Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef StalinPol PotSo none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

 

[timschochet]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef StalinPol PotSo none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

But it's a serious point. I understand that you want to limit your defintions to legal terms, but it seems awfully limiting. Here's another example: OJ Simpson. I believe, with good reason I think, that he murdered two people. Now according to you, we can't use the word murder, since he was acquitted of this charge. What word should I use in it's place?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'm pretty sure this is Carolina Hustler. My only question is how much he paid to get it.

T-Mobile gives man Zimmerman's old number

That would be awesome. The trolling possibilities are limitless.

T-Mobile guy 1: Some guy wants to buy Zimmerman's phone number.T-Mobile guy 2: But we retired that number.

T-Mobile guy 1: He says it would mean the world to him to have it, and he's offering to pay.

T-Mobile guy 2: He's an idiot.

T-Mobile guy 1: He's waiting in the next room.

-----------------------

T-Mobile guy 2: I understand you want George Zimmerman's phone number.

Carolina Hustler: It would mean the world to me. He's my hero. I wub him.

T-Mobile guy 2: People call death threats to that number. It's dangerous to have.

Carolina Hustler: I'll call them 1000 times to tell them he's innocent.

----------------------------

T-Mobile Guy 1: Did you sell it to him?

T-Mobile guy 2: Yeah. He said there's no proof having the number is dangerous.

I wonder what percentage of your posts have my name in them.. I'm flattered

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef StalinPol PotSo none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

But it's a serious point. I understand that you want to limit your defintions to legal terms, but it seems awfully limiting. Here's another example: OJ Simpson. I believe, with good reason I think, that he murdered two people. Now according to you, we can't use the word murder, since he was acquitted of this charge. What word should I use in it's place?

But wait.. Isn't OJ black? Victim of institutionalized racism right?

 

[Christo]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef StalinPol PotSo none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

But it's a serious point. I understand that you want to limit your defintions to legal terms, but it seems awfully limiting. Here's another example: OJ Simpson. I believe, with good reason I think, that he murdered two people. Now according to you, we can't use the word murder, since he was acquitted of this charge. What word should I use in it's place?

OJ's a good example. While you believe he murdered two people, we can't say with 100% certainty that he actually killed them. At least with the others there's certainty that people died at their hands or on their orders.Why can't people be satisfied with calling them killers? Zimmerman has admitted he did that.

 

[timschochet]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef Stalin

Pol Pot

So none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

But it's a serious point. I understand that you want to limit your defintions to legal terms, but it seems awfully limiting. Here's another example: OJ Simpson. I believe, with good reason I think, that he murdered two people. Now according to you, we can't use the word murder, since he was acquitted of this charge. What word should I use in it's place?

OJ's a good example. While you believe he murdered two people, we can't say with 100% certainty that he actually killed them. At least with the others there's certainty that people died at their hands or on their orders.Why can't people be satisfied with calling them killers? Zimmerman has admitted he did that.

Because for me there is a moral difference between killing someone in self-defense (as Zimmerman is claiming) and cold-blooded murder, which I believe that O J Simpson did. If I am not allowed to use the word murder to express this distinction, then what word should I use?

 

[Christo]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef Stalin

Pol Pot

So none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

But it's a serious point. I understand that you want to limit your defintions to legal terms, but it seems awfully limiting. Here's another example: OJ Simpson. I believe, with good reason I think, that he murdered two people. Now according to you, we can't use the word murder, since he was acquitted of this charge. What word should I use in it's place?

OJ's a good example. While you believe he murdered two people, we can't say with 100% certainty that he actually killed them. At least with the others there's certainty that people died at their hands or on their orders.Why can't people be satisfied with calling them killers? Zimmerman has admitted he did that.

Because for me there is a moral difference between killing someone in self-defense (as Zimmerman is claiming) and cold-blooded murder, which I believe that O J Simpson did. If I am not allowed to use the word murder to express this distinction, then what word should I use?

