Another Stellar Day for Gun Owners

It sure does! All throughout this entire thread you righties have been saying that bs!

Now, as I mentioned before, I can't read from FOX News' online site, so instead of idiotic comments about an article that I cannot read, why not post a summary of the article to explain what's so special about it?

Get to the point already lol

 

For your edification, here's the article (my comments are in red):

Dershowitz: Prosecutor in Trayvon Martin case overreached with murder charge



Legal legend Alan Dershowitz (You know who that is, right? Ultra-liberal lawyer, etc.?) blasted the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case, accusing her of hiding evidence favorable to defendant George Zimmerman and committing perjury. (What's this??? HIDING EVIDENCE? What could it be?)

“If I were this prosecutor, I’d be hiring a lawyer at this point,” Dershowitz said of Angela Cory, the Florida state attorney and special prosecutor who Gov. Rick Scott appointed to handle the case.

Dershowitz leveled his bombshell charges in an interview Wednesday with Fox News' Megyn Kelly. The Harvard law professor, noted for winning an acquittal of Claus Von Bulow in the case that inspired the film “Reversal of Fortune,” said Cory overreached by charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder. And he said the affidavit she filed in support of the charges was illegal because it did not include evidence favorable to Zimmerman. (Let's read that again together, shall we? "... it did not include evidence favorable to Zimmerman".)

“This affidavit submitted by the prosecutor in the Florida case is a crime,” Dershowitz said. “It’s a crime.”
Zimmerman, 28, is a neighborhood watch captain who admits shooting the unarmed 17-year-old Martin on Feb. 26 after a confrontation in the gated community where he lives, but Zimmerman claims he acted in self-defense.

ABC News recently aired a photo purportedly taken minutes after the shooting that shows a bloody wound on the back of Zimmerman’s head. (Hmmmmmmm... a bloody wound on the back of Zimmerman's head. Interesting....) That photo appears to support Zimmerman’s contention that he was being beaten by the teen when he shot him. (Well, yes, it certainly might).

But Cory made no mention of Zimmerman’s wounds or photos that might substantiate them (uh oh) when announcing the charge on April 11. Dershowitz said she was obligated to include any and all pertinent evidence.

“If she in fact knew about ABC News’ pictures of the bloody head of Zimmerman and failed to include that in the affidavit, this affidavit is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Dershowitz said. “It’s a perjurious affidavit.” (I have to agree with Mr. Ultra-Liberal Lawyer on this one).

Even worse, Dershowitz warned that by overcharging Zimmerman, Cory may have planted the seed for riots if he is acquitted, as Dershowitz predicted will happen.

“If there are riots, it will be the prosecutor’s fault because she overcharged, raised expectations,” Dershowitz said. “This prosecutor not only may have suborned perjury, she may be responsible, if there are going to be riots here, for raising expectations to unreasonable levels.”

He said it is quite possible Zimmerman was guilty of a lesser charge, but the affidavit does not support a second-degree murder charge.

“There’s nothing in this affidavit that suggests second-degree murder. The elements of second-degree murder aren’t here."

Dershowitz is not the first legal expert to question the second-degree murder charge. The Florida statute requires proof that the defendant acted in a manner that was “evincing a depraved mind.” Prominent Miami criminal defense attorney John Priovolos told The Associated Press the charge was a “huge overreach” and said Corey will be hard-pressed to show Zimmerman had the “ill will, spite, malice or hatred” needed to prove a “depraved mind.”

If convicted of the second-degree charge, Zimmerman could face a maximum sentence of life in prison. Cory could still add charges, and a jury could eventually convict him of a “lesser included” charge, such as reckless manslaughter.

When announcing the charge, Cory expressed confidence in her team’s case.

"We have to have a reasonable certainty of conviction before filing charges," Cory said.

But Dershowitz said Cory is the one who should be facing charges, arguing that her prosecution of the case has already taken a political turn.

“She was appointed to get Zimmerman,” Dershowitz said.​

It's like I've said all along, why don't you liberals wait until the facts of the case come in before jumping to conclusions and rushing to judgment? For God's sake, the way the liberals have wanted to hang this guy before trial, one would think you're all a posse wanting to mete out frontier justice. Zimmerman MAY OR MAY NOT BE GUILTY after all is said and done. But, please don't be a Major Tetley.​

​

 

Because Fox News always tells the truth.

