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His $150,000 bond was revoked after allegations that during an April 20 bail hearing he and Shellie Zimmeran misled the court about their finances, neglecting to disclose they had raised at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.
@MataHarley:
I see that insults remain your only argument (the UN comment). How sad. I gave you credit for being smarter than that. Guess I was wrong. So that leaves only two opinions: either you are deliberately playing devil’s advocate for the fun of it, or you truly resort to spinning actual facts, mostly through ommission, to try to convince others of the guilt of George Zimmerman.
And yes, insinuating that George Zimmerman was armed because he was on patrol is pure spin.
Absolute chutzpah for you, or Ivan, to whine about “insults” considering both your accusations that I am a “shrew” intent on putting a rope around a hispanic’s neck” Civility, along with cogent non hormonal observations, is not your forte. Suggest you stare in the mirror, and review some of your own commentary.
@MataHarley:
No, you don’t need a laundry list of the possibilities of events when you leave the safety and security of your own home. But most people, average people, do not concentrate on “what might happen”. In order for your hypothesis to be supported, George Zimmerman would have had to know that Trayvon Martin was crusing the neighborhood PRIOR to leaving his home.
You also ignore what the 911 dispatcher (who holds no legal authority) said to Zimmerman after he asked him if he was following Martin. Although the dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that” he also asked Zimmerman to advise him to any more actions on the part of Martin. Feel free to check the transcript for yourself.
Again, I will ask you: what would you have done if someone was bashing your head into a concrete sidewalk? Would you have allowed the bashing to continue? Would you do whatever it took to end the bashing? You continue to dodge that question, just as Aye does.
The process, that you seem to want to celebrate, has been thwarted by Team Skittles and the race-baiting bottom feeders. This case, which should have remained local, has been determined in the press and by those who stand to gain financially from a conviction. That is the real travesty, Mata. The fact that a man, who acted in his own best interest when finding his head was being slammed into a concrete sidewalk, has been demonized by those who use this case as a sign of how racism still exists (you know, the evil white Hispanic vigilante who murdered in cold blood a eleven year old looking black kid, tracking the poor black kid down like a dog); to try to abolish SYG laws and concealed carry laws, and to make sure that people have their rights of self defense removed.
You cannot deny George Zimmerman’s injuries. You cannot deny that the original prosecutor felt there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman, but later agreed to take it to a grand jury. But political pressure, applied by race baiters and bottom feeders like Al Sharpton forced the appointment of a woman who seems to being using this case as an election campaign tactic, much like another prosecutor did. The system you seem so impressed with it not working, not when a case can be so influenced by media and those who stand to gain from the guilty verdict and imprisonment of another person.
You mock the legal observations of Jeralyn Merritt, simple because she differs from you politically. But you cannot dispute that she, and Dershowitz, and Jacobson, possess more knowledge about the law, the courts, and what is legally ethical standards for prosecutors, than you do. But something in your personality will not allow you to admit that they, and not you, should have a better grasp of this case than you. You are rude, and insultingd, towards those of us who do not agree with your opinions. What you think you gain by that is beyond comprehension. Comments, such as your UN barb, are totally unnecessary. It says volumns that you feel the need to do that.
The truth is that George Zimmerman did not set out to murder an innocent eleven year old looking (as portrayed in the press and by his family) black teenager. The truth is that Trayvon Martin was NOT the angelic boy who was a wannabe pilot that was never a problem to his mother. And the truth is that you have summarily dismissed anything that works in George Zimmerman’s favor.
@MataHarley:
Shrew: a bad tempered or scolding woman.
Seems that fits you to a T, Mata.
@MataHarley:
GUFFAW!!! In a previous thread, I listed all the nasty insults you hurled at Retire05 and Mike.
You are the QUEEN of invectives. You are the most vituperative of all the posters at FA.
People in glass-houses shouldn’t throw stones, Mata.
Ivan:
You still never answered my question sport. Why did you call Aye a race traitor? Was it because he was defending the possible innocence of a black teenager? Please explain yourself.
Mannie: Left wing what? Stick your head back up your arse as you have no idea what you are talking about.
Mannie said:
“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”.
Umm okay yeah you can’t slander a dead man. Yeah right. That’s all Ivan and people like you have been doing. And Trayvon’s past is irrelevant to the events that took place that night. Let me guess you are the type of dickweed who would try and prove a rape victim was a slut in her past to justify her being raped. Tryavon may have done some questionable things in his past but that doesn’t mean he deserved to be shot. I’ll let the evidence speak for itself once we KNOW ALL THE FACTS. Speaking of crawling back under a rock…….Here I lifted up the side for you, now back under you go dipshit.
Ron H.
please stop interfering with the ones who bring many intelligence to this important case,
we cannot be disrupt by ignorance, there is too much in the balance to try to diffuse those who want to find ZIMMERMAN AND HIS WIFE GUILTY, and send in solitary jail, FOR A BIT OF MONEY THEY NEEDED TO USED FOR KEEPING THE LYNCHERS AT BAY,
@Ron H.:
One might expect it would make no sense to you because you do not seem to identify with an advocate for the innocent target of mob scapegoating or with the scapegoat victim.
Peter, when isolated in the High Priest’s courtyard, crumpled under the pressure three times. Some hours later so did Pontius Pilatus. I still bear a few emotional bruises from occasions some years ago when I served as an union officer. I wonder whether Ivan can identify with the experience?
