."

     

    You have a link, proof, article, data, ....for that?

     

     

    You were given it. You were just too freaking stupid to understand what you supposedly red before running your big angry mouth.

     

    (QUOTE)


     

    This is the WRITTEN (official) statement:

    We, the undersigned jurors, understand there is a great deal of interest in this case. But we ask you to remember that we are not public officials and we did not invite this type of attention into our lives. We also wish to point out that the opinions of Juror B-37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show, were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below.
    Serving on this jury has been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of us. The death of a teenager weighted heavily on our hearts but in the end we did what the law required us to do.
    We appeal to the highest standards of your profession and ask the media to respect our privacy and give us time to process what we have been though.
    Thank you,
    Juror B-51
    Juror B-76
    Juror E-6
    Juror E-40
     
    EVERYTHING else is hearsay, opinion, and gossip.  Period.  If you can`t figure that out and understand it, then you`re dumber than we all (already) thought you are.  The written statement goes out of the way to say they may not agree with one juror, but never do they say HOW they may not agree.
    Also, a real, wicked, smaaht, guy like you should well know that a verdict returned in a mere 6 hours for a case as visible and important as this,.....means the jury agreed pretty quickly, and there`s absolutely NO WAY that:
    " 1/2 of the jury initially wanted to convict.  It was almost a hung jury."
    Do you use your head simply as a hat rack?



    Can we all agree that half the jurors were out of their minds?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrCricket. Show MrCricket's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Also, a real, wicked, smaaht, guy like you should well know that a verdict returned in a mere 6 hours for a case as visible and important as this,.....means the jury agreed pretty quickly, and there`s absolutely NO WAY that:
    " 1/2 of the jury initially wanted to convict.  It was almost a hung jury."

     



     

    That doesn't even begin to make sense. You think the fact that the jury deliberated for 6 hours means that Juror B37 was lying about the initial disagreement?

    Why would Juror B37 do that?

     

    Hat rack indeed.  Man, you are one special cookie. You come to an opinion about something and you won't change it even when its incorrectness is being waved in your face.

    Are you just doing this for a reaction (in which case you successfully trolled me for a minute there)? Or are you really that unbelievably dense?

    I'm guessing the latter. No wonder you go through life so angry. Must be very frustrating for you.

    [/QUOTE]

    wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. i say these same things about you all the time. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Famed Harvard law professor says Zimmermans civil rights were violated

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Look: Even skeeter understand that Juror B37 - not slate - was the one describing the initial split vote.

     

    Christ.



    Even skeeter?

    my feelings are hurt.

    i'm going to file a civil rights violation and SSDI.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     

Share