Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Farscry wrote:

I understand that, and that's why you shouldn't be in a rush to share your witness testimony (especially with the public) immediately after the fact. Take your time, make sure you're comfortable with your testimony, THEN share it - with authorities.

Is memory is more accurate well after the fact than immediately after the event? Also, the linked story talks about changes in testimony with different law enforcement agencies, not the media.

Funkenpants wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I understand that, and that's why you shouldn't be in a rush to share your witness testimony (especially with the public) immediately after the fact. Take your time, make sure you're comfortable with your testimony, THEN share it - with authorities.

Is memory is more accurate well after the fact than immediately after the event? Also, the linked story talks about changes in testimony with different law enforcement agencies, not the media.

Curses, my filthy skimming is brought out under the harsh light of day!

Malor wrote:

I'm not even *that* worried about Zimmerman. I think he's going to skate. What I'm worried about is that police department. THAT can be fixed, so that future killings of black teenagers are treated with actual respect.

That's the larger crime here, as far as I'm concerned, and that's what I want to see addressed.

And that's precisely the issue that so many folks who are pushing the demonization of Trayvon Martin are trying to deny is "any big deal". It's folks who say with a straight face "You have your black president. What more do you want?" or decry the existence of "reverse racism" like it is somehow equivalent to the obvious bias against minorities that want this all to go away with a collective shouting down by angry, thinly hooded, ignorant indignation.

Yeah, every person who's trying to demonize Martin is saying, quite directly, that it's okay to kill black teenagers. They're thugs that deserve to die.

Malor wrote:

Yeah, every person who's trying to demonize Martin is saying, quite directly, that it's okay to kill black teenagers. They're thugs that deserve to die.

I don't entirely agree with the above, but I do agree that those trying to demonize Martin are not doing so because they are convinced Zimmerman is innocent.

Malor wrote:

I'm not even *that* worried about Zimmerman. I think he's going to skate. What I'm worried about is that police department. THAT can be fixed, so that future killings of black teenagers are treated with actual respect.

That's the larger crime here, as far as I'm concerned, and that's what I want to see addressed.

Agree with this 100%.

Nevin73 wrote:
Malor wrote:

I'm not even *that* worried about Zimmerman. I think he's going to skate. What I'm worried about is that police department. THAT can be fixed, so that future killings of black teenagers are treated with actual respect.

That's the larger crime here, as far as I'm concerned, and that's what I want to see addressed.

Agree with this 100%.

Yes, this. Hell, I think it's not out of the realm of possibility that Zimmerman felt his life absolutely was in danger. That's not what I was most excised about.

Judge revokes Zimmerman's bond, orders him to turn himself in within 48 hrs.

... Over an irregularity in his financial statements -- at the initial hearing, Zimmerman claimed he has no money, yet he has had amassed $135K in personal donations by that time.

Not sure if this development bears any impact on the investigation, but it is definitely negative for the credibility of Zimmerman's character.

By the way, recently in AZ there was a case of a black guy shooting an unarmed hispanic guy during a traffic altercation and claimed self-defense. No charges. I don't know what this means other than the frequently invoked "if a black guy shot a white guy and claimed self-defense he'd be arrested" might not be accurate. At least not in Arizona.

The victim there wasn't white, though.

Defense lawyer Mark O'Mara said it was a misunderstanding, and Zimmerman was unclear about how he could use the money.

A legal defense fund may be considered something other than a personal asset, legally speaking. If they spent the money on a new car, would people have the right to complain or demand their money back? I don't know what the rules would be in Florida, but this is a bit more of a gray area than someone who has 135K in savings that they want to hide.

It's surprising that the judge would revoke his bond rather than just order a hearing first or allow him to amend his statement.

By the way, recently in AZ there was a case of a black guy shooting an unarmed hispanic guy during a traffic altercation and claimed self-defense under the state's stand your ground law. No charges. It sounds like stand your ground tilts the playing field on the side of the shooter no matter what the police want to do.

Robear wrote:

The victim there wasn't white, though.

His name was Adkins. Anglo dad, hispanic mother. Sound familiar?

Also, many hispanics are white. Some hispanics are black. Some hispanics are Indian. Hispanic is a language and includes many different cultural groups. It's not a race. This doesn't deny discrimination against hispanics because of their language or national origin, just points out the obvious problem with using these characteristics in a racial context.

Funkenpants wrote:
Robear wrote:

The victim there wasn't white, though.

His name was Adkins. Anglo dad, hispanic mother. Sound familiar?