@Ivan:
A word of caution, we have natural tendency to reciprocated by imitating the abuse directed at ourselves. In short order both parties in such an exchange can alienated third party observers because third party observers tend to lose their ability to distinguish between the two combatants. The third party observers will just want the
confusingdisturbing conflict to cease.Mike O’ Malley
hi,
yes, personaly, I get afraid that an escalation of anger bring one to be warned
of having to leave against his will and against the will of those on the side which is similar,
because then, we would loose a valiant fighter for the cause we are on,
we know that each bring some good clues and links, so each are valued for his merit for the cause,
and insults should not be a cause of leaving the group,
we have a man jailed and his wife jailed too for money, not for having shot a man to save his life, this is upside down logic for me.
bye
THE THING IN HERE IS THAT WE CARE FOR WHO WE FIND INNOCENT,
that’s why we work so hard to bring counter argument to those who accept what ever faith awayting this man and his wife and his reputation, he is a young man also and 28 is very young too and his wife is 25 years old, those two young persons youths, should be taken into accompt by the PROSECUTOR
ANXIOUS TO SEE THEM IN JAIL,
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN DID SHOOT TO SAVE HIS LIFE YES, BUT DON’T ANYBODY FORGET THAT HE WAS ON A LINE OF DUTY AS A CAPTAIN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH,
AND HE SHOULD HAVE HAD A SUPPORT IMMUNITY IF BAD ATTACK WOULD BE INFLICTED TO HIS BODY, WHILE ON PATROL,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA SHOULD BE FOUND RESPONSIBLE IF THEY FAIL TO STAND FOR A GOOD MAN WANTING TO PREVENT CRIMES IN HIS COMMUNITY, THE SANFORD POLICE HAD RELEASED HIM
TO BE FREE,
WHAT THE HELL IS IT THAT MOB SCARING YOU, AND YOU CANNOT CALL THE PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO REPEL THE MOB CLAIMING TO COME AND CAUSE TROUBLE.
OR DO YOU PREFER TO SACRIFICE A GOOD MAN’S LIFE WITH INTENT TO DO GOOD DEEDS,
AS OPPOSE TO A MOB’S BAD INTENT,
Mikey: Try spell check champ. Your last post used some incorrect grammar.
Mike said:
“One might expect it would make no sense to you because you do not seem to identify with an advocate for the innocent target of mob scapegoating or with the scapegoat victim”.
Oh you mean the way people are scapegoating Trayvon Martin?
@Ron H.:
Perhaps you should look up the word “scapegoating.”
No one is blaming others for Travyon Martin’s admitted drug use as revealed on his Twitter account. No one is blaming others for Trayvon Martin’s decision to live gansta style with a grill, tats and hand signals as shown by photos he posted on the internet. No one is blaming others for his three suspensions from school, due to decision he made on his own.
I don’t even blame his parents for the fact that somewhere between 15-16, Trayvon Martin started taking a path that would probably not have been approved by his parents. Parents are very often in denial about the actions of their teenagers as they want to think that the child they love are doing the right thing.
So no, no one is “scapegoating” Trayvon Martin by pointing out his problems that should have been gotten under control before he was shot.
Ron H.
what’s your point?
you don’t bring nothing to the case,
keep your insults out of here,
bad
@retire05:
Actually, perhaps you should look up the word “scapegoating” since you and your compadres have spent such an inordinate amount of time tearing down and impugning the character of Trayvon Martin:
Practically every post from you on this topic has been a transparently desperate effort to explain away…and even justify…the remarkably poor, and now legally perilous, decision making process that George Zimmerman engaged in on Feb 26th and you’ve chosen to do that by impugning Martin.
You and your compadres have tried to make a big deal of Martin’s tats. It was too dark to see them. Plus, they were covered up with clothing. So, what do the tats do to explain Zimmerman’s decision making process? That’s right. Not a damned thing.
You and your compadres have tried to make a big deal of Interwebz photograph showing Martin’s grille and supposed gang signs. Did Martin have his “grille” in his mouth when he was observed by Zimmerman? Was there even enough light to see it if it were there? Did Martin flash a gang sign at Zimmerman? What do either of those things do to explain Zimmerman’s decision making process? That’s right. Not a damned thing.
You and your compadres have tried to make a big deal of Martin’s past drug use. What does that do to explain Zimmerman’s decision making process? That’s right. Not a damned thing. Especially when you consider that the blood and urine testing proves conclusively that Martin was NOT high, or stoned, or under the influence at the time he was observed by Zimmerman. Of course, when that inconvenient fact is pointed out, you claim you don’t care about it. Seems you only care about it when you try to use it to impugn the character of the black kid whose life bled out onto the grass that night.
You and your compadres have tried to make a big deal of Martin’s troubles at school. What do those things do to explain Zimmerman’s decision making process? That’s right. Not a damned thing.
You and your compadres have done everything you can to point your gnarled fingers at the younger Martin’s parents. Even going so far as to criticize them for allegedly quitting their jobs. What do those supposed actions by the parents do to explain the Zimmerman decision making process? That’s right. Not a damned thing.
Yes, you and your compadres have done everything you can to run this young man into the ground in every way possible…even to the point of complete, absolute fabrications….bold faced lies…all in an effort to try and explain away Zimmerman’s decision making process.
All of those things…each of those behaviors by you and your compadres…as detailed above, perfectly fit the dictionary definition of “scapegoating.”
Each of those behaviors, as detailed above, also perfectly fit the definition of “profiling” which you, and your compadres, have been whining about in this particular case.
And we can consider your #72 as Exhibit A for both of those things.
Congratulations on that.
Re Aye #74 Suggest it time for retire05, Mike, Bees and supporters of Ivan to “take a knee” while you’re still able.
@Aye:
Let me make sure I am understanding your correctly, Aye, because Heaven knows, I would never want to misconstrue what you are saying: are you claiming that none of Trayvon Martin’s decisions that night have any bearing on the events of February 26th; are you claiming that Martin’s previous actions have no bearing on the decisions that Martin made that night, and it is only the decisions of Zimmerman have any bearing on the facts of this case? Is that what you are claiming?
Now, as to “profiling”: I am a strong proponent of profiling, and profiling is used on a regular basis by LE. If a U-Totem is robbed, and an APB goes out to look for a white guy, approx. 5’8″, 165 lbs, wearing a red University of California t-shirt and driving a blue Prius, that is profiling. It is also a useful tool to aid in the solving of crimes. When there are unsolved crimes, and detectives have to build a possible suspect list, they create a criminal “profile” that helps to eliminate those who are innocent of those crimes.
