TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

BillT wrote:Rule #2. No personal attacks on other members - NONE! We can be respectful even in disagreement. If you're talking about the person rather than the issue, then the post will be deleted.

Please see CROSSFIRES post above: apparently talking about the person rather than the issue is not a violation of Rule #2 as I always thought. This rule needs to be corrected!

You are just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton but you speak on behalf of the other side of the arguement with the other half of the facts. The Sharpton's, Jackson's, Cotton's, and TAM's of the world just need to chill out and let the judicial process play out.

Congratulations! It is really hard to get banned from this forum, but you have shown your lack of respect for the forum and it's members by your repeated insults and violation of forum protocols. I believe that it will be an easy decision for those making it.
You were welcomed to this established forum and, in short order, proceeded to insult the administrator, moderators and long time members. IMO, your posts were rude and showed bad manners. A bit of advice: You don't tug on Superman's cape.

for BillT to be banned.

Crossfire wrote:

BillT wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Bill in case you mised it. GZ has a righ to remain silent. If you have ever been in a court proceeding the first thing your attorney tells you to do is to KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT. If shelly lied, which is far from clear, george still did not lie. You don't speak out of turn in court. Additionally the judge refused a continuance so Omara could get up to speed, and the judge knew about the account before Z even got out of jail the first time. In his ruling the judge showed ridiculous animosity towards Z, and basically told Omara to hades with the facts. It is not just Z's word. It is the 911 call, Z's injuries and TM's lack of them, and a witness statement that z has on his side all before his story is even told.

This is agood old fashioned railroading and it is terrible to see.

BillT, here's hoping that you get exactly the same treatment that GZ is getting should you ever have to use your weapon in self defense.....exactly the same treatment, and all of it that you can stand.

If it weren't a violation of RULE #2, I would make the same personal attack against you, but I'm trying to stay above that and be respectful of others, even the ones that disagree with me!!! The risk facing Mr. Zimmerman is a risk choice we all make when we choose to carry. Hopefully if I find myself in a horrible self defense situation I will be the survivor and the circumstances of my innocence will be clear to all. I won't ever be in Zimmerman's specific situation because as a rule I move in the opposite direction of potential trouble and conflict instead of moving towards it. He made a different choice than I would have in following Martin. That single choice has made his life much more difficult. But it was his choice... BTW, please avoid the RULE #2 violations! With 11,098 post I thought you might know that by now! Let's keep this forum a respectful place. Thank you.

It is only a personal attack if you believe Mr. Zimmerman has been treated unfairly. According to the general tone of your posts, you do not believe that. So, no rule violation here.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

BillT wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

BillT wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Bill in case you mised it. GZ has a righ to remain silent. If you have ever been in a court proceeding the first thing your attorney tells you to do is to KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT. If shelly lied, which is far from clear, george still did not lie. You don't speak out of turn in court. Additionally the judge refused a continuance so Omara could get up to speed, and the judge knew about the account before Z even got out of jail the first time. In his ruling the judge showed ridiculous animosity towards Z, and basically told Omara to hades with the facts. It is not just Z's word. It is the 911 call, Z's injuries and TM's lack of them, and a witness statement that z has on his side all before his story is even told.

This is agood old fashioned railroading and it is terrible to see.

Your right mamabearCali! He had the right to remain silent and he exercised that right. People under indictment do that all the time, usually to help themselves. In his case he exercised his right at a tremendous cost to himself. Don't confuse a bond hearing with a trial, it is a vastly different process that has different goals. He had plenty of time before the bond hearing to tell his lawyer about the paypal account but he chose not to. GZ is not getting any special treatment and that bothers a lot of people. I see people who are accused of serious crimes treated like him everyday here in Texas. I'm withholding judgement of GZ because I have not seen all the evidence nor have I sat through his trial. You seem to have reached your conclusion. Fortunately we have a lot more checks and balances in our judicial system that you don't seem willing to patiently wait for. From what I see in the news, anyone who thinks he is guilty or innocent has the ability to selectively read the available information OR they have a predisposed bias that they won't admit to themselves or anyone else.