Well, you can fall back on your belief that OJ killed them and didn't even make a self-defense argument. If he did, in fact, kill them it was in cold blood. So how about cold-blooded killer?With Zimmerman, we get back to the subjective/objective argument. However, "bad" you believe Zimmerman to be, I don't think you think Zimmerman's killing of Martin was "in cold blood." His self-defense claim is really just going to be a judgment call for the judge and/or jury.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef Stalin

Pol Pot

So none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

But it's a serious point. I understand that you want to limit your defintions to legal terms, but it seems awfully limiting. Here's another example: OJ Simpson. I believe, with good reason I think, that he murdered two people. Now according to you, we can't use the word murder, since he was acquitted of this charge. What word should I use in it's place?

OJ's a good example. While you believe he murdered two people, we can't say with 100% certainty that he actually killed them. At least with the others there's certainty that people died at their hands or on their orders.Why can't people be satisfied with calling them killers? Zimmerman has admitted he did that.

Because for me there is a moral difference between killing someone in self-defense (as Zimmerman is claiming) and cold-blooded murder, which I believe that O J Simpson did. If I am not allowed to use the word murder to express this distinction, then what word should I use?

Well, you can fall back on your belief that OJ killed them and didn't even make a self-defense argument. If he did, in fact, kill them it was in cold blood. So how about cold-blooded killer?With Zimmerman, we get back to the subjective/objective argument. However, "bad" you believe Zimmerman to be, I don't think you think Zimmerman's killing of Martin was "in cold blood." His self-defense claim is really just going to be a judgment call for the judge and/or jury.

Wow...im impressed. Christo is actually talking , like in a normal conversation. I didnt know you had it in you, bravo

 

[Christo]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef Stalin

Pol Pot

So none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

But it's a serious point. I understand that you want to limit your defintions to legal terms, but it seems awfully limiting. Here's another example: OJ Simpson. I believe, with good reason I think, that he murdered two people. Now according to you, we can't use the word murder, since he was acquitted of this charge. What word should I use in it's place?

OJ's a good example. While you believe he murdered two people, we can't say with 100% certainty that he actually killed them. At least with the others there's certainty that people died at their hands or on their orders.Why can't people be satisfied with calling them killers? Zimmerman has admitted he did that.

Because for me there is a moral difference between killing someone in self-defense (as Zimmerman is claiming) and cold-blooded murder, which I believe that O J Simpson did. If I am not allowed to use the word murder to express this distinction, then what word should I use?

Well, you can fall back on your belief that OJ killed them and didn't even make a self-defense argument. If he did, in fact, kill them it was in cold blood. So how about cold-blooded killer?With Zimmerman, we get back to the subjective/objective argument. However, "bad" you believe Zimmerman to be, I don't think you think Zimmerman's killing of Martin was "in cold blood." His self-defense claim is really just going to be a judgment call for the judge and/or jury.

Wow...im impressed. Christo is actually talking , like in a normal conversation. I didnt know you had it in you, bravo

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef Stalin

Pol Pot

So none of them are murderers?

Ah, what's a thread without a Hitler reference?Dragons & Hitler, now were cookin' with gas!

But it's a serious point. I understand that you want to limit your defintions to legal terms, but it seems awfully limiting. Here's another example: OJ Simpson. I believe, with good reason I think, that he murdered two people. Now according to you, we can't use the word murder, since he was acquitted of this charge. What word should I use in it's place?

OJ's a good example. While you believe he murdered two people, we can't say with 100% certainty that he actually killed them. At least with the others there's certainty that people died at their hands or on their orders.Why can't people be satisfied with calling them killers? Zimmerman has admitted he did that.

Because for me there is a moral difference between killing someone in self-defense (as Zimmerman is claiming) and cold-blooded murder, which I believe that O J Simpson did. If I am not allowed to use the word murder to express this distinction, then what word should I use?

Well, you can fall back on your belief that OJ killed them and didn't even make a self-defense argument. If he did, in fact, kill them it was in cold blood. So how about cold-blooded killer?With Zimmerman, we get back to the subjective/objective argument. However, "bad" you believe Zimmerman to be, I don't think you think Zimmerman's killing of Martin was "in cold blood." His self-defense claim is really just going to be a judgment call for the judge and/or jury.

