“The judge overseeing the Trayvon Martin [homicide] case in Florida set bond for George Zimmerman at $1 million Thursday, after hearing arguments last week that Zimmerman and his wife tried to conceal donations for his case,” CNN reports. [Click here for the judgement.] “It was unclear how quickly Zimmerman could post the bond and be released from jail.” I guess that depends on how quickly Mr. Zimmerman can raise the 10 to 20 percent required to make bail. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester was none too happy with George’s failure to disclose the fruits of an online financial appeal to aid his defense. In part, the order reads . . .
Under any definition, the defendant has flaunted the system . . . The defendant has tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so.
Even so . . .
This court has, thus far, declined to exercise its contempt powers and the state failed to prove that the defendant be held without bond.
And just in case you forgot that the Zimmerman trial has been tainted by questions of race, CNN ends its report thus:
Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, acknowledged fatally shooting Martin in February after calling police to report a suspicious person. Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, said Martin attacked him.
From the article:
“The judge’s order said that the new $1 million bond was not a punishment, but an amount that assured the court that Zimmerman would not abscond. Zimmerman has the funds to pay for his release, the court said.”
So assuming that he can afford it, Zimmerman pays the percentage required, he leaves jail, and everything is back to where it was: Same case, same issues, same unknowns, same crap, and the same people both sides bickering about an otherwise very unclear issue.
What this charade did, was buy time for the judge & special prosecutor to develop a strategy to extricate themselves from these beyond-stupid, unjust & obscene charges.
But it won’t work. Watch & see.
George Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder. How can you bond out of such a serious charge? Especially since the judge said he did not trust George Zimmerman. Can anyone charged with this degree of murder get out on bail?
Agreed. We don’t even have to talk about the shooting…he’s shown himself to be manipulative, a liar, and a bit of an opportunist. The judge told him he was a flight risk by not disclosing his 2nd passport, but still lets him bond out…go figure..
FLAME DELETED
How do you bond out a charge as serious charge murder-2? Good question. I suspect you’d only do it in cases where the charges are clearly politically motivated and have no basis in reality.
Crackheads like “ImYourHuckleberry” notwithstanding, the rest of earth will allow facts to remain self-evident.
Reading is fundamental SD. I’m talking about money grubbing liar GZ has revealed himself to be SINCE the government motivated him to exit his vehicle, bite off more than he could chew, and get his goofy — kicked, prompting him to have to kill someone. SD stand for Stunted Development to the Third Power?
“I guess that depends on how quickly Mr. Zimmerman can raise $1m”
He will not have to pay the full amount–only something like 10-20%
Write in haste rewrite in haste. Text amended.
Kind of. The rest will be loaned to him by a bail bondsman at an absurd interest rate. Zimmerman will have to pay the interest on the loan, and interest on a million-dollar loan is not trivial.
He might have gotten $150k in donations, but he’s not going to have much of it left over when this is done.
GZ is also going to have to pay income taxes on the 150k.
GZ is also going to have to pay income taxes…
These donations are gifts, right? If so, tax is only paid by the individual givers, and only if a giver gives > $13,000. Therefore, GZ’s income tax liability is 0.
Anyone who knows tax law care to correct me?
It looks like youre right
Instead of paying $15,000 to a bail bondsman, he will now need to pay $100,000.
There may, in some cases, be some profit in attempting to outright deceive a judge. This matter doesn’t seem to be one of those cases.
Eighth Amendment
I had a “discussion” about this, and they asserted that bond/bail must increase because GZ can now afford to pay more. (What?!?) In other words, bond/bail should be set based on the perp’s financial resources in order to reduce the likelihood of he will actually pay the bail/bond. (Again, what?!?)
Of course, I called it a load of crap. Bail/bond should be set based on the severity of crime, not the financial resources of the perp.
You should read this article by Larry Elder. It is a rare example of an American who refuses to be a victim or claim victim status no matter what. http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2012/07/05/larry_elder
GZIM is screwed no matter what, Herr Obamao made sure of that.
