Okay. But, there was bit more than what you quoted that led me to believe the professor and I agree this was not a stellar effort in probable cause affidavits.
I'll let TheProfessor speak for himself.
In Texas, chief prosecutors -- at the District Court level -- are elected officials. They hire assistants to actually do the prosecuting. I've met some District Attorneys that are dumb as bricks about law enforcement but, could shake a hand and kiss a baby like nobody's business.
I don't know how they get in their positions in Florida. And, I don't know the background of either the local Sanford prosecutor (whether he was the equivalent of the District Attorney or an ADA) or the Special Prosecutor.
But, he wouldn't defend you in court...which was your point. And, if you're charged with a crime in his jurisdiction, it'd be a conflict for him to provide you with such advice -- and you'd be a real jerk to ask for it.
I'm not suggesting the officers need to try the facts as prosecutors but that they have an obligation to do due diligence in developing probable cause. You don't need a law degree to do that.
And, quit acting like I'm the only person that is criticizing the case against George Zimmerman. There are actual lawyers and prosecutors out there doing the same.
TheProfessor is perfectly within his wheelhouse to be making the observations he has, that disagree with me. We don't have to convince each other the other of us is wrong. He stated his case and reasons for thinking as he does (even though he kind of dodged the question of what legitimate reasons a prosecutor would have for skipping out on a Grand Jury when it was available and a prudent course of action) and I mine.
What is your role here besides being some kind of gnat that finds it necessary to buzz around my head confirming what we already know, TheProfessor is a prosecutor and I'm not. In that regard, I believe I've shown TheProfessor adequate deference and even asked for his impressions?
