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.
for BillT to be banned. 