I am sure GMZ’s lawyer will post more details on his website. I suspect the judge also made some restrictions on the funds raised for his defense (ie, all monies have to be accounted for, including any spent on living expenses) so George doesn’t raise $1M and disappear. for good. Since he has over $200k raised already and his lawyer controls it, he has the 10% he needs to make bail. I am sure he will be out this evening (when it is dark).
If GZ’s self defense fund really holds ~$150K (as has been reported), he should have no trouble posting bond.
However, he needs to involve his attorney in order to make sure it’s done 1000% correctly. The weirdo prosecutor in this case will ensure that any mistake results in return to jail.
Perhaps I’m being overly pedantic, but did the judge mean to say “flaunt” or “flout?”
My e-dictionary defines Flaunt as: “3. to parade or display ostentatiously: to flaunt one’s wealth.
4. to ignore or treat with disdain: He was expelled for flaunting military regulations. ”
And Flout as “1. to treat with disdain, scorn, or contempt; scoff at; mock: to flout the rules of propriety.
verb (used without object)
2. to show disdain, scorn, or contempt; scoff, mock, or gibe ”
Not the first time I’ve seen the flaunt/flout mistake but it annoys me and you’d think a judge (or his clerk) would know better.
The bail bond business must be doing great in Florida.
If GZ is white and Hispanic, is Obama white and black?
white African
I was thinking White Black or Black White guy
Well judging by the position he is in and his skin color I would say he is a White Black guy.
Mulatto is what half black – half whites are called. I’m not sure that’s political correct now. Just as a child born out of wedlock, as Barack Obama was in that his bigamist father was married to another woman when he married Obama’s mother, is called a bastard. Again I don’t know if that is political correct now. Then there is his self-admitted drug use. People call drug users a lot of different names, but if we use the most innocuous term, he would be called a former drug user. So if we are to use the precise words in English to describe Barack Obama it would be mulatto, bastard, former drug user. I won’t get into any of the derogatory things people say about him.
Don’t forget to call him Mr. President….he’s that too.
I may be on the wrong track but I thought that bail was based on the nature of the crime as well as the likelihood of the defendant not showing for court. Not the fact that the defendant has had monies donated to his defense fund.
Would you charge a rich person more that a poor person for the same crime?
Would you charge a rich person more that a poor person for the same crime?
No, but a rich person might have to post more bail money, depending on the nature of the crime charged.
My comment may not have been clear enough.
If the rich guy was charged with murder and the poor guy was charge with murder and all things were equal in the two crimes. Would the bail for the rich guy be more that then bail for the poor guy?
In this case, GZ’s failure to come clean about his finances would have given the judge a reason to think he might be an additional flight risk, or that the money was being obtained with fraudulent intent.
Would the bail for the rich guy be more that then bail for the poor guy?
Probably, the bail for the rich guy would be higher to provide a disincentive for him to skip.
One minor point in the court order on bail was the statement by the judge:
“The FACT that they have spent the money ‘responsibly’ (i.e. without going out to expensive dinners or splurging on nonessentials) is of no consequence.” (emphasis added)
This gives the lie to the unproven — and now recorded as refuted by the court — charges by many GZ haters that the contributors to Zimmerman’s defense fund were supporting a high-on-the-hog lifestyle of the Zimmermans.
It doesn’t put the lie to the possibility they were stowing it away for future (fraudulent) use. At least some of the donors sent money with the expectation it would be used to give him good representation, but he didn’t even tell Mr. O’Mara.
Will you explicitly grant that the spurious charges by some that contributions were used for luxurious living by Zimmerman have been revealed as false, based on the statement of FACT in this court order? Alternatively, can you refute that point in the court order?
I see no such refutation in your response — only more speculative “charges” on the possibility of intent of “future (fraudulent) use”, and the assumption that some undetermined number of donors made assumptions about the uses that would be made of their contributions. In other words, a tangential distraction.
