Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[crimresearch]

I'm not sure if you are following.

My claim, as can be seen in the links I posted, was that the judge missed something. My claim was very detailed and thoroughly cited, none of which you ever addressed. You just kept linking to the judge's original statement*! Just as you did now. Though you did back off your original claim that it was "laughed out of court".

You told me that (that the judge missed something) was impossible, and your argument was, as it appears to be now, was simply that he said differently. I can only assume that your position was that he could not possibly have been wrong. You did have another argument, that was that if I was so sure the judge missed something, I should call him and tell him....

*Remember, at that time of the statement you are so firmly attached to, he had only reviewed the information for minutes, a few hours max.

Now, after months of review, and several hours of dedicated review, the judge has completely changed his position on the passport issue.

So apparently he saw that he did indeed miss something.

Could you at least acknowledge this?



Well, since you bring that up. Not twice. But dozens of times you have posted a list of CT claims that you have seen in this thread. In most cases I have seen you post about them many times more than they were ever originally discussed. In almost all of the original discussions, if proven wrong, the people have acknowledged it! Keeping a list of wrongs, does not make other wrongs right.

As I said before, I have no problem with people posting their ideas, even if they are zany. This is a discussion forum, not a court room. As long as they are civil. If you see something that is incorrect, by all means post the truth, with cites. Making fun of them is uncivil. Saying they are wrong without backing it up is pointless.




Are you suggesting that the judge can not have a huge influence on the trial?

What about which objections are overruled or sustained?

Specifically, the judge has lots of control over what lines of questioning the prosecutor can follow.

Does he not also have the final say on the jury instructions?

As you are well aware, my claim was that the judge dismissed the prosecution's motion on the passports *at that hearing*. More than one poster claimed otherwise.

The video proves what actually happened.

The fact that Zimmerman is out of jail on bond effectively debunked other claims made in this case.

I've never claimed he didn't change his mind in the last hearing, so your demand that I 'admit' something I never said, is irrelevant to any productive discourse on the reality of the Zimmerman case.

So instead of insisting that people re-argue things that are settled matters of fact, perhaps you would answer the question relevant to this entire issue... to this entire forum for that matter.

Why should I (or anyone else here) abandon the verifiable facts, and give the respect you demand for disproven claims and theories, instead of being objective and not rushing to judgement?

 

[quadraginta]

Which is routine and mundane for hundreds of thousands of Americans every year ... the $1,000,000 bail, or the $200,000+ slush fund of found money?

Being charged with a crime and going through the process of defending themselves. The whole presumption of innocence thing. Happens all the time.

The identical process that so many people here are calling 'pro-Zimmerman'.

So you agree that a $1,000,000 bail is neither routine nor mundane?

Also a $200,000+ legal defense slush fund of found money?

Is it somehow 'anti-Zimmerman' to suggest they might not be?

 

[crimresearch]

So, the fact remains, that the legal system has found that Zimmerman is entitled to the same due process as anyone else.

Looking forward from this point, it still seems that the prosecution has nothing dramatically new in their hand, and that Zimmerman is facing a tough sell on the legal test for self defense.

It will be interesting to see what develops out of the new attorneys brought in by each side... haven't heard anything from them so far.

 

[crimresearch]

So you agree that a $1,000,000 bail is neither routine nor mundane?

Also a $200,000+ legal defense slush fund of found money?

Is it somehow 'anti-Zimmerman' to suggest they might not be?

Do you have a link to any legal citation that $1million in this murder case violates the Constitutional ban on excessive bail?

Do you have a link to anything definitive to support the notion that Zimmerman's pre-trial hearings have been conducted improperly?

If not, why would you try to bring in the meme that sticking to the Constitution and the rules of the legal system, is pro or anti anybody?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You didn't ask me but here goes:

So you agree that a $1,000,000 bail is neither routine nor mundane?

Compared to what? Being charged with 2nd degree murder isn't particularly routine or mundane either, but for someone who has, and in these circumstances, it doesn't seem that unusual.

Also a $200,000+ legal defense slush fund degreed of found money?

Is it somehow 'anti-Zimmerman' to suggest they might not be?

I'd say it's clearly meant to be "anti-Zimmerman", otherwise you wouldn't refer to a legal defense fund as a "slush fund" and "found money". I find it interesting that GZ being able to raise money so upsets some people. I estimate that the state and federal government have already easily spent in the millions on this case. Even if he's guilty, I'm not sure why it should upset us for him to have an opportunity to pay for a good defense.

