• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unabogie said:
Ha, good luck with that.

I really don't think JKL is going to allow them to knock him off the case just because they lied at the bond hearing.

We'll see.
Click to expand...

I don't need luck, I am not charged with anything.

I think Lester will remove himself. That's all.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yeah, I know. It was a silly idea.:o
Click to expand...

I apologize, TheL8Elvis, I didn't get to this part yet.

Also I don't intend to be lumping you in with some of the others. You have been quite logical and (mostly :D) impartial in almost all of the different tangents of discussion.

My blood can get heated while reading all of these people that deny an 8 year old can commit sexual assault, on top of ignoring that it went on for a decade.

Again, I'm sorry.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
I apologize, TheL8Elvis, I didn't get to this part yet.

Also I don't intend to be lumping you in with some of the others. You have been quite logical and (mostly :D) impartial in almost all of the different tangents of discussion.

My blood can get heated while reading all of these people that deny an 8 year old can commit sexual assault, on top of ignoring that it went on for a decade.

Again, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

No need. I told you you hadn't read far enough. :D

I appreciate the nice words, though. Thanks.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Is that your legal or layperson interpretation of it ?
Click to expand...


Layperson of course:

OnlyTellsTruths said:
KatieG was saying that crim is treating everyone like they are lawyers, that they should act like lawyers, and that this is a court of law and not a discussion board at a skeptics forum. And that is what you get out of her post???
Click to expand...

:D

I said earlier that I give that motion 10% chance of success at most. I'll raise it to maybe 20% just for you. In light of other turns in this case, I don't want to be surprised.
 
crimresearch said:
Spare me the games.
You've had legal cases, laws, rulings et al. (ETA: and Judge Lester's exact words on the reason for bond) cited to you repeatedly by more than one poster here, explained definitively complete with links, and your response has been to keep your head firmly in the sand and fling debate fallacies.
Click to expand...

Really? Prove it. I'd love to see you prove this line of BS. Please...

crimresearch said:
The appearance is that not only do you not know the law, you don't want to...
Click to expand...

BZZZTTTTT!!!! I've most likely cited actual legal statutes, complete with links and explanations more than you, NBS, or Elvis combined. You're welcome to believe anything you'd like, but it's just that; a belief.

crimresearch said:
Which makes your earlier post that you'll be happy to school (by Googling 'Florida SS' no less)people who are giving you correct and useful information, quite ironic.
Click to expand...

Way to poison the well. I never said school, (which implies a negative tone) and never googled "Florida SS" either, as that would be of no use.

WRT: This specific post that you're referring to, please, show me that I am wrong. (See my links in my previous post)

crimresearch said:
Especially when you have nothing about the controlling Supreme Court ruling that needs to be applied when looking at statutes of limitations on these sorts of crimes.
Click to expand...

Citation needed....(which will be useless, unless there as recent as 2010....)
 
triforcharity said:
Ahem.

http://flhouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=42911

http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2010/Senate/reports/summaries/pdf/cj0525.pdf

Case upheld on appeal. Your turn....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Turn for what? To play with your strawmen?

You Google some Florida case that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and try to pretend that it was an appeal of the US Supreme Court ruling that I was talking about?

Seriously?? Seriously? You think anyone is going to fall for that lame trick?

Anymore than they are going to believe your clam that Judge Lester didn't say the words that are clearly written in his posted ruling.. that 'the state failed to prove their case'??

Dream on.
 
crimresearch said:
So O'Mara threw in everything including the kitchen sink... as he is required to do.

But don't forget, only a 'Zimmerman defender' would expect him to try to actually win for his client.


:dl:
Click to expand...

You'll have to cite where anyone claimed that. You seem to have a habit of making these wild, absurd claims about others, that NOBODY claimed, at all, ever.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Absolutely disgusting that you would equate an alleged decade of sexual molestation with "playing doctor".

Please try and separate it from the Martin case, remove your Z is innocent blinders.
Click to expand...

