By NBC’s Jamie Novogrod
Seminole County Sheriff’s Office
Shellie Zimmerman, wife of George Zimmerman, who killed Trayvon Martin, was arrested Tuesday on one count of perjury, the Seminole County, Fla., Sheriff’s Department said.
Deputies arrested Shellie Zimmerman, 25, about 3:30 p.m. ET, after they were advised by the office of State Attorney Angela Corey that a warrant had been issued.
She was booked into John E. Polk Correctional Facility and released on $1,000 bond, officials said.
George Zimmerman, 28, was charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 shooting of Martin. He pleaded not guilty. Police say that he claimed on the night of the shooting that he acted in self-defense.
See more msnbc.com coverage of the Trayvon Martin case
His $150,000 bond was revoked after allegations that during an April 20 bail hearing he and Shellie Zimmeran misled the court about their finances, neglecting to disclose they had raised at least $135,000 in a PayPal account.
The order issued Tuesday by Assistant State Attorney John Guy charged Shellie Zimmerman with knowingly making false statements during the April hearing.
Also Tuesday, the court released Seminole County Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester’s order revoking George Zimmerman’s bond.
ouch… bad day for the Zimmermans.
Also released was Judge Lester’s revocation of the bond order, where he gives GZ a serious dressing down.
Quoting a precedent as to the factors considered when granting bail bond, among which are character and strength of evidence and probability of guilt, and the accused’s respect for the law and their character, Judge Lester wrote this scathing last paragraph:
For whatever certainty pundits and public have about any “weakness” of the State’s case, it is obviously not shared by the Judge. I guess the advantages of being privy to more than what is reported by media and blogs.
Lester also made references to the lack of disclosure about the 2nd and more recent passport, and included this in his consideration.
Needless to say, if Zimmerman and O’Mara were hoping for an immunity hearing, which places the burden of proof on the defendant (and based largely on credibility that the account of events is true), this ain’t the time. Right now GZ should be hoping that the Judge will even consider giving him a bail bond opportunity sometime in the future…. which, according to O’Mara’s legal site, is the June 29th hearing.
@MataHarley:
God how you disgust me, and most of the other “conservatives” here on FA, Mata.
You’re as predictable as the day is long. You’re no better than the worst of those who lynch black people in the deep south.
Like this gal’s arrest has ANYTHING to do with the drug-dealer who was killed, thank the lord by Zimmerman.
It has NOTHING to do with it, Mata “Get a Rope” Harley.
Good God! Is this judge deliberately trying to get this trial thrown out and declared a mistrial in the event that GZ is found guilty?
Is there anyone on the prosecutor’s side of this that isn’t a part of the Marx Brothers?
Does anyone know the alleged facts behind the Shellie Zimmerman charges? Without details, I can only presume it is government persecution of the Zimmerman family.
And the lynching of George Zimmerman continues.
I am George Zimmerman. I am Matthew Owens.
Mine is dry.
@Mannie:
Here is a portion of the transcript from the bond hearing (emphasis added by me):
And here’s a media account of the audio taped jailhouse phone conversations:
In short, Mrs. Z lied about a) the existence of the fundraising assets and b) her knowledge regarding the amount of those fundraising assets. She clearly told her hubby they had a total of “like $155.” She then told the Court she didn’t know (and couldn’t even estimate).
Here is a link to the capias. Take time to read the whole thing.
It’s damning for the missus.
Hey Aye,
How much are Tiswin and Winchesters fetching these days?
Ivan said:
“You’re no better than the worst of those who lynch black people in the deep south”. really Ivan? Seems you’ve been lynching Trayvon Martin since day one…………Hey I’ve got a pot the same color as your kettle peckerwood. Oh and just and FYI, Aye and Mata have more respect from the other”conservatives” on here then you ever will. They’ve been posting and authoring on this sight long before your little punk ass showed up so do yourself a favor and recognize that you are just the newbie loudmouth of the month. Nothing more and nothing less.
Ron H.
Trayvon was a drug-dealer. No one disputes that.
Zimmerman is innocent, everyone knows that.
There in lies the rub.
Ivan:
Actually you are assuming Zimmerman is innocent so unless you were there and witnessed the shooting (which you didn’t) I’d say you are blowing smoke up your own ass. But I realize you are just happy that the black teen is dead so you know……
@Ivan: @Mannie:
Before we take up that collection for Mrs. Zimmerman’s new prison cell window curtains perhaps the fair minded might to read this too:
Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript), by William A. Jacobson Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 12:20pm
Akin to “Criminal Justice” in a Third World kleptocracy perhaps?
