Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Rare Truth]

How were they 'issues?' When did this actually matter other than a cheap stunt to try to 'discredit' George Zimmerman on something entirely irrelevant to the murder charge he faced?

It was a BOND hearing. Duhhhhhh.

 

[Kaosium]

Wow, just wow.

All I can say is that I hope everyone reads my post and your response carefully.

I'm betting mine stands the test of time though...

 

[Rare Truth]

I'm betting mine stands the test of time though...

I'm betting it doesn't. There are so many errors and misrepresentations in there I almost choked on my orange juice.

 

[Kaosium]

It was a BOND hearing. Duhhhhhh.

Yes, it was, because of the murder charge. Why do you suppose weeks after the money had been frozen in the trust they hit O'Mara with a prepared presentation with evidence including tapes from jail telephone conversations and paypal account information etc?

It wasn't really about the bond, was it?

 

[Kaosium]

I'm betting it doesn't. There are so many errors and misrepresentations in there I almost choked on my orange juice.

Well, point them out then!

Maybe I have something wrong, maybe you do.

As for the relevance, I have that right. For the prosecution motive, that's pretty much a gimme too. The details of this 'sordid plot' the prosecution alleges that never came to pass and was taken care of weeks before they made a prima donna display about it in open court, there I might have missed something or got something mixed up.

Look at it this way, you'd better take advantage now! It's not like you're gonna 'win' much if the conversation meanders back to what is actually evidence of murder against George Zimmerman...

 

[Rare Truth]

Yes, it was, because of the murder charge. Why do you suppose weeks after the money had been frozen in the trust they hit O'Mara with a prepared presentation with evidence including tapes from jail telephone conversations and paypal account information etc?

It wasn't really about the bond, was it?

Uh, yeah it was. (Did you not even see the original bond hearing...or the follow up after that O'Mara had to give where he mea culpaed his way before the judge with ...well, we ********** up Judge, and my client knew he had money there. It was "an oversight" (yah, right) as he bullcrapped his way out of George's deliberate omission?))

Do you even understand what the purpose of a bond hearing IS?

You can't misrepresent your financial status, or flight means (passport).

In GZ's case, that's a third degree felony offense.

 

[Rare Truth]

...
Look at it this way, you'd better take advantage now! It's not like you're gonna 'win' much if the conversation meanders back to what is actually evidence of murder against George Zimmerman...

Tugboat's statements to police, his reenactment, his phone records, his text msg's. the Clubhouse surveillance video...more! Coming up next in our next exciting episode.

Same Bat time. Same Bat channel.

 

[GWCarver]

And having looked at that specific page, it is not relevant from what my uneducated mind can tell.

There would need to be perjury or material mi statements for it to matter. It does not apply to the TM case. And it regard search warrant in the exact case law referenced.

So I am not really seeing Jeralyn's statements as really constructed very well, but then I am not a lawyer.

What kind of game are you playing here? You said you weren't familiar with Jeralyn and asked me if she supported her opinions with case law and court decisions, so I took the trouble to link to a portion of one of her posts that does exactly that. I didn't put it up to prove a point, it was just a portion of the first example of the kind of information you were looking for I came across, not her entire post on the matter, which I clearly stated at the top of the post.

Here is the first sentence of that partial post:

"Of course Franks v. Delaware applies to arrest warrants. It applies to probable cause showings for all warrants under the 4th Amendment. Even in Florida:"

And the last:

"While the Court was considering a search warrant, our supreme court has applied the same analysis to arrest warrants."

So, as long as we're here, we might as well learn something. Can you please provide a citation to show Franks doesn't apply to this case?

 

[Kaosium]

Uh, yeah it was. (Did you not even see the original bond hearing...or the follow up after that O'Mara had to give where he mea culpaed his way before the judge with ...well, we ********** up Judge, and my client knew he had money there. It was "an oversight" (yah, right) as he bullcrapped his way out of George's deliberate omission?))

None of this constitutes a lie or an attempt to deceive. He had a legal defense fund of (low) six digits to face potential legal liabilities of seven digits. It's all in a trust now anyway that neither he or his lawyer can touch.

His performance is a damned good reason this blindsiding nonsense has to stop. What the hell else is he going to do outside beg for mercy for this oversight that was corrected weeks before? He can't really contest it without evidence can he? George wasn't even there which is another strange thing about turning this evidence suppression hearing (or whatever it was) into open season on George's paypal account which was resolved weeks before, and to put together a rather pathetic conspiracy theory regarding his attempting to 'run' (maybe he has a passport from Peru!) when the damned extra passport was sitting in his lawyers briefcase and had been forgotten. Didja wonder why the prosecution didn't just ask O'Mara about it long before they decided to do the whole strawberries routine in court?

Do you even understand what the purpose of a bond hearing IS?

Bail.

You can't misrepresent your financial status, or flight means (passport).

In GZ's case, that's a third degree felony offense.

What evidence is there that George misrepresented his 'flight means?' Why do you suppose the judge bought O'Mara's explanation? Why do you suppose George didn't run if that's what he was doing in 'misrepresenting his flight means?' He lost his passport, got another, then found the other and mailed it back to his lawyer, who forgot about it but had documentation the judge was satisfied with.

