Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (5 Viewers)

[Zow]

he has been charged with one prior crime, for which he went through a pre-trial diversion program, and has had an injunction lodged against him" for domestic violence.

How about this stuff? Is any of this admissible at trial in order to challenge Zimmerman's credibility?

What do those things have to do with his credibility?

Hmm. If I'm sitting on a jury, and I'm told these things about a witness, I might just be a little less trustful that said witness is going to be honest in his testimony. But maybe that's just me...

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

 

[timschochet]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

 

[Zow]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

 

[timschochet]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

1. The restraining order makes me think that Zimmerman may be a violent guy. It makes it easier for me to believe that he initiated the struggle with Trayvon Martin.2. The fact that Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie during the bond hearing makes me believe that he is not to be trusted when giving testimony about what happened that night.

Do you find either of these statements to be illogical?

 

[Christo]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

1. The restraining order makes me think that Zimmerman may be a violent guy. It makes it easier for me to believe that he initiated the struggle with Trayvon Martin.2. The fact that Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie during the bond hearing makes me believe that he is not to be trusted when giving testimony about what happened that night.

Do you find either of these statements to be illogical?

I find #2 irrelevant because you were asking about the admissibility of his two earlier run-ins with the law. As for #1, what does that have to do with his credibility?

 

[Zow]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

1. The restraining order makes me think that Zimmerman may be a violent guy. It makes it easier for me to believe that he initiated the struggle with Trayvon Martin.2. The fact that Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie during the bond hearing makes me believe that he is not to be trusted when giving testimony about what happened that night.

Do you find either of these statements to be illogical?

Yes I do. Both.1. The burden for obtaining a restraining order is incredibly low because it is designed to be a legal mechanism to safeguard the plaintiff/requestor from any potential conflict with the respondent and and prevent any discord with social order while not being burdensome to the respondent. No violence needs to be shown and. Accordingly, it is illogical to assume someone served with a restraining order is naturally violent. I understand society thinks it may be and in some case the respondent happens to be, but it is illogical to automatically assume so and the criminal rules of evidence are designed to keep this type of prejudicial thinking out.

2. I take issue with your use of "allowed." There's no evidence suggesting she ran it by him or needed his permission to do so. Also, someone sitting in his chair, desperately wanting to get out of jail, would do what I think most would have done in his position and let things play out. I imagine at one point in time all of us have allowed a misrepresentation made by someone else but beneficial to us to go through. So, doing so does not have a tendency to suggest we would actively lie under oath. Also, it's not as if the state won't have the opportunity to present evidence of or infer to Zimmerman's natural motive to lie here (to not get convicted), so the fact he sat by while his wife lied (assuming he knew it was a lie) because he wanted to get out of jail is not probative to his trial testimony.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

1. The restraining order makes me think that Zimmerman may be a violent guy. It makes it easier for me to believe that he initiated the struggle with Trayvon Martin.2. The fact that Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie during the bond hearing makes me believe that he is not to be trusted when giving testimony about what happened that night.

Do you find either of these statements to be illogical?

1. A restraining order could be issued against a violent offender.. So I can understand your logic there. But a restraining order doesn't prove violence. A guilty verdict in court would prove violence. If a woman goes to the magistrates office and claims you've attacked her and that she is afraid of you, she's likely getting a restraining order whether you did it or not..2. People lie their entire lives. Some worse then others. Some to save their own asses, some because they are afraid, some are just compulsive liars. I don't think his wife lieing in court proves he is going to lie on the stand.. And even if he has lied, or does lie on the stand, that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't acting in self defense.. If he's afraid the proof they have doesn't portray the truth well enough, he may be willing to exaggerate the story a bit in order to pad the outcome..I'd actually be surprised if anyone would get on the stand and tell the court any details that might put them in jail intentionally.

 

[timschochet]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

1. The restraining order makes me think that Zimmerman may be a violent guy. It makes it easier for me to believe that he initiated the struggle with Trayvon Martin.2. The fact that Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie during the bond hearing makes me believe that he is not to be trusted when giving testimony about what happened that night.

Do you find either of these statements to be illogical?

Yes I do. Both.1. The burden for obtaining a restraining order is incredibly low because it is designed to be a legal mechanism to safeguard the plaintiff/requestor from any potential conflict with the respondent and and prevent any discord with social order while not being burdensome to the respondent. No violence needs to be shown and. Accordingly, it is illogical to assume someone served with a restraining order is naturally violent. I understand society thinks it may be and in some case the respondent happens to be, but it is illogical to automatically assume so and the criminal rules of evidence are designed to keep this type of prejudicial thinking out.