Do we have a rouge prosecutor in this Angela Corey?
@Ron H.: @Ivan:
And that Ivan is how a mob treats an advocate for the innocent scapegoat. Kind of SOP.
So Ivan, this Zimmerman fellow …
@Ivan:
Now Ivan was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were defending George Zimmerman,” she said.
70***
71Then Ivan went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow claimed that George Zimmerman was innocent of murder.”
72***
73After a little while, those standing there went up to Ivan and said, “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.”
74 ***
So Ivan, this Zimmerman fellow …
@Aye:
Picking up where you, and the prosecution, left off in order to taint the entire testimony for a claim of perjury:
A. rpresents Shellie Zimmerman’s responses to questions during her testimony:
Q. Okay. Where you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A. I’m aware of that website.
Q. And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was..
A. Currently, I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
A. That would be my brother-in-law.
Q. And is he–I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak with him, too, or the Coourt can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A. I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q. Okay. So he’s not there now.
A. No, he is not, sir.
Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven’t talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amounts of how much money?
A. No, no, I have not.
You see, when Shellie Zimmerman’s entire testimony is provided, it shines a totally different light on the testimony than claimed by Aye, and the persecution team of Angela Crump.
And to quote Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense lawyer (which Aye and Mata are not):
“Not to be overlooked is that the prosecutor on cross-examination never asked Shellie Zimmerman if she had discussed the amounts raised by the website with George Zimmerman. He asked her where she had discussed the amounts with her brother-in-law, whom she said was the person who would know the amount of the funds in the account. She even said he was probably available to answer via telephone, but the prosecutor dropped the issue.
The prosecution also has never provided the court with any documentation, that we know of, that shows any money was transferred from the PayPal account to any of the accounts held by the Zimmermans. But what the persecution team of Corey did do was provide the court with a redacted edition of the testimony of Shellie Zimmerman to make their claim of perjury on her part. As did Aye.
If you are really interested in this case, and the overreaching of the persecution team, I suggest you take the time to read this:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/5/223228/5631
And for the judge to state “the evidence him is strong” is setting the court up for a reversal of any verdict as the court now appears to have information of evidence of guilt that the persecution team has yet to provide to the defense. In the initial bond hearing, the court decided that George Zimmerman was not a flight risk. The court now seems to have reversed its own prior opinion, based on evidence that has yet to be presented to the court.
Bond is not punishment. It is based on the severity of the crime, the flight risk of the accused, not on the ability to provide the court with tons of money. If that were the case, then a millionaire who has been accused of criminal violence against his wife could be driven into bankruptcy by the court.
Might be inconvenient to point out the obvious….
Please note that the brother in law is significant only when asking for *a current balance*. But it’s hard to argue against the *very* specific question that followed – “Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
While it’s quite understandable that Ms. Zimmerman may not have an up to date, to the penny amount (the previous question where the brother in law was pertinent), she most certainly knew about transfers they had done – even had the brother in law been instrumental in facilitating them – simply because the Zimmerman’s discussions about those very transfers were caught on phone recordings.
Reading comprehension is not an art confined only to those that practice law.
@MataHarley:
But crystal ball gazing seems to be the forte of those who want to pretend that “I don’t know” is a statement that can be held up as a lie. So tell us, Mata, how much money do you have in your checking account. Be careful now, you must give it to the penny, or else you will be guilty of presenting false information. And, it is also up to you to determine if the “you” I used in my question refers to you, personally, or to you in the general sense as in you and your spouse.
When you admit that even law professors (Durshowitz and Jacobson) have pointed out that the affidavits provided by the persecution team are outside the boundries of ethical prosecutorial behavior, I think you, as a lay person, should bow to their expertise.
But we know you won’t.
Crystal ball gazing… hummm Let’s see:
Apparently reading comprehension is a lost art to those who look at print that says “I do not”, and read “I don’t know”, and that sees the words “any estimate”, and interprets that as “to the penny”.
Mata,
Be you always so cantankerous?
Let me explain this to you. You’re wrong.
Only you, Aye and Ron H are backing the drug-dealer.
Will you ever admit you are wrong?
Me thinks you’re losing your mind!
Every day you speak in defense of Trayvon is a bad day.
@MataHarley:
You know what is funny? I’ll tell you; the fact you and Aye are defending a Piece of ship like Martin. HE WAS A DRUG DEALING BASTARD…ANY OXYGEN THEIF!
How is that for “pointing out the obvious”?
@MataHarley:
It’s funny…when her hubby asked her a materially similar question in the jailhouse she didn’t have any problem at all estimating the amount for him:
Strange how she was besieged with sudden onset amnesia when placed under oath…
@Mike O’Malley:
I know. If you disagree with Aye, Mata and Ron they demonize you.
Do you like how if one is ebullient that Martin is taking a dirt-nap because he’s a drug-dealer, like I am, it really means I’m happy that Martin is dead because he’s an African-American.
They are more leftist than the leftists. They represent the worse element of our “conservative” movement and are the reason we lost in 2008.
Who ever dumped me on post #18 had better identify themselves.
@retire05:
Indeed.
I listened to a full radio interview of Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz wherein he challenged State Attorney Angela Corey to a debate (on a Jacksonville news radio show.) During this interview Dershowitz tells of numerous emails from area defense counsel’s and even members of Corey’s professional staff who have had similar experiences with Corey’s unprofessional and unethical behaviour.
One might expect that the professional opinions of Prof. Dershowitz and Jacobson would carry substantial weight.
Cowards.
@Mike O’Malley:
Mata has made references to the liberal Talkleft.com articles by Jeralyn Merritt. But what Mata did not do is point out that Professor Jacobson pretty much has the same questions about the actions of Angela Corey and her persecution team as does Merritt, as well as does Professor Alan Durshowitz. And although Durshowitz admits to being a liberal politically, one can hardly apply that label to William Jacobson. What Mata has done is basically state that Merritt, while liberal politically, cannot be an objective observer of the travesty of this case because of her political stance. Can we then also say that Professor Jacobson cannot be objective in a legal sense because he is a conservative?
This case has all the aspects of another infamous case where the racebaiters and bottom feeders immediately attached themselves to it: the Duke LaCross case that eventually destroyed an ambitious prosecutor’s career and managed to (if I remember correctly) get him disbarred. Those young men were convicted in the court of public opinion fueled by an over zealous prosecutor who was willing to twist evidence, helped along by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Jackson swore that he personally would cover the costs of Crystal Magnum’s college education. Wonder if they are now giving her classes while she is in jail for murder?
So where do those young men go to get their reputations back? They will always be known as the “Duke LaCross” boys who were accused of a severe crime. That can never be put back into the bottle.
This case, the Martin/Zimmerman case, was portrayed by the media as a “white on black” crime from the minute that Benjamin Crump, who hired Raul Julison’s PR firm, got involved. Crump knew that without an arrest, and subsequent charges, under Florida law he would have no grounds for a wrongful death suit against a number of entities. Crump needed an arrest in order to facilitate a payday. Then a number of other unethical players got involved, mainly to take on SYG laws and concealed carry laws that they object to as opponents of the Second Amendment. George Zimmerman, and now his wife, Shellie, are just being used as bait in the attempt to land bigger fish.
Oh fer heavens sake… expand your horizons of reading a bit, and do try and spend a little less time trying to tell everyone what I “basically state”. Mike and I have had this conversation at another thread, and every one can read my own words, and not those of someone who can’t read simple words like “any estimate” or “I do not”.
INRE JeraLyn and your new best friend, Talk Left, what I said was:
Oh yes… since Ms. Merritt also writes for Huffpo and FireDogLake, I’ll assume you won’t be sticking your nose in the air in the future when someone provides you a HuffPo link, right?
@MataHarley:
My “new best friend Talkleft?”
Do you have to work at being a shrew, or does it just come naturally?
@retire05:
Retired05 and Mike: I”m enjoying the THRASHING that you guys are dishing out to Mata “Get a Rope” Harley.
Keep it up!
Ivan:
I dumped on you on post# 18. Whatcha gonna do about it champ other than just piss and moan?
Mike said:
And that Ivan is how a mob treats an advocate for the innocent scapegoat. Kind of SOP.
Matthew 26:69Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said.
70But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.
71Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
72He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!”
73After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.”
74Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!”