Also, many hispanics are white. Some hispanics are black. Some hispanics are Indian. Hispanic is a language and includes many different cultural groups. It's not a race.

I thought they spoke Latin.

No, you're thinking of Latinos.

Is that a breakfast cereal?

Hypatian wrote:

Is that a breakfast cereal?

They're bueeeno!

Also, many hispanics are white. Some hispanics are black. Some hispanics are Indian. Hispanic is a language and includes many different cultural groups. It's not a race. This doesn't deny discrimination against hispanics because of their language or national origin, just points out the obvious problem with using these characteristics in a racial context.

What I was getting at is that historically, in the US, Hispanic was a racial identity that was *different* from White (Caucasian), in spite of the fact that the two usually can't be told apart. I was being satirical, I probably should have marked it.

Yet another example of why 'race' doesn't really work, but 'culture' certainly does. The victim was from Hispanic culture... you can say that and be completely accurate. It maybe tells you something about the values he was raised with, but that's about all.... which is more or less how it should be.

Here is the Prosecution's motion to have the bond rescinded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95589216/P...

There are, in my non-expert opinion, two damning strikes against George Zimmerman's credibility.

1. The passport he surrendered earlier in the case expired in May. His defense team stated that this was the only passport he had. It turns out that Zimmerman had a new passport, good for 10 years, in a safety deposit box. (Or so claims the prosecution, and they cite the expiration date on the surrendered passport and the new passport application.)

2. When he and his wife talked about money on the phone, they used a code to hide the total amount. So when he asked her how much total cash available they had, she said "One Hundred and fifty-five dollars" when the actual amount was $155,000.

Now, imagine you are a judge and a man had testified that he had no passport and no cash. Then it comes to light that he actually, at that time, had ready access to $155,000 and had turned in an expiring passport while keeping the valid one in a safety deposit box. What does that do to his credibility? What does that make his flight risk?

Naturally, none of these deceptions have any bearing on what happened the night Trayvon Martin died. However, it does have bearing on Zimmerman's willingess to lie to the judge and engage in deceptive practices.

(In his defense, I don't think I would talk openly in jail about having $155,000 in cash. I'm pretty sure that would be a Very. Bad. Idea. On the other hand, you can't put a brand new passport in a safety deposit box and then turn over the expired one (that had been reported as lost) and pretend it was an "accident". That particular deception is really hard to justify.)

I don't think the objective identity of the victim should be the big deal as much as the subjective identification made by the perpetrator. If a white guy gets beat up because someone thought he was Hispanic, it's still a racist crime.

Oso wrote:

Here is the Prosecution's motion to have the bond rescinded: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95589216/P...

There are, in my non-expert opinion, two damning strikes against George Zimmerman's credibility.

1. The passport he surrendered earlier in the case expired in May. His defense team stated that this was the only passport he had. It turns out that Zimmerman had a new passport, good for 10 years, in a safety deposit box. (Or so claims the prosecution, and they cite the expiration date on the surrendered passport and the new passport application.)

2. When he and his wife talked about money on the phone, they used a code to hide the total amount. So when he asked her how much total cash available they had, she said "One Hundred and fifty-five dollars" when the actual amount was $155,000.

Now, imagine you are a judge and a man had testified that he had no passport and no cash. Then it comes to light that he actually, at that time, had ready access to $155,000 and had turned in an expiring passport while keeping the valid one in a safety deposit box. What does that do to his credibility? What does that make his flight risk?

Naturally, none of these deceptions have any bearing on what happened the night Trayvon Martin died. However, it does have bearing on Zimmerman's willingess to lie to the judge and engage in deceptive practices.

(In his defense, I don't think I would talk openly in jail about having $155,000 in cash. I'm pretty sure that would be a Very. Bad. Idea. On the other hand, you can't put a brand new passport in a safety deposit box and then turn over the expired one (that had been reported as lost) and pretend it was an "accident". That particular deception is really hard to justify.)

Cash thing I can see, to a point. I'd not talk about it in jail, fair enough... but did he actually testify to the judge that he had no ready access to funds? If he did, that'd make me nervous, as the judge.

I think his wife is at risk of being found in contempt of court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...

In this HuffPo reporting and in the prosecution's request to revoke the bond, it looks like Shelly Zimmerman denied knowing how much was in the defense account and claimed the family was broke. The jail recordings reveal she did, in fact, know that Zimmerman had $155,000 and a valid passport at the time of the April hearing.