Yeah, I’m sure he and his wife were moving money around all of those accounts so that they could become philanthopists, give to charity, maybe open a school to continue tutoring…he looked a good 20 lbs heavier when he was sent back to prison, and his wife didn’t look like she’d missed any meals either. I’m sure when his wife told him “you’re going to have a great life”, she wasn’t talking about money at all….
Ask for refutation of FACT, so described by a court after an investigation into the matter, and what do you get?
– An opinion that GZ “looked a good 20 lbs heavier”, so of course, the court’s finding of FACT must be wrong. Obviously, Zimmerman must have been living like a millionaire, no matter what the court– headed by a judge who resents being deceived by the Zimmermans — has said.
– More unprovable speculation on ‘future intent’ as a further attempted distraction from the finding of the court.
I love these cyber-lawers and their big words….
You mean words like “fact”?
Let’s get to the courtroom and settle this once and for all.
Another article said the Judge accused Zimmerman of trying to manipulate the system. Duh, maybe he should just plead guilty, and request life without parole. Man better make sure he gets himself a jury trial cause the Judge seriously has it in for him.
This whole case is a total scam, where is truth and balance… how about fair play for all, forget all this race B.S. ,,,G.Z. has had the screws put to him , to make the government look good,, now it stinks ……..
Yeah you’re right – Obama came to Zimmerman’s cell and forced him to lie to a judge about his financial means! Get a clue FFS.
Having reviewed all the evidence the police and district attorney had released him without charges. That is the system working when someone has committed justifiable homicide. All the fear-mongering, race-baiting demagogues started their self-serving ranting joined by a media that distorted and out right lied to inflame folks like you, Hummer. The police chief retired rather than fight for what he knew was right. The ‘special prosecutor’ is an airhead who filed charges that any court should throw back in her face laughing. So I think maybe Zimmerman and his wife would and should never have been put in this place other than to provide someone to lynch. Are you bringing the rope, Hummer?
That was an awful lot of slackjawed dribble to say nothing at all about the FACT that Zimmerman lied to a judge about his financial situation to try and gain better bail terms.
Perhaps St. Ralph can fill you in on how the legal process actually works? I don’t have the time and I don’t think you’ll understand anyway, but here’s a quick hint – the judge didn’t have any hand in bringing the charges against Zimmerman whatsoever. He’s just there to try and straighten it all out as best he can, and quite rightly takes a dim view of people lying to him, because, you know (or probably you don’t), he’s just trying to get to the truth.
St. Ralph? Thanks, Sparky!
Peek-a-boo, I see you.
Zimmerman seems to be doing a good job of hanging himself, and the irony of it is, it’s the people giving him money that are giving him the rope….
I heard that some of the funds raised has been set aside to pay for the defense. That being said yes he will need to fork over $100,000. He could probably give let’s say half to the bail bondsman who would then cover the rest of the 100K. I get worried though every time he is out on the street. I keep thinking someone will take actions which would be detrimental to GZ’s health which would prevent him from standing trial. Putting aside the leaks, and news flurry which pretty much convicted him already, he has a right guilty or not for a fair and impartial trial.
We can all sit here and couch quarter back this case till the cows come home, but in the end regardless of what happens his life is pretty much over, unless he leaves the country. And even then it will follow you.
Don’t forget that not only does he have to come up with the $100k, but he has to find some way to collateralize the remaining $900k. When bond was $150k, you give the bondsman $15k and put up your house as surety for the remainder. There’s no way that GZ and his parents have collateral worth $900k, based on the information I’ve seen. I’m not sure how that works out. A really trusting bondsman?
Another crock in a barrel full of shit. This charade is designed to discourage any DGU.
I dunno if that’s by design- it looks to me like a bunch of hustlers are using the incident for their own purposes- but yeah, everyone’s going to be a bit concerned about turning out to be the next George Zimmerman.
That thought is probably going to make a few people hesitate when they shouldn’t.