Wow...im impressed. Christo is actually talking , like in a normal conversation. I didnt know you had it in you, bravo

No really, im not being facetious, i like this version of christo. Not even remotely annoying

 

[timschochet]

Well, you can fall back on your belief that OJ killed them and didn't even make a self-defense argument. If he did, in fact, kill them it was in cold blood. So how about cold-blooded killer?With Zimmerman, we get back to the subjective/objective argument. However, "bad" you believe Zimmerman to be, I don't think you think Zimmerman's killing of Martin was "in cold blood." His self-defense claim is really just going to be a judgment call for the judge and/or jury.

I have no problem with that, but this discussion started because you won't use the word "murderer" unless it's in a legal context: if I'm understanding you correctly, someone has to be found guilty of murder in a court of law to be a murderer. I don't like this because it limits my vocabulary. As you point out, there is a difference between "cold-blooded killer' and "murderer"- OJ Simpson, to me, is both. About Zimmerman I don't know yet. I plan on watching the trial if it's televised. I may come to the determination that I believe him to be a murderer. This may happen even if the jury decides to disagree with me and acquits him. If that takes place, then I reserve the right to use the term "murderer" regardless of what the legal system does. To cite another instance, I'm pretty sure that Casey Anthony is a murderer. I think that's the correct term to use in her case.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef StalinPol PotSo none of them are murderers?

Not according to Christo. Pretty much explains his entire thought process.

 

[Chairshot]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef StalinPol PotSo none of them are murderers?

And we have our Hitler reference.Lock it up. :IBTL:

 

[Chaos Commish]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef Stalin

Pol Pot

So none of them are murderers?

And we have our Hitler reference.Lock it up.

:IBTL:

 

[Charlie Frown]

I disagree. If you're not found guilty of murder, you're not a murderer.

Adolf HitlerJosef StalinPol PotSo none of them are murderers?

I dunno. Do you have PROOF that they themselves actually killed anyone?

 

[fatness]

All that detailed, authoritative-sounding guesswork you posted earlier about "movements" during the incident ---- the ones supposedly proving using Google Maps that Martin of course jumped and attacked Zimmerman, posted on wagist.com and other Zimmerman=Hero sites ---- will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? If it's rock-solid stuff I don't see how he couldn't.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

All that detailed, authoritative-sounding guesswork you posted earlier about "movements" during the incident ---- the ones supposedly proving using Google Maps that Martin of course jumped and attacked Zimmerman, posted on wagist.com and other Zimmerman=Hero sites ---- will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? If it's rock-solid stuff I don't see how he couldn't.

So the location of the incident won't be brought up in trial to contest the "Zimmerman was Chasing Trayvon after the dispatcher said not to" allegations?You really think it won't?

 

[Chaos Commish]

All that detailed, authoritative-sounding guesswork you posted earlier about "movements" during the incident ---- the ones supposedly proving using Google Maps that Martin of course jumped and attacked Zimmerman, posted on wagist.com and other Zimmerman=Hero sites ---- will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? If it's rock-solid stuff I don't see how he couldn't.

I'm not convinced there will be an immunity hearing. I still think it's obvious Trayvon was not just trying to get home. He hid or made it home and went back down that sidewalk to end up at the crime scene. I cannot think of another way to get him there. None of that means George stood his ground or Trayvon broke a law. I'm fascinated by the timeline, but I'm tired of what ifs and "authoritative sounding" guess work because most of it is seriously lacking common sense based on the timeline and the calls. It's still more interesting that the childish two way character smear campaigns. Whatever happened to get them both at the scene is irrelevant to what happened at the scene. That's where the case will be argued. One issue, if resolved, settles the matter. Who was crying for help. If judge or jury cannot be convinced one way or the other, then I think George's injuries and other forensics become the most compelling information. The witnesses are pretty crappy and pretty meaningless, imo. Btw, I never messed with wagist when you went ape#@#@ about that site. I honestly tried to reconstruct the timeline alone for a week then found people doing the same thing on legal/crime blogs. Talk Left of all places has been very balanced and fair to Zimmerman based on the timeline.

 

[Chaos Commish]

In fact, here's the latest from Talk Left on Zimmerman's credibility.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The new bond hearing is on the 29th.

 

[fatness]

All that detailed, authoritative-sounding guesswork you posted earlier about "movements" during the incident ---- the ones supposedly proving using Google Maps that Martin of course jumped and attacked Zimmerman, posted on wagist.com and other Zimmerman=Hero sites ---- will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? If it's rock-solid stuff I don't see how he couldn't.