2. I take issue with your use of "allowed." There's no evidence suggesting she ran it by him or needed his permission to do so. Also, someone sitting in his chair, desperately wanting to get out of jail, would do what I think most would have done in his position and let things play out. I imagine at one point in time all of us have allowed a misrepresentation made by someone else but beneficial to us to go through. So, doing so does not have a tendency to suggest we would actively lie under oath. Also, it's not as if the state won't have the opportunity to present evidence of or infer to Zimmerman's natural motive to lie here (to not get convicted), so the fact he sat by while his wife lied (assuming he knew it was a lie) because he wanted to get out of jail is not probative to his trial testimony.

Well, I guess we really disagree on both counts. Your arguments may make sense from a purely legal standpoint (I wouldn't know, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but they don't make sense to me from a layman's POV- then again, it's only my POV, which means nothing.

 

[pittstownkiller]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

1. The restraining order makes me think that Zimmerman may be a violent guy. It makes it easier for me to believe that he initiated the struggle with Trayvon Martin.2. The fact that Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie during the bond hearing makes me believe that he is not to be trusted when giving testimony about what happened that night.

Do you find either of these statements to be illogical?

Yes I do. Both.1. The burden for obtaining a restraining order is incredibly low because it is designed to be a legal mechanism to safeguard the plaintiff/requestor from any potential conflict with the respondent and and prevent any discord with social order while not being burdensome to the respondent. No violence needs to be shown and. Accordingly, it is illogical to assume someone served with a restraining order is naturally violent. I understand society thinks it may be and in some case the respondent happens to be, but it is illogical to automatically assume so and the criminal rules of evidence are designed to keep this type of prejudicial thinking out.

2. I take issue with your use of "allowed." There's no evidence suggesting she ran it by him or needed his permission to do so. Also, someone sitting in his chair, desperately wanting to get out of jail, would do what I think most would have done in his position and let things play out. I imagine at one point in time all of us have allowed a misrepresentation made by someone else but beneficial to us to go through. So, doing so does not have a tendency to suggest we would actively lie under oath. Also, it's not as if the state won't have the opportunity to present evidence of or infer to Zimmerman's natural motive to lie here (to not get convicted), so the fact he sat by while his wife lied (assuming he knew it was a lie) because he wanted to get out of jail is not probative to his trial testimony.

Well, I guess we really disagree on both counts. Your arguments may make sense from a purely legal standpoint (I wouldn't know, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but they don't make sense to me from a layman's POV- then again, it's only my POV, which means nothing.

The problem Tim is that you don't like Zimmerman, a man who you have never met, and are pretty convinced of his guilt; it is why I posted earlier that you would make a terrible juror. You are now trying to use other evidence to convict him, even though it is not relevant to this case. When you're a juror you are supposed to listen with an objective mind to the testimony given in court and not try to solve the case yourself; you have used your own evidence to form an opinion of Zimmerman that is clouding your impartiality.

 

[Christo]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

1. The restraining order makes me think that Zimmerman may be a violent guy. It makes it easier for me to believe that he initiated the struggle with Trayvon Martin.2. The fact that Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie during the bond hearing makes me believe that he is not to be trusted when giving testimony about what happened that night.

Do you find either of these statements to be illogical?

Yes I do. Both.1. The burden for obtaining a restraining order is incredibly low because it is designed to be a legal mechanism to safeguard the plaintiff/requestor from any potential conflict with the respondent and and prevent any discord with social order while not being burdensome to the respondent. No violence needs to be shown and. Accordingly, it is illogical to assume someone served with a restraining order is naturally violent. I understand society thinks it may be and in some case the respondent happens to be, but it is illogical to automatically assume so and the criminal rules of evidence are designed to keep this type of prejudicial thinking out.

2. I take issue with your use of "allowed." There's no evidence suggesting she ran it by him or needed his permission to do so. Also, someone sitting in his chair, desperately wanting to get out of jail, would do what I think most would have done in his position and let things play out. I imagine at one point in time all of us have allowed a misrepresentation made by someone else but beneficial to us to go through. So, doing so does not have a tendency to suggest we would actively lie under oath. Also, it's not as if the state won't have the opportunity to present evidence of or infer to Zimmerman's natural motive to lie here (to not get convicted), so the fact he sat by while his wife lied (assuming he knew it was a lie) because he wanted to get out of jail is not probative to his trial testimony.

