Speakeasy forum: HE'S BACK!!!

you obviously really dislike the guy even though I suspect you've never spent one minute in his presence. Prejudice is such a terrible disease in that no proximity to another person is required. It can come right through the news network and attack those with low immunity to it.

Won't make blanket personal judgements about either person based on what comes over the news wires. There is no justice for anyone when we allow that to happen. Jailing Zimmerman isn't justice for Martin. It's to feed smugness and justify prejudice in others. It's more harmful than good, IMO.

I'd like to see Neighborhood Watch start a fund to aid in arming all Watch Volunteers. If anyone needs extra protection when out there doing for others, it's them. You don't send Volunteer Fire Fighters off to fight a fire with nothing but the shirt on their back, you provide them the equipment they need. Neighborhood Watch should be the same and provide night sticks and handguns to those watching out for the neighborhoods. Where's the police when you need them? Usually not as close as the Neighborhood Watch person.

Might need different names for them than "police" though to still distinguish that difference. Perhaps "deputies" or "volunteer deputies"?
"dep-u-ty
(dpy-t)
n. pl. dep-u-ties
1. A person appointed or empowered to act for another.
2. An assistant exercising full authority in the absence of his or her superior and equal authority in
emergencies: a deputy to the sheriff.
3. A representative in a legislative body in certain countries.

dep-u-ty
[dep-yuh-tee] Show IPA noun, plural dep-u-ties.
1.a person appointed or authorized to act as a substitute for another or others.
2.deputy sheriff.
3.a person appointed or elected as assistant to a public official, serving as successor in the event of a
vacancy.
4.a person representing a constituency in certain legislative bodies.
adjective
5.appointed, elected, or serving as an assistant or second-in-command. "

set up with local police assistance and co-operation and actually become a component of the local Police Force as they are "a body of people officially maintained or employed to keep order, enforce regulations, etc." (they are generally volunteers so they are not generally employed although that is not hard and fast as many communities have "rent-a-cops" who are also members of and aligned with the community Neighborhood Watch.

Your ignorance is showing.

No need for that.

Mark

The judge and prosecutor have said they don't want this case to be tried in the press, yet they are doing more to make it that way by responding to public pressure. Zimmerman may end up looking at an appeal AFTER this to actually find justice.

AND perhaps YOU'RE misunderstanding.

Are you be offended that I suggested the same of you? Of course you're not charged with a criminal offense, and you don't need a defense.

He was "speaking in tongues" to his wife on the prison phone.

His lawyer probably told him that everything said of prison phones is recorded(IF he didn't, even I know that, and I'm not on Neighbourhood Watch)...Did Z listen...OH NO!!!!he figured he could outsmart the fuzz, NO ONE was going to tell him what to do.

and carried over to US constitutional law regarding those accused of crime. He has the right to a speedy trial heard by a jury of his peers. Bail cannot be excessive. Bail can be denied or revoked at state level for reasons of public interest. Three reasons could be:

1. Public safety...the defendant has a past history of violence and would continue to be a threat.
2. Defendant does not reside in that state
3. Defendant has a history of flight...jumping bail, that is.

You could probably use #1 if you could show Zimmerman to have already left a trail of violence in his wake prior to shooting Martin. # 2 and 3 do not apply.

As for the "surprise" money, this was known weeks ago and even discussed here. As I recall, the question centered around the intended use for the defense fund and whether or not Zimmerman had discretionary access to it. If it was for legal defense only, that means to defray attorney fees and not for bail money. If that's truly the case, Zimmerman's claim of net worth is likely more accurate. Being that we require proof of guilt to enact a judgment against someone, I'd be willing to listen to Zimmerman without prejudice about these financial details as well. He'd be free on bail unless substantial proof of fraud with malicious intent could be shown.

We have adequate means to monitor his movements already. With so many criminals out on the streets due to faulty trials, lack of evidence, etc., I'd be hard pressed to put Zimmerman in the slammer other than to protect him from the harm that could be inflicted on him by others prior to trial. From what I've been able to read, I'd have no fear if Zimmerman and I were the only two people sharing an elevator ride.

Actually, I think that I would be fully capable of sitting on the jury at his trial and be fair to both him and the deceased Martin but I'd also fear the backlash of a decision that some didn't consider as severe enough.

You furthered the question with a possible answer...that being would he be free on bail until the trial. I indicated "yes". He would be free if none of the mentioned dis-qualifiers existed. That's the answer to your extended question. I also indicated that I feel perfectly qualified to be seated on a jury in his trial. That would require the showing of lack of prejudice with respect to guilt or innocence at this time.

It's not always easy resisting the lure of the poisoned ink used by the press but it can be done.

That and take as much blame for their clients actions as they can, without committing a crime themselves..

Your Honor, My client had sent me the papers and I was away that day and didn't read the file before I came to court, he didn't know there was money there, he knew there was money there, but he didn't know how much, he didn't trust anybody, he was afraid, he was confused. Those are things your lawyer will "feel' were reasons for not doing something...they throw a bunch of stuff and see what sticks.

The audio recordings of Mr. Zimmerman's phone conversations while in jail make it clear that Mr. Zimmerman knew a significant sum had been raised by his original fundraising website. We feel the failure to disclose these funds was caused by fear, mistrust, and confusion. The gravity of this mistake has been distinctly illustrated, and Mr. Zimmerman understands that this mistake has undermined his credibility, which he will have to work to repair..

He was asked how much money he had and he lied.

Following your logic, anyone could hide hundreds of thousands of dollars in getaway money by saying, "Well, that's not for me, that's a reserve for my defense lawyers."

this was known weeks ago and even discussed here.

The prosecutor probably doesn't read SE posts, Unlike us, they have access to information such as bank accounts, phone records and they check their facts before making a judgement on whether to make an appeal to a Judge (an uninterested person) and have them make an informed ruling.

Our job is to impute motive on why someone does something, that we either agree with or disagree with.

To put it bluntly...we make uninformed rulings...and we're ALL very good at it.

But anyways...What would you do?