While it is true that no one should prejudge until all of the evidence has been evaluated, there are several factors that strongly indicate this man's conduct was probably justified under Florida law. First, the lack of an arrest by the police who investigated the case is significant. Extreme political and media pressure brought on numerous elected and quasi-political figures resulting in the appointment of a "special prosecutor" to placate the media is significant. (It was the media that chose to use a photo of Travon Martin at age 12, intentionally leading the public to believe that a "child" had been killed.) The appointment of a so-called special prosecutor who didn't bother to take a high-profile case to the Grand Jury is significant. The judge's refusal to dismiss the charges on one of the worst probable cause affidavits I've ever seen is significant. Setting a million dollar bond for a man with no prior criminal history and no evidence of being a flight risk is significant.

Also, bond is supposed to be set at a reasonable level to assure appearance in court. It's not supposed to be designed to drain all financial resources leaving them unable to hire competent counsel.

At this point, the only people I believe acted responsibly, ethically and professionally are the police who were not willing to arrest a man when the evidence did not support an arrest, solely because it would have been politically expedient.

Chas.

Chas. your contradiction surprised me! Your first words were "While it's true no one should prejudge until all the evidence is evaluated..." you then proceed to prejudge!!!!!! As an attorney I thought you knew better than that. There is ample information in the public domain that may have equal weight and cast equal doubt on his innocence as well as his guilt. How come you didn't list that as well??? Is it because you prejudged? Do you have a bias? Believe it or not, not all the evidence is in the public domain. This is true for defense and the prosecution. A lot of what has been reported in the public domain is not accurate or it's incomplete. Do you disagree? Have you had any kind of special access? I doubt it. I'm only suggesting you and others to let this play out. For years I've seen over and over in this forum the old saying "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". How come the majority on this forum, including it's founder, don't want to wait for that? This case is being tried in the media and in forums like this one all over the country. No one I've read the comments of, including you I assume, have had the chance to review anything close to the complete, original, and total evidence in this case. I don't have a dog in this fight. I personally don't care if he is guilty of murder or proved innocent by self defense. Either way two individuals and their families have been severely impacted by all of this. Very sad for all of them.

Now I wish I had left in a paragraph I deleted before posting. You clearly have "judged" Mr. Zimmerman as guilty, your claim to being unbiased notwithstanding. Otherwise, you too would decry the injustice in the amount of the required bond. Setting a reasonable bond is not tantamount to proclaiming him innocent, it's a constitutional requirement, absent extenuating circumstances that do not exist in this case.

Note that I never said he was innocent under Florida statues; I pointed out facts that are significant in the poor handling of this case. These occurred after the decision by the police dept. not to arrest Mr. Zimmerman.

There are no contradictions in my statement, though I made the mistake of using the vague term "prejudge." That's a meaningless term that people throw around all the time. None of us can "judge" because we don't have the power to do so. We all can and do evaluate evidence and circumstances; I do this as an attorney and I did it as a LEO. Arrests were made or not made depending upon my evaluation of the evidence, even though I didn't have the authority to "judge." I make recommendations to my clients about their legal rights, exposure and potential recovery based upon my evaluation of the available evidence, even though I do not have the authority to be the "judge" on the issue.

You have made very general comments, now how about some evidence to substantiate your comments.

• What evidence exists to controvert my statement that the police investigation apparently didn't lead them to believe an arrest was warranted?
  Please comment on the contents of the arrest warrant issued.
  Please comment on the "special prosecutor's" decision not to take a high profile case to a grand jury.
  Please show us where Florida law required Mr. Zimmerman to retreat before using deadly force.
  Please show us the evidence that controverts Mr. Zimmerman's statements to police, or that controverts the medical records that prove he suffered injuries consistent with his statements.
  Show me where my statement about the legal justification for bail is incorrect.

You have stated “There is ample information in the public domain that may have equal weight and cast equal doubt on his innocence as well as his guilt.” What evidence? Don’t give vague and global statements, show us the evidence. Did it come from the mouth of Jesse Jackson, or perhaps from Al Sharpton both of whom demanded Mr. Zimmerman's arrest without have any information/evidence other than the fact that Mr. Zimmerman was allegedly white (not) and the Travon was black? Did it come from the media that used a photo of Travon when he was 12 years old?

You asked if I am biased? No, I just don’t like people ignoring the constitution (bail) or the law (Florida self-defense laws) or prudent procedures (grand jury) because special-interests groups around the country started pontificating how the police were wrong in not arresting Mr. Zimmerman. Now I’ll ask you the same question; are you biased? I strongly believe you are.

You made the statement that people are treated like Mr. Zimmerman all the time, implying that it's okay. On what do you base that statement? Are you an attorney? Are you a LEO? Are you an investigator for a DA’s office?

How about some specifics to back up your unfounded claims?

Chas.

57Coastie wrote:

BillT wrote: ...This case is being tried in the media and in forums like this one all over the country...

Indeed it has Bill, indeed it has. This forum has obviously acquitted Zimmerman by a vast majority.

The new Seminole County Judge now hearing the case, Judge Lester, has been praised in the past for his impartiality. I reckon there may be questions raised about that now, as his intemperate words on the issue of bail appear to me to not bode well for Zimmerman when, and now if, the defense moves for a hearing before him on the troublesome self-defense issue. If that occurs, and the defense motion is denied, we will no doubt see another 100 posts by the jury here.

Jim

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Bill in case you mised it. GZ has a righ to remain silent. If you have ever been in a court proceeding the first thing your attorney tells you to do is to KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT. If shelly lied, which is far from clear, george still did not lie. You don't speak out of turn in court. Additionally the judge refused a continuance so Omara could get up to speed, and the judge knew about the account before Z even got out of jail the first time. In his ruling the judge showed ridiculous animosity towards Z, and basically told Omara to hades with the facts. It is not just Z's word. It is the 911 call, Z's injuries and TM's lack of them, and a witness statement that z has on his side all before his story is even told.

This is agood old fashioned railroading and it is terrible to see.

BillT, here's hoping that you get exactly the same treatment that GZ is getting should you ever have to use your weapon in self defense.....exactly the same treatment, and all of it that you can stand.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

BillT wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Bill in case you mised it. GZ has a righ to remain silent. If you have ever been in a court proceeding the first thing your attorney tells you to do is to KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT. If shelly lied, which is far from clear, george still did not lie. You don't speak out of turn in court. Additionally the judge refused a continuance so Omara could get up to speed, and the judge knew about the account before Z even got out of jail the first time. In his ruling the judge showed ridiculous animosity towards Z, and basically told Omara to hades with the facts. It is not just Z's word. It is the 911 call, Z's injuries and TM's lack of them, and a witness statement that z has on his side all before his story is even told.

This is agood old fashioned railroading and it is terrible to see.

Your right mamabearCali! He had the right to remain silent and he exercised that right. People under indictment do that all the time, usually to help themselves. In his case he exercised his right at a tremendous cost to himself. Don't confuse a bond hearing with a trial, it is a vastly different process that has different goals. He had plenty of time before the bond hearing to tell his lawyer about the paypal account but he chose not to. GZ is not getting any special treatment and that bothers a lot of people. I see people who are accused of serious crimes treated like him everyday here in Texas. I'm withholding judgement of GZ because I have not seen all the evidence nor have I sat through his trial. You seem to have reached your conclusion. Fortunately we have a lot more checks and balances in our judicial system that you don't seem willing to patiently wait for. From what I see in the news, anyone who thinks he is guilty or innocent has the ability to selectively read the available information OR they have a predisposed bias that they won't admit to themselves or anyone else.

