You've been asked for legal citations to back up your assertions about the legal system, When you provide them we can discuss them.
Why do you keep making statements like this?
Since I have
made no assertions, I don't
need to back them up. In fact, I can't.
They don't exist.
I certainly haven't made any about the legal system.
What I did was ask you a question in response to an assertion which
you made. (In
this post, in case your memory needs assistance.)
A question which you seem to have been too busy planting straw to actually respond to.
Here, I'll give you another chance.
If he wants out, it will be 100K... That isn't even half of what he should have in his defense fund.
How are all of these mundane, routine processes that hundreds of thousands of defendants go through every year in America, all predictors of doom and disaster in Zimmerman's case?
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?
After you answer (or before, if you wish) you can explain what assertions I have made about the legal system which even remotely resemble either of these assertions you are attempting to attribute to me.
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?
<snip>
If you can't then it is only so much straw.
"Routine" and "mundane" were your choice of words. Since we are discussing the facts of the Zimmerman case it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you to clarify your statement with regard to the subject at hand.
I am puzzled that you are so strenuously avoiding this, to the point of outright fabrications about what I have written.
Should you care to accurately quote my exact words, we can discuss them as well.
Ironic that you should follow up with an insinuation like that, after such a blatant exhibition of your own inability to respond to what has actually been written here. But since the link I provided to the post of yours is not sufficiently accurate for you, I will reiterate the sequence in more detail.
You said ...
<snip>
The identical process that so many people here are calling 'pro-Zimmerman'.
-------------------------------------------
(Note that this is the
very first mention of the phrase or concept of 'pro-Zimmerman' in this exchange, or (to the best of my memory)
any exchange between the two of us. Or for that matter (again, to the best of my recollection)
any post by me at all.
This is best explained by the fact that not only am I neither 'pro' nor 'anti- Zimmerman', but beyond that I am profoundly uninterested in whether or not anyone else is save for how that might affect the actual facts of the case.
But back to the topic of this post.)
--------------------------------------------
I responded ...
<snip>
Is it somehow 'anti-Zimmerman' to suggest they might not be?
You came back with ...
<snip>
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?
See how that works?
Your meme, which
you brought in.
Also, you are the one who has been blathering on about the Constitution, which I have made no comment about either directly or indirectly.
I did not question the legality
or the propriety of Zimmerman's current bail,
or the proceeding in which it was assigned,
or the donations he has received. Those are utterly artifacts of your own creation. AKA,
beau coup straw.
I simply asked you if
you felt that the adjectives which
you chose apply,
in your opinion, to the facts in the case we are discussing.
If they do not, and your hyperbole was ill-considered, simply say so. There's nothing shameful about a moment of over-enthusiasm. It happens to us all.
It certainly doesn't merit the mountains of dried grass you've been so preoccupied with piling up.
