The reporter was sent overseas for a tweet? What is going on at ABC?
I haven’t been following the case but it looks like Zimmerman did us another favor in exposing Detective Chris Serino.
I call that a twofer.
Of course everything Zimmerman said is true. After all, he lied under oath to a judge at his bail hearing.
Serino’s question during his interrogation of Zimmerman (I listened to the audio) is still good. “What set Martin off?” Serino asked. Nobody seems to have an answer to that.
There have been good arguments offered to show that Zimmerman may have answered inaccurately, but not lied. As for “What set Martin off,” you probably have never lived in a gang-infested neighborhood. It doesn’t take anything.
He didn’t even tell his lawyer about the money, and then structured transactions to move it around. Sorry, that dog doesn’t hunt.
Martin didn’t live in a gang-infested neighborhood, nor did he have any other involvement with gangs.
Neither do a lot of gangsta wannabes that get themselves killed doing stupid shit for no apparent reason.
…of course, you probably think Scooter Libby should still be in prison for the crime of remembering something differently than some media guy.
Remember it was Richard Armitage that leaked Valerie Plame’s name as an “overseas covert agent” operating in Virginia under her own name proudly linked in plain sight on her husband’s bio.
Speaking of lynch mobs.
The record is that an Internet donation fund was no state secret. Whether or not Mr. Zimmerman should have told his attorney about it sooner to better “prep” his bail-hearing (bail hearing!) witnesses, the judge certainly knew about it and was asking questions about it.
At issue, why Mrs. Zimmerman is now in the dock on a charge of perjury and why Mr. Zimmerman’s credibility is being questioned is that when Mrs. Zimmerman was asked how much money was in the fund, to volunteer and estimate if she didn’t have the exact figure, she went with “I don’t know” and added “ask my brother-in-law, you could reach him by phone, he knows the amount. Whereas Mr. Zimmerman made a statement expressing regret that Mr. Martin died, he otherwise stood mute and offered no correction that the Zimmermans indeed knew that there was substantial money in the fund.
Complicating the picture is that the Zimmermans had a jail house conversation regarding how to manage a rather substantial amount of money, 135,000 dollars contributed to the fund.
So on the basis of this, Chris and other are hopping up and down that George Zimmerman is a liar.
Thing is that we have the unrelated incident where people on the Internet have sent money, a lot of money, to the bus monitor who was bullied by the students, so much that the bus monitor was shocked by how fast the money was coming in.
Chris, would you suppose that George Zimmerman has achieved celebrity status by “zealous gun nuts”, that money was just pouring in to the defense fund, that the rate of inflow scared the Zimmermans and angered the judge, because there is evidence of how “the authorities” get upset with such “flash mob” behavior. And that Mrs. Zimmerman knew there was a stuff-load of money coming in but honestly didn’t know how much — think of public statements from the bus monitor.
And that the Zimmerman bail was set at 1 million dollars, which he met without the blink of an eye. Do you suppose that the real narrative is that every 2nd Amendment nut case in this country is chipping in to the defense fund and it is not about the Zimmerman’s.
I have long complained not so much about the Usual Suspects challenging the orthodoxy around here, but about their utter ability to play more than one note on the piano.
Paul Milenkovic – one can spin the bail issue however one wants, but the bottom line is this: Zimmerman was asked “what assets do you have?” He did not tell the judge or his lawyer about $135,000 in cash in the defense fund. That is a lie by deliberate omission. The judge penalized him accordingly, and now we have a record of Zimmerman’s truthfulness.
Chris, his wife offered to call Zimmerman’s Brother and give the court and exact amount and the Court declined her offer.
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.
Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
A: No, he is not, sir.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.
This conversation with the judge was after Zimmerman and his wife had talked in jail about the amount of money in the defense fund. So, saying that she needed to call her brother-in-law and ask how much money was in the account was a lie. Zimmerman should have also told his attorney how much money he had before going to a bail hearing.
You do not have a 5th Amendment right to hide assets at a bail hearing.
The one thing I want to say about this is that I am not enthusiastic about guns and I was certainly not enthusiastic about introducing concealed-carry into Wisconsin. At the risk of alienating the more self-defense oriented point of view, I think it is tragic that Mr. Zimmerman was armed with a gun at the time and tragic that Mr. Martin died. To those who will lay into me with ” Mr. Zimmerman could have died if he didn’t have a gun”, there is a chain of “would have” and “could have” and “if only” that will be addressed in court.
But one thing I am enthusiastic about is given defendents in criminal proceedings, whoever they are, mighty or lowly, likable or sleazy, celibrity or nobody, I am enthusiastic about affording such people their Constitutional guarantees and the benefit of the doubt.
The prosectution is supposed to represent “The People”, that is, the broader interest of justice in society at large; were the prosecution to represent the victim, the victim’s family, the victim’s ethnic kinsfolk, well, we are back to the primitive honor culture of the Hatfields and the McCoys, of parts of the Near East and Middle East. We are back to revenge and counter-revenge.
I find political demonstrations and rallies in support of the prosecution of an individual odious and loathsome, and I don’t care how virtuous your cause. I believe the media in all of this to be engaging in the worst yellow journalism attributed to William Randolph Hearst. I feel the same way about politically driven public discussion arguing the guilt of an individual criminal defendent. Yes, I will defend your freedom of speech to argue that someone in the dock is guilty-as-charged and guilty-as-sin, but that doesn’t make such speech ethically the correct thing.
It seems that people are so committed to the “untruthful, unreliable George Zimmerman” meme when “calling out the pro-gun crowd”, that one doesn’t stop to think that a strong anti-concealed carry but pro civil liberties person could be alienated by this?
This whole relentless rush to brand Mr. Zimmerman as unreliable and untruthful has marks of a political talking point that gets repeated. If people in the political arena are going to “do talking points” (rather than, say, engage in original thinking), does anyone bother to test them on focus groups?
I guess this calls to mind the famous calling our of Senator Joe McCarthy when he starting finding Communists in the United States Army, “Sir, have you no decency?”
I think she answered quite honestly considering the amount was changing by the hour Chris. She offered the court a definitive answer and they rejected it.
Zimmerman as in George Zimmerman, who stood mute (apart from his statement of apology, that by whatever wrinkle in the law didn’t surrender his 5th Amendment right not to answer questions or volunteer information)? The judge called him a “potted plant.” And someone around here is insinuating that Mr. Zimmerman is a liar?
Spin? How about rush to judgement.
“What set Martin off?” Serino asked. Nobody seems to have an answer to that.
That’s because the only person who knows that is dead.
It’s actually a very relevant question. As pointed out by this lawyer writing for a pro-gun site, self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means Zimmerman needs to show a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
Zimmerman needs to show a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
He has done so. He did so at the time, which is why he wasn’t initially arrested, until the race-baiting lynch mob got involved.
I’ve never heard anybody die from a broken nose. Nor can Zimmerman plead self-defense if he initiated the fight (see the linked article). So, no, he has not created a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
Its interesting that in the first sentence, it mentions head injury (even ABC has admitted the fuzzy video was misleading and has accepted the evidence presented by the police and paramedics as entered into the court record). Of course, all this is irrelevant because Zimmerman didn’t die, but that’s not really what the law expected Zimmerman to do.
I’ve never heard anybody die from a broken nose.
Apparently there’s a lot of things you’ve never heard of. Like gravity.
No one should have to get beat to a pulp and possibly lose their life just so CG can satisfy his hate for the 2nd amendment. Are you still claiming this whole thing was about race?
I read your comment further down, I am glad you are no longer claiming this is a hate crime.
Wodun – I have never, ever claimed this was a hate crime. This always was a case of an over-eager man making bad decisions. Regarding “beat to a pulp” – I don’t think Zimmerman was beat to a pulp. I think he got hit once or twice, fell back, and any subsequent fighting was a struggle for his gun.
Eyewitness account claims Martin was using MMA type tactics in fighting Zimmerman.
Chris, are you reall so stupid as to think we don’t see thru your deliberate obtuseness? Seriously, the garbage you pass off as discussion is’t worthy of a thoughtful response.
Gerrib has got a bad case of WASP guilt / Obama fetish.
Really – kudos to Rand for having the strength not to ban him, I would. I lost all respect for Chris long ago. His fantasy world is quite disturbing.
I’m a Catholic of Lithuanian descent, so no WASP for me. I also own guns and am a member of the NRA.
My problem with Zimmerman is that, as my daddy told me, you don’t go chasing after people with a gun. Bad things can happen.
If you’re Catholic, why are you projecting guilt onto everybody else? Go to confession, for Christ’s sake, and quit being an idiot.
Maybe Chris Gerrib could volunteer to having Rand pound his head into the ground until he (Chris) determines at what point in the pounding it would be reasonable for the poundee to pull the trigger. It’s hard to imagine yje experience would scramble CG’s reasoning processes any more than they already are.
That’s “concrete” not “ground”.
The mount position really, really sucks for the guy on the bottom.
With my health, I would be in fear for my life even before the punches and head slams started.
Here’s my problem, just looking at the fight.
Martin has no injuries except one small scratch on his knuckle. Martin’s only weapon, the can of ice tea, is in his pocket.
Zimmerman has no defensive injuries, no injuries on his knuckles, and no skull fractures. He does have a broken nose, which, Leland, since Zimmerman was otherwise healthy, would not result in him bleeding to death.
Yet somehow we’re to believe that Martin was repeatedly pounding Zimmerman’s head into the ground, covering Zimmerman’s mouth, and going for Zimmerman’s gun? Was Martin really an octopus? Why, exactly, wasn’t Zimmerman able to lay a fist on Martin?
No, the evidence of the fight is that it was short, and Martin didn’t do a lot (if anything) to prepare for it. The evidence is also that, as soon as he was hit, Zimmerman escalated again and went for his gun. His previous escalation was in not telling Martin that he was in the Neighborhood Watch.
I don’t think Zimmerman is a racist, but he did exercise poor judgement, and somebody is dead as a result. Despite all that, maybe the jury will acquit Zimmerman. I’m not a lawyer, nor am I sitting on that jury. It’s pretty clear, however, that Zimmerman’s story has only a casual relationship to what actually happened out there.
He only had those injuries because that was all he managed to suffer before Poh Widdle Innocent Trayvon discovered that his victim had a gun and reached for it with murderous intent.
The evidence is also that, as soon as he was hit, Zimmerman escalated again and went for his gun.
