Skip to main content

George Zimmerman at court hearing
last week. (Gary Green/Pool)
At a bond hearing on Friday for George Zimmerman, the Sanford, Florida neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed the unarmed Trayvon Martin, Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. set bond at $150,000.

Zimmerman's wife and parents testified on his behalf, with state attorney investigator Dale Gilbreath testifying for the prosecution. Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, requested bond of $15,000 while the state's attorney argued for either no bond, or a bond of $1 million. Bond has been set at $150,000 with conditions including:

– GPS monitoring
– Zimmerman would have to contact authorities every three days
– No contact with the victim's family
– No possession of firearms
– No use of controlled substances, other than those prescribed by a physician.
Zimmerman will not be released today because the state and defense have details of his release and monitoring, including whether he would be allowed to leave the state, to work out.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:33 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  i did mini live blog (13+ / 0-)

    here with some interesting facts presented.

    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:40:48 AM PDT

  •  Thank goodness ... (17+ / 0-)

    ... I was afraid he was going to miss a bunch of NRA meetings. Have the criminals overrun the neighborhood yet without good ol' George on patrol?

    I hope Trayvon's family and supporters took note of that defense request for a bond lower than some folks receive for a simple DUI ... or for shooting a dog.

  •  Well good for him. (5+ / 0-)

    I am glad George Zimmerman is involved with the justice system after shooting an unarmed 17-year old kid.

    (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

    by Tamifah on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:43:09 AM PDT

  •  Defense took a gamble putting Zimmerman on stand (9+ / 0-)

    Defense already had the the prosecution's investigator state that they have documented evidence of Zimmerman's head wounds

    But what was even worse was the prosecutor's investigator stating he didn't know who confronted whom, and they had no evidence to suggest otherwise

    You had a young person of color being strongly pressed by an old white prosecutor, which in this case certainly can give a moment of feeling odd

    But it worked out for the defense because the prosecution already looked weak, they couldn't get anything on Zimmerman during the bond hearing, and Zimmerman was able to say he was sorry on national television

    •  that apology actually made me mad (17+ / 0-)

      the language he chose to use about him being unable to know whether Trayvon Martin was armed indicates two things to me:

      1 - A complete abrogation of his responsibility for setting things in motion by chasing the kid ("I'm sorry your son is dead" is not the same thing as "I'm sorry for what I did")

      2 - Can someone drill into his idiot head that he is not 5-0? He is not a police? SERIOUSLY????

      (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

      by Tamifah on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:50:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but on the 911 tape zimmerman (22+ / 0-)

        clearly described trayvon as in his late teens.. so why all of a sudden today he says he thought he was more around his age at the time?

        "I'm not mad at them (tea party) for being loud, I'm mad at us for being silent for the last two years. Where have we been"? "it was never yes HE can, it was Yes WE can". - Van Jones

        by sillycilla on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:59:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  For many people (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tamifah, harvarddem, cap76

        Regardless of what he said, or what evidence is presented, there is nothing he can do that they would accept

        I have no big reason to think he's innocent, but being on national television and in court for a charge of life in prison makes you very cautious and robotic in your statements

        I think he did well, he came off as human, but we'll see what the evidence says at trial

      •  Trayvon's parents said they wanted two questions (0+ / 0-)

        answered by Zimmerman.  He answered them in his testimony.  Prejudge not, if you don't want to be prejudged.
        With apologies to the Bible.

        •  he shot an unarmed kid and i make no apology (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yellow is my favorite color

          for how I feel about that.

          (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

          by Tamifah on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:51:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I won't prejudge his intent, since I don't think (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yellow is my favorite color

          we have expert reports on what that 911 tape really says (for instance, did he use racial invective?).  And I want the trial to be fair.

          But the broad outlines of what happened are clear.  Zimimerman left his truck and pursued Trayvon Martin.  He approached him in an aggressive and threatening way.  ("What are you doing here?")  He wanted to accost Trayvon and hold him until the police arrive.  ("They always get away.")  HIs intentions were hostile/aggressive (though he may have really thought they were justified).  Trayvon percieved his intentions as aggressive, judging by the call to his girlfriend.

          Trayvon may have responded in ways he thought were self-defensive.  He may have shoved or struck Zimmerman.  We don't know who initiated physical contact.

          But here's the thing: If you approach someone in an aggressive and hostile way, with the intention of controlling their movements, and they RESPOND to that by shoving or striking you, you don't get to kill them.  That's not the way self-defense works.  You don't just get to shoot them dead.

          It's not "pre-judging" to notice that much, and feel highly suspicious about race and justice in Florida, and worry that it's Trayvon and his family, more than Zimmerman and his family, whose claims to justice are vulnerable.