I'm not convinced there will be an immunity hearing. I still think it's obvious Trayvon was not just trying to get home. He hid or made it home and went back down that sidewalk to end up at the crime scene. I cannot think of another way to get him there. None of that means George stood his ground or Trayvon broke a law. I'm fascinated by the timeline, but I'm tired of what ifs and "authoritative sounding" guess work because most of it is seriously lacking common sense based on the timeline and the calls.

So you're just a disinterested forensic observer? Things have changed. Back then anyone who didn't accept the timeline you were pimping (from a site or sites you wouldn't mention) was "laughing in idiocy".

You seemed quite certain of all this:

Where better information is acknowledged both sides of the conversation agree Trayvon did not go home when he easily could have, and he did backtrack towards Zimmerman's vehicle. It's not in doubt except where people are ignorant of basic information. I've explained this carefully a few times using Zimmerman's call, the time, and the other calls. I've almost included the map that makes it very clear, but it pinpoints those residences. I can walk you to anonymous witness John's front door. I can do that with all the witnesses but one who may actually be John anyway. I've seen and listened to John. I've seen Trayvon refereeing fights on campus and read all his facebook and twitter junk. He was apparently supplying a friend with "plant" and that has some thinking he was a dealer.

So I'll ask you again, will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? Or at his trial?Or isn't it that solid after all?

 

[Christo]

All that detailed, authoritative-sounding guesswork you posted earlier about "movements" during the incident ---- the ones supposedly proving using Google Maps that Martin of course jumped and attacked Zimmerman, posted on wagist.com and other Zimmerman=Hero sites ---- will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? If it's rock-solid stuff I don't see how he couldn't.

I'm not convinced there will be an immunity hearing. I still think it's obvious Trayvon was not just trying to get home. He hid or made it home and went back down that sidewalk to end up at the crime scene. I cannot think of another way to get him there. None of that means George stood his ground or Trayvon broke a law. I'm fascinated by the timeline, but I'm tired of what ifs and "authoritative sounding" guess work because most of it is seriously lacking common sense based on the timeline and the calls.

So you're just a disinterested forensic observer? Things have changed. Back then anyone who didn't accept the timeline you were pimping (from a site or sites you wouldn't mention) was "laughing in idiocy".

You seemed quite certain of all this:

Where better information is acknowledged both sides of the conversation agree Trayvon did not go home when he easily could have, and he did backtrack towards Zimmerman's vehicle. It's not in doubt except where people are ignorant of basic information. I've explained this carefully a few times using Zimmerman's call, the time, and the other calls. I've almost included the map that makes it very clear, but it pinpoints those residences. I can walk you to anonymous witness John's front door. I can do that with all the witnesses but one who may actually be John anyway. I've seen and listened to John. I've seen Trayvon refereeing fights on campus and read all his facebook and twitter junk. He was apparently supplying a friend with "plant" and that has some thinking he was a dealer.

So I'll ask you again, will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? Or at his trial?Or isn't it that solid after all?

 

[Chaos Commish]

All that detailed, authoritative-sounding guesswork you posted earlier about "movements" during the incident ---- the ones supposedly proving using Google Maps that Martin of course jumped and attacked Zimmerman, posted on wagist.com and other Zimmerman=Hero sites ---- will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? If it's rock-solid stuff I don't see how he couldn't.

I'm not convinced there will be an immunity hearing. I still think it's obvious Trayvon was not just trying to get home. He hid or made it home and went back down that sidewalk to end up at the crime scene. I cannot think of another way to get him there. None of that means George stood his ground or Trayvon broke a law. I'm fascinated by the timeline, but I'm tired of what ifs and "authoritative sounding" guess work because most of it is seriously lacking common sense based on the timeline and the calls.

So you're just a disinterested forensic observer? Things have changed. Back then anyone who didn't accept the timeline you were pimping (from a site or sites you wouldn't mention) was "laughing in idiocy".