Um. Wrong.
You don’t know even half as much about this subject as the rest of us have been giving you credit for, if that’s what you think happened.
Martin has no injuries except one small scratch on his knuckle. Martin’s only weapon, the can of ice tea, is in his pocket.
His other weapon, a pistol, was tucked in Zimmerman’s pants. Zimmerman told the responding officers that Martin’s last words were “You got it. You got it.” A person who’s just had their head slammed repeatedly and been in a lethal confrontation isn’t likely to make up something for the other guy to say that would only make sense after several minutes of caeful thought and a graduate course in script writing.
Yet somehow we’re to believe that Martin was repeatedly pounding Zimmerman’s head into the ground, covering Zimmerman’s mouth, and going for Zimmerman’s gun? Was Martin really an octopus? Why, exactly, wasn’t Zimmerman able to lay a fist on Martin?
Martin was repeatedly pounding Zimmerman’s head into the ground. Didn’t you see the photos taken three minutes afterwards that showed the blood flowing down the back of Zimmerman’s head? Do you think Zimmerman did that to himself? Didn’t you read the eye-witness statement about Zimmerman getting his head pounded mixed-martial arts style?
Zimmerman couldn’t lay a hand on Martin because Zimmerman was on the ground, so he can’t rotate his elbows back for a good punch (try throwing punches with your back flat against a wall), and Martin, who is taller, has a reach advantage.
The evidence is also that, as soon as he was hit, Zimmerman escalated again and went for his gun.
So you’re saying that all the eye-witnesses are lying? That the forensic investigators are lying? That the on-scene pictures were photoshopped? If Zimmerman went for his gun immediately after he was hit, how come he had multiple wounds? How come Martin had wounds to both kunckles and not just one? Who kept hollering for help over and over? How come the witnesses recount an extented time period where they say Martin beating Zimmerman, heard calls for help, went to dial 911, and then heard a gun shot.
His previous escalation was in not telling Martin that he was in the Neighborhood Watch.
How on earth is that an escalation? He also didn’t tell Martin that he was married. Is that an escalation, too?
It’s pretty clear, however, that Zimmerman’s story has only a casual relationship to what actually happened out there.
How come the witnesses and forensics are in agreement with Zimmerman’s story? How come every detail that comes out confirms Zimmerman’s account and refutes the prosecution’s notions? Isn’t that extremely unlikely if Zimmerman’s account has no relation to events? Wouldn’t all the evidence point instead to some sort of execution style slaying?
Chris has no conception of how the law works. He is making shit up and using legalisms in ways that are wholly inapropriate to ther definition.
The Law according to how it should be by Chris Gerrib is no where to be found in the Florida Criminal Code.
Zimmermans account is contradicted by the location of the body and the debris field, and all of the untruths happen to be claims that would make his claim of self defense stronger if there wasn’t other evidence to contradict them.
How could Zimmerman’s account be contradicted by the location of the body when he gave his account pretty much standing next to the body? There were witnesses there. Cops were walking around.
What are the untruths that are contradicted by evidence?
So, you’re saying he wrote his report on a clipboard in the rain next to the corpse, rather than back in the police station?
Zimmerman would’ve explained to the police on the scene what had happened, and the police took witness statements. It would be pretty hard to get the body’s location wrong when it’s laying right in front of God and everybody.
Later recollections will always be flawed, as every lawyer knows. People are not good at describing scenes in map-like detail because our mental maps are vague, relying on visual cues that aren’t present unless you’re standing there. Even then, few can be sure they were exactly where they thought they were. As I said, every lawyer knows this, and they are taught it in school, as are the police. Almost no one involved in a wreck or witnessing a wreck can get the traffic details correct (when compared to objective footage). Cars jump around, swap positions, change lanes, and the sequence of events gets jumbled. Yet from such mistaken recollections a jury can piece together what happened.
If unquestionably accurate, detailed recollections of traumatic events were required as proof of innocence, we wouldn’t bother with defence lawyers because nobody in the history of the Republic would ever have been acquitted of anything.
Look, here’s the problem. Zimmerman’s first account, his written statement of February 26, is that Martin suddenly appeared out of the darkness as Zimmerman was walking back to his truck. They exchanged eight words, and then suddenly and without warning Martin punches Zimmerman in the face, and as he falls backwards, leaps upon him, and inflicts such immediate bodily harm that Zimmerman needs to shoot Martin in self defense.
And that matches pretty well with Martin’s girlfriend’s account, the witnesses, and the forensics.
No, actually the girlfriend’s account directly contradicts Zimmerman.
And yet Zimmerman passed a lie detector test. Did Martin’s girlfriend? No. In fact, she’s told 2 different versions of her story.
It doesn’t match the location of the body, about fifty feet south of where Zimmerman says he was when he was accosted. Nor does it match the account of witnesses that said there was a running altercation that covered that distance.
But you’ve seen photos of the scene, which is a long, long sidewalk running between identical looking housing units. There are no good positional references to pin down a location, and in a high-stress situation nobody is thinking “Am I getting beat up across from 126B or 132A? Hrmm…..”
