TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
These are the judge's exact words:
Zimmerman's actions speak for themselves.
He was afforded the opportunity to explain his actions and failed to do so.
So how is it unreasonable for the judge to draw the conclusion that he did?
What other conclusions could he have drawn?
And how is coming to that perfectly reasonable conclusion - coupled with the fact that he still granted him bond - at all an expression of bias towards Zimmerman?
Every benefit of the doubt would have meant stating that GZ had the means to flee the country. Lester went beyond that and stated the Zimmerman would have fled. Not 'might have' - would have.
To give someone the benefit of the doubt, in my opinion, means that since he didn't actually leave the country, or even try, you shouldn't conclude that was his plan, when the only evidence is having money and a passport.
Did he call airports ? Did he make other plans with his wife about where he would go ? Is there any evidence other than moving money and having a passport ? If not, I consider that to be very circumstantial.
Sure, he could have been leaving his options open to flee. Possibly even intentionally. But I don't know that, and I can't prove that - and without any other evidence of trying to determine where to flee to ... I wouldn't conclude that.
As has been mentioned - paying off credit card debts is a kind of dumb thing to do if you are going to flee justice anyway, right ?