No, I was just asking you a question. I didn't expect an answer, though, so I'm not disappointed I didn't get one. But, now that you know it was just a question, feel free to answer if you wish.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Layperson of course:



:D

I said earlier that I give that motion 10% chance of success at most. I'll raise it to maybe 20% just for you. In light of other turns in this case, I don't want to be surprised.
Click to expand...

Have you read the state's response to it?

It's (IMO) a proverbial smackdown. The case that MOM cited a few times, was completely inaccurate, and not applicable to this case.
 
triforcharity said:
I think Lester will be disqualified, but I don't agree with it. That's just absurd. So GZ should be allowed to lie in court, and attempt to "game the system", and the judge should continue to have to show no bias? I think it shows a reasonable bias.

What would be even funnier, is if a new judge is assigned, he revokes his bond and charges him with perjury. Since any and all motions are up for reconsideration.

Basically GZ and MOM are continuing to game the system. They've lied to the judge, and the judge not will (most likely) be removed from the case. What happens if they come in and do it to another judge?

I don't think that GZ should be allowed to ask for the removal of the judge. The reason the judge doesn't trust what GZ says, is because of HIS own actions. Plain and simple.

Potted palm....I still laugh!!
Click to expand...

triforcharity said:
Have you read the state's response to it?

It's (IMO) a proverbial smackdown. The case that MOM cited a few times, was completely inaccurate, and not applicable to this case.
Click to expand...

So, you used to think he would be disqualified, until you read the states response, and now you don't ?
 
crimresearch said:
Turn for what? To play with your strawmen?

You Google some Florida case that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and try to pretend that it was an appeal of the US Supreme Court ruling that I was talking about?

Seriously?? Seriously? You think anyone is going to fall for that lame trick?

Anymore than they are going to believe your clam that Judge Lester didn't say the words that are clearly written in his posted ruling.. that 'the state failed to prove their case'??

Dream on.
Click to expand...

I will admit I was incorrect about Lester's ruling. I'll give you that.

Now, you'll give me the US Supreme Court ruling striking down this law....I've yet to see you cite it. I'll wait though.

I VERY CLEARLY said that MOST cases of sexual battery do not have a SOL. SOME do. I even explained further, citing two different subsections of Florida State Statutes that apply to what I am referring to.

I also have never seen you explain what USSC ruling or appeal that you're talking about, or even attempting to reference, with complete and utter failure, as usual.

I also cited a house bill EXPLAINING what the new law is. You've done......nothing. You've run your mouth, posted a bunch of ninny nonsense, and run your mouth some more, while citing NOTHING.

I'll wait.

Hell, cite me anything WRT: SOL and sexual battery from the USSC, I'd love to look at that too.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I assume you mean this part:
This bill eliminates the statute of limitations in criminal cases of sexual battery when the victim is under the age of 16 at the time of the offense.

But that would be ex post facto, so wouldn't apply AFAIK
Click to expand...

Nope, but I am certainly glad that's there.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I assume you mean this part:
This bill eliminates the statute of limitations in criminal cases of sexual battery when the victim is under the age of 16 at the time of the offense.

But that would be ex post facto, so wouldn't apply AFAIK
Click to expand...

triforcharity said:
Nope, but I am certainly glad that's there.
Click to expand...

Nope what ? Nope you didn't mean that part ? I still don't see what offense you think GZ would be prosecuted under that has no SOL.

I think it doesn't really matter, as he won't be prosecuted, but I would still like to know what you think applies...
 
Judge Lester is on vacation until July 27, so it will likely be a while before we get a decision on Lester recusing himself.

Hey! Just in time for Shel.lies arraignment for her perjury charge.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8460968#post8460968

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis
I thought he was out out bail because the state failed to prove that the GZ could be held without bond.
Click to expand...
Triforcharity said:
That's your thought, which would be an opinion, which is subjective.
Click to expand...

"the state failed to prove that the defendant may be held without bond" - Direct quote from Judge Lester's written order.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/395035-judge-kenneth-lester-order-granting-gorrge.html

BS indeed. You're done.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom