Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Whitneyskates, Sep 9, 2013.
Edited to add:
According to the Orlando Sentinel, the house Mr & Mrs Zimmerman lived in during the trial was no trailer in the woods. LOL
He hates white blue-eyed women.....
Oh just his soon to be ex-wife.
Is it legitimate that I want him to be denied bail.
His soon-to-be ex-wife may not press charges, but it looks like the police are holding him for the time being anyway.
I remember an op-ed after the trial ended, that mentioned Zimmerman has now inherited the pains of a black man when he killed one. Looks like it's coming to fruition.
Shocking. Was she wearing a hoodie and armed with skittles and iced tea by any chance?
This from the CNN article:
"The incident comes two months after Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, was found not guilty of murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
Hudson said earlier that police are following procedure by placing Zimmerman in investigative detention.
"Anytime we have anybody suspected of doing anything, we place them in investigative detention until a complete investigation has been done," Hudson said. "
Had they followed that last paragraph, may be Trayvon's family would have had a stronger case.
I read elsewhere that Shellie Zimmerman (and her dad, I guess?) declined to press charges, so GZ has been released.
I guess they did not want to deal with Mark O'Mara who would have won the case for Zimmerman.
Domestic violence allegations are often denied after the police intervention has occurred. That might have been part of it, it might have been any other number of things. Do I think Zimmerman is a loose cannon, yeah. But we don't know why she declined to press charges
I am not official, just speculating here. I think I read that it was her lawyer who called her off of the chase. Am I nasty in assuming it was something like well, if he's in jail your spousal support in a separation and divorce is in jeopardy. So she forgot whether or not the gun was in his hand. Seriously. BLAH.
Well, his wife is a piece of work herself.
Seriously??!! What part of "once it's over, it's over" doesn't she understand? You want to divorce your husband, that means he owes you NOTHING once it becomes final. You're on your own.
That is a very typical divorce settlement. I don't understand your response.
The guy had a history of run-ins with the law long before he killed an unarmed Trayvon Martin. Arrest for assault against a police officer, domestic disturbance (doesn't surprise me), he was also fired from a security job for being 'too aggressive'. I knew he'd run afoul of the law again I just didn't think it would be this soon. And he's going to end up in trouble again. And again. He's just that kind of a swell guy.
Splitting up accumulated-during-marriage $$/property is one thing, but that life insurance policy to benefit HER as paid for by HIM, considering she now wants a divorce, is a bit out of bounds, don't you think? And if he does win that defamation suit against NBC, and it happens after their divorce becomes final, why should she get any of it?
Because she got dragged through the mud with him?
Though I don't understand the life insurance policy at all.
I've never met anyone with that as part of their settlement. Maybe if there were children involved, I could see it as insurance for child support. But what would be the reasoning for it otherwise? Most courts don't award much alimony anymore, and certainly not for very long.
I've seen the life insurance thing in a lot of divorce settlements. Another typical provision is to ask for half of the 401k.
Life insurance is pretty cheap. Some of you are acting like she's asking for all the marital assets not half of them plus the dogs and a little life insurance. (I'm assuming the dogs are basically hers and that's why she's asking for custody.)
I'm just wondering why would someone even think to ask to be a beneficiary on an ex's plan if there are no children involved? I don't understand the reasoning there. People move on with other relationships, so if George married someone else, of course the new wife would be the beneficiary--not the ex. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here.
Now, it could be different if children were involved, but I thought Zimmerman had no children. Is that incorrect?
Sometimes people will ask for this kind of thing in lieu of or to bolster retirement benefits. For example, some friends of mine got divorced. She was entitled to a big chunk of his retirement benefits down the line, but she and the husband agreed to the life insurance policy instead; he figured it would be cheaper for him in the long run (he was probably right) and she figured it would be more secure (she was probably right). He has another life insurance policy that names his second wife beneficiary.
I also don't understand why someone should be entitled to someone else's retirement benefits ....
Right. Also, in those long-term marriage cases where the former spouse could be entitled to spousal support for the rest of his/her life or very long-term depending on the circumstances (although there are formulas for calculating support, ultimately each case is viewed on a case-by-case basis), the former spouse often requests and gets named as a beneficiary to a life insurance policy. The reason is simple: What if the earning spouse passes away shortly after the divorce? It does make some sense, though I personally believe support should be strictly rehabilitative.
As far as the domestic alternation, I don't believe either Zimmerman or his soon-to-be ex or her father.
Because, often times, those or a portion of those retirement benefits were earned during the marriage.
Because you supported them during the time they were earning them.
Also, in every negotiation like this, you ask for a little more than you expect to get. I have a life insurance policy that cost me less than $400 a year. It's an easy thing to ask for and then if George starts balking at "but I love those dogs (that I never even take for a walk or to the groomers) too" then Shellie can say "fine, only 2 years of life insurance then".
It's not like she's asking for the house outright and 10 years of alimony.
I pray that crazy son of b*tch doesn't reproduce...the world doesn't need any more gun-toting trigger-happy psychos than it already has.
Because couples make all kinds of decisions when they get married and or have kids. Those decisions can enhance or limit the earning power of each person. For example, one partner may give up a successful career to move across the country so the other partner take a promotion. One partner may give up a successful career in order to stay home and raise the children. In this case, it can be a huge benefit to the other partner as they are not restricted in their work hours or ability to travel for work. They are not having to leave work early to get to daycare pick up or to pick up sick children. Those examples may not apply to the Zimmerman case, but they are very legitimate reasons for spousal support and or sharing of pension benefits.
it could be for a variety of reasons, joint debts, to get back part of the $ she may have put into a house or a spouse's tuition, payback for the time a spouse may not have worked full time or contributed to her own 401k, or just because her lawyer thinks she can get it. it's quite common. we dont keep stats on it so i cant tell you how common it is.
It's just a matter of time before that nut kills someone else. I don't blame his wife for being scared, it could easily be her or her family. He's crazy. And now that he has gotten away with murder once, he probably thinks he can get away with it again.
did Shellie Zimmerman's testimony help his case? I assumed that the life insurance thing was a business agreement related to 1) her help in his getting away with murder 2) the detrimental effect her association with him in part due to #1 will have on the rest of her life and 3) the increased odds that he may not make it to a ripe old age.
But I'm cynical.
Separate names with a comma.