That works nicely
You got "burned" by your own words.
Lack of ethical conduct for losing a trial? Maybe the jury got it wrong. Or maybe the prosecutor thought it was a good case and the jury simply disagreed.They still should be permanently retired for their lack of ethical conduct.
Sprinkle a few lies made by you here and there, and I'd agree. Fortunately, I had a chance to expose your creative writing before it got lost.
Lies by me? What a howler! You're the only one who can come up with "if Zimmerman got out of his truck he's guilty" is not the same as "Zimmerman is not permitted to get out of his truck" or "not permitted to be on the sidewalk." Where was he permitted if getting out of the truck makes him guilty? Then you ridiculously try to cover your tracks by lying and trying a diversion. Do you plant evidence too? Make up testimony? Shake down teenagers to steal their beer? You seem to be ethically challenged and it's increasingly unbecoming.
Yeah, just next time when you decide to lie on somebody, choose someone who won't call you out. You'll never become a "real boy" nor will your nose cease to stop growing if you keep up with your non-truths.
Except you can't point out exactly how it's a "lie." Yeah, right-o. This ghetto bully crap may work when you're trying to steal beer from teenagers, but not here. Does your chief know you spend all you patrol time posting on here?
Non of this back and forth has anything to do with the actual thread topic but I must say that I find this "Punch and Judy Show" amusing.
When is this trial going to start?
When is this trial going to start?
Lack of ethical conduct for losing a trial? Maybe the jury got it wrong. Or maybe the prosecutor thought it was a good case and the jury simply disagreed.
Juries that acquit don't necessarily believe the charge was incorrect. Sometimes they think the defendant was guilty, but the evidence did not exclude every other real possibility.
It happens. Doesn't make it an ethical failure.
How about defense attorneys who don't get an acquittal? Malpractice? Incompetence?
Zimmerman trial outrage - Washington Times
It is also disconcerting to contemplate the possibility that Mr. Zimmerman could be scapegoated to avoid the eruption of civil unrest if the results are less than satisfactory to some individuals.
Parties are jumping to conclusions that are not based on facts or evidence but instead on the preponderance of divergent public opinion.
From the same article:
The, "facts & evidence", crowd, which now includes two criminal law professors, leans one way, while the, "public opinion", crowd, which includes two un-trustworthy Reverends, leans the other.
I do believe all of those cases were in the "L" column.I don't doubt Alan Dershowitz's talent, but how much weight does one want to place on the opinion (and unless he has all the evidence, that's exactly what it is) of a guy who believed and represented a rapist (Mike Tyson), a terrorist (Patty Hearst), and a guy who fleeced millions from the elderly (Jim Baker).