          I want justice for both, as much as that's possible with one of them dead. I don't prejudge whether Zimmerman intended to commit murder.  It's possible that he got himself in over his head, untrained and yearning for importance as he was, and that when he found himself in a pretty minor fight he panicked.  So, once again, the presence of a gun turns a scuffle into a killing.

          But whatever justice for Zimmerman entails, it means taking some serious responsibility for ending an innocent, precious human life.

          A little bit of blood from very minor cuts on Zimmerman's head that didn't even need stitches does not put that in question at all.

          And aside from Zimmerman, we should be going after those damnable "Stand your Ground" laws, which seem to have been written by imbeciles; and police departments that tolerate untrained, irresponsible "neighborhood watch" activities that are indistinguishable from vigilantes.

          --------------- --------------- --------------- "Every part of you belongs to you." -- from a story of Virginia under the Personhood law. Read it here.

          by Fiona West on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 03:18:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  in order 2 deny bond state has to prove whole case (12+ / 0-)

      That is clearly not their strategy here.  

      abc news puts it like this

      In a bail hearing in Florida, the burden of proof to deny bail, even in a second-degree murder trial, is higher than needed to seek a conviction in a trial.
      "They would have to prove that the presumption of guilt is great, and that the proof is evident," O'Mara said.
      In the capias -- similar to a warrant -- filed against Zimmerman last week, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey and her team set bail at "none."
      In order to avoid a reduction in bail to a set monetary sum, Corey's team would have to prove its case essentially, something legal experts say is unlikely at this point in the legal process.
      Zimmerman attorney O'Mara said he doubts the prosecutor will reveal its case before the trial.
      link here

      http://abcnews.go.com/...

    •  There was no blood on his head 37 minutes (2+ / 0-)

      after the horror as he walked through the police station. Now, on TV,  they are showing his head bleeding as he is wearing his orange jumpsuit. Little bit of a timing problem there. This whole thing re: his arrest is a joke. He's not going to jail.  

      "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

      by rubyr on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:37:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is he employed? Is he running for office? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamifah, ChadmanFL, dss

    I wonder what he'll be up to between now and May 29th?

    (Bet there are continuances...)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:44:28 AM PDT

  •  The equal scales of Justice at work. (15+ / 0-)

    No doubt had the roles been reversed, Trayvon would have received the same bond for killing an unarmed man. I'm sure his family would have been able to testify from home as well.

  •  Little disappointed in the investigator and (7+ / 0-)

    prosecution....

    They said they had no evidence that Mr. Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin.....

    The evidence was the phone call Martin made to his girlfriend....

    •  Prosecution doesnt want to play its cards (8+ / 0-)

      too early

    •  Difference between followed and confronted (5+ / 0-)

      Just because someone followed another person, does not mean they confronted them

      What Trayvon's girlfriend said was that Trayvon said he was being followed, and told her he wasn't going to run

      Then there were some words (tape I heard seemed to indicate Trayvon started the conversation by asking him what he was doing) and then the audio cut out

      The investigator reviewed the evidence more thoroughly than any of us can, and concluded there was no evidence Zimmerman confronted Trayvon

      •  Illogical. If one is being followed, the (6+ / 0-)

        follower is the initiator of the confrontion, not the followee.

        •  No basis in law (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Be Skeptical, brooklyn137, VClib

          Following a person on a public street, especially for a short period of time, does not give license to do whatever you want

          Here is your mistake in logic:

          All followers of all persons for all reasons are always guilty of initiating a confrontation
          =
          Not a true statement

          •  If a hunter followed a deer in the same manner (5+ / 0-)

            First by vehicle, then dismounting and following on foot to get into close range, then we would say that the hunter was stalking the deer.

            Here is your mistake in logic.  You are equating what might be casually walking in the same direction as someone on the street with what Zimmerman did.  Apple meet orange.

            •  I'm not equating (0+ / 0-)

              I'm saying it doesn't always follow

              which it doesn't

              which is why the law doesn't recognize such a silly notion

              •  You want to talk logic (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                yellow is my favorite color

                and then put together a silly hypothetical situation using a bunch of absolute language not used by the person you were responding to.  That isn't logical in my book.

                The person you responded to was talking about a specific incident and you wanted to blow this out to make it sound like they were talking about all acts of following that ever occurred in the history of Florida when obviously that wasn't their intention.

                •  no, that's not what was said (0+ / 0-)

                  "If one is being followed, the follower is the initiator of the confrontion, not the followee"

                  if the follower is not always the initiator of the confrontation, the statement is invalid

                  they do not, so the statement is invalid

                  pretty simple stuff here...don't know why you're pretending he was talking only about GZ when he specifically started talking about logic and if one is being followed

                  •  Not sure why you struggle with this (2+ / 0-)

                    You weren't talking about the law initially.  The person that responded to you wasn't either.