As for 'financial status' it's still 'broke.' If he wanted to be sneaky he could have put the money in his brother's or a friend's name and have it called something else. He didn't do that, and he didn't lie, and the prosecution knew about it and asked about it, and was directed by his wife to the correct party to answer the questions which they didn't bother with.....


...until they could get a cheap shot in on GZ about something temporary and meaningless that had been rectified weeks before, that is.

What would have been the difference had it been 'disclosed' again? Honestly?

That's what I mean by 'meaningless.'

 

[Rare Truth]

I read a very astute post on another board. I'd like to share:

General question: Is that what prompts all these "defend the killer" posts? Are the pro-Z team persons who would really like to take their gun and blow away somebody and get away with it? Is that what the motivation is? "I wish I could do that and get away with it, so let me give my cultural icon, GZ, cash for killing." Is this the psychological impetus? I think we've made a breakthrough! It's killer envy!

Given a reason, even a pathetic reason that's a lie, given half a chance to put a bullet through the heart of someone who is perceived as a threat, even unarmed, and there'd be a whole lotta killing going on. Thanks for that insight into to darkness. It answers the question I've been asking myself for months now. And all this blind acceptance of GZ's story would be the justification for the ability to kill, unfettered. And it won't not be refuted, not by evidence or morality, because that would burst the bubble of the fantasy of being able to kill the "other" and walk away free.

Thanks for the insight! I applaud the truthfulness and admission of what seems to be driving the "George is a hero" point of view. -Cleos Mum ​

 

[Newtons Bit]

I read a very astute post on another board. I'd like to share:

General question: Is that what prompts all these "defend the killer" posts? Are the pro-Z team persons who would really like to take their gun and blow away somebody and get away with it? Is that what the motivation is? "I wish I could do that and get away with it, so let me give my cultural icon, GZ, cash for killing." Is this the psychological impetus? I think we've made a breakthrough! It's killer envy!

Given a reason, even a pathetic reason that's a lie, given half a chance to put a bullet through the heart of someone who is perceived as a threat, even unarmed, and there'd be a whole lotta killing going on. Thanks for that insight into to darkness. It answers the question I've been asking myself for months now. And all this blind acceptance of GZ's story would be the justification for the ability to kill, unfettered. And it won't not be refuted, not by evidence or morality, because that would burst the bubble of the fantasy of being able to kill the "other" and walk away free.

Thanks for the insight! I applaud the truthfulness and admission of what seems to be driving the "George is a hero" point of view. -Cleos Mum [qimg]http://www.justicequest.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]​

Indeed. GZ should have just accepted the beating. He got out of the car. He followed TM. He deserved a beating for his actions.

 

[Unabogie]

Indeed. GZ should have just accepted the beating. He got out of the car. He followed TM. He deserved a beating for his actions.

Speculation isn't allowed on this thread. Since you don't know what sort of beating took place, nor do you know who started the beating, nor do you know if George shot Trayvon after the scuffle had stopped, you're assuming facts not in evidence.

Therefore you get a yellow card or something.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Speculation isn't allowed on this thread. Since you don't know what sort of beating took place, nor do you know who started the beating, nor do you know if George shot Trayvon after the scuffle had stopped, you're assuming facts not in evidence.

Therefore you get a yellow card or something.

True dat. Maybe if there was pictures or something showing wounds on GZ head and face I could come to the conclusion that he had received a beating at some point. But who performed the beating? Did he do it to himself? Or maybe the cops did it to help cover up the crime!

 

[Kaosium]

I read a very astute post on another board. I'd like to share:

General question: Is that what prompts all these "defend the killer" posts? Are the pro-Z team persons who would really like to take their gun and blow away somebody and get away with it? Is that what the motivation is? "I wish I could do that and get away with it, so let me give my cultural icon, GZ, cash for killing." Is this the psychological impetus? I think we've made a breakthrough! It's killer envy!

Given a reason, even a pathetic reason that's a lie, given half a chance to put a bullet through the heart of someone who is perceived as a threat, even unarmed, and there'd be a whole lotta killing going on. Thanks for that insight into to darkness. It answers the question I've been asking myself for months now. And all this blind acceptance of GZ's story would be the justification for the ability to kill, unfettered. And it won't not be refuted, not by evidence or morality, because that would burst the bubble of the fantasy of being able to kill the "other" and walk away free.

Thanks for the insight! I applaud the truthfulness and admission of what seems to be driving the "George is a hero" point of view. -Cleos Mum [qimg]http://www.justicequest.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]​

My answer is a rational evaluation of the evidence and timeline suggests George Zimmerman was probably jumped and took a beating and after yelling for help and absorbing several head shots had to shoot TM when TM would not let up, quite probably because TM had seen the gun and was going for it.

He was cleared of wrongdoing by police after extensive cooperation but was smeared by a mindless 'outraged' mob of people and press who made up an entirely bogus interpretation of events that would embarrass the John Birch Society; relying on 'evidence' like poorly defined pictures and outright lies about George Zimmerman and the case. This lead to a piranha prosecutor being appointed who made an outrageous murder charge and appears willing to employ dirty tricks to try to garner a conviction that would be a gross miscarriage of justice right in the full light of day in the United States.