You seemed quite certain of all this:

Where better information is acknowledged both sides of the conversation agree Trayvon did not go home when he easily could have, and he did backtrack towards Zimmerman's vehicle. It's not in doubt except where people are ignorant of basic information. I've explained this carefully a few times using Zimmerman's call, the time, and the other calls. I've almost included the map that makes it very clear, but it pinpoints those residences. I can walk you to anonymous witness John's front door. I can do that with all the witnesses but one who may actually be John anyway. I've seen and listened to John. I've seen Trayvon refereeing fights on campus and read all his facebook and twitter junk. He was apparently supplying a friend with "plant" and that has some thinking he was a dealer.

So I'll ask you again, will Zimmerman's lawyer be using that at his immunity hearing to show he was standing his ground? Or at his trial?Or isn't it that solid after all?

It's solid as ever. If anything those digging into the timeline have only strengthened support for my two month old thinking.I approve everything in both quotes and your answer is in the part of today's quote you snipped. Some of you have serious comprehension issues. That's why I agreed this thread should shut down.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

So apparently Zimmerman got his bond revoked?

 

[timschochet]

The judge who revoked George Zimmerman's bond did so after he determined that it was "apparent" that Zimmerman's wife had lied under oath, and clear that Zimmerman "does not properly respect the law."

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester revoked Zimmerman's bond on June 1, but his written order was filed Monday. In it, Lester lays out his rationale.

Can this written statement by the judge (that Zimmerman does not properly respect the law) be offered into evidence at trial, in order to challenge Zimmerman's credibility?

 

[kentric]

I think using the terms "approached", "concerned neighbor" and "adult" is why we're at loggerheads here.

Angry idiot in pursuit with a gun and his mind made up is more in line with the facts, as we know them. Zimmerman has done nothing to show he is an adult in the aftermath.

Potayto, patahto.

During the confrontation, the bolded is the only thing we're certain of, the rest is speculation..

Zimmerman was an idiot before the killing and remains one, he was angry on the 911 call and wasn't exactly chipper following The killing (unless you believe getting beat up by a kid he outweighed by 40lbs would put a smile on his face), and he did in fact pursue Martin. None of that is speculation. Saying he was getting roughed up enough to legitimately fear for his life would be speculation on your part. But I'll call it BS. He just doesn't seem credible, nor reasonable.

I can't believe people still doubt the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating his ###. Hasn't this been confirmed by multiple eyewitness accounts?Somebody punches you in the nose and knocks you down is one thing but if they jump on top of you and continue pounding it is perfectly reasonable for someone to be in fear for his life IMO.

And if someone is following you to the point where you fear for your life and try to subdue them, it's perfectly reasonable to make sure the guy is knocked out so he can't reach for a weapon, like a gun.

How'd that reasoning work out in this case.. Doesn't seem so smart and reasonable to me..And there still is no proof that Zimmerman was following Trayvon to the point Trayvon was in fear for his life.

If Zimmerman chased Trayvon down and tried to detain him, and Trayvon then punched him, knocked him down, and then was holding him down thinking someone was coming to help, or to call the police for him.. That would be a legitimate reason for Trayvon to be on top.. Problem is, no one is here to testify on that scenario.. The Prosecution has criteria they have to meet. I think they're going to have a hard time meeting it..

Well, there's no proof Z was in fear for his life either other than the word of a man with several past incidents of violence and who has shown his willingness to decieve the authorities for his own protection. And when you get down to fear for your life, smart and reasonable go out the window. That's why it's called fear.As for holding him down, like I said, if TM feared for his life from this stalker, I think it's eminently reasonable to keep pounding til the follower is unconscious.

So it's reasonable for someone to beat a "stalker" unconscious but its not reasonable for someone to fear their life after being beaten up and having their head pounded on the ground?

I've never said that. But if Zimmerman got himself into a position to get his ### beat by being overzealous (a very, very proveable position) and overconfident (because he was packing), then it's entirely his fault that someone is dead. You don't get to scare someone into protecting themself and then kill them because they're winning.

You never said that, but you did say, "Well, there's no proof Z was in fear for his life..." Arguing for Martin's point and then postulating something else for Z can only be taken one way. I'll leave off the 20 so I don't come across as pompous as some other posters may.

 

[Zow]

Can this written statement by the judge (that Zimmerman does not properly respect the law) be offered into evidence at trial, in order to challenge Zimmerman's credibility?

