Raiikun
Posts: 2650
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
And a very nice guy in person as well.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
He is a cop, it is the farthest thing there is from a law expert. Keep sucking that ass shiteater.
Actually, he is a...
former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position. His published work was cited by the Violence Policy Center in their amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and he himself filed a declaration in another amicus brief in this case. His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case", was, according to Jeffrey Weiner (former president of NACDL), "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."
Source
K.
Yep, he is.
He's also trained law enforcement, and taught fire arm safety and self defense, both from a practical and legal standpoint, for a very long time, and to suggest he isn't an expert on the legal side of the field is just silly.
Before O'Mara had taken the case, Uhrig and Sonner had asked Ayoob if he would testify on Zimmerman's behalf, and Ayoob told them he would be willing to after he had seen all the evidence, because he wanted to first be sure that George was "on the side of the angels."
Ayoob wrote more recently that the State's playing games by withholding evidence made that hard to determine for a long time, but he still acted as a consultant, though he didn't end up testifying (Root contacted the defense and offered to testify, and proved to be very effective). He's written a series of articles about the case though, showing he did find George to have been "on the side of the angels."
His latest one:
"Professionals in the justice system knew that the prosecution was desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel when they tried to make it look as if George Zimmerman wasn’t justified in shooting Trayvon Martin because Martin hadn’t hurt him badly enough yet.
Anyone smart enough to pass a bar exam and research the laws of self-defense and use of force, would know that you don’t have to sustain a gunshot wound before you shoot the criminal gunman pointing his weapon at you. Similarly, you don’t have to let the guy fracture your skull or spill your brains onto the sidewalk before you are justified in stopping him with lethal force.
The whole purpose of self-defense in any form is to prevent the other man from injuring you. At the deadly force level employed in this case, the force is justified to stop the man before he inflicts a mortal or crippling injury upon you.
...
From what the evidence shows us, deadly force was indeed warranted at the time Zimmerman pulled the trigger and fired the single shot of the encounter. The lay jurors, even the one who couldn’t quite distinguish between homicide and murder when she talked about it on TV Wednesday, understood that.
The argument that Zimmerman didn’t sustain enough injury to warrant using deadly force in self-defense is simply a false argument. An argument so blatantly bogus that the knowledgeable observer can’t help but wonder what motivated the lawyers who raised it in the first place."
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/07/26/zimmerman-verdict-part-8-the-quantity-of-injury-argument/
|
RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread