Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by DORISPULASKI, Apr 28, 2012.
Reportedly, $150,000 of the money remains. $5,000 was used in making the bond (the rest came from a loan secured from a family home) and the rest was used on living expenses! Nearly $50K spent in less than 2 months on living expenses!!
This should make Zimmerman supporters happy, knowing their boy has been living well as he awaits trial.
You can get a bail bond for as little as 5% down, althought 10% is more common. Consequently, if you have an $150,000 bail bond to meet, you require not more than $15,000 to secure it, and if you go to Phoenix Bail bonds, they claim they will do it for $7,500.
I hope that the contributors to the fund don't come to regret "investing" in George Zimmerman.
Well : actually I hope they do come to regret it.
What are they endorsing? Random stalking of people just walking along the street, even when it leads to a death?
Even if GZ is innocent under SYG, actions like his are not something I want to see more of.
Better that they should regret it.
I'm afraid that they really want the "freedom" to use their guns without restraint.
Yes, sad to say, I agree.
That amount probably went to security/bodygaurds. With illegal bounties on his head, he must have spent a fortune on that. Plus, he's probably gotten security for his mom and dad, too. I'm actually surprised he has spent so little in two months.
With the rehabilitation of Zimmerman's reputation in full force, his attorney would have informed the press that "a fortune" has been spent on security for Zimmerman and his family if that were the case. I wouldn't be surprised if we later learn of a new car and hotel suites.
Sounds like Zimmerman kept both his lawyer and his family in the dark about the amount of money. The lawyer acknowledged just finding out about the money, and that he believed Zimmerman was broke. And, though Zimmerman had raised more than enough money from the contributions to pay the full 10% of the bond, he allowed his family to secure a loan to pay $10,000 of it. Or, the family knew all along and secured the loan in order to continue the 'meager means' deceit.
The more we find out about GZ's character, the worse it gets.
Wonder how much a list of donors would go for on the black market?
George Zimmerman's old MySpace page draws scrutiny
"I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft [expletive] wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!"
Oh, but according to his lawyer, his words are not terrible and he used no racial slurs! Oh, and on top of that, he's Hispanic! Surely a Hispanic man has no prejudicial feelings towards Mexicans and blacks!
"If Zimmerman's Internet presence is going to be reviewed then it would logically follow that so would Trayvon's, O'Mara said, and that could be problematic for the teenager's family."
There is just one problem with this argument. Trayvon didn't kill anyone, and he was just 17 years old, as against a 28 year old man. O'Mara is an example of why I dislike criminal attorneys. They have no integrity. They will defend their client, knowing that he/she was guilty.
So if a lawyer thinks his or her client is guilty, the client shouldn't get a defense? What about requiring the government being required to prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? There is nothing unethical in forcing the government to prove its case and giving a person the best possible defense.
Why? So Spike Lee and Roseanne Barrcan tweet these people's home addresses? So that the New Black Panther Party can put out more illegal and criminal bounties for their execution?
That's exactly how people like OJ Simpson go free. If the attorneys KNEW he was guilty but simply used their technical expertise to disprove the government's claim, that is unethical. It may be legal and it obviously was, but it is just wrong to let a guilty person go free.
Wrong. Its the defense attorney's job to make the prosecution prove their case. Now a defense attorney can't knowingly put lies on the stand. So if they know the defendent is guilty they can't put the defendent on the stand. But they absolutely CAN point out weaknesses in the defense's case etc. Its their job to make the State prove their case, not play judge/juror for their client.
Read my post again. I am talking about attorneys that KNEW the client was guilty and yet defended him. By your logic, the defendant is free to lie to the attorney, or tell the truth, but in either case it would be ethical for the attorney to defend him and tell lie in the court. I am talking about ethics and what is morally wrong, and not how the system works (IMO it sucks quite often).
If an attorney agrees to represent a client, he is required to represent him to the best of his ability - even if he believes him to be guilty.
One of the greatest things about the US system of justice is that the "burden of proof" rests with the State rather than the defense.
IMO it would be unethical for a lawyer to refuse to represent a guilty client and only represent ones they thought were innocent. The whole point of having a lawyer is to help you navigate through the system so you don't get screwed and get a just result. Guilty people deserve that as much as innocent people.
Now if the prosecution is so screwed up that they can't prove a guilty person is guilty, that really isn't the guilty person's lawyer's fault. That's on the prosecution for not doing their job.
I was thinking about NRA and right-wing PAC contribution campaigns. If someone's willing to throw $20 to GZ, they must be aligned with those groups' goals and therefore willing to support them.
I guess the people you mentioned would be interested, too.
So, what price would be fair for the list of PayPal contributors? $10k? $2 and a cup of coffee?
Medical reports reveals Zimmerman had injuries consistent with the story: http://news.yahoo.com/abc-news-excl...ws-broken-204911351--abc-news-topstories.html
When Zimmerman appeared on television as he was brought to the police station, he did not appear to have many of the injures indicated.
I can see where maybe the bruising hadn't shown yet (I've never broken my nose, nor been punched in the face, so I don't know how quickly that materializes), but I still don't think those cuts on the back his head indicate "repeatedly being pounded into the pavement."
Criminal lawyers MUST defend their clients, innocent or guilty. If criminal lawyers only represented the innocent, most would go broke. Everyone charged with an offense is entitled to representation, and such representation is a right regardless of whether or not they committed the offense with which they've been charged.
I know of no lawyer who refused to represent someone because they knew their client was guilty and it's beyond naive to think that a lawyer would refuse to represent a guilty client.
Do you have a lot of experience with the matter? Some sites are reporting that Trayvon's knuckles were bruised on autopsy. Didn't they say before that there was nothing but the GSW? This is rather confusing.
The Daily Mail shows enhanced video grab courtesy of ABC with injuries present: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Zimmerman-treated-broken-nose-cuts-head.html Just scroll down a bit.
I still don't understand on whose side the laws are....Clearly Martin hit Zimmerman but he had it coming because Martin at that time must have been just as threatened by Zimmerman. I guess I struggle with, did Zimmerman feel justified with killing someone when he didn't see a gun on him, he could have just pushed him away. I think he elevated it to a level it didn't need to go and he started the whole thing.
I can imagine the jury pool in this case will have no scientists or doctors in it. My sister was just on a jury where they didn't have any doctors or scientists, because the crux of the defense's position was based on a scientific/medical claim. They didn't want any jurors with background knowlege on the matter, and to base their verdict only on information provided by the lawyers.
FWIW, it made her fairly disillusioned about the whole "finding out the truth" part about getting to a verdict. I'm not sure how I feel about it myself, when it comes down to choosing a jury which is coming in cold and will require a crash course in human metabolism or wound healing, what have you. But noooo, background knowledge could make us biased. Which I don't deny, but it's not the kind of personal bias that directly affects the case in front of them.
I was doing jury duty on a rape case once. The defense attorney was hellbent on excluding anyone who knew what DNA evidence was. I was dismissed along with all medical professionals who were there.
Separate names with a comma.