Odd that you consider speaking of Trayvon Martin’s past is “running him into the ground” when it will be a pertient part of this case, no matter how you don’t want his past actions to enter into it. His school records, showing why he was suspended not just once, but three times, will be introduced. His photos on the internet will also be introduced into trial. As will his talk of drugs and other things. These things will all be shown to show the mindset of a 17 year old who was not being monitored by his parents that night. A 17 year old that obviously was not so frightened by an “old” man (as Dee Dee called GZ) that he did NOT call his father to voice that fear, or call 911 to report to the SPD that he was being followed, or run to his dad’s girlfriends house where he could be safe, and why, according to Dee Dee in her deposition to de la Rioda, Martin spoke to Zimmerman first.
But I just want to make sure that you think that none of Martin’s past history, and actions, will have no bearing on the decisions he made that night and that the only thing that matters were the decisions of George Zimmerman.
One full month after the shooting Obama and the Left put this out as a diversion from Obama’s failed 1st term.
Obama and the Left’s best diversionary tactic so far!
There is NOTHING to be accomplished from time spent on this anymore.
The wheels of justice will turn.
Slowly, but they will.
Obama, in the meantime, can be defeated.
We need to FOCUS, people.
This here is a waste of time and energy.
Richard Wheeler
you are SCAPEGOATING,
NO ONE IS LEAVING GEORGE ZIMMERMAN ALONE , IN THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES,
THEY ARE TOO MANY WHO WORK SO HARD TO HANG HIM AND HIS WIFE,
THOSE TWO YOUNG PEOPLE NEED THEIR LIFE BACK.
@retire05:
Damn right that’s what I am telling you. Glad you’re finally showing some sort of semi-coherent understanding of what is being argued.
What Martin did or didn’t do prior to Feb 26th has no bearing on what Zimmerman observed. Martin’s past has no bearing on Zimmerman’s decision making that night. It’s irrelevant.
The tats, the grille, the social media, the actions of the parents. None of that matters one iota and I can assure you that those issues will not be introduced into evidence at the trial because of that lack of relevance.
You see, Trayvon Martin is not the one that has been charged with a crime. Nor is he alleged to have been committing any criminal offense when observed by Zimmerman on the night of Feb 26th.
You see, Trayvon Martin’s decisions prior to Feb 26th have zero to do with what Zimmerman observed.
And if you think that attacking Trayvon Martin’s character and dredging up his actions prior to Feb 26th will be effective tactic for the Defense, well, good luck with the jury madame. You’re going to need it.
Aye, I suspect there will be some evidence of TM’s character used by O’Mara at trial. Their first task is to place doubt in the jury’s minds about Zimmerman’s responsibility with his actions to combat the Murder Two charge. Their second task, hoping they have sufficiently accomplished that, will be to follow it up with a self defense argument. This is exactly what O’Mara should do.
In that self-defense argument, even O’Mara says they “may” use “certain details” of Martin’s past…. assuming, of course, that Lester finds that relevant and admissible. My guess is some he will. Some he won’t.
However O’Mara is not fool enough to behave as maliciously as those here have done. Such characterization of a dead teen would make the jury extremely unsympathetic, and result in a negative response for GZ.
What will be more curious, and most especially since no one bothered to check GZ’s blood that night, is whether the State will use the possible side effects GZ’s medications, which he volunteered to the paramedics that night. GZ’s medical records are something I believe that O’Mara will work diligently to make inadmissible, while the State may consider their side effects as possible supportive evidence. So both sides *may* attempt to use sundry drug use… hard to say. Perhaps as more time goes on, we might see more physicians and analysts on the witness list to give the public a clue as to it’s inclusion by either side of the legal coin.
Oh.. mea culpa. We’re not allowed to speak of GZ’s medications, or his violent past as reflected by arrest records, vs TM’s, are we?
@Aye:
If you think that Trayvon Martin’s past actions will not come up at trial, you are delusional. They will whether you think they have no bearing, or not. It is the job of the defense to show that George Zimmerman did NOT commit a crime that night since he acting in self-defense due to being physically assaulted by Trayvon Martin, which, BTW, the photos of George Zimmerman hold to be true. It will be up to the defense to show that Trayvon Martin’s past actions were reflective of someone who would start a physical confrontation.
And hah! There is nothing you can do about it.
And if you think going after George Zimmerman’s wife was a wise action on the part of the prosecution, I predict that will backfire on them in the court of public opinion that you seem to rely on so heavily (all the spin by Crump and Company). Remember, the jury has not been picked, is not sequestered and is reading all this, just as you are.
@Aye:
Why did you leave out part of the transcript? Trying to get a job at NBC?
@MataHarley:
So you’re claiming that the prosecution had crammed the two questions together to highlight the juxtaposition of Shellie Zimmerman’s truth-telling one second and her bald-faced lie the next.
You’re claiming in the interest of legal theater it was necessary to do so with out any indication of editing.
Have you looked at the video? Do you think that Bernie de la Rionda was aware that Shellie Zimmerman could not see his elaborate pantomime toward the judge and the microphone.
No wonder BDLR didn’t wonder what “heard the sound of grass” meant.
No need to twist yourself into a conspiratorial pretzel, jimrtex. The quest by the State, and O’Mara (who questioned her first) was to determine the financial means of the Zimmerman’s for the bond hearing. I believe that SZ made it quite clear that she would have no clue as to the up to the minute current amounts, and provided the source who could tell the court that information. Who would, unless you had a laptop fired up in the courtroom. Website fundraising can change minute to minute. Seems a moot line of questioning to pursue at that point, so the edited text.. which was easily available in brief exhibits to the judge… really had no bearing. They abandoned the “current amount” quest.
The next logical question would be, if she didn’t have a current amount, did she have an estimate of *any* amounts. Actually, she did. And that’s where she really went wrong.