Similarly, I doubt many witnesses to the Kennedy assassination could accurately say to within 200 feet where his car was when he was hit. Unless the remembered exactly which storefront they were standing in front of, all they could say is that they were standing on a sidewalk in a crowd of people, and that he was shot either before or after his car passed them. Jackie Kennedy probably couldn’t get the location right to within a half mile – which, by the Zimmerman standard, means she must’ve been the real killer.
Remember the key elements of Zimmerman’s account. When the encounter starts, he isn’t on the sidewalk between the back yards, he’s on the cut through, walking back to his car. Martin accost him and advances on him, emerging from the darkness. Zimmerman has to turn around, and evidently he advances to meet Martin, because the fight didn’t happen on the cut through. But in his telling the initial conversation is very brief. He doesn’t have time to get very far south, and besides, Martin is in the way.
The simplest explanation for the physical evidence and the other witness accounts is that Martin’s account is untruthful in ways that would make his self defense claim more plausible.
The gangsta is dead, Zimmerman’s family is going to get rich and a corrupt police officer has been exposed.
Our lefties continue to bat a thousand in making false assertions.
I’m enjoying my popcorn and free ice cream.
I find the Zimmerman case interesting for two reasons:
One, the attempted lynching by Big Media and its party-line-following sheeple. (Really, at this point, would anyone but a dunce believe any narrative put forth by people whose politico-conecomic philsophy is based on legalized looting? Obviously, as one can see here, people who generally put forth stupid positions, stupidly argued, on a whole host of issues.)
Two: how the Zimmerman case acts as a general litmus test. As Mark Twain once said, “If you don’t like the verdict, wait a while;” and for all I know someday someone will come up with some convincing evidence showing that Hoodie the Thug was an innocent gunned down without cause by a bloodthirsty White Hispanic. For now, it seems that people who generally believe in liberty, and therefore by extension believe in the individual’s right to bear arms and use them in self-defense, are inclined to believe in Zimmerman’s innocence; while the usual gang of statists believe Hoodie the Thug was an innocent victim–probably because if you believe that the individual belongs to the State, and has no right to his own life except at the sufferance of the ruling class,* then you’re more likely to want the individual disarmed, and certainly don’t want him believing he has a right to his own life and therefore the right to defend himself from aggression. (Especially since without aggression–i.e., the initation of force–statism would cease to exist.)
Your insistence in seeing everything as black and white is clouding your judgement. I for one firmly believe in the right of self-defense. But in this case, there is significant reason to think that Zimmerman, perhaps inadvertently, provoked a fight.
Proponents of self-defense have to at least consider that night from Martin’s point of view. He has done nothing wrong, and is just walking home while being followed down a dark area by an unknown man.
If you own a gun (like I do) or decide to carry concealed, you should do so responsibly. I’m not sure this happened in this case.
It is hard to say that Zimmerman over reacted after he was getting his head bashed in but it is clear that Martin over reacted. A person’s first response to any verbal encounter with another human being shouldn’t be to beat them up.
Just think what would happen in NY city if everytime someone had a verbal disagreement with someone it was groundsbto bash their skull in.
Maybe Martin lacked the maturity to interact with another human being verbally and if so he clearly lacked the maturity to engage in physical combat.
^ The NYC sidewalks would be much easier to negotiate after the first week of mass head bashings. Deaf people and babies in strollers would be the only ones left. 😀
because if you believe that the individual belongs to the State, and has no right to his own life except at the sufferance of the ruling class,* then you’re more likely to want the individual disarmed, and certainly don’t want him believing he has a right to his own life and therefore the right to defend himself from aggression.
Yes, I’ve noticed that litmus test as well.
For the record, I do not nor ever have believed that the individual “belongs to” the State.
“For the record, I do not nor ever have believed that the individual ‘belongs to’ the State.”
I don’t think “belongs to” means what you think it means.
I think I’m tired of being slandered by some anonymous one-name wonder on the Internet.
I’m sure George Zimmerman feels the same way.
Then go away. Please.
You do not have a 5th Amendment right to hide assets at a bail hearing.
This seems odd. Then again, so does the whole bail hearing. First, I don’t see where George Zimmerman is either a threat to anyone else in his community or a flight risk. He’s remained accessible to law enforcement even when he wasn’t being prosecuted, and turned himself in when it was decided to prosecute him. He didn’t harm anyone during that time nor showed sign of fleeing anyone other than the lynch mobs sent out be celebrities (who ended up terrorizing his neighbors by sending out the wrong addresses). So increasing the bail seems excessive and the assertion that it is punishment is essentially proof that it is excessive.
Then there’s Gerrib’s assertion. My understanding is that Zimmerman’s wife supposedly perjured herself and can be held in criminal contempt with the court. I don’t know how that happens, unless she was under oath in a legal proceeding. How did she lose her right and protection to the 5th amendment during a legal proceeding? She didn’t shoot anyone? She’s not on trial? And let’s be clear, if her answer of “I don’t know, but I can find out” isn’t acceptable in court, then what other option does she have to avoid contempt other than pleading the 5th? If she can’t say “I don’t know” or “I refuse to answer”, then that only leaves knowingly making a false statement, which is perjury.
Zimmerman is a defendant in a capital murder trial. Like any other defendant, he gets a bail hearing. Since he doesn’t appear to be a flight risk, he gets to post bail and walk out of jail. Also since he lied about his finances, the judge felt it necessary to increase the bail restrictions on Zimmerman.