Likely no.

 

[Sinn Fein]

 

[Witz]

Breaking News

Zimmerman's wife is arrested for perjury.

 

[pantherclub]

Breaking News

Zimmerman's wife is arrested for perjury.

shes a looker

 

[Zow]

 

[TexanFan02]

Breaking News

Zimmerman's wife is arrested for perjury.

shes a looker

She didn't sound like a shrew at all in the phone interview. Oh wait.

 

[Zow]

Breaking News

Zimmerman's wife is arrested for perjury.

i see why zimmerman roamed the neighborhood at nights.

 

[Christo]

The judge who revoked George Zimmerman's bond did so after he determined that it was "apparent" that Zimmerman's wife had lied under oath, and clear that Zimmerman "does not properly respect the law."

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester revoked Zimmerman's bond on June 1, but his written order was filed Monday. In it, Lester lays out his rationale.

Can this written statement by the judge (that Zimmerman does not properly respect the law) be offered into evidence at trial, in order to challenge Zimmerman's credibility?

It's hearsay.

 

[fatness]

So apparently Zimmerman got his bond revoked?

From that article:

The judge sent Zimmerman — the man charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin — back to jail after prosecutors alleged that Zimmerman and his wife conspired to hide from the court about $135,000 Zimmerman had collected in donations to his website. The Zimmermans spoke about the money "in code" during recorded jailhouse phone calls, prosecutors said. Then, Shellie Zimmerman told the judge during her husband's bond hearing that the couple was essentially destitute.

"It is apparent that [shellie] Zimmerman testified untruthfully at the bond hearing," the judge writes in his order. "The Defendant also testified, but did not alert the Court to the misinformation."

"Had the Court been made aware of the true financial circumstances at the bond hearing, the bond decision might have been different," Lester wrote. After finding out about the discrepancy, the judge said he was left with two options: Increasing Zimmerman's bond, or revoking it.

The judge writes that his considered several factors, most of which weighed against Zimmerman. Among them, "this is a serious charge for which life may be imposed; the evidence against him is strong; 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.

"Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process," Lester wrote. The only factors that "heavily weigh in his favor," Lester wrote, are "that he turned himself in upon the issuance of the original warrant and has kept authorities abreast of his current location."

 

[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?

 

[TexanFan02]

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?

Yes, I'm sure he'll use the "Wagist" website, which was set up as a pro-zimmerman site. Especially the part where they apologized for their shoddy journalism, yet continued to do it.

 

[timschochet]

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?

 

[Christo]

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.

 

[TexanFan02]

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?

Depends.

 

[Christo]

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?

 

[TexanFan02]

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?

 

[timschochet]

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...

 

[BustedKnuckles]

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?

i think he meant can they use the fact that zimmerman is incredibly violent

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Breaking News

Zimmerman's wife is arrested for perjury.

shes a looker

too much toast..

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Breaking News

Zimmerman's wife is arrested for perjury.

shes a looker

too much toast..

they can get fat together in jail...how sweet

 

[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?

Yes, I'm sure he'll use the "Wagist" website, which was set up as a pro-zimmerman site. Especially the part where they apologized for their shoddy journalism, yet continued to do it.

Can this be used as evidence towards your credibility?

 

[Christo]

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...

The general rule is that only convictions are admissible. And then only if the prosecution can show that the probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

 

[Zow]

The judge who revoked George Zimmerman's bond did so after he determined that it was "apparent" that Zimmerman's wife had lied under oath, and clear that Zimmerman "does not properly respect the law."

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester revoked Zimmerman's bond on June 1, but his written order was filed Monday. In it, Lester lays out his rationale.

Can this written statement by the judge (that Zimmerman does not properly respect the law) be offered into evidence at trial, in order to challenge Zimmerman's credibility?

It's hearsay.

Yeah I could imagine the logistical nightmare of calling the judge to testify. That and the judge's finding on Zimmerman's respect for the state law regarding bonding is completely irrelevant to whether he reasonably believed deadly force was needed to defend himself.

 

[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...

The general rule is that only convictions are admissible. And then only if the prosecution can show that the probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

And were either crimes of moral terpitude or felonies committed in the last x number of years. His diverted prior charge and injunction should not be coming in.