Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Yeah.

The dude lies about his assets, lies about his passport, and has family abroad.

If the court doesn't hit this fcuker with an extra heavy remand hammer, there is something seriously wrong with the whole bail process.

Paleocon wrote:

Yeah.

The dude lies about his assets, lies about his passport, and has family abroad.

If the court doesn't hit this fcuker with an extra heavy remand hammer, there is something seriously wrong with the whole bail process.

For some reason that made me think of the judge pulling out your stock cartoon oversized hammer instead of their normal gavel. I think I need to sleep more.

This guy made the Scot Pederson mistake: Get ready to flee, then not flee. If you don't like your chances in court, turn tail for someplace U.S. justice can't touch you: Maldives. China. Texas.

CBS4 Miami News Executive Producer Miguel Fernandez, on Twitter[/url]]Breaking: George Zimmerman's Wife arrested.. perjury charge

Dimmerswitch wrote:

CBS4 Miami News Executive Producer Miguel Fernandez, on Twitter[/url]]Breaking: George Zimmerman's Wife arrested.. perjury charge

At first I thought this was absolutely crazy but then realized it's over the asset stuff. I'm glad she's being punished for it. Is Zimmerman himself not also guilty of it?

Dimmerswitch wrote:

CBS4 Miami News Executive Producer Miguel Fernandez, on Twitter[/url]]Breaking: George Zimmerman's Wife arrested.. perjury charge

Apparently the judge filed his written order for the revocation of George's bail yesterday in which he wrote that "it is apparent that [Shellie] Zimmerman testified untruthfully at the bond hearing" because she had told the judge that they were "essentially destitute".

He also noted that he doesn't trust Zimmerman further than he can throw him because of the evidence, his previous criminal history, and that a previous girlfriend had a protection order against him for domestic violence.

Judge Kenneth Lester[/url]]
Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process.

I almost posted that same quote about Zimmerman. Nuts.

I just checked the Florida statute. Perjury in official proceedings, as in lying under oath, carries a sentence of up to 5 years.

OG_slinger wrote:

I just checked the Florida statute. Perjury in official proceedings, as in lying under oath, carries a sentence of up to 5 years.

I am going to guess the judge may punish them as harshly as possible, because a mistrial just seems so likely.

Yeah, this case is so politically charged that those people are going to get absolutely ruined on any technicality that law enforcement can find.

Not out of a sense of justice, mind. Just covering up for embarrassment.

Malor wrote:

Not out of a sense of justice, mind. Just covering up for embarrassment.

So perjury is AOK now?

OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

Not out of a sense of justice, mind. Just covering up for embarrassment.

So perjury is AOK now?

I'd ordinarily agree with Malor's assessment. In this case though? They _should_ get nailed for the perjury.

Kannon wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

Not out of a sense of justice, mind. Just covering up for embarrassment.

So perjury is AOK now?

I'd ordinarily agree with Malor's assessment. In this case though? They _should_ get nailed for the perjury.

If I were the judge I would wait to see how the case went and then handle this afterward.

CNN[/url]]
— MORE MONEY: Prosecutors say Shellie Zimmerman made eight transfers from her husband's credit union account to her account between April 16 and 19 totaling more than $74,000. Six of the transfers were just under the $10,000 threshold that would have required the credit union report the transactions to the Internal Revenue Service.

This is two days after she was recorded on the jailhouse phone saying they only had $155 in total when they really had $155,000 and a few days before she testified at Zimmerman's bail hearing that she had no idea how much money had been collected.

Do you think they would have even noticed, if not for all the media attention, or that they would have punished her anywhere near that severely?

I mean, yeah, it was wrong, but someone over on MeFi mentioned that their lawyer has control of that money anyway.

saying they only had $155 in total when they really had $155,000

From what I saw on MeFi, this is not at all true. This is spin by the prosecution.

Think about it. You're talking with your wife. She asks you how much you have in an account with a lot of money in it. You don't say, "it has one hundred and fifty five thousand, six hundred twelve dollars, and thirty sex cents." You say "one fifty five" or "a hundred and fifty five". This is not code, this how people normally talk about large sums of anything.

Now, if she actually said "one hundred and fifty five dollars", then yes, it was code, but it's my understanding from that MeFi comment that this was not the case.

i've largely abstained from this thread for multiple reasons (I don't think race is a major factor, I don't think white/black is a factor at all, I harbor mixed emotions on stand your ground laws, and most importantly, f*ck Florida), but I gotta admit Malor's argument here is pretty compelling.

Malor wrote:

Do you think they would have even noticed, if not for all the media attention, or that they would have punished her anywhere near that severely?

No, but that has a lot more to do with that our legal system frequently resembles the Keystone Kops to an uncomfortable extent.

Come on, you can't tell me you don't read Popehat.

A little more harsh than they should be? Probably. But with how dramatically f*cked things are overall, there's not a great level point to look at it from.

Edit: I do believe the "code" thing being BS. It's not just a "oh, extra publicity, so HAMMER" thing. It's a dirty trick that is pulled ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Doesn't make it right, it's still vile. But it's not just because of extra scrutiny.