Well, I guess we really disagree on both counts. Your arguments may make sense from a purely legal standpoint (I wouldn't know, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but they don't make sense to me from a layman's POV- then again, it's only my POV, which means nothing.

But you're not addressing his points.How do you know that the basis for the restraining order was true? If the prosecution raised the restraining order, O'Mara would be well within his rights to call the ex-girlfriend and anyone else who she may have spoken to about the issue. It would essentially be a trial within a trial.

How do you know what was going through his mind when his wife was testifying? Or when he was testifying? One of the things every lawyer drills into a client is to answer the question that is posed. He was never asked about his wife's testimony or his own finances. He answered the questions he was asked.

He was also testifying under oath and it was on television. I've had clients tell me for weeks how they were going to testify when they get on the stand--just ask me a question and you're going to have to drag me off the stand to get me to shut up. Even with bench trials. No one other than the judge, the attorneys and the parties were in the courtroom. Not criminal defendants. But people who were just testifying about a disagreement in a civil case. The confidence is overflowing before the trial. But when they get on the stand they fold under the pressure. Testimony that should have lasted 30 minutes ends up taking 2-3 hours because I have to drag it out of them.

Someone sitting in a jury box has no way to judge a person's credibility based on those situations.

 

[fatness]

It's solid as ever. If anything those digging into the timeline have only strengthened support for my two month old thinking.

Will Zimmerman's lawyer be using this "solid" evidence in his defense?

I don't see why not. Perhaps you can tell us what you think since you seem to have such a big bug up your butt about about it.

 

[timschochet]

And this is a very good example as to why the law doesn't admit these facts, because the average juror, like you, would make the logical misstep you just did.

That makes sense to me. And yet...There's going to be a trial in which George Zimmerman is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman is presumably going to take the stand and claim that he killed Martin in self-defense, and describe a narrative that backs up his claim of self-defense. From what I have now learned about George Zimmerman, there are several reasons why I am skeptical that he will be truthful in his narrative. Yet none of these reasons are going to be allowed in court, so the jury will have to rely on how truthful Zimmerman seems when he testifies, without knowledge of evidence of his disregard for law and order in the past. I understand the reasons for this, but it stll seems wrong to me.

You realize the logical leap you're making here is that you believe that once a prison breaks the law he will always break the law? You don't see a problem with that? Also, a restraining order has nothing to do with violating the law. It's a civil order designed to keep the peace. The recipient of such an order has, under the law, done nothing wrong.

1. The restraining order makes me think that Zimmerman may be a violent guy. It makes it easier for me to believe that he initiated the struggle with Trayvon Martin.2. The fact that Zimmerman knowingly allowed his wife to lie during the bond hearing makes me believe that he is not to be trusted when giving testimony about what happened that night.

Do you find either of these statements to be illogical?

Yes I do. Both.1. The burden for obtaining a restraining order is incredibly low because it is designed to be a legal mechanism to safeguard the plaintiff/requestor from any potential conflict with the respondent and and prevent any discord with social order while not being burdensome to the respondent. No violence needs to be shown and. Accordingly, it is illogical to assume someone served with a restraining order is naturally violent. I understand society thinks it may be and in some case the respondent happens to be, but it is illogical to automatically assume so and the criminal rules of evidence are designed to keep this type of prejudicial thinking out.

2. I take issue with your use of "allowed." There's no evidence suggesting she ran it by him or needed his permission to do so. Also, someone sitting in his chair, desperately wanting to get out of jail, would do what I think most would have done in his position and let things play out. I imagine at one point in time all of us have allowed a misrepresentation made by someone else but beneficial to us to go through. So, doing so does not have a tendency to suggest we would actively lie under oath. Also, it's not as if the state won't have the opportunity to present evidence of or infer to Zimmerman's natural motive to lie here (to not get convicted), so the fact he sat by while his wife lied (assuming he knew it was a lie) because he wanted to get out of jail is not probative to his trial testimony.

Well, I guess we really disagree on both counts. Your arguments may make sense from a purely legal standpoint (I wouldn't know, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but they don't make sense to me from a layman's POV- then again, it's only my POV, which means nothing.

But you're not addressing his points.How do you know that the basis for the restraining order was true? If the prosecution raised the restraining order, O'Mara would be well within his rights to call the ex-girlfriend and anyone else who she may have spoken to about the issue. It would essentially be a trial within a trial.