Unfortunately GZ missed his chance to bail her out of that trouble. With the recantation defense available to SZ for that moment, all GZ had to do was let O’Mara, or the court, know they had transferred “x” amount of funds that they knew of. O’Mara could have recalled GZ to clarify the financial error, then recalled SZ to explain her confusion. At that point, the State would have no case for perjury, since it was all done in the same proceeding and no legal impact had been done by the confusion. Unless, of course, they wanted to strictly hold to the letter of the law that the error cannot be revealed by another party before her own recantation.
Thus the reason the Judge revoked GZ’s bond. When the State filed a motion to revoke the bond, they provided documented evidence that not only Shellie, but George as well, had an estimate of some amount of funds. Lester clearly stated in that order that GZ’s failure to correct the misinformation, contradict or supplement SZ’s testimony gave him the authority to revoke his bond until further notice. Had GZ never known about the amounts and transfers, and that information was confined only to SZ, she would be charged, but he’d still be out on bond.
MATA
WHY GZ DRUGS SIDE EFFECT, WHAT FOR?
HE IS THE ONE HAVING BEEN ATTACK, HE IS THE ONE WHO BLEED FROM HIS HEAD,
THAT IS NOT FROM HIS FINGERS, THAT IS FROM HIS HEAD HAVING BEEN BASH ON CONCRETE,
HIS ACTIONS WHERE NOT VIOLENT AND HE NEVER SEEK OR DESERVED THAT BEATING,
WHY IF HE HAD TAKEN A PRESCRIPTION WOULD HAVE CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR,
THE WRONG BEHAVIOR CAME FROM THE ONE BEATING HIM,
I don’t believe that the attacker had not seen the big sign, his family said he was smart in school,
well he had seen that huge SIGN, and GZ disturbed him from whatever he was on to do,
BUT IT’S NOT GZ FAULT, BECAUSE THE OTHER GOT IN A RAGE HE ALREADY WAS FOR WHAT HE WAS PUNISH FOR HIS OWN DOING AND PICK ON THE CAPTAIN OF THE COMMUNITY WATCH WHO
NOTICE HIS WEIRD BEHAVIOR AND TRYED TO STOP A CRIME TO HE THOUGHT
PROBABLY COULD HAPPEN , OF COURSE HE IS NOT GOD TO READ MIND,
HE IS THERE TO PREVENT ANY CRIME BY WATCHING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR.
WHAT IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO JUDGE BY A JUDGE WHO IS THERE FOR THAT.
Bees:
Don’t tell me to stay off this thread. I’ll do as I please until Curt or Aye (since this is his post) tell me to take a hike. See unlike you I am an independent thinker who forms his own conclusions not some sycophantic cheerleader who forms an opinion based on which way the wind is blowing or who’s ass you wish to kiss on a particular day. My God could you be more ubiquitous? You feel the need to comment on every single thread dozens of times. Do you have a life or do you just sit on your computer all day waiting for someone on FA to make a comment. Go outside and get some fresh air and meet some real live people. Oh wait are you in high school or something? Maybe you are home schooled? How else could you have so much time to devote to posting on FA? Do you work? Do have some hobbies or does your entire life revolve around sucking up to various authors on FA? Oh and STOP COMMENTING IN ALL CAPS AS IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A DUMBASS! Canadians……..geesh.
Retired:
You need to quit while you’re ahead. Mata and Aye have been mopping the floor with you arse this entire thread and yet you continue to ramble on. Sigh……
Maybe you and Bees can form a knitting circle. Bees doesn’t seem to have anything better to do either. You both love to hear yourselves talk or write rather…even when you cease to make any rational argument. You two can be best friends and give each other manicures while discussing how that awful Trayvon got what he deserved. Maybe make it a TV night and watch some reruns of Designing Women. Oh wait you are more of a Golden Girls fan. Both equally good programs just make sure you take you medications before bedtime and Bees is a cuddler…..just so you know.
Oh and I hope Aye cleared up your misunderstanding of the word Scapegoating…I was worried about you for a moment.
@Ron H.:
Perhaps you should seek some professional help for that over abundance of pent up anger you seem to want to express here. It cannot be healthy for you.
Now, as to Bees: Bees is probably the most amiable person to post on this blog and unlike you, makes a concerted effort to not insult people. You seem to have a problem with how Bees posts. Did it ever occur to you that for Bees, English is a second language? Frankly, she does a pretty good job conversing with others in a language that is not primary for her.
As to the number of times she posts here, how is that any of your business? If, and when, the owners of this blog decide that she is abusing her privileges by posting too often, I am sure they will let her know. Perhaps Bees is handicapped and consequently this blog, that she so seems to love, is a connection with the outside world for her. I don’t know that to be a fact, but her reasons for posting here so frequently are hers, and not to be criticized by you, or anyone who does not hold ownership to this blog.
And of course, in keeping with your ass kissing of others on this blog, you have to resort to insults at both Bees, and me. What purpose did that serve? Did it make you feel better about your self? Are you so insecure that you have to insult someone like Bees who truely bothers no one and is always pleasant? What a small person you are, Ron H.
And let’s not ignore your critique of Bees for typing in all caps while you type that critique in all caps. Pot, meet kettle.
Lay off Bees. It should be beneath you to attack her with such viciousness. Alas, you have shown it is not.
@Nan G, I fully agree that the single case of GZ is somewhat a waste of time when it comes to that individual’s legal fate.
Where I would disagree is that GZ’s legal fate has now been undeniably, and unfortunately, tied to RKBA, self defense and concealed carry rights. You do not see Marion Hammer holding GZ up as the poster child of the SYG law she lobbied so diligently to pass. Additionally, the NRA is conspicuously silent… something else the gun grabbers like to point out. In the meantime, there are Congressional task forces and liberal legislators working “under the radar”… just as Obama diligently promised Ms. Brady… to undermine the 2nd Amendment and Castle Doctrine/SYG state laws, using GZ as their example.