The lie was when Mrs. Zimmerman said “I don’t know” about the defense fund. She did know – George and her had discussed it in depth in the jail and she was actively involved in moving the money around. The prosecution played the tapes of their conversation and an accountant hired by Zimmerman’s lawyer laid out the transfers.
Bottom line – Zimmerman and his wife lied to the judge.
The reporter was sent overseas for a tweet? What is going on at ABC?
I haven’t been following the case but it looks like Zimmerman did us another favor in exposing Detective Chris Serino.
I call that a twofer.
Of course everything Zimmerman said is true. After all, he lied under oath to a judge at his bail hearing.
Serino’s question during his interrogation of Zimmerman (I listened to the audio) is still good. “What set Martin off?” Serino asked. Nobody seems to have an answer to that.
There have been good arguments offered to show that Zimmerman may have answered inaccurately, but not lied. As for “What set Martin off,” you probably have never lived in a gang-infested neighborhood. It doesn’t take anything.
He didn’t even tell his lawyer about the money, and then structured transactions to move it around. Sorry, that dog doesn’t hunt.
Martin didn’t live in a gang-infested neighborhood, nor did he have any other involvement with gangs.
Neither do a lot of gangsta wannabes that get themselves killed doing stupid shit for no apparent reason.
…of course, you probably think Scooter Libby should still be in prison for the crime of remembering something differently than some media guy.
Remember it was Richard Armitage that leaked Valerie Plame’s name as an “overseas covert agent” operating in Virginia under her own name proudly linked in plain sight on her husband’s bio.
Speaking of lynch mobs.
The record is that an Internet donation fund was no state secret. Whether or not Mr. Zimmerman should have told his attorney about it sooner to better “prep” his bail-hearing (bail hearing!) witnesses, the judge certainly knew about it and was asking questions about it.
At issue, why Mrs. Zimmerman is now in the dock on a charge of perjury and why Mr. Zimmerman’s credibility is being questioned is that when Mrs. Zimmerman was asked how much money was in the fund, to volunteer and estimate if she didn’t have the exact figure, she went with “I don’t know” and added “ask my brother-in-law, you could reach him by phone, he knows the amount. Whereas Mr. Zimmerman made a statement expressing regret that Mr. Martin died, he otherwise stood mute and offered no correction that the Zimmermans indeed knew that there was substantial money in the fund.
Complicating the picture is that the Zimmermans had a jail house conversation regarding how to manage a rather substantial amount of money, 135,000 dollars contributed to the fund.
So on the basis of this, Chris and other are hopping up and down that George Zimmerman is a liar.
Thing is that we have the unrelated incident where people on the Internet have sent money, a lot of money, to the bus monitor who was bullied by the students, so much that the bus monitor was shocked by how fast the money was coming in.
Chris, would you suppose that George Zimmerman has achieved celebrity status by “zealous gun nuts”, that money was just pouring in to the defense fund, that the rate of inflow scared the Zimmermans and angered the judge, because there is evidence of how “the authorities” get upset with such “flash mob” behavior. And that Mrs. Zimmerman knew there was a stuff-load of money coming in but honestly didn’t know how much — think of public statements from the bus monitor.
And that the Zimmerman bail was set at 1 million dollars, which he met without the blink of an eye. Do you suppose that the real narrative is that every 2nd Amendment nut case in this country is chipping in to the defense fund and it is not about the Zimmerman’s.
I have long complained not so much about the Usual Suspects challenging the orthodoxy around here, but about their utter ability to play more than one note on the piano.
Paul Milenkovic – one can spin the bail issue however one wants, but the bottom line is this: Zimmerman was asked “what assets do you have?” He did not tell the judge or his lawyer about $135,000 in cash in the defense fund. That is a lie by deliberate omission. The judge penalized him accordingly, and now we have a record of Zimmerman’s truthfulness.
Chris, his wife offered to call Zimmerman’s Brother and give the court and exact amount and the Court declined her offer.
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.
Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
A: No, he is not, sir.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.
This conversation with the judge was after Zimmerman and his wife had talked in jail about the amount of money in the defense fund. So, saying that she needed to call her brother-in-law and ask how much money was in the account was a lie. Zimmerman should have also told his attorney how much money he had before going to a bail hearing.
You do not have a 5th Amendment right to hide assets at a bail hearing.
The one thing I want to say about this is that I am not enthusiastic about guns and I was certainly not enthusiastic about introducing concealed-carry into Wisconsin. At the risk of alienating the more self-defense oriented point of view, I think it is tragic that Mr. Zimmerman was armed with a gun at the time and tragic that Mr. Martin died. To those who will lay into me with ” Mr. Zimmerman could have died if he didn’t have a gun”, there is a chain of “would have” and “could have” and “if only” that will be addressed in court.
But one thing I am enthusiastic about is given defendents in criminal proceedings, whoever they are, mighty or lowly, likable or sleazy, celibrity or nobody, I am enthusiastic about affording such people their Constitutional guarantees and the benefit of the doubt.
The prosectution is supposed to represent “The People”, that is, the broader interest of justice in society at large; were the prosecution to represent the victim, the victim’s family, the victim’s ethnic kinsfolk, well, we are back to the primitive honor culture of the Hatfields and the McCoys, of parts of the Near East and Middle East. We are back to revenge and counter-revenge.