How do you know what was going through his mind when his wife was testifying? Or when he was testifying? One of the things every lawyer drills into a client is to answer the question that is posed. He was never asked about his wife's testimony or his own finances. He answered the questions he was asked.

He was also testifying under oath and it was on television. I've had clients tell me for weeks how they were going to testify when they get on the stand--just ask me a question and you're going to have to drag me off the stand to get me to shut up. Even with bench trials. No one other than the judge, the attorneys and the parties were in the courtroom. Not criminal defendants. But people who were just testifying about a disagreement in a civil case. The confidence is overflowing before the trial. But when they get on the stand they fold under the pressure. Testimony that should have lasted 30 minutes ends up taking 2-3 hours because I have to drag it out of them.

Someone sitting in a jury box has no way to judge a person's credibility based on those situations.

These are all good points.

 

[fatness]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's solid as ever. If anything those digging into the timeline have only strengthened support for my two month old thinking.

Will Zimmerman's lawyer be using this "solid" evidence in his defense?

I don't see why not. Perhaps you can tell us what you think since you seem to have such a big bug up your butt about about it.

of course not..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

whats your point?

 

[TexanFan02]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

 

[Neofight]

This Zimmerman, he sounds like an upstanding young man. His wife, a peach. Ah well, at least they'll have interesting stories for the grand kids.

 

[timschochet]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

It doesn't matter. None of it will be admitted a trial. And according to Carolina Hustler, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on Zimmerman's credibility. As CH points out, everybody lies sometime. So we should all just believe George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just as CH does- as the Gospel truth. Makes sense to me.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

It doesn't matter. None of it will be admitted a trial. And according to Carolina Hustler, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on Zimmerman's credibility. As CH points out, everybody lies sometime. So we should all just believe George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just as CH does- as the Gospel truth. Makes sense to me.

it MIGHT not matter in a court of law...but it sure does in the court of public opinion. It just shows what ''type '' of people the zimmermans are.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

It doesn't matter. None of it will be admitted a trial. And according to Carolina Hustler, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on Zimmerman's credibility. As CH points out, everybody lies sometime. So we should all just believe George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just as CH does- as the Gospel truth. Makes sense to me.

it MIGHT not matter in a court of law...but it sure does in the court of public opinion. It just shows what ''type '' of people the zimmermans are.

Yea, cause people that have lied are bad people

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

It doesn't matter. None of it will be admitted a trial. And according to Carolina Hustler, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on Zimmerman's credibility. As CH points out, everybody lies sometime. So we should all just believe George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just as CH does- as the Gospel truth. Makes sense to me.

Lied about money = guilty of murder.. Got it..

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Lied about money = guilty of murder.. Got it..

Lied to the court about this case = likely to lie about everything else regarding this same case.Get it, got it, good.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

It doesn't matter. None of it will be admitted a trial. And according to Carolina Hustler, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on Zimmerman's credibility. As CH points out, everybody lies sometime. So we should all just believe George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just as CH does- as the Gospel truth. Makes sense to me.

it MIGHT not matter in a court of law...but it sure does in the court of public opinion. It just shows what ''type '' of people the zimmermans are.

Yea, cause people that have lied are bad people

You must do a lot of lying because you seem to think its ok.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Lied about money = guilty of murder.. Got it..

Lied to the court about this case = likely to lie about everything else regarding this same case.Get it, got it, good.

Yea, when he says he followed Trayvon, that was probably a lie.. Probably didn't get out of his truck..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

It doesn't matter. None of it will be admitted a trial. And according to Carolina Hustler, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on Zimmerman's credibility. As CH points out, everybody lies sometime. So we should all just believe George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just as CH does- as the Gospel truth. Makes sense to me.

it MIGHT not matter in a court of law...but it sure does in the court of public opinion. It just shows what ''type '' of people the zimmermans are.

Yea, cause people that have lied are bad people

You must do a lot of lying because you seem to think its ok.

People who say they don't lie, are lying..... and in turn are guilty of murder in light of the above information..

 

[pantherclub]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

It doesn't matter. None of it will be admitted a trial. And according to Carolina Hustler, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on Zimmerman's credibility. As CH points out, everybody lies sometime. So we should all just believe George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just as CH does- as the Gospel truth. Makes sense to me.

it MIGHT not matter in a court of law...but it sure does in the court of public opinion. It just shows what ''type '' of people the zimmermans are.