As I’ve said before, this is my prime interest in this case… it’s effect on RKBA, self defense and concealed carry rights. The damage that has been done to what is considered reasonable self defense is unmeasurable, and has caused confusion in the minds of many. For example, retire05 vigorously defends GZ’s rights to follow a teen around the neighborhood, while armed, despite the fact he was not engaged in illegal acts nor personally threatened, but then says: “If you are being followed, you do not have the right to turn on your follower and try to bash their brains out on a concrete sidewalk.”
???
Without pointing out the obvious omissions as to the specific events that may have transpired in between any alleged “turning” on the one following and/or perceptively threatening you and an ensuing head banging, this is totally contradictory to the SYG concept of a duty to retreat, even when you are not at home, when one feels threatened by the actions another. How does one viably attempt to explain that is applicable for the person following, but not for the one being followed? In fact, it seems totally upsidedown in it’s concept.
Legislators and gun grabbers will use these contradictory assertions to their own advantage… most especially if it appears that only GZ has self defense rights, and TM has none… and they will use that to prove the laws negatively disfavor blacks. Genuine gun rights advocates will, once again, be in the position to defend the indefensible. There are times that gun owners behave irresponsibly, and it is not in the interest of the RKBA movement to defend that irresponsibility.
@MataHarley:
Perhaps you would like to link to any law, from any state, that says you have the right to turn on someone you suspect is following you and do them serious bodily harm? You seem to think that the simple act of following someone gives you the right to attack them with physical force. It does not.
You also want to ignore that George Zimmerman, while following Trayvon Martin whom he lost and the fact that he lost him was confirmed by Dee Dee’s deposition to BDLR, was not engaging in illegal behavior. Or the facts that indicate that Trayvon Martin initiated the physical confrontation put the onus on Martin for that action, not on George Zimmerman. Even if I speak to you first, and for some reason you think that I am being aggressive, although I have not touched you in any manner, you have no right to try to create severe physical harm to me.
The propenents of SYG laws that are involved in this case, are chump change to the political winds blowing around it. This is a case that should have remained local, but it was taken national by race baitors and poverty pimps who wanted to make this a racial issue for their own personal gain.
@MataHarley:
So Detective O’Steen as he “reviewed” the transcript X’ed out the material he considered moot, reasoning that Judge Lester was a very busy man and there was n0 reason to indicate any omissions, which might have caused Judge Lester to see what had been omitted, and wasted Judge Lester’s time for no good reason?
Why would SZ have an “estimate” of the current amount?
BDLR: Do you know the amount “right now”
SZ: I don’t know the current amount.
BDLR: Who would know?
Can we agree that it was a reasonable inference on the part of SZ that BDLR was inquiring about who would know the amount right now?
BDLR: Who would know [the current amount]?
SZ: My BIL [would know the current amount].
BDLR: Is he [, the person who would know the current amount, ] available.
SZ: I’m sure we could get [the person who would know the current amount] on the phone.
BDLR: Would you have an estimate of [the current amount] in the account.
Why do you think that BDLR was flapping his wings as he was asking Shellie Zimmerman about the “estimate”? Do you think he realized that SZ could not see him over the telephone? Was that supposed to be understood as a single that he was no longer questioning about the current amount.
jimrtex,, the “x’ed” out transcript information was referenced, by page number, in the transcript. And the practice in the legal world is when any other documents are reference in the price document, they are submitted as exhibits for further review. None of the favored legal beagles dispute this. Instead they argue that Lester did not have the time to read any exhibits. Speculation, at best. Since the omitted dialogue pertained to a dead end question, firmly established that SZ had no knowledge of a current balance, it’s simply a moot point. But it most certainly was available to the judge.
The questions differed in the one question addressed the current balance, and the other addressed what balances they were aware of in the past.
It’s rather embarrassing to watch the hula dances, defending what is known to be true in reality, if not vague via legalese nuances and word meaning parsing…. the fact that both SZ and GZ had knowledge of at least the $74K documented funds they were shuffling around between accounts.
@retire05:
And what “facts” would those be?
You wouldn’t be relying on Dee Dee’s account in which Martin asks “Why are you following me?” would you? Because that is most certainly not in any way equivalent to “initiating a physical confrontation.”
You wouldn’t be relying on the account of that evening as relayed by Z’s father that the younger Zimmerman was attacked from behind would you? Because that account is in conflict with Dee Dee’s sworn testimony which tells us plainly that words were exchanged prior to the physical confrontation. One cannot be surprised by stealth and exchanging words simultaneously.
Actually, why don’t you tell us what “facts” you’re referring to and we’ll go from there.
@Aye:
Did I say that the physical confrontation that I believe was initiated by Martin was not prefaced by any words from Martin? No, I did not.
But the words do not matter. If you are hanging around in front of my home, and you have no business there or any dealings with me, I have a right to ask you why you are there. You, on the other hand have a reasonable expectation that my question will not be followed up with a punch to your face.
Are you trying to make the case that the simple action of Zimmerman following Martin, prior to losing him, gave Martin full authority to physically assault Zimmerman?
And no, I did not take the senior Zimmerman’s statements into account.
Ron H.
you come with words which are insulting, so don’t preach other for their words,
and I don’t have no interest to tell you my life, and why I’M HERE,
YOU KNOW WHAT? STOP TORMENTING YOUR BRAIN,
IT’S NOT OF YOUR DAM BUSYNESS,
@retire05:
I cannot help but notice that in your latest scribbling you didn’t bother to reference “the facts that indicate that Trayvon Martin initiated the physical confrontation.”
You allege that they exist yet, when specifically queried twice as to what they are, you didn’t reply to the questions.
Is it logical to now conclude that you cannot successfully point to any facts which support your claim?