So Ivan, this Zimmerman fellow …
Ummm yeah that made no sense and you make no sense. I have never said that Trayvon Martin was innocent and George Zimmerman was guilty. I have said however that there is a possibility that Trayvon may have instigated the physical confrontation. The thing is Mikey I really don’t know. I wasn’t there and neither were you. I merely weighed in on the fact that Ivan the terrible has from day one stated that Trayvon was guilty and deserved what he got. And Ivan has accused others of being “race traitors” so I question if he in fact is a racist. So Mikey know what you are talking about before you post stupid comments using bad biblical analogies. Man you think you are smarter than you actually are. Geesh.
Ivan:
Please explain why you called Aye a “race traitor” for defending the possible innocence of Trayvon Martin. How is he a race traitor? Did you mean that he was betraying the white race for standing up for a black teenager? Oh and where do you and the other peckerwoods meet for the Klan rallies? Do you wear one of those funny little hats or are you not high enough in rank to own one? Just curious…..
@Aye:
Thanks. Apparently Mrs Zimmerman had offered to bring in her brother (in law?) who had detailed knowledge of the funds situation. The persecution [sic] demurred. That is starting to say to me, that they are just out to get her. They are persecuting the Zimmerman family to advance their foul racist goals.
@Mannie:
She did indeed offer to bring in the BIL to speak specifically to the website itself and the associated PayPal account.
That offer, however, does not let her off the hook for being deceptive in her own responses to the Court.
@Ron H.:
You can’t lynch a dead man. You can’t slander him, either. What has been, and is being done, is to explore Martin’s character and apparent motivations. The information that has been unearthed about the Martin thug, validates George’s self defense claim at the best, and established a ton of reasonable doubt at the worst.
The continued persecution of George Zimmerman is criminal and abhorrent.
@Ron H.:
That’s the way it works in this country. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You are the one who needs to come up with a witness.
You have demonstrated that you are just another Liberal race baiter. Crawl back under your rock.
@Mannie:
Fair enough.
Yet, you wrote this just a couple of posts above:
Hard to square that circle bud.
Seems that you wanna apply the “innocent til proven guilty” standard to Z only.
Why is that?
@MataHarley:
That question is a legal trap. Her answer that she does not have an estimate is not specific enough to constitute perjury, and the persecutor apparently let her off the hook. Prove that she had an estimate. Define how that estimate would have been generated. Now, if he had asked her, “Do you have any idea …” She would have been firmly on the hook.
It’s a lot like Clinton’s “It depends on what the definition of is is.”
@Aye:
I don’t see how her answer that she did not have an estimate was sufficiently deceptive as to constitute perjury. The persecutor did not try hard enough to pin her down on her knowledge. One more question would have done it, but he apparently let her slip.
I have testified similarly in Court on an engineering matter. I was asked “Do you have an opinion on …”
“No sir.”
“Why not?”
“Because I have not been retained to formulate one.”
Now I have an opinion on everything. But I had not done enough work( because they wouldn’t pay me) to form a Professional Opinion. This line of questioning is similar, even though she is not a Professional. Estimates can be dangerous things. They bite.
@Mannie:
In the jailhouse conversations she had no problem giving her husband an estimate:
I encourage you to take the time to read the entire capias.
It’s only six pages long and details out everything in meticulous detail.
@Aye:
Martin is not on trial. He is dead. He cannot be harmed. He also has a history that is apparently consistent with Zimmerman’s story. Since he can’t testify, and there are apparently no useful witnesses, the only things we have to go on are Zimmerman’s words, the physical evidence, and Martin’s history interpreted in the worst possible way. Those are consistent with a solid finding of reasonable doubt at the minimum, and an exoneration by reason of justifiable homicide at the best.
@Aye:
That is irrelevant. That was then. This is now. To prove that she made a specific material false statement which the person believes not to be true at the time of testimony, requires more than one question. If she had bored in, the persecutor could have nailed down the charge, but she was sloppy. It may be a technicality, but I don’t see where Shellie’s statement meets the technical and very narrow definition of perjury.
This is nothing more than a political persecution of the Zimmerman family.
@Mannie:
Have you read the capias?
Have you read the transcripts or viewed the video of the bond hearing?
I would encourage you to do both of those things at a minimum in order to establish a basic understanding of this issue.
What apparently remains a problem for many is understanding the State’s charge of 2nd degree murder, and what they have to prove to get a conviction.
There are three elements to proving a 2nd degree murder charge:
1: The victim is dead
2: The accused committed a “criminal act” which is defined as a series of events or actions that created the dangerous condition that led to the death (i.e. pursue, follow, hunt, etc)
3: The accused demonstrated a “depraved mind” which is defined as an utter disregard for human life (i.e. setting out on foot, armed, knowing that a confrontation could be the result and the use of the gun necessary)
What this means is that Zimmerman is not being tried because he shot Martin while losing a fight. He is being tried for the events that led up to that fight. Martin’s character has nothing to do with Zimmerman’s actions leading to the confrontation because Martin was not doing anything illegal.
To drive home the reality of how a 2nd degree murder charge is prosecuted, Judge Lester’s order about sealing witness names and Zimmerman’s statements to the police makes it VERY clear what the State is going to try and prove, and how Zimmerman’s statements are not tantamount to a confession, and will be admitted and released:
Martin’s character is not on trial for a 2nd degree murder charge. Zimmerman’s actions, decisions… and that may include Zimmerman’s own character and past, are. Since Martin was not engaged in any illegal activity, was where he had a right to be, and Zimmerman did not know Martin or his past, it will all be irrelevant. It is, however, the favorite talking point of those who do not understand the elements of the charge.
GZ is not being persecuted. His fate is in the hands of a jury after a trial with presentation of the evidence, in full, of how that evening’s events came down. What has been obvious from the beginning is that the media’s portrayal of GZ’s statements has left enough questions about how the tragic event happened to warrant reopening the prematurely closed investigation. Upon doing so, the State felt there was enough evidence to charge him with second degree murder because of his choices and decisions that evening.
This is what we are about in this country, and for the life of me, I can’t understand such resistance to our judicial system running it’s course.
INRE all this babbling and use of the words “lynching”, that has been coming from the Zimmerman devotee camp as the last desperate act whenever anyone dares to acknowledge that the State may just have a case for proving the very specific elements of second degree murder.
Apparently the Judge, after seeing the increased documentation in the case file since the May 15th release of evidence, agrees. That is his right, and his fiduciary duty as a presiding Judge, to express an opinion that there is enough strong evidence for the trial to go forward. If he didn’t feel there was enough evidence… even from the affidavit… he would have stopped the process. It’s his job to make determinations of evidence as compelling enough, or not. So all this ballyhoo is just more spilled milk.
The last thing I will again say is that those that are pushing the non existant racial aspects of this (Sharpton, NBPP etal) are despicable. But just as despicable are those that cast judgement on the character of Martin merely to bolster their belief that Zimmerman is innocent as the day is long.
The saddest part about this is that Zimmerman will be responsible for a new push on our RKBA because he is the poster child of an irresponsible adult with a CCW permit. With gun ownership comes increased and stringent responsibilities, and Zimmerman’s actions prior to the confrontation that evening… most especially were he acting as a neighborhood watch captain… demonstrate nothing to be admired. He was a man who made some very poor decisions, and unfortunately both he and Martin are paying/have paid the price for that.
That is possibly the most desperate and pathetic attempt to explain away legal realities I’ve read here, and believe me there have been no shortage of pathetic attempts.
It takes one question to establish that Ms. Zimmerman was, indeed, lying. With that context, easily proved by calls and account records, the other statements that might have been explained away are, and will likely be, considered supporting evidence that perjury was Ms. Zimmerman’s intent.
The odd thing is that while the Zimmerman devotees are busy spinning legal realities furiously, GZ’s own legal counsel admits this was a major error, and a huge hit to his client’s credibility. At least GZ’s own attorney isn’t fool enough to defend the indefensible. And GZ has far more at risk than SZ does.
@Mannie:
Not when the FALM is concerned. Mata, Aye, Ron, well if they had it their way, Zimmerman would be hanging from a tree long ago.
It seems that Mark O’Mara dropped the ball on this one. Shellie Zimmerman should have been advised by O’Mara that she would also require legal representation (O’Mara not being able to represent both George
and Shellie). A lawyer who was retained by Shellie would have advised her that she was not required to testify in any matter pertaining to the charge of Murder 2 of her husband as she could evoke husband-wife privilege.
Florida Rules of Evidence
90.504 Husband-wife privilege
(1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence.
(2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to vclaim the privilege is presume in the absence of contrary evidence.
(3) There is no privilege under this sections:
(a) In a proceeding broought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse.
(b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time agains the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either.
(c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made.
It is clear that Shellie Zimmerman is not a spouse who is involved in a proceeding against her spouse, nor is she a person whose spouse has been charged with a crime against her, nor is she a defedent-spouse.