Yea, cause people that have lied are bad people

You must do a lot of lying because you seem to think its ok.

People who say they don't lie, are lying..... and in turn are guilty of murder in light of the above information..

just because some people lie doesnt justify it. Im sure not many of those that lie are in jail for murder.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Records show Shellie Zimmerman in the days before the hearing transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband's credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit. It also shows that $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's in the days before the bond hearing.

Four days after he was released on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account into her husband's account, the affidavit said. The affidavit also said that jail call records show that George Zimmerman instructed her to "pay off all the bills," including an American Express and Sam's Club card.

A state attorney investigator met with credit union officials and learned that she had control of transfers to and from her husband's account.

link

Oops.

It doesn't matter. None of it will be admitted a trial. And according to Carolina Hustler, none of it has any bearing whatsoever on Zimmerman's credibility. As CH points out, everybody lies sometime. So we should all just believe George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense just as CH does- as the Gospel truth. Makes sense to me.

it MIGHT not matter in a court of law...but it sure does in the court of public opinion. It just shows what ''type '' of people the zimmermans are.

Yea, cause people that have lied are bad people

You must do a lot of lying because you seem to think its ok.

People who say they don't lie, are lying..... and in turn are guilty of murder in light of the above information..

just because some people lie doesnt justify it. Im sure not many of those that lie are in jail for murder.

Because they haven't lied about money yet?

 

[renesauz]

I see nothing's changed

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Toast

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Es loco en la cabeza.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Toast

do you trust people once the`ve lied to you?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

Yes, he is currently innocent.So was nearly every other murderer until they had their court case. And some remain so after the fact... like OJ.

 

[pantherclub]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

 

[pantherclub]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Toast

do you trust people once the`ve lied to you?

thats going to leave a mark

 

[Witz]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Toast

do you trust people once the`ve lied to you?

How does it feel to not trust anyone in your life?Everyone from your family, to friends, to significant others, to co-workers, etc have lied to you during your lifetime.

 

[Witz]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

How so? Is the Zimmerman case the defining legal case where an individual iS guilty before being proven guilty in a court of law? Either that or you've come back from the future already knowing the outcome of the trial.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

How so? Is the Zimmerman case the defining legal case where an individual iS guilty before being proven guilty in a court of law? Either that or you've come back from the future already knowing the outcome of the trial.

You do know this website/forum is based upon making predetermination's, with lots of differing opinions... and not a court. And this is even within the free-for-all area of that forum. Yes?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

Yes and no; I agree that we are bull####ting about a case on a forum, so hard factual opinions aren't needed but what you're accusing CH of doing you're doing too, just from the opposing side.

 

[Witz]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

How so? Is the Zimmerman case the defining legal case where an individual iS guilty before being proven guilty in a court of law? Either that or you've come back from the future already knowing the outcome of the trial.

You do know this website/forum is based upon making predetermination's, with lots of differing opinions... and not a court. And this is even within the free-for-all area of that forum. Yes?

Can't disagree with any of the obvious points you make there. Just wondering what they have to do with what was being discussed in this posting stream? You can discuss whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not till the cows come home - the underlying aspect of the judicial system that one is innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to how the system works. So what are you disagreeing with?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

How so? Is the Zimmerman case the defining legal case where an individual iS guilty before being proven guilty in a court of law? Either that or you've come back from the future already knowing the outcome of the trial.

You do know this website/forum is based upon making predetermination's, with lots of differing opinions... and not a court. And this is even within the free-for-all area of that forum.

Yes?

Can't disagree with any of the obvious points you make there. Just wondering what they have to do with what was being discussed in this posting stream?

You can discuss whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not till the cows come home - the underlying aspect of the judicial system that one is innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to how the system works. So what are you disagreeing with?

From this particular vein of the thread:That while many defenders of Zimmerman are just putting forth perfectly fine opinions as to Zimms innocence (besides just saying "innocent until proven guilty", which we all understand)... Carolina Hustler puts forth irrational opinions.

Opinions irrational enough that they border on are sarcasm and fishing.

Have you ever seen his "work" in the shark pool before he found his way here at the free for all? The same loco stuff.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

How so? Is the Zimmerman case the defining legal case where an individual iS guilty before being proven guilty in a court of law? Either that or you've come back from the future already knowing the outcome of the trial.

You do know this website/forum is based upon making predetermination's, with lots of differing opinions... and not a court. And this is even within the free-for-all area of that forum.