I find political demonstrations and rallies in support of the prosecution of an individual odious and loathsome, and I don’t care how virtuous your cause. I believe the media in all of this to be engaging in the worst yellow journalism attributed to William Randolph Hearst. I feel the same way about politically driven public discussion arguing the guilt of an individual criminal defendent. Yes, I will defend your freedom of speech to argue that someone in the dock is guilty-as-charged and guilty-as-sin, but that doesn’t make such speech ethically the correct thing.
It seems that people are so committed to the “untruthful, unreliable George Zimmerman” meme when “calling out the pro-gun crowd”, that one doesn’t stop to think that a strong anti-concealed carry but pro civil liberties person could be alienated by this?
This whole relentless rush to brand Mr. Zimmerman as unreliable and untruthful has marks of a political talking point that gets repeated. If people in the political arena are going to “do talking points” (rather than, say, engage in original thinking), does anyone bother to test them on focus groups?
I guess this calls to mind the famous calling our of Senator Joe McCarthy when he starting finding Communists in the United States Army, “Sir, have you no decency?”
I think she answered quite honestly considering the amount was changing by the hour Chris. She offered the court a definitive answer and they rejected it.
Zimmerman as in George Zimmerman, who stood mute (apart from his statement of apology, that by whatever wrinkle in the law didn’t surrender his 5th Amendment right not to answer questions or volunteer information)? The judge called him a “potted plant.” And someone around here is insinuating that Mr. Zimmerman is a liar?
Spin? How about rush to judgement.
“What set Martin off?” Serino asked. Nobody seems to have an answer to that.
That’s because the only person who knows that is dead.
It’s actually a very relevant question. As pointed out by this lawyer writing for a pro-gun site, self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means Zimmerman needs to show a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
Zimmerman needs to show a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
He has done so. He did so at the time, which is why he wasn’t initially arrested, until the race-baiting lynch mob got involved.
I’ve never heard anybody die from a broken nose. Nor can Zimmerman plead self-defense if he initiated the fight (see the linked article). So, no, he has not created a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
Ever hear of losing consciness Wyatt Derp?
I’ve never heard anybody die from a broken nose.
NIH
Its interesting that in the first sentence, it mentions head injury (even ABC has admitted the fuzzy video was misleading and has accepted the evidence presented by the police and paramedics as entered into the court record). Of course, all this is irrelevant because Zimmerman didn’t die, but that’s not really what the law expected Zimmerman to do.
Apparently there’s a lot of things you’ve never heard of. Like gravity.
No one should have to get beat to a pulp and possibly lose their life just so CG can satisfy his hate for the 2nd amendment. Are you still claiming this whole thing was about race?
I read your comment further down, I am glad you are no longer claiming this is a hate crime.
Wodun – I have never, ever claimed this was a hate crime. This always was a case of an over-eager man making bad decisions. Regarding “beat to a pulp” – I don’t think Zimmerman was beat to a pulp. I think he got hit once or twice, fell back, and any subsequent fighting was a struggle for his gun.
Eyewitness account claims Martin was using MMA type tactics in fighting Zimmerman.
Chris, are you reall so stupid as to think we don’t see thru your deliberate obtuseness? Seriously, the garbage you pass off as discussion is’t worthy of a thoughtful response.
Gerrib has got a bad case of WASP guilt / Obama fetish.
Really – kudos to Rand for having the strength not to ban him, I would. I lost all respect for Chris long ago. His fantasy world is quite disturbing.
I’m a Catholic of Lithuanian descent, so no WASP for me. I also own guns and am a member of the NRA.
My problem with Zimmerman is that, as my daddy told me, you don’t go chasing after people with a gun. Bad things can happen.
If you’re Catholic, why are you projecting guilt onto everybody else? Go to confession, for Christ’s sake, and quit being an idiot.
Maybe Chris Gerrib could volunteer to having Rand pound his head into the ground until he (Chris) determines at what point in the pounding it would be reasonable for the poundee to pull the trigger. It’s hard to imagine yje experience would scramble CG’s reasoning processes any more than they already are.
That’s “concrete” not “ground”.
The mount position really, really sucks for the guy on the bottom.
With my health, I would be in fear for my life even before the punches and head slams started.
Here’s my problem, just looking at the fight.
Martin has no injuries except one small scratch on his knuckle. Martin’s only weapon, the can of ice tea, is in his pocket.
Zimmerman has no defensive injuries, no injuries on his knuckles, and no skull fractures. He does have a broken nose, which, Leland, since Zimmerman was otherwise healthy, would not result in him bleeding to death.
Yet somehow we’re to believe that Martin was repeatedly pounding Zimmerman’s head into the ground, covering Zimmerman’s mouth, and going for Zimmerman’s gun? Was Martin really an octopus? Why, exactly, wasn’t Zimmerman able to lay a fist on Martin?
No, the evidence of the fight is that it was short, and Martin didn’t do a lot (if anything) to prepare for it. The evidence is also that, as soon as he was hit, Zimmerman escalated again and went for his gun. His previous escalation was in not telling Martin that he was in the Neighborhood Watch.