JIMRTEX
HI,
I am sorry but if JUDGE LESTER IS A VERY BUSY MAN, TO BUSY TO TAKE SOME TIMES EXTRA TO DEAL WITH HIS CASE COMPLETELY, IT’S NOT THE FAULT OF THE ONE HE HAS TO JUDGE, AND TO BREAK THE BOND AND SEND THEM TO JAIL IS NOT GIVING A GOOD PROFILE OF WHAT A JUDGE SHOULD BE,
WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE MORE WISDOM AND PATIENCE, AND KEEP IN MIND HE IS THE POWER OF JAILING INNOCENT PERSON WHICH HAD NOT KNOWN THE JUSTICE RULES AND REGULATION LIKE HE , AND THEREFOR MAKE ERROR WHILE BEING QUESTIONED,WHICH ARE NOT CRIMINAL
AND HE SHOULD PRESUME INNOCENCE, BEFORE GUILT AND LIES.
BECAUSE HE IS DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON HIS UNDERSTANDING TO GET THEIR LIFE BACK, AND IT’S WHORTH TAKING HIS TIME ON THEIR CASES
@Aye:
Read Dee Dee’s deposition as given to de la Rionda. You will find it there.
Not withstanding this evidence from photos of both Martin and Zimmerman:
Zimmerman had multiple injuries to his head, both on the front, and the back.
Martin had no injuries, no indication of bruising to his face or body that would have been sustained from taking a punch, and the only injuries included a single gun shot wound to the chest.
Zimmerman had no injuries to his hands, including bruising, which would have indicated that he landed at least one blow to Martin.
Martin had a injury to his hand that could have been attributed to throwing a punch.
Or do you think that George Zimmerman is now also guilty of trying to beat Trayvon Martin’s hands with his face?
Perhaps it may escape some’s ability to perceive, but two facts continue to elude the GZ devotees.
1: There is no proof that TM initiated the fight, and that includes whether GZ attempt to restrain or physically handle TM (i.e. shoving, which Dee asserts, grabbing an arm, etc… none of which would be necessarily evident in documented injuries)
2: And none of it has to do with the State’s burden to prove that it was Zimmerman’s aggressive pursuit that led to the confrontation to begin with.. the foundation of a murder two charge.
@retire05:
I’ve already read Dee Dee’s account. I’ve also listened to the audio.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind pointing me to a specific line number in the transcript or a specific minute/second designation on the audio.
So, kindly provide the references to Dee Dee’s testimony so that we can all see “the facts that indicate that Trayvon Martin initiated the physical confrontation.”
The presence or absence of wounds cannot be relied upon to determine who may or may not have “initiated the physical confrontation.”
Perhaps Z grabbed the sleeve of Martin’s sweatshirt. That wouldn’t leave any sort of mark on his hands but would certainly constitute Zimmerman “initiat[ing] the physical confrontation.”
My theory, posited above, that Z initiated is just as plausible as yours regarding Martin. Neither is, as of now, supported by physical evidence or witness testimony.
Unless, of course, you can point to specific “facts that indicate that Trayvon Martin initiated the physical confrontation.”
@Aye:
Gee, I though you were the sharpest axe in the barn. If you are unaware of what Dee Dee told BdlR, that indicates TM started the physical confrontation, I guess you are not as shart as you have convinced yourself that you are.
Perhaps GZ grabbed Martin’s sleeve? Prove that in court, counselor.
I wouldn’t dwell on that “sharp” as a tack type criticism much if I were you, retire…. most especially as it relates to who Dee believed, and said in her statements, initiated the confrontation. Per the official FDLE statement, that would be:
This should be memorable because jimrtex specifically made fun of “the sound of grass” above.
Now I’m going to digress a moment just to address jimrtex’s incredulity. After decades of working in the film/TV sound industry, and cutting foley, dialogue, ADR, sound effects, backgrounds and music during that time, I assure you that a body fall on grass (most especially at a headset’s close proximity) sounds nothing like a body fall on a different surface. Even movie fans in a theatre audience would know the difference if the sound editor chose to use a body fall sound effect hitting pavement when the picture depicted a body hitting grass. A lot of this is common sense that you don’t know you possess until you think about it.
Additionally, the rhythm of “cloth movement” when someone is walking while mic’ed, compared to the rhythm of “cloth movement” and the microphone leakage of the sounds of feet hitting the pavement when someone is running, is also distinctly different. It’s an extraneous argument that isn’t worth spending much time on, but GZ’s movement away from the car is a med fast to fast walk, and not a run because of what you would hear more distinctly (talking, breathing affecting conversational answers and feet hitting the pavement) were he running during the dispatcher’s call simply because of a headset’s microphone pick up patterns. Ultimately, that’s not likely to be of much import unless they want to estimate the number of feet GZ moved away from the car vs the time he took to travel given distance. What can only said wth certainty is that whatever distance he traveled in 24 seconds of movement away from the car, he could easily duplicate in a return to the car in the same amount of time, varying in seconds only by the pace. End of digression.
In the official FDLE statement quoted above, Dee says TM was “bumped”. The words she used to the media prior were this:
The Orlando Sentinel used the word “shoved”, when reporting on Dee’s story.
Now whether you want to consider Dee’s choice of words as “bumped” or “pushed” or “shoved”, there’s no spinning the fact that Dee believes that GZ was the first aggressor in the physical confrontation by, in some way, knocking TM off balance resulting in him hitting the ground. Anyone who believes that testimony, or prior media accounts of her statements, thinks it ever once suggested she thinks it was GZ has been on the tilt-a-whirl of life and language far too long.
This means two things…
1: Defense would be fools, as well as GZ devotees, to attempt to use Dee’s testimony to suggest GZ started the physical fight because she said exactly the opposite.
2: Dee’s testimony doesn’t proved that GZ started the physical fight either.
No one knows.
@MataHarley:
Exactly where, in Dee Dee’s deposition, did she say, or indicate, that GZ “shoved” TM?
And once again, wrongly, you are basing your stance on GZ’s following of TM being an illegal act. It was not.
@MataHarley:
Then why not include an ellipsis?
In Mata Harley’s opinion it was immaterial. In BDLR’s mind it was immaterial. In O’Steen’s mind it was immaterial. In Gilbreath’s mind it was immaterial.
So why not indicate that you had excised questions and answers of what was characterized as a dialogue.
These were legal documents, not Reader’s Digest condensations.