In some states, even jail house conversations between husband-wife are considered privileged and cannot be used in any criminal trial against the spouse that is being accused of a crime.
O’Mara failed in his responsibility to advise Shellie Zimmerman to also get legal representation since he could not represent her due to a conflict of interest requirement. Shellie Zimmerman should have NEVER been questioned or been advised to testify in a criminal case against her husband.
IVAN
HI,
NOW WATCH YOUR WORDS, YOU MAY OFFEND,
the coward is still the same one, surely,
this look like deja vue, remember from the other POST,
don’t worry, no use to be angry, that would be wasting time,
keep it clean , we have some thinking to do,
and it look like for a long time,
bye
@MataHarley:
How the hell do you prove that George Zimmerman knew that “a confrontation would result and the use of a gun would be necessary?”
My God, are you stretching the willing suspension of disbelief here. You have no way to prove, nor does the persecution team, that George Zimmerman knew that a confrontation would result and that he would be required to use his weapon to end that confrontation.
You and Aye really seem to be trying to destroy any credibility you may have once maintained.
@retire05:
Psssttt…. Speaking of lost credibility….umm….you might wanna quote Mata’s words accurately and actually argue against what she said.
Otherwise, you’re gonna make yourself look like a fool. Again.
@Aye:
Be happy to, Aye:
Number 41, Mata’s entry:
“3: The accused demonstrated a “depraved mind” which is defined as an utter disregard for human life (i.e. setting out on foot, armed, knowing that a confrontation could be the result and the use of a gun necessary).”
The remarks, in parenthesis, are Mata’s own opinion, and she seems to be crediting George Zimmerman with the ability to know what the future held. She is simply making a biased statement that neither she, nor the persecution team, can prove. No one can reliably predict the future, not even you, Aye.
There ya go again, projecting your limited reading comprehension and inefficient translation skills on to my words.
Try the full phrase… “..knowing that a confrontation could be the result and the use of a gun necessary”
If GZ didn’t believe or know that a confrontation *could* (which is different that the word, “would”) result from his setting out on foot, he would have had no reason to arm himself… most especially since neighborhood watch guidelines stress that confronting suspicious characters, and being armed on patrols, is a big no no.
@retire05:
So… are you saying that Z is such an intellectual lightweight that he could not think ahead and realize that a confrontation with this “strange acting”, “might be on drugs”,”something in his waistband” individual could happen as a result of his decision to leave his vehicle and pursue him into the darkness of a Florida evening?
Really?
Z went to great lengths to describe all of those details to the 911 guy…yet, he’s not intellectually sharp enough to realize that leaving his vehicle and following a possibly on drugs stranger (who may or may not be armed) was a really, really bad idea from the get go?
And this guy, who is not smart enough to understand the possibilities of what could happen…this is the guy you want to defend so vociferously?
Well…okay…if that’s the way you want it.
Aye, it boggles the mind the extent the Z’faithful will go. Odd to argue that when someone sets out on foot to search for an individual, that they don’t entertain the possibility they just may find and meet up with the individual they are looking for.
Now had I said “knowing that a confrontation *would* be the result and the use of a gun necessary”, the observation would have been valid. However that isn’t what I said, and perhaps I lumped together more words in a sentence than the brain could effectively comprehend.
@Aye:
What I am saying, which has NADA to do with intellect levels, is that not Mata, not you, not anyone, can predict the future. And if you think that people should base their actions on possiblities, not probabilities, then none of us would ever leave our homes. I suggest you relinquish your driver’s license and sell your vehicle. There is a possibility that the next time you drive, you could be involved in a fatal accident. How stong is the probability, not very.
Are you saying that when George Zimmerman left his vehicle, after the dispatcher told him to report back any actions of Martin, that he should have been aware of the possibility of a confrontation with someone who had, according to Zimmerman, been lost to Zimmerman’s line of sight?
No, you and Mata desparately want to see George Zimmerman convicted for Murder 2. You have made that clear from Day One. But be careful what you wish for, for this case has taken on a life of its own and the players are now demanding that SYG laws and concealed carry laws be revoked, all in the name of the little eleven year old pictured on the Martin/Fulton Begging For Money website.
