Don't bother listening to the "legal analysts" on the news.

[TheWraith]

I've said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating for all of DU: don't bother listening to the "legal analysts" that every news channel is going to drag on-air to talk about the Zimmerman case. There's two main reasons why you should ignore them.

First off, they have no reason to accurately talk about the case. Quite the opposite: they have a vested interest in making everything seem as up in the air as humanly possible, to get more people to tune in and more airtime for themselves. So they will pretty much be constantly spinning for whatever side they think is the underdog.

Secondly, like political pundits, they're usually working as legal analysts because they're no longer qualified, trusted, or competent to actually work in the field that they rant about. But that doesn't stop them from pretending to be smarter and more in the know than the people who've actually seen and handled the evidence every step of the way, even though they've never seen one iota more of the facts than whatever rumor and innuendo leaks out to the media.

[Riftaxe]

1. Well, you have no reason to accurately talk about the subject

yet you brought it up

Whinging about their credentials without any evidence kind of ties back into point #1 of yours, unless you have evidence (which you presumably would have disclosed) so back to your #1 point again, i guess.

[TheWraith]

3. Did you have a point in and amongst your rudeness?

Or do you simply feel like being contrarian and abrasive today?

[Riftaxe]

7. Oh sure, I guess my train of thought at that moment

is that it must be a bit shameful to take umbrage with the credentials of experts who for sure know a hell of a lot more then you (or I to be honest), just because there might be evidence introduced that no one at the moment is aware of.

If your belief in an event is so rigid that no amount of evidence introduced will sway you, that pretty much speaks for itself.
Although overall it speaks neither well nor badly, you have for whatever reason made your decision and no amount of facts, or evidence that might not be available yet will sway you.

I will readily admit my original reply was rude and more then that, a heck of a lot more abrubt then i would like!

I suspect that my irritation is not so much with you, but with so many posters who have let their fantasies sweep them away in this case. The revelations that they make through posts based on unfounded and demonstrably false datum, really scares the heck out of me.

Usually it is much easier to discern those who are passing along rumors contrary to the facts, from what is commonly known.

This case at it's essence hasn't changed a bit in reality from day one, yet we have the yahoos coming from the FOX club, and the yahoos coming from the MSNBC club telling us their latest fake outrage everyday without ever coming near the reality concerning this tragedy, even giving space for MR and MRS jump to a wild arsed conclusion.

The reality is that this case is not as juicy as MSNBC is hyping it, nor as irrelevant as FOX is doing. We know that a young kid was killed, and that at the moment is all we know other then the things that have already been disproven.

But we already know my opinion that if you watch MSNBC/FOX for anything other then entertainment, you will be more ignorant then when you turned on the channel.

[Hoyt]

2. Those who support more guns on the streets would love for the masses to forget Zimmerman

and those like him walking around in public with guns and hatred.

[TheWraith]

4. You demonstrate amazing ability to turn every subject back to your obsession. nt

[Hoyt]

5. And your thoughts on Zimmerman are biased because of your obsession with all things guns.

[Swede Atlanta]

6. As an attorney I agree...........

The only value these "legal experts" can bring is to distill the potential and eventual charges against a suspect and an understanding of the relevant law such as the potential penalties for conviction.

The rest of it is really pure speculation. They may have experience in criminal law either as a prosecutor or defense attorney, or both, but they come with their own preconceived ideas. They will interpret the facts through the prism of their own experiences and biases.

They can not be relied on to be objective or provide the public with any meaningful information except for the base facts of the case.