I don’t think Zimmerman is a racist, but he did exercise poor judgement, and somebody is dead as a result. Despite all that, maybe the jury will acquit Zimmerman. I’m not a lawyer, nor am I sitting on that jury. It’s pretty clear, however, that Zimmerman’s story has only a casual relationship to what actually happened out there.
He only had those injuries because that was all he managed to suffer before Poh Widdle Innocent Trayvon discovered that his victim had a gun and reached for it with murderous intent.
Um. Wrong.
You don’t know even half as much about this subject as the rest of us have been giving you credit for, if that’s what you think happened.
His other weapon, a pistol, was tucked in Zimmerman’s pants. Zimmerman told the responding officers that Martin’s last words were “You got it. You got it.” A person who’s just had their head slammed repeatedly and been in a lethal confrontation isn’t likely to make up something for the other guy to say that would only make sense after several minutes of caeful thought and a graduate course in script writing.
Martin was repeatedly pounding Zimmerman’s head into the ground. Didn’t you see the photos taken three minutes afterwards that showed the blood flowing down the back of Zimmerman’s head? Do you think Zimmerman did that to himself? Didn’t you read the eye-witness statement about Zimmerman getting his head pounded mixed-martial arts style?
Zimmerman couldn’t lay a hand on Martin because Zimmerman was on the ground, so he can’t rotate his elbows back for a good punch (try throwing punches with your back flat against a wall), and Martin, who is taller, has a reach advantage.
So you’re saying that all the eye-witnesses are lying? That the forensic investigators are lying? That the on-scene pictures were photoshopped? If Zimmerman went for his gun immediately after he was hit, how come he had multiple wounds? How come Martin had wounds to both kunckles and not just one? Who kept hollering for help over and over? How come the witnesses recount an extented time period where they say Martin beating Zimmerman, heard calls for help, went to dial 911, and then heard a gun shot.
How on earth is that an escalation? He also didn’t tell Martin that he was married. Is that an escalation, too?
How come the witnesses and forensics are in agreement with Zimmerman’s story? How come every detail that comes out confirms Zimmerman’s account and refutes the prosecution’s notions? Isn’t that extremely unlikely if Zimmerman’s account has no relation to events? Wouldn’t all the evidence point instead to some sort of execution style slaying?
Chris has no conception of how the law works. He is making shit up and using legalisms in ways that are wholly inapropriate to ther definition.
The Law according to how it should be by Chris Gerrib is no where to be found in the Florida Criminal Code.
Zimmermans account is contradicted by the location of the body and the debris field, and all of the untruths happen to be claims that would make his claim of self defense stronger if there wasn’t other evidence to contradict them.
How could Zimmerman’s account be contradicted by the location of the body when he gave his account pretty much standing next to the body? There were witnesses there. Cops were walking around.
What are the untruths that are contradicted by evidence?
So, you’re saying he wrote his report on a clipboard in the rain next to the corpse, rather than back in the police station?
Zimmerman would’ve explained to the police on the scene what had happened, and the police took witness statements. It would be pretty hard to get the body’s location wrong when it’s laying right in front of God and everybody.
Later recollections will always be flawed, as every lawyer knows. People are not good at describing scenes in map-like detail because our mental maps are vague, relying on visual cues that aren’t present unless you’re standing there. Even then, few can be sure they were exactly where they thought they were. As I said, every lawyer knows this, and they are taught it in school, as are the police. Almost no one involved in a wreck or witnessing a wreck can get the traffic details correct (when compared to objective footage). Cars jump around, swap positions, change lanes, and the sequence of events gets jumbled. Yet from such mistaken recollections a jury can piece together what happened.
If unquestionably accurate, detailed recollections of traumatic events were required as proof of innocence, we wouldn’t bother with defence lawyers because nobody in the history of the Republic would ever have been acquitted of anything.
Look, here’s the problem. Zimmerman’s first account, his written statement of February 26, is that Martin suddenly appeared out of the darkness as Zimmerman was walking back to his truck. They exchanged eight words, and then suddenly and without warning Martin punches Zimmerman in the face, and as he falls backwards, leaps upon him, and inflicts such immediate bodily harm that Zimmerman needs to shoot Martin in self defense.
And that matches pretty well with Martin’s girlfriend’s account, the witnesses, and the forensics.
No, actually the girlfriend’s account directly contradicts Zimmerman.
And yet Zimmerman passed a lie detector test. Did Martin’s girlfriend? No. In fact, she’s told 2 different versions of her story.
It doesn’t match the location of the body, about fifty feet south of where Zimmerman says he was when he was accosted. Nor does it match the account of witnesses that said there was a running altercation that covered that distance.
But you’ve seen photos of the scene, which is a long, long sidewalk running between identical looking housing units. There are no good positional references to pin down a location, and in a high-stress situation nobody is thinking “Am I getting beat up across from 126B or 132A? Hrmm…..”
Similarly, I doubt many witnesses to the Kennedy assassination could accurately say to within 200 feet where his car was when he was hit. Unless the remembered exactly which storefront they were standing in front of, all they could say is that they were standing on a sidewalk in a crowd of people, and that he was shot either before or after his car passed them. Jackie Kennedy probably couldn’t get the location right to within a half mile – which, by the Zimmerman standard, means she must’ve been the real killer.