Admittedly, this is HuffPo and the Prosecution's accounts and neither of these sources is likely to give the Zimmerman's the benefit of the doubt or seek a positive interpretation of the facts. But from my perspectives, the facts as cited look pretty grim for the Zimmerman's credibility.

On the one hand, the best I can do in attempt to be objective is to compare the Zimmerman's actions to that what happened on the season finale of Bones. TV is not reality, but if you doubt your ability to get a fair trial, going on the lam may seem like a reasonable option. Also, in his favor, he didn't actually go on the lam.

On the other hand, clearly deceiving the court about $155 large and a valid passport pretty much kills his credibility before the judge.

It's one of those things that is just a terrible idea. If a substantial portion of your defense rests on you being credible in claiming self defense, you want to try to avoid things that would damage that credibility.

As was mentioned in one of the WI threads, it's not just impropriety you want to be careful of, it's also the illusion of it. It works for preserving one's credibility, as well.

I'm perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, here. I don't trust the HuffPo... at all. So it's a given to my eyes that things are heavily skewed. Tactically, one should know better than to attempt to avoid this kind of thing.

Oso wrote:

2. When he and his wife talked about money on the phone, they used a code to hide the total amount. So when he asked her how much total cash available they had, she said "One Hundred and fifty-five dollars" when the actual amount was $155,000.

In their defense, who among us can credibly claim they'd be able to resist trying Spock's "I exaggerated" trick from Wrath of Khan, given the opportunity?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Oso wrote:

2. When he and his wife talked about money on the phone, they used a code to hide the total amount. So when he asked her how much total cash available they had, she said "One Hundred and fifty-five dollars" when the actual amount was $155,000.

In their defense, who among us can credibly claim they'd be able to resist trying Spock's "I exaggerated" trick from Wrath of Khan, given the opportunity?

Double dumbass on you, SpacePPoliceman.

I do have a question that may be worth making a new thread over:
Why set bail if you are expecting the person to not be able to raise the funds without bankrupting themselves? It just seems like a way to punish the poor, since they are much less likely to be able to afford even the 10% of a bond, meanwhile the rich can just post the bail themselves.

rosenhane wrote:

I do have a question that may be worth making a new thread over:
Why set bail if you are expecting the person to not be able to raise the funds without bankrupting themselves? It just seems like a way to punish the poor, since they are much less likely to be able to afford even the 10% of a bond, meanwhile the rich can just post the bail themselves.

Where has the judiciary stated that they have that expectation? If you've read that somewhere, I'd like to see it.

From what I've read, the point is that he lied about how much money he had. The lie makes him more of a flight risk, and the money in addition to the lie does as well.

That's my point, when he was thought to have no assets, $150,000 was deemed a fair amount. When it turned out he had that much it may not be enough? Normally it would have meant he forfeited $15,000 to a bondsman, whom promised to pay the money if Zimmerman ran. This particular case has no relevance on the question, just the thought I had after his bail being revoked after it turned out he had money that was donated to him.

rosenhane wrote:

That's my point, when he was thought to have no assets, $150,000 was deemed a fair amount. When it turned out he had that much it may not be enough? Normally it would have meant he forfeited $15,000 to a bondsman, whom promised to pay the money if Zimmerman ran. This particular case has no relevance on the question, just the thought I had after his bail being revoked after it turned out he had money that was donated to him.

Who says that his bail would have been higher if he had declared how much money he had instead of lying? That's what I'm asking.

LouZiffer wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

That's my point, when he was thought to have no assets, $150,000 was deemed a fair amount. When it turned out he had that much it may not be enough? Normally it would have meant he forfeited $15,000 to a bondsman, whom promised to pay the money if Zimmerman ran. This particular case has no relevance on the question, just the thought I had after his bail being revoked after it turned out he had money that was donated to him.

Who says that his bail would have been higher if he had declared how much money he had instead of lying? That's what I'm asking.

I think the money passport combo was what really made this an issue. Although, if I was George Zimmerman I think fleeing the country would be looking pretty good.

NathanialG wrote:

I think the money passport combo was what really made this an issue.

It was also the fact that Zimmerman and his wife were trying to use "code" to hide the fact that the money was sitting in an account with more coming in every day. Courts have always had a one-strike-and-you-are-out policy when it comes to truthfulness. If Zimmerman had said that there was a defense fund for him coming from donations, but that was to pay his attorney, the court may have granted him bail/bond at the same rate.

Now that he has a track record of being dishonest with the court, the court is going to not be so quick to believe anything he said, including his claim that his actions against Martin were self-defense.