Yes?

Can't disagree with any of the obvious points you make there. Just wondering what they have to do with what was being discussed in this posting stream?

You can discuss whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not till the cows come home - the underlying aspect of the judicial system that one is innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to how the system works. So what are you disagreeing with?

From this particular vein of the thread:That while many defenders of Zimmerman are just putting forth perfectly fine opinions as to Zimms innocence (besides just saying "innocent until proven guilty", which we all understand)... Carolina Hustler puts forth irrational opinions.

Opinions irrational enough that they border on are sarcasm and fishing.

Have you ever seen his "work" in the shark pool before he found his way here at the free for all? The same loco stuff.

Ok but the anti-Zimmerman crowd seems to have the real issue with SYG and wants to either punish Zimmerman for it, or wants to create a scenario where it doesn't apply.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Toast

do you trust people once the`ve lied to you?

Why should I? They're murders now..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

Yes, he is currently innocent.So was nearly every other murderer until they had their court case. And some remain so after the fact... like OJ.

OJ must not have lied about money..... Wait..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Toast

do you trust people once the`ve lied to you?

thats going to leave a mark

toast

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

How so? Is the Zimmerman case the defining legal case where an individual iS guilty before being proven guilty in a court of law? Either that or you've come back from the future already knowing the outcome of the trial.

Actually the trial is just a formality.. He's already guilty because he didn't tell the court that his wife gave improper information..Innocent until proven guilty is just a pesky loophole criminals and murderers use to get off.. But once you catch them with more money than they say they have, you got'm.. Closes the loophole and they're toast..

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Ok but the anti-Zimmerman crowd seems to have the real issue with SYG and wants to either punish Zimmerman for it, or wants to create a scenario where it doesn't apply.

Let me use this analogy.Lets say both Pittsownkiller and Pantherclub work at the District Attorneys office and have to deal with this mess.

You both know Zimm is currently innocent. You "feel/think" that Zimm is probably innocent. And Panther "feels/thinks" that he is probably guilty.

So you both put forth what info, facts and postulations regarding the information and scenarios that you have.

When the discussion of the lying about the passport and the finances is brought up... both of you know this to be a bad indicator.

Both of you (assuming) that it doesnt prove his guilt, but it does lead to some credibility problems in his handling of the court and this case.

Even the judge flatly said he had a problem with Zimmermans handling of the situation.

Specifically the lying that not only led to the revoking of his bond but also led to his wife being arrested.

And in walks your freshman intern Carola Huslter to state.... "Lied about money = guilty of murder.. Got it.."

And that is his serious argument. His use of sarcasm/deflection/inaneness then gets called to the carpet by other people in the office as "irrational defense".

And he just added even more with post #13647.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

How so? Is the Zimmerman case the defining legal case where an individual iS guilty before being proven guilty in a court of law? Either that or you've come back from the future already knowing the outcome of the trial.

You do know this website/forum is based upon making predetermination's, with lots of differing opinions... and not a court. And this is even within the free-for-all area of that forum. Yes?

Yea, we don't have to come up with the proper conclusion because if we're wrong a man's life doesn't hang in the balance.. With this in mind, lets ignore all that we know to be right and posture on ignorantly and ultimately be wrong...But wrong with no consequences mind you..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Hustlers continued irrational defense of the zimmer is quite troubling on multiple levels.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty; you should try it with that in mind.

its a little different here no?

How so? Is the Zimmerman case the defining legal case where an individual iS guilty before being proven guilty in a court of law? Either that or you've come back from the future already knowing the outcome of the trial.

You do know this website/forum is based upon making predetermination's, with lots of differing opinions... and not a court. And this is even within the free-for-all area of that forum.

Yes?

Can't disagree with any of the obvious points you make there. Just wondering what they have to do with what was being discussed in this posting stream?

You can discuss whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not till the cows come home - the underlying aspect of the judicial system that one is innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to how the system works. So what are you disagreeing with?

From this particular vein of the thread:That while many defenders of Zimmerman are just putting forth perfectly fine opinions as to Zimms innocence (besides just saying "innocent until proven guilty", which we all understand)... Carolina Hustler puts forth irrational opinions.

Opinions irrational enough that they border on are sarcasm and fishing.

Have you ever seen his "work" in the shark pool before he found his way here at the free for all? The same loco stuff.

btw, I've only recently moved to sarcasm in this thread.. If you want to see ridiculous, search the thread for your own posts..