Remember the key elements of Zimmerman’s account. When the encounter starts, he isn’t on the sidewalk between the back yards, he’s on the cut through, walking back to his car. Martin accost him and advances on him, emerging from the darkness. Zimmerman has to turn around, and evidently he advances to meet Martin, because the fight didn’t happen on the cut through. But in his telling the initial conversation is very brief. He doesn’t have time to get very far south, and besides, Martin is in the way.
The simplest explanation for the physical evidence and the other witness accounts is that Martin’s account is untruthful in ways that would make his self defense claim more plausible.
The gangsta is dead, Zimmerman’s family is going to get rich and a corrupt police officer has been exposed.
Our lefties continue to bat a thousand in making false assertions.
I’m enjoying my popcorn and free ice cream.
I find the Zimmerman case interesting for two reasons:
One, the attempted lynching by Big Media and its party-line-following sheeple. (Really, at this point, would anyone but a dunce believe any narrative put forth by people whose politico-conecomic philsophy is based on legalized looting? Obviously, as one can see here, people who generally put forth stupid positions, stupidly argued, on a whole host of issues.)
Two: how the Zimmerman case acts as a general litmus test. As Mark Twain once said, “If you don’t like the verdict, wait a while;” and for all I know someday someone will come up with some convincing evidence showing that Hoodie the Thug was an innocent gunned down without cause by a bloodthirsty White Hispanic. For now, it seems that people who generally believe in liberty, and therefore by extension believe in the individual’s right to bear arms and use them in self-defense, are inclined to believe in Zimmerman’s innocence; while the usual gang of statists believe Hoodie the Thug was an innocent victim–probably because if you believe that the individual belongs to the State, and has no right to his own life except at the sufferance of the ruling class,* then you’re more likely to want the individual disarmed, and certainly don’t want him believing he has a right to his own life and therefore the right to defend himself from aggression. (Especially since without aggression–i.e., the initation of force–statism would cease to exist.)
Your insistence in seeing everything as black and white is clouding your judgement. I for one firmly believe in the right of self-defense. But in this case, there is significant reason to think that Zimmerman, perhaps inadvertently, provoked a fight.
Proponents of self-defense have to at least consider that night from Martin’s point of view. He has done nothing wrong, and is just walking home while being followed down a dark area by an unknown man.
If you own a gun (like I do) or decide to carry concealed, you should do so responsibly. I’m not sure this happened in this case.
It is hard to say that Zimmerman over reacted after he was getting his head bashed in but it is clear that Martin over reacted. A person’s first response to any verbal encounter with another human being shouldn’t be to beat them up.
Just think what would happen in NY city if everytime someone had a verbal disagreement with someone it was groundsbto bash their skull in.
Maybe Martin lacked the maturity to interact with another human being verbally and if so he clearly lacked the maturity to engage in physical combat.
^ The NYC sidewalks would be much easier to negotiate after the first week of mass head bashings. Deaf people and babies in strollers would be the only ones left. 😀
because if you believe that the individual belongs to the State, and has no right to his own life except at the sufferance of the ruling class,* then you’re more likely to want the individual disarmed, and certainly don’t want him believing he has a right to his own life and therefore the right to defend himself from aggression.
Yes, I’ve noticed that litmus test as well.
For the record, I do not nor ever have believed that the individual “belongs to” the State.
“For the record, I do not nor ever have believed that the individual ‘belongs to’ the State.”
I don’t think “belongs to” means what you think it means.
I think I’m tired of being slandered by some anonymous one-name wonder on the Internet.
I’m sure George Zimmerman feels the same way.
Then go away. Please.
You do not have a 5th Amendment right to hide assets at a bail hearing.
This seems odd. Then again, so does the whole bail hearing. First, I don’t see where George Zimmerman is either a threat to anyone else in his community or a flight risk. He’s remained accessible to law enforcement even when he wasn’t being prosecuted, and turned himself in when it was decided to prosecute him. He didn’t harm anyone during that time nor showed sign of fleeing anyone other than the lynch mobs sent out be celebrities (who ended up terrorizing his neighbors by sending out the wrong addresses). So increasing the bail seems excessive and the assertion that it is punishment is essentially proof that it is excessive.
Then there’s Gerrib’s assertion. My understanding is that Zimmerman’s wife supposedly perjured herself and can be held in criminal contempt with the court. I don’t know how that happens, unless she was under oath in a legal proceeding. How did she lose her right and protection to the 5th amendment during a legal proceeding? She didn’t shoot anyone? She’s not on trial? And let’s be clear, if her answer of “I don’t know, but I can find out” isn’t acceptable in court, then what other option does she have to avoid contempt other than pleading the 5th? If she can’t say “I don’t know” or “I refuse to answer”, then that only leaves knowingly making a false statement, which is perjury.
Zimmerman is a defendant in a capital murder trial. Like any other defendant, he gets a bail hearing. Since he doesn’t appear to be a flight risk, he gets to post bail and walk out of jail. Also since he lied about his finances, the judge felt it necessary to increase the bail restrictions on Zimmerman.
The lie was when Mrs. Zimmerman said “I don’t know” about the defense fund. She did know – George and her had discussed it in depth in the jail and she was actively involved in moving the money around. The prosecution played the tapes of their conversation and an accountant hired by Zimmerman’s lawyer laid out the transfers.
Bottom line – Zimmerman and his wife lied to the judge.