There is a reason they are called legal “briefs”, jimrtex. Time for judges on busy dockets like to get to the meat of the argument. The two questions made it quite clear to the court that they queried whether SZ had knowledge of current, or any “estimate” of funds. She said no to both. The first was justified. The second was not.
So you’d be happier if the brief included “dot dot dot” instead of direct references to the full transcripts? Well… okay. I guess the FL state prosecutors office knows how to write a brief that meets your personal standards. LOL
I must have missed this minute point from Trayvon’s friend he was on the phone with.
The Grass Thing.
If she was into Trayvon and he was into fighting, who knows?, maybe she had heard Trayvon and his victim/opponent make that grass thing sound before…..like in person.
I had never even heard about that.
Thug culture has a whole other reality to that of their victims.
@MataHarley:
A former career police officer, detective and SWAT team leader has transcribed Dee Dee’s deposition quite well:
Dee Dee: And I call Trayvon..”Trayvon, wha’s going on, wha’s going on?”
BLDR: This is you saying that…
Dee Dee: Yeah,
BLDR: OK.
Dee Dee: Then..I callin’ him…he didn’t answer.
BLDR: No answer from Trayvon.
Dee Dee: Yeah… and I hear, I hear a sound like “bump.” You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…….somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass.”
You will notice that Dee Dee caught herself when she said “You cou’ hear that Trayvon em>bump when she corrects herself and adds “somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass.”
Dee Dee is a prosecutor’s nightmare and a defense lawyers dream. All though the deposition, de la Rionda is leading the witness. And she tells him that it was not raining at one poing because she could hear Trayvon quite well, yet she can hear “grass.” Weather reports said it rained continually that evening.
The problem that the prosecution will have in using Dee Dee as a witness is that any good defense attorney will be able to destroy her testimony, if for no other reason than de la Rionda was leading her. BDLR also mentions during deposition that Crump was there, at least prior to the deposition, and we can assume that much of Dee Dee’s testimony was rehearsed. She said that Trayvon was going to the store for “food and drink.” Sorry, Mata, ghetto kids don’t take that way. She also said that Chad Green was Trayvon’s “little brother.” When she doesn’t have Crump, or the prosecution, to guide her through court testimony, and the defense asks her why she thought Chad Green was Trayvon’s little brother, is she going to admit that she was told that by Benjamin Crump, who fabricated that whole story with the help of Julison PR just days after the shooting? Kids Dee Dee’s age are not experience liars when put on the stand, and in order to continue with her retelling of the events that night, she will have to keep her story arrow straight, and not deviate from her deposition taken by BDLR.
Corey is a fool if she uses Dee Dee as a primary witness. But none the less, Dee Dee can still be called by the defense as a “hostile” witness since Dee Dee was specifically mentioned (if memory serves me right) in the original affidavit submitted by Corey.
One other thing, Mata, is it not true that the decible level that would be required to give an audience the sound of “grass” would have to be considerably higher than the normal decible level of a ordinary cell phone?
Personally, retire, I never believed that Dee would be a “primary” witness, but was likely to be a witness in support of their presentation as a whole. There is no possibility that she can be a push pin on Martin’s locations in the neighborhood, or that she can shed any particular light on his path. As far as I can see, her prime use would be to establish TM’s potential state of mind of feeling threatened, that GZ was steadfast in his quest to follow TM, another validation that there was an argument and not a surprise attack from behind, and a possible additional time stamp as to the beginning of the altercation via the call logs. Beyond that, she’s just another person who “heard” rather than “saw”. It just so happens that what she “heard” was the voice of the dead teen, and becomes the only link to his last moments on Earth.
Dee can indeed be called by a witness by either State or defense. Hardly necessary for her to be a hostile witness since the State likely already has her on the witness list, so O’Mara need only cross examine. Rather pointless observation, don’t you think?
“ghetto kids”? Sweet… you find such personal observations, unsubstantiated, necessary? You don’t know jack about Dee, or her family. But thanks for that additional insight in your judgmental nature.. not that we haven’t already been privileged to that over the course of your time here at FA already. Hence the reason Aye notes your scapegoating of others.
@MataHarley:
“DeeDee” is only 15.
200 in 28 seconds sound about right? He’s slowing down at the end. That is about 12 minute mile. A pretty fast walking pace (Zimmerman is 5’9, wearing boots, and his hands are full. I think he may have got up to a shuffling run, both feet off the ground, but not in full stride.
Now for Martin, 476 feet in 38 seconds (24 seconds for 100 yards). I was really slow, and could do a 13 second 100. Martin is in the dark, and his pants may be falling down. But he does have long legs, is wearing sneakers, and has his hands free. The can may be bouncing around some. He might not be in super shape, he talks on the phone most of the day, dropped out of football several years ago, and his mother drives him to school every day. He smokes. It would be long enough that he would be breathing hard.
The headphones ended up on him or next to him. They may have been removed during CPR. The cords may have got in the way. Unless Martin was leaning over to pick them up and Zimmerman dove to bite his hand and instead scraped his head on the sidewalk, I don’t think this version happened.
jimrtex, none of this really matters in the case, but I am just curious:
1: Is there a minimal age requirement I’m unaware of to be able to tell the difference in sound between hitting grass, wood, concrete, water, ice or other surface? Granted, many people may not notice unless it appears to be obviously conflicting with what they see… like a dog bark when a cat meows on the screen, as an extreme example. But when you are dealing with sound only, it becomes more noticeable and heightened senses kick in. If the sound was significantly high enough in volume over a cell phone to perceive a hard or soft surface, it’s more likely that TM did indeed hit the ground because the distance from the earpiece or headset had GZ hit the ground would be further away, and far less noticeable on a minimal quality headset microphone.
2: as a side not, you mentioned that GZ was 5’9″. GZ describes himself as 5’10” on his MySpace page. Don’t know that there has ever been a police or medical report, documenting his actual height, but it’s not a stretch to believe he knows how tall he is. TM’s height was 5’11” and 158 lbs via his autopsy report. There was not this Amazon giant vs a diminutive opponent happening that evening.