 

[Unabogie]

Sort of the anti Jeralyn Merritt. A lawyer who is blogging about the case, but who thinks George is a murderer. Different commenters, different perspective, some good information.

http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/

*I'm not endorsing everything he says, but since we keep getting "Jeralyn's take" on various developments, this could serve as a counterweight.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sort of the anti Jeralyn Merritt. A lawyer who is blogging about the case, but who thinks George is a murderer. Different commenters, different perspective, some good information.

http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/

*I'm not endorsing everything he says, but since we keep getting "Jeralyn's take" on various developments, this could serve as a counterweight.

http://frederickleatherman.wordpres...said-i-took-my-gun-aimed-it-at-him-and-fired/

He appears to be unaware that the shot was a contact shot, though.

Other opinions are okay, but they have to be fact based.

 

[quadraginta]

Do you have a link to any legal citation that $1million in this murder case violates the Constitutional ban on excessive bail?

Why would I need one? I've never suggested anything remotely like that.

All I did was point out that $1,000,000 was neither routine nor mundane.

You have yet to disagree with that, even though your responses seem to be intended to give that impression somehow.

Do you have a link to anything definitive to support the notion that Zimmerman's pre-trial hearings have been conducted improperly?

Why would I need one? I've never suggested anything remotely like that.

I can't imagine what you think I wrote to give you the idea that I did?

If not, why would you try to bring in the meme that sticking to the Constitution and the rules of the legal system, is pro or anti anybody?

I didn't. That was you who brought in that particular meme. See post #1600, the one of yours I was responding to. If you don't want people to respond to things that you write one of the more effective strategies is to not write them.

If you hadn't included quotes from my post I would seriously question whether we were participating in the same thread. You don't seem to be addressing anything I actually wrote.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...or-angela-corey-chief-bill-lee-arrest-warrant

Sanford police took one position on Trayvon shooting in public, another in paperwork to prosecutors

 

[quadraginta]

You didn't ask me but here goes:

So you agree that a $1,000,000 bail is neither routine nor mundane?

Compared to what? Being charged with 2nd degree murder isn't particularly routine or mundane either, but for someone who has, and in these circumstances, it doesn't seem that unusual.

Well, for starters, the bail he was originally set. 25% of this one. And even that had been regarded by more than a few people as excessive, at least at the time.

Also a $200,000+ legal defense slush fund degreed of found money?

Is it somehow 'anti-Zimmerman' to suggest they might not be?

I'd say it's clearly meant to be "anti-Zimmerman", otherwise you wouldn't refer to a legal defense fund as a "slush fund" and "found money".

Why would you think so? There's nothing intrinsically pejorative about either label. And in this case it is clearly and quite accurately both.

I wasn't the first in this thread to refer to the Zimmerman donations as 'found money', but I see no disrespect in calling it what it is. There isn't a whole lot of reason for Z to have expected it. That is neither routine for most criminal cases nor is it mundane.

Which is the only point I was making.

And it is unquestionably a slush fund. Z and his wife were treating it exactly like one until they got caught out by the court (credit card bills?), and even since, by his own lawyer's own words on his own web site they plan to use it for "living expenses" as well as legal costs.

More "mundane" defendants, you know, the ones who didn't have enough spare cash to cover their bond, would have their living expenses covered by the state ... so to speak,

I find it interesting that GZ being able to raise money so upsets some people.

Which people are these?

I do not begrudge the donations of supporters, but there is no reason to pretend that it is perfectly normal for a self-confessed killer of an unarmed teenager to garner hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from strangers.

If it was we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I estimate that the state and federal government have already easily spent in the millions on this case.

This could well be true, although I think your estimate might be a bit on the high side.

Nonetheless, it really doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making.

Even if he's guilty, I'm not sure why it should upset us for him to have an opportunity to pay for a good defense.

I'm not sure either. Who did you say is upset?

 

[crimresearch]

Why would I need one? I've never suggested anything remotely like that.

All I did was point out that $1,000,000 was neither routine nor mundane.

You have yet to disagree with that, even though your responses seem to be intended to give that impression somehow.




Why would I need one? I've never suggested anything remotely like that.

I can't imagine what you think I wrote to give you the idea that I did?




I didn't. That was you who brought in that particular meme. See post #1600, the one of yours I was responding to. If you don't want people to respond to things that you write one of the more effective strategies is to not write them.

If you hadn't included quotes from my post I would seriously question whether we were participating in the same thread. You don't seem to be addressing anything I actually wrote.

You've been asked for legal citations to back up your assertions about the legal system, When you provide them we can discuss them.

Should you care to accurately quote my exact words, we can discuss them as well.

 

[This is The End]

As you are well aware, my claim was that the judge dismissed the prosecution's motion on the passports *at that hearing*. More than one poster claimed otherwise.

I've never claimed he didn't change his mind in the last hearing, so your demand that I 'admit' something I never said, is irrelevant to any productive discourse on the reality of the Zimmerman case.

I'm sorry but that is not true at all.