We have a right to defend ourselves from severe bodily harm or possible death. I have asked you before what you would do if you found a healthy, young adult sitting on top of you, bashing your head into a concrete sidewalk. The fact that neither you, or Mata, are willing to answer that question, speaks volumns. And please, don’t insult anyone by saying you would never find yourself in that situation. That would be an assumption on your part that you can, in fact, foretell the future.
Sigh… apparently the UN won’t be hiring this one for a translator job anytime soon.
No. Your hyperbole in no way matches my comments from the start on this… which has been that there are enough questions about Zimmermans’s actions, and questions about his accounts (that we knew of via the press) that warranted reopening the investigation and, if that investigation confirmed reasonable evidence that still questioned his account, charges should be brought.
That’s where it’s stopped. I have not made, nor will, any desire that the jury go either way in their opinion. Frankly I don’t give a damn. That is up to them after hearing the full evidence and testimony at trial.
Add to your personal hyperbole that I want to tie a rope around Zimmerman’s neck… and what is that but an accusation of me in support of a lynching?… your amoeba pal Ivan who states the same. Rather absurd since I would never support any death sentence for a charge that doesn’t include the possibility of a death sentence. Second Degree Murder in Florida does not.
When you let your emotions rule your judgement, you ignore the facts of the case, and instead personally lash out at the system, or anyone who dares to point out the inconsistencies to explain why the system working exactly as our Founding Fathers intended.
As for the “be careful what you wish for” comment, you can now place yourself with those you detest (i.e. the Congressional Black Caucus) who loves to (ahem…) foretell the future of race riots. Fact is, Florida has simmered down quite respectfully as the process proceeds. So it seems those that are “wishing for” and “foretelling” are both the Zimmerman devotees, and the extremists on the racial side of the equation. It has become virtually impossible distinguish between the two sides as to which is more despicable.
@MataHarley:
George Zimmerman did not arm himself because he was going on patrol. He had a legal concealed carry permit, and his initial goal was to run a errand, not confront a young man in his late teens. You continue to ignore that one little fact; Zimmerman’s inital goal was NOT to patrol his neighborhood, but to run a personal errand.
You also continue to bring up the Neighborhood Watch standards. For what purpose? I also belong to a neighborhood watch program run by two entities, my local P.D. and county sheriff’s department. At no meeting, have I EVER heard these standards you put so much stock in mentioned. It is clear that the Twin Lakes neighborhood watch program worked with the Sanford P.D. They were NOT required to adhere to any rules and regulations other than outlined by their own local law enforcement agency.
You know everytime you start the engine of your vehicle that something bad “could” happen. You could have a blowout, run into the oncoming lane, and kill another human being. Does that mean that you should stop driving? I don’t think so. If what “could” happen determines our innocense, or guilt, in the death of another, we can’t build jails big enough to hold everyone who would be proclaimed guilty by your standards.
retire, INRE your generalities, anyone with a lick of common sense leaves the house knowing that anything *can* happen. You don’t need a laundry list of specific events.
If someone sets out to search for someone (and not at the instructions of a dispatcher, who actually recommended against that and suggested meeting the police at the mailboxes), it’s not rocket science to know that you may find and meet up with that very person you are searching for.
The personal errand vs the neighborhood watch is a slippery slope of an argument, but if you’re fool enough to go there… hey, have at it. If GZ is not looking for Martin in the duties of a neighborhood watch captain, then he has little defense in why he’s searching for someone that isn’t committing a crime or doing anything wrong. There’s no law that he can’t conduct that search… either as a citizen or a neighborhood watch captain…. while armed. However if there is a death involved by doing so, he will have to accept the responsibility and repercussions of that decision if a jury finds that his actions meet the elements of 2nd degree murder, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Personally, I think it’s quite likely the jury will be somewhat split… that they will see some culpability, but perhaps not all of them will see enough to meet the beyond reasonable doubt standards. If someone asked me to take a guess, I’d say Zimmerman will walk. It won’t be because he was exercising self defense for a situation that he, himself, could have defused multiple times. But because there might be enough reasonable doubt for the other two elements that will not satisfy a jury to the extent needed.
I have no problems whatsoever if he is acquitted. I accept what a jury decides, and just celebrate our process.
@Aye:
So please, tell me, you are smart enough to know every event that “could” happen everytime you leave the safety and security of your home?
@MataHarley:
Mata, continue with your protrayal of a shrew. You do it so very, very well.
No one can predict the future, and if you claim you can, it will be based on nothing by hyptheticals. You want to see Zimmerman convicted, you have just never been honest enough to admit it.