3: As I said, not sure that the actual distance in feet in that time is as relevant as the time itself. That will depend on how the State constructs their recreation of events. It can only be said that if he moved x feet away in 24 seconds, he can retrace that distance in the same amount of time. But if you want to use 200′ in 28 seconds, that’s about 7.14′ per second (technically, it was 24 seconds on the tape, but I’m good to go). Even cutting his pace in half to 3′ per second, he would have been back at his truck in 66 seconds. There is about 2 minutes from the time he hung up to the meeting/death, which was still 165′ away from his truck. Needless to say, I think we can conclude that GZ did not immediately turn around to return to his SUV. Nor did he agree to in his conversation with the dispatcher. That will factor into the State’s case for prosecution.
I understand that you don’t think that GZ may have shoved, pushed or bumped TM. For those of us who just say we don’t what happened when they met, a version of TM being pushed, bumped, shoved to the ground has as much chance of being true as anything else because none of that would show up in injuries to either.
@MataHarley:
The motion for revocation of bond and affidavit of probable cause simply needs to be complete. It should have included both the reference to the full transcript (which was attached) and the ellipsis to indicate the omission, if the state prosecutor believes it to be complete.
Connect the dots.
jimrtex, the notion that the motion for revocation of bond PC was incomplete extends only to those wishing to do the Dershowitz 3rd party defense of trial of the government for misconduct. The only viable entity who would be objecting would be the Judge, and he doesn’t. Why? Because he knows exactly what the State was asserting in the motion to begin with … that both SZ and GZ did not disclose funds they clearly knew they had at a bond hearing. None of the extraneous stuff you want to hang your hat on changes that.
There is the undeniable fact that both knew and did not disclose funds.. which I doubt even you would dispute. And then there is the battle about legal nuances to try to see if the Zimmerman’s should be getting away with not disclosing those funds. It’s quite tiresome to watch people twist themselves into pretzels, merely to defend the indefensible.
@MataHarley:
#1) if Dee Dee is not called by the prosecution to testify at trial, there is NO cross. Only direct. And since she is the prosecution’s witness, it would be expedient on the part of the defense to declare her a “hostile” witness as she is not on the defense’s side.
Yeah, Mata, “ghetto kid” which is obvious in her dialect. She speaks just like every other ghetto kid I have worked with over the years. Of course, you want to make a big deal about that, but being a ghetto kid is not the fault of the kid, it is the fault of the parent[s] for not providing a better life. So, as ususal, you and Aye, seem to relish in strawman arguments.
MATA
SHE HEAR SOMEBODY PUSHING
THAT’S TRAYVON PUSHING ZIMMERMAN ON THE GROUND WITH
HIS HAND ON ZIMMERMAN.S FACE, FROM WHAT WAS TOLD, THEN JUMP ON HIM
AND PUNCH HIS NOSE, OF COURSE HIS HEADPHONE FELL
HE WAS GETTING ZIMMERMAN’S HEAD BASHED ON THE CONCRETE REPEATEDLY
@retire05:
A legion of straw men …
Yes it is an interesting hypothetical.
George Zimmerman, a married civil watch volunteer, calls the police and at his request a Sanford policeman is dispatched to the scene. George Zimmerman walks along the sidewalk carrying a key-chain flashlight in one hand and his cellphone in the other.
Trayvon Martin is a taller man, a troubled 17 year old with a recent history of violence and street fighting. He is troubled youth whose judgment is not unlikely impaired by use of marijuana and ‘Lean’; a troubled youth whose emotional composure is not unlikely impaired by use of marijuana and ‘Lean’ . Martin would be using his head set for his cellphone in hands free mode.
We have two tales of the initial verbal exchange between the two men. A contemporaneous one by Zimmerman. Remember Zimmerman passed a behavioral lie detector test at the time he gave that contemporaneous testimony. And an non-contemporaneous account by Ben Crump speaking for Dee Dee. With his hands full how plausible could it be for Zimmerman to have grabbed or struck Martin? And bump Martin? Good lord! and so we are to imagine that Zimmerman aligned himself hip to hip with Martin for a unexpected ‘bump! In neither telling is Martin purported to have said anything akin to: don’t touch me, let go of me, or don’t push me.
Yes this is an illuminating hypothetical nonetheless in as much as there is NONE, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, NO evidence to support it. It therefore illuminates the preponderance of the evidence indicating that Martin initiated the assault.
@MataHarley:
Zimmerman’s height is shown as 5’8″ and his weight as 185 pounds on his Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Inmate Booking Information.
Oh no… you mean GZ lied on his MySpace page by a couple of inches?. Say it ain’t so… LOL
My biggest laugh is YouTube “Clifford” who on June 6th was still proclaiming that Zimmerman was 5’6″ and 180lbs, while Martin was 6’3″ and weighed about the same.
Source links. They seem to be a lost art. Speaking of source links, I see lots of references to this “booking information” – and verbatim language you just used, Mike – in the blog world. Yet the John E. Polk Correctional Facility online records don’t provide this mysterious “inmate booking information” that everyone so confidently quotes. Has anyone every seen this? Or is this just a matter of somebody said it, and it goes from blog to blog, and no one cares about sources? Just curious. I would think that GZ would be somewhat chagrined to find he’s lost a couple of inches over the years.
@jimrtex:
I agree Mr. Jimtex. It seems that the only way to justify the perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman is by omitted the most important part of the conversation Bernie de la Rionda and Shellie Zimmerman. The parts that provide its actual context.
And so far no one in these discussion threads has been able to demonstrate exactly how and where Shellie Zimmerman perjured herself during her sworn testimony without engaging in the very same omission.
Of course “some one” has…. I’ve pointed out the specific Q&A multiple times. Remember that “estimate” of funds “obtained and collected”, pluse the “I don’t know” bit? A different question that has nothing to do with the “current” amount preceding question and elaboration whatsoever?