That clown is more a killer himself in a sense. He wants George Zimmerman's life because he's been told it's OK to hate him and to want to see him destroyed. It's those who hate that dream up creepy-ass stuff like that about wanting to kill without consequence or envying killers, not those who defend the intended victims of their mindless thirst for vengeance.

There's no nobility in a lynch mob.

 

[Giz]

Speculation isn't allowed on this thread. Since you don't know what sort of beating took place, nor do you know who started the beating, nor do you know if George shot Trayvon after the scuffle had stopped, you're assuming facts not in evidence.

I think that anyone suggesting that GZ may have been justified is assuming that, at the time of shooting, GZ was in reasonable fear of his life/suffering grievous bodily harm. Given that initial assumption, it logically follows that if GZ hadn't shot then he would have taken a beating (and perhaps worse).

You may disagree with the following, but I would say:
1) It appears probable that GZ didn't intend for any confrontation to take place
2) It appears very probable that TM had 'won' the fight and was continuing the assault
3) GZ desperately cried for help for 30 seconds before he felt he had to shoot

Of course, none of this is known for sure (and may in fact, be wrong).

 

[Giz]

I read a very astute post on another board. I'd like to share:

General question: Is that what prompts all these "defend the killer" posts? Are the pro-Z team persons who would really like to take their gun and blow away somebody and get away with it? Is that what the motivation is? "I wish I could do that and get away with it, so let me give my cultural icon, GZ, cash for killing." Is this the psychological impetus? I think we've made a breakthrough! It's killer envy!

Given a reason, even a pathetic reason that's a lie, given half a chance to put a bullet through the heart of someone who is perceived as a threat, even unarmed, and there'd be a whole lotta killing going on. Thanks for that insight into to darkness. It answers the question I've been asking myself for months now. And all this blind acceptance of GZ's story would be the justification for the ability to kill, unfettered. And it won't not be refuted, not by evidence or morality, because that would burst the bubble of the fantasy of being able to kill the "other" and walk away free.

Thanks for the insight! I applaud the truthfulness and admission of what seems to be driving the "George is a hero" point of view. -Cleos Mum [qimg]http://www.justicequest.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]​

Or, people think that folks should be allowed to protect themselves against a vicious unprovoked attack that puts them in reasonable fear for their life...

 

[Cylinder]

I read a very astute post on another board.

Thanks for that post. I did not know that astute meant wall-to-wall logical fallacies. See, we can learn something from this thread.

 

[GWCarver]

Speculation isn't allowed on this thread. Since you don't know what sort of beating took place, nor do you know who started the beating, nor do you know if George shot Trayvon after the scuffle had stopped, you're assuming facts not in evidence.

Therefore you get a yellow card or something.

Don't you think Rare Truth deserves a red card for posting speculation that wasn't even original, and a hate-filled rant at that? The punishment should fit the offense.



ETA - Changed "infraction" to "offense" because "infraction" has been predefined here and linked to a local definition.

 

[Dan O.]

None of this constitutes a lie or an attempt to deceive. He had a legal defense fund of (low) six digits to face potential legal liabilities of seven digits. It's all in a trust now anyway that neither he or his lawyer can touch.

Has this specific claim been supported? We know the money is in a trust, O'Mara put it there shortly after his client withheld it's extent from the court. But have we seen the actual form of the trust?

I don't think the money being in the trust is going to protect if from being considered when setting the new bail. These were assets George had access to prior to the original bail hearing. If George subsequently hid this money from himself and it turns out that he would need it to post the new bail, he'll just have to sit in his jail cell until he finds another way to come up with the money. The court is under no obligation to accommodate his stupid decisions.

 

[Unabogie]

True dat. Maybe if there was pictures or something showing wounds on GZ head and face I could come to the conclusion that he had received a beating at some point. But who performed the beating? Did he do it to himself? Or maybe the cops did it to help cover up the crime!

Look, either we can look at the photos and draw conclusions or we can't. Either we can rely on the assumption that we know George's story or we can't.

If we can rely on the assumption that we know his story, we can start picking it apart. But over and over, people jump in and say "whoa, whoa, whoa", we don't KNOW he claimed to be jumped from behind! We don't KNOW he gave three different stories to investigators, as the DA alleged. Let's WAIT until we see George's ACTUAL words.

Well fine, but then you don't get to say that you know he was beaten, for how long, or what the circumstances were.

You don't get to draw conclusions for second hand testimony or photos.

You don't get to speculate.

Unless you want to suggest Trayvon was in a gang or was a step below professional jewel thief. Then it's perfectly fine to let your mind run wild, I guess.

But as long as we're speculating, I'll just go with the guy who has a history of anger management issues, a hamhanded conspiracy to defraud the court over his passport and finances, a domestic assault restraining order, a history of racist rants, and an assault on a LEO, and speculate that he's the guy who started the fight, not the kid on his way home from the store.

But only because we're allowed to speculate now.