While it is true that no one should prejudge until all of the evidence has been evaluated, there are several factors that strongly indicate this man's conduct was probably justified under Florida law. First, the lack of an arrest by the police who investigated the case is significant. Extreme political and media pressure brought on numerous elected and quasi-political figures resulting in the appointment of a "special prosecutor" to placate the media is significant. (It was the media that chose to use a photo of Travon Martin at age 12, intentionally leading the public to believe that a "child" had been killed.) The appointment of a so-called special prosecutor who didn't bother to take a high-profile case to the Grand Jury is significant. The judge's refusal to dismiss the charges on one of the worst probable cause affidavits I've ever seen is significant. Setting a million dollar bond for a man with no prior criminal history and no evidence of being a flight risk is significant.

Also, bond is supposed to be set at a reasonable level to assure appearance in court. It's not supposed to be designed to drain all financial resources leaving them unable to hire competent counsel.

At this point, the only people I believe acted responsibly, ethically and professionally are the police who were not willing to arrest a man when the evidence did not support an arrest, solely because it would have been politically expedient.

Chas.

mamabearCali wrote:Bill in case you mised it. GZ has a righ to remain silent. If you have ever been in a court proceeding the first thing your attorney tells you to do is to KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT. If shelly lied, which is far from clear, george still did not lie. You don't speak out of turn in court. Additionally the judge refused a continuance so Omara could get up to speed, and the judge knew about the account before Z even got out of jail the first time. In his ruling the judge showed ridiculous animosity towards Z, and basically told Omara to hades with the facts. It is not just Z's word. It is the 911 call, Z's injuries and TM's lack of them, and a witness statement that z has on his side all before his story is even told.

This is agood old fashioned railroading and it is terrible to see.

VMI77 wrote:

BillT wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:That possibility was popular with a number of people on this forum when the situation was first exposed. However, as more and more information (both right, wrong, and altered) was released/leaked, those people mostly fell by the wayside. At this point, the only official statement is the "affidavit of probable cause", which appears to be full of unsupported claims, speculation, and willful misrepresentations, with no mention of any evidence not already known. We also have the 911 calls. We only know what we know. Thats all we have to go on.

Since you seem to think that more is known, why wasn't additional evidence mentioned in the affidavit? The experienced prosecutor MUST have know that was a very weak affidavit.

IANAL but... Here (I think) is the quick answer to your question: http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/affida ... ble-cause/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Angela Corey did not indict George Zimmerman. A judge did. The judge considers the affidavit or affidavits as well as any other evidence and then decides whether to issue an arrest warrant The affidavit does not have to include the most specific details of an alleged crime, but only the basis that the prosecution believes that the crime was committed. The affidavit certainly accomplished that. Perhaps there are not more specific details because they choose not to have them debated by the public additionally contaminating the jury pool. They still have the burden of proof to present in court in order to convince a jury of guilt. My guess is that there is additional evidence that will be presented at the trial that will attempt to support the 2nd degree murder charge. What I have seen debated in the media doesn't appear to support anything worse than a manslaughter charge. It is only speculation on my part and I am ready to withhold judgement until both sides present the case and a jury reaches a decision. It's that "due process" thing and we all will have to wait to know the outcome.

It most certainly did not. That it didn't was stated outright by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on national television --a liberal, but apparently an honest one. Furthermore, he called the prosecutor "irresponsible" and "unethical." Your evaluation of it also doesn't square with the fact that it is full of outright lies and gross misrepresentations. This isn't "due process" either, since the normal process was overturned for political reasons, with an obviously directed outcome. Satisfying the mob isn't due process.

sjfcontrol wrote:That possibility was popular with a number of people on this forum when the situation was first exposed. However, as more and more information (both right, wrong, and altered) was released/leaked, those people mostly fell by the wayside. At this point, the only official statement is the "affidavit of probable cause", which appears to be full of unsupported claims, speculation, and willful misrepresentations, with no mention of any evidence not already known. We also have the 911 calls. We only know what we know. Thats all we have to go on.

Since you seem to think that more is known, why wasn't additional evidence mentioned in the affidavit? The experienced prosecutor MUST have know that was a very weak affidavit.