Hopefully, it will make people hesitate when they SHOULD. Did you see the video of that road rage incident in CA? Another instance of when someone should have kept their — in the car. I’m sure if GZ had it to do all over again, he would have stayed in his vehicle as he was instructed to do. I was in an incident taking my kid to school and another guy taking his kid to school came down my street doing 50 mph nearly clipping me as I was backing out of my driveway. We passed each other at the school, locked eyes, and I called him an a–hole. He screamed F— you!, turned around and proceeded to FOLLOW ME, thinking I was going back home (I was going to work). He pulled along side me challenging me to pull over, not knowing I was tooled up. I honestly thought about GZ, and how stupid it was to get into a street fight over this, and how foolish he was to follow me not knowing I could END HIM. I don’t regret not exiting my vehicle. I very well may have regretted doing otherwise, anyway it would have turned out.
He wasn’t instructed until the END OF THE CALL. Have you ever heard the ACTUAL 911 call?
Nope.
At the end of the call he is advised by the operator “sir, we don’t need you to do that.” To which he replies that he lost visual anyway. LAST 10 SECONDS OF THE CALL.
As a matter of FACT, he was NOT “instructed” to remain in his car. The dispatcher asked “Are you following him?”, to which GZ answered “Yes”.
The dispatcher then ADVISED him (he had NO AUTHORITY to “instruct” him to do or not do anything); “We don’t need you to do that”. GZ apparently followed that ADVICE, since he responded “Okay”.
I have to agree with Derek — you probably never listened to the primary source, the recording of the 911 call.
But Hell —- why let something minor, like the hard evidence of a recorded conversation interfer with your theory of what happened.
Anyone know how/where to make a donation to his defense fund?
His legal case site: http://gzlegalcase.com/
His defense fund site: http://www.gzdefensefund.com/
GZ should get used to prison, because he’s going to be in one for a long, long time. Is he guilty of murder? I don’t know. But I do know that he’s going to be convicted of a serious crime and can expect to spend at least ten years in the joint.
Just out of curiousity….you said you don’t know if he’s guilty of murder but he’s going to spend at least ten years in prison for a serious crime?
Is he guilty of murder? No, but he is guilty of something much worse–offending Leftist political sensibilities. For that, he can expect to spend at least ten years in the joint.
Leftists never really had an issue with Chicanos killing American Africans or vice versa. But someone seized the moment and said “We’ll use the broad label white to describe Zippy and conflate him with European-Americans.” Zippy didn’t offend Leftists. Zippy was a patsy for an anti-EuroAmerican media ploy.
Hey, all — just came across your site as I was looking around for more info on SYG, in relation to the Zman case. By a few posts I’ve seen, there are some of same mindset, that this case is politically motivated, and more. I am from FL but not there now, and remember WHY these laws were put in place. Because of the political agenda, the race agenda, the anti-SYG agenda, etc. I am more than concerned for all citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights slowly being targeted and taken. I’m sure many of you have been to http://www.conservativetreehouse.com and viewed their amazing research. I will continue to visit here, and gain additional insight. Have a wonderful day!
so sorry, that should be http://www.theconservativetreehouse.com
Anyone legally carrying a GUN ( other than persons in government employ ) is guilty of premeditated self-defense. Therefore, any discharge of a projectile by a defending person which strikes an assailant is an act of assault by the defender and the former assailant then becomes the defending party and the victim of assault.
If the discharge of a projectile from a GUN results in cessation of the physiological functions of the former assailant having become the defending person and thus the victim of premeditated self-defense, whatever laws have been enacted to protect the former defender turned assailant are inapplicable.
The state is obligated to arrest and prosecute the former defender turned assailant on charges of murder.
The jurors will be instructed to disregard any previously held notions of self- defense, consider the former defender as the instigator and perpetrator of the crime, and find the person guilty of murder.
Case closed.
We are through the looking glass, with a few bedazzled souls admiring the view and the sober majority wondering how we got here.