 

It's not MY fault! I am the victim here.

~R. Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch admitted Thursday there had been a "cover-up" of phone hacking at his flagship British tabloid newspaper and apologized for not paying more attention to a scandal that has convulsed his media empire and rocked the British political establishment.
And he said that he had shut down the best-selling News of the World out of "panic" in the face of public fury about the revelation that a murdered teenage girl had been a victim of phone hacking.
Murdoch, who owns the Sun and the Times in London, as well as controlling the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Fox News, said his News Corp. had been a victim of the cover-up, not the perpetrator.
"Someone took charge of a cover-up, which we were victim to and I regret," he said at the Leveson Inquiry, an independent British probe prompted by charges of illegal eavesdropping by his newspaper.
He blamed "one or two very strong individuals" at the paper, but did not name them.
"I also have to say that I failed," he said of the fact that he did not pay enough attention to the problem of phone hacking. He then paused a long time before finally continuing: "And I am very sorry for it."

 

Oh! Goody! Now you profess to know better than the lawyers too. And it is even a liberal lawyer you think you out shine too boot.

 

Hey puppy dog. Glad to see you following me again today. I have to warn you though; my other dogs may just get jealous and nip at you. Would you like a biscuit? Biscuit? Come on, you know you’d like a biscuit!

 

Ah! Trying to change the topic and is it now Murdoch's fault that Zimmerman was attacked?

 

OMG breaking news! Zimmerman was attacked?! That means there must have been a hitherto unknown third person involved in the kid's killing. A third person who was targeting Zimmerman. The plot thickens.

 

"ABC News recently aired a photo purportedly taken minutes after the shooting that shows a bloody wound on the back of Zimmerman’s head."
So you think he attacked himself?

 

Who is a good boy? Whose a good boy? You are! You are! Yes you are!

 

RLM, they would rather make cutesie quips than talk about the real topic. Let the babies have their bottle. Besides, they've already decided the case in their own minds, found Zimmerman guilty and hanged him. No matter what evidence comes out from now on, they won't have the courage to admit they were wrong... so what's the point of discussing it with them?

 

So let me make sure I understand this. If you start a fight you will not be wounded in said fight. As the fight starter you are shielded from physical injury at the hands of your opponent. You can only be wounded in a fight if you are the victim or if you somehow inflict an injury on yourself. Therefore, if you are wounded we can only conclude that you were the attackee and not the attacker. Would that about sum it up?

 

It's not so much changing the subject that is at issue here. It's really a total lack of respect for anything YOU TWO have to say on any subject that motivates me.

 

Join the crowd. I have zero respect for your opinions (and those of your lapdogs, too), but I do enjoy punching holes in your propaganda.

 

At least we agree on something.

P.S. Propaganda? The contemporary term is "narrative" and even Democrats admit just how good the Right is at manipulating the message with people that work constantly to change the meaning of words like Frank Luntz, the Right's messaging guru. Show me an equivalent to Luntz on the Left and if one exists, I'll bet I don't adhere to anything they say since I can't even think of one. Can you say the same about Luntz's work? I doubt it.

You remind me of the people of Germany that were absolutely shocked at the end of the war not because they had lost but because the propaganda machine Hitler used had them so convinced that they were on the right side of the war. Even when marched through the death camps, many believed that the foreign forces had committed the atrocities and not Hitler. They couldn't let go of the oft heard propaganda that had been beat into their heads even when faced with proof of the falseness of what they believed. Many went to their graves believing Hitler's lies. No doubt your fate as well.

 

I am just using liberal logic. It makes more sense than it was Zimmerman's fault because he was an adult. Not only that, but it is true unlike it was Zimmerman's fault because he weighted 250 (LIE!) How about it was Zimmerman's fault because he was heard on a 911 tape saying, 'F****ing Coon'" - another lie.

 

Now you need to stop confusing the lefties with facts...that's not playing fair!

 

RLM, I think the liberals are burying their heads in the sand on this one. Either that, or following the lead of these monkeys:

View attachment 421

 

You didn't identify it as "Liberal Logic" until a Socialist showed you how stupid it was. Now that you're running away from it, it's suddenly "Liberal Logic".

 

"Liberal logic"...now that's funny!