Malor wrote:

Now, if she actually said "one hundred and fifty five dollars", then yes, it was code, but it's my understanding from that MeFi comment that this was not the case.

The probable cause document (warning, PDF).

George Zimmerman: In my account do I have at least $100?
Shellie Zimmerman: No
George Zimmerman: How close am I?
Shellie Zimmerman: There's like $8. $8.60
George Zimmerman: So total everything how much are we looking at?
Shellie Zimmerman: Um, like $155

Four days later, Shellie Zimmerman testified under oath that she had no idea how much money was in that account, and no estimate as to how much had been collected.

Lying to judges tends to make them very angry.

I also wonder whether the prosecution believes Shellie knows something about George's injuries and are hoping to persuade her to talk in exchange for leniency. She's the one who had a restraining order against George at one point, no?

George Zimmerman: In my account do I have at least $100?
Shellie Zimmerman: No
George Zimmerman: How close am I?
Shellie Zimmerman: There's like $8. $8.60
George Zimmerman: So total everything how much are we looking at?
Shellie Zimmerman: Um, like $155

Dear Transcribers. How do you pronounce "$"?
Unless this conversation happened via texting what you did there is PARAPHRASING.
Write the words that were said. Do not convert. Do not assume.
Sorry, but that's a pet peeve of mine.
Did they say "Dollars" "Dollars and cents" "Bucks" "a-hundred" "one-hundred"... if we're accusing someone of using code then the exact phrasing is important.

In my account do I have at least a-hundred?
No.
How close am I?
There's like eight dollars. Eight dollars and sixty cents.

In my account do I have at least a-hundred [mumble]?
No.
How close am I?
There's like eight. Eight sixty.

Edit: I'm not saying they're NOT using code. I'm saying it ticks me off when someone transcribes a conversation and there's no way to tell for sure what was said.

Thank God they have the actual recordings for the court and judge to decide.

And if the dollar sign is there, it means they said dollars, specifically. At least according to my lawyer wife, that is the standard.

But hey, maybe the court reporter is clueless, and there is no actual style guide to transcription.

I have also never seen the $ sign in transcriptions unless it was actually said. FL courts may be different, however.

But the dubious "code" is not her only problem.

While "like 155" for $155,000 can be pretty understandable, "Eight sixty" for $8,600 seems unlikely.

Who talks like that?

Jayhawker wrote:

Thank God they have the actual recordings for the court and judge to decide.

And if the dollar sign is there, it means they said dollars, specifically. At least according to my lawyer wife, that is the standard.

I'm sure it is there for a reason. Probably to make it easier to pull the numbers out of the conversation... but then it shouldn't be called a transcript. I know it probably isn't the universally recognized intent of 'transcript,' but in my naive view of the world, it should represent as closely as possible the actual words of the people being transcribed. ESPECIALLY in cases where a transcript is entered as evidence.
Numbers may represent words, but they aren't words and aren't spoken. When you read 6 you say six. I can think of at least five different ways without resorting to local slang of actually saying "$8.60" and none of them are Dollarsign eight point six zero.
Which becomes relevant once you start considering the possibility of the speakers using a code. What if Dollars = 1.00 and Bucks = 1000.00? This converted transcript would lose that nuance and the recorder would make an erroneous assumption that Dollars = Bucks in that conversation. Unless everyone was provided the original source at some point while examining the evidence the error would propagate.

The distinction doesn't really change much here, but I'm horrified that this kind of 'transcript' may be the norm.

The dollar sign is only used when the word "dollar" or it's plurals are in there specifically. The rest of the commentary would be typed out specifically, Rezzy, so the buck would definitely stop there. Please just Google "court transcript standards" for any given state and start reading. It's some pretty dense legalese but it's all in there. This is why you have to go to school to be a court reporter.

And the judge has the actual audiotape to listen to. Not only that, but it is my understanding that this is the same judge who presided over the bail hearing so he heard them firsthand himself. Way to go with the hysterical hyperbole, gang.

momgamer wrote:

Way to go with the hysterical hyperbole, gang.

FIND ME A MOLEHILL, AND I SHALL SHOW YOU A MOUNTAIN.

Stephen_Clarke wrote:

While "like 155" for $155,000 can be pretty understandable, "Eight sixty" for $8,600 seems unlikely.

Who talks like that?

Anyone who has ever used the phone to try and set up a simple drug buy.

Not that I have ever told a friend I needed just a fourth of a pizza before. Who talks like that?

"How much pizza do you want?" "Three deciles."

"How much pizza do you want?" "Three deciles."

Pi(r^2)

momgamer wrote:

The dollar sign is only used when the word "dollar" or it's plurals are in there specifically.... Way to go with the hysterical hyperbole, gang.

Wait... I did mention that this was "a pet peeve" or did I delete that part?
I don't believe that my long-held belief that transcripts should be as close to the actual words that were spoken as possible is hysterical hyperbole just because court-reporters are trained to use shortcuts out of necessity.

Rezzy wrote:

The distinction doesn't really change much here, but I'm horrified that this kind of 'transcript' may be the norm.

This does not sound like a pet peeve.