I said the judge missed something. You said it was impossible and laughed it off. You said I should call the judge! So it is clear you thought I was wrong. Here's one of many posts from the time that proves that it wasn't just "that the judge dismissed the prosecution's motion on the passports *at that hearing*":

I already posted the judge's phone number so you could explain to him how badly he screwed up on the law when he denied the prosecution's motion on the passports.... did you call and tell him?

Or better yet, send him an email with your quotes, and tell him he didn't actually say what came out of his mouth.

You are clearly not just talking about that the "judge dismissed the prosecution's motion on the passports *at that hearing*".

Also in that same quote you were still saying he "denied" the motion.

There are more of your posts where that one came from showing what really happened if you would like to see them.

Though you will note that I already pointed out how it is absurd that that is what you are claiming now in my post that you quoted....

You originally claimed he "denied" the passport motion. That turned out to not be true.

You also ridiculed my posts that showed that the judge may have missed something (without addressing any of the content of my posts, btw). Now we find out that the judge did in fact miss something.

 

[This is The End]

Sorry, uniboogie was talking about syg on the last post, I'm wrong.

Thank you.

Sorry NBS, I made the same mistake in responding to your mistaken response.

I'd say it's clearly meant to be "anti-Zimmerman", otherwise you wouldn't refer to a legal defense fund as a "slush fund" and "found money".

Are you also calling the judge "anti-Zimmerman".

He's the one that first called it the equivalent of "found money":

"It is entirely reasonable for this court to find that, but for the requirement that he be placed on electronic monitoring, the defendant and his wife would have fled the United States with at least $130,000 of other people's money."

---------------------

quadraginta, I can't believe you are having to explain that the new bail was neither routine nor mundane....

The judge basically said he didn't even want to grant bail at all, but he had to because the prosecution failed to meet thresholds that he believed they could have met.

I'm not sure how anyone can read that bail pdf and claim it was routine.

We can only assume why anyone would try and claim the new bail was routine.

 

[Locknar]

Thread has been removed from Moderated Status; how long depends on you (et al). Please keep your posts civil/polite, on topic and address the argument.

Posted By: Locknar

 

[LTC8K6]

Several news organizations reported in late March that Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman the night of the shooting, but there have been no official records released to date by Corey that reflect that, and Serino's public comments March 16 do not suggest that.

"He says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino said that day. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

His managers at the Police Department told the Sentinel he would not answer questions about the discrepancy.

Wanted to add that quote to my previous post, but could not edit it.

Serino's comment there is dated after the Capias request for manslaughter charges. So Serino appears to have lied in public.

 

[WildCat]

http://frederickleatherman.wordpres...said-i-took-my-gun-aimed-it-at-him-and-fired/

He appears to be unaware that the shot was a contact shot, though.

Other opinions are okay, but they have to be fact based.

He's actually arguing that you can't aim a gun without fully extending your arm?

 

[Cylinder]

The fact that Zimmerman is out of jail on bond effectively debunked other claims made in this case.

The court's order setting bond is bizzare. He claims to have evidence that Zimmerman was preparing to flee the country, yet decides on a bond that he knows the defendant can easily meet with money to set up in a non-treatied country to spare.

 

[Cylinder]

He's actually arguing that you can't aim a gun without fully extending your arm?

..and he's missing the part where Zimmerman describes a close/contact firing drill - moving his free hand over his face to avoid shooting it instead of the attacker and to protect his eyes from GSR.

ETA: ...and of course the FDLE Firearm Lab finding of contact range - using Martin's clothing and Zimmerman's firearm, magazine and ammunition as exemplars.

 

[Unabogie]

Wanted to add that quote to my previous post, but could not edit it.

Serino's comment there is dated after the Capias request for manslaughter charges. So Serino appears to have lied in public.

Why do you think this matters, in terms of the trial? Do you think it's unusual for the police to tell a false or partial story to the public while pursuing a case?

 

[Unabogie]

He's actually arguing that you can't aim a gun without fully extending your arm?

..and he's missing the part where Zimmerman describes a close/contact firing drill - moving his free hand over his face to avoid shooting it instead of the attacker and to protect his eyes from GSR.

ETA: ...and of course the FDLE Firearm Lab finding of contact range - using Martin's clothing and Zimmerman's firearm, magazine and ammunition as exemplars.

If anyone was cherry picking this thread, they could find an endless number of errors, unbelievable speculation, and incorrect assumptions. That's what happens when information dribbles out in bits and pieces and tests are being conducted behind the scenes.

But I mainly posted this because at the time, this thread was on lockdown (due to a few rude posters) and there wasn't any active discussion going on.

At least this blog doesn't delete comments like Jeralyn does. I suggest that you go over there and comment. They seem very open to corrections and alternate information, so rather than insulting them here, engage them there. Then post links here. I'd be interested to read what they say.