                    The person that did the following initiated the confrontation.  Well yes they did, in this instance, which is what they were talking about here.  Which you don't seem to get.  If Zimmerman hadn't approached Trayvon, most likely (speculating here) quite closely, then nothing would have occurred.  Zimmerman most assuredly initiated this.  

                    Now if you want to talk about who threw the first punch, we are down to speculation.  You seem to think this is some Venn diagram type logic problem when obviously everyone is talking about this particular instance.

                    If you care to write a dissertation about all the various instances of following that do not cause a confrontation, be my guest.  I can guarantee I won't waste my time reading it.

                    •  I see the problem here (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm reading what was posted in this line of comments, you're reading some other line of comments

                      I said "Just because someone followed another person, does not mean they confronted them"

                      Someone responded that was illogical...and then offered up a "logical statement" (which was oddly enough, illogical)

                      You came and said there was a "mistake in logic" and when I showed that you were wrong, you suddenly wanted to talk about something else

                      I'll take this latest dive as your forfeiting any notion that those who follow always initiate the confrontation

                      •  Here is the real world for you (2+ / 0-)

                        If you follow me in a vehicle and I try to get away, then you dismount and continue to follow me, you have initiated a confrontation plain and simple.  And if you get too close to me while I continue to try to get away my fist will be in your face faster than you can say "wtf?"  You will have at that time initiated a confrontation plain as day.

                        My whole point is that you think this is some sort of antiseptic logic problem completely removed from the actual incident which is just silly.

            •  Wasn't a "public" street was it? (0+ / 0-)

              It was in a gated community. People don't willy nilly walk or drive around.

              --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

              by chipoliwog on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:18:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Draxinum (0+ / 0-)

          will go to any length to justify the actions of GZ

          Tim Wise On Israel: "The right to live wherever one chooses has never included the right to live in someone else's house, after taking it by force or fraud."

          by yellow is my favorite color on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:37:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  that's just not the state's strategy here (7+ / 0-)

        Firstly, they don't wish to show their cards yet, and secondly, the investigator is not the lead prosecutor.  He's speaking to the evidence he personally has seen.  Thirdly, the location of Trayvon's body is proof enough that Zimmerman is lying about his "returning to his car" after "looking for a street sign," since he was not on any path to accomplish those goals - there are no street signs behind the townhouses, and he had left the line of sign of his vehicle.  

        The state may not try to examine who confronted whom at all - they may only try to show that Zimmerman is not telling the truth when he says he was not the one to instigate the confrontation.   If they can show the jury that GZ is lying when he claims TM started the fight, then it follows that it had to be Zimmerman who started the fight.  This, in my opinion is an easier case to prove.  

        •  I think this is a fair assessment. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HappyinNM, bobatkinson

          If they can prove he's not forthcoming on the details as he has given them and expects everyone to take at face value, then his entire retelling comes into doubt, including how the confrontation occurred.

        •  Doesn't the prosecution have to show all their (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HappyinNM

          cards to the defense?  When does this generally happen?

          •  harvarddem - they have to show all the evidence (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChadmanFL, auapplemac

            The prosecution must show the defense all of the evidence it has in its possession, even if they don't plan to use it in the trial. They certainly don't have to disclose their strategy or tactics, but under Florida law they have to show everything. According to Z counsel the evidence starts to arrive a few weeks after the initial court hearing. Counsel thought that within a month he would have a clear understanding of the evidence in the case.  This disclosure requirement continues through the trial.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:47:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  They have to show all the evidence they're (0+ / 0-)

            going to use at trial (called discovery). They don't have to show "their cards" which, to my mind, means their strategy.

            Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

            by HappyinNM on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:55:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The state has the burden (0+ / 0-)

          The state has a burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.  What you suggest will not carry that burden.  Proving someone is a liar, even if they could, will not prove the opposite or any alternative to what they say.  It doesn't even prove they are not telling the truth about something else.  For the state, at this point, this looks like an unwinnable case.  

          •  What are you basing your assessment on? (4+ / 0-)

            We have only seen a small portion of the evidence. We haven't seen the autopsy report or the witness statements. They indicated today that they had a witness who saw Z following Trayvon. I had never heard that before.

            Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

            by HappyinNM on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:18:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Make up what those witnesses say (0+ / 0-)

              Just make it up.  If they say there was no struggle and Zimmerman just walked up and shot Trayvon, the physical evidence is against the state. There was a struggle.  If Zimmerman attacked, how come there is no signs of a struggle on Trayvon's body.  
              The problem is whatever answer you come up with doesn't remove reasonable doubt.  We don't know who started the struggle and no one does.  As long as that is the case, there is reasonable doubt.  

              •  The bar is "reasonable" doubt, not no doubt. (2+ / 0-)

                The way you put it, it's heads I win, tails you lose. The fact is that if Z had just done what the police officer told him to do, Trayvon would be alive today. We know that prior to the gunshot, Trayvon was screaming for help (heard on several witness' 911 calls). We know that Z admitted to shooting Trayvon.

                Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

                by HappyinNM on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 11:04:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Inthis case it is heads I win tails you lose. (0+ / 0-)

                  All the defense has to do is show a reasonable doubt.  The injuries demonstrate that.  If the jury can't answer how he got those injuries other than a scuffle and the prosecution can't prove who confronted who, that's a reasonable doubt about the confrontation.

              •  Reasonable doubt as to what Z says happened (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                yellow is my favorite color

                can be created by showing he is lying about things that are surrounding the self defense claim, and his version of how the fight started and went down.   If you claim self defense, you need to be telling the truth about everything or your whole story comes into question.  

                In their affidavit, they claim Z profiled TM, pursued him, and shot him not in self-defense, but in murder 2 terms.  They DON'T say how the fight started, and I'm not sure they ever will claim to know how.  They just want to show that it didn't happen how GZ told the cops it did.  

                In order to mount a credible self defense claim, Z's side will have to put his version of events into the record.  (He already has several versions in his statements to the cops in the 24 hours following the shooting.)  Then, the prosecution will work to tear down his OVERALL credibility.  That will be fairly easy since his version is a lie that evolved over multiple tellings.  

                The tide will turn, and he will plea down to manslaughter, or at the least aggravated assault or some such.  IANAL but I think this will all come down to Zimmerman's inability to tell the truth credibly.  

              •  I think he is at least guilty of manslaughter (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                yellow is my favorite color

                He should not have acted in a way to initiate a confrontation.  He was in his car and the cops said he shouldn't follow after Martin.  

                I don't know that I agree that he was motivated by a desire to kill a black person, as some seem to believe.  I think it's possible he was just extremely overzealous in his "crime fighting" duties.  He might have been racist to the extent he was more suspicious of a black person in the neighborhood though.  

                That being said, he still definitely caused the situation to occur which resulted in Trayvon Martin being killed.  He shouldn't have followed after him, nor should he have been carrying a gun during his watch duties.  He should have had mace or even a club (something reasonably non-lethal to protect himself with).  

                The way he acted was clearly wrong and it's tragic how everything went down.  On the whole though, I don't think not being arrested did Zimmerman any favors.  He would have been better off if he'd been arrested immediately, and the case had not been so highly publicized.  

                •  I don't mean to come off too sympathetic to Z (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  yellow is my favorite color

                  It's just the whole thing just seems so senseless to me.  It didn't have to happen.  

                  I still don't see how Zimmerman can reasonably get off scott free.  At a minimum it's manslaughter as far as I can tell.  I don't see how you can look at the known facts and think otherwise.  

          •  Z is asserting Self Defense (2+ / 0-)

            He has a burden to prove that.  

            --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

            by chipoliwog on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 12:20:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The evidence is the hole in Trayvon's chest. (2+ / 0-)

        Which was put there when Zimmerman was "in front" of Trayvon.  Zimmerman's entire 911 conversation indicated he did NOT want to lose sight of Trayvon. To do this, he had to  pursue.

        And then assert a defense under the Pursuit and Shoot law.

  •  A slap on the wrist. it comes down to $15,000 (5+ / 0-)

    paltry sum. and he may be able to leave the state?!

    "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing." - Thomas Paine

    by blueoregon on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:48:59 AM PDT

  •  Zimmerman is Lucky He This Crime Didn't Happen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamifah, politicalceci

    in Virginia. Murder defendants rarely get bonds because there's a presumption against it.

    "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

    by Aspe4 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:51:42 AM PDT

  •  I have a bad feeling about this case (9+ / 0-)

    I'd be surprised if he even gets convicted of manslaughter let alone murder.  I hope I'm wrong and the prosecution has some important evidence we don't know of.

    •  oh, they have the autopsy report, etc (nt) (7+ / 0-)

      (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

      by Tamifah on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:00:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What can the autopsy show. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, HairyTrueMan

        The detective today testified that there were powder burns on both, showing that the shot was fired at close range, the cuts to the back of Zimmerman's head, and his broken nose are consistent with Zimmerman's story.  The undertaker said that Trayvon's body had no signs of a struggle, which is bad for the state.  If Zimmerman had initiated then he would have gotten one blow, but in any event, it is consistent with Zimmerman's story for him to have injuries and Trayvon to have none.  

        •  Trayvon had a gunshot wound to the chest. (4+ / 0-)

          The only fact we know is that the funeral director said his hands didn't have wounds, indicating that he wasn't using the only weapon he had.

          Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

          by HappyinNM on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:22:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  wrong (5+ / 0-)

          Nice attempt to obfuscate though.  

          What the undertaker actually said was that there were no injuries on Trayvon's hands which is bad for GZ

          There would be injuries on Trayvon's hand if he punched and attacked GZ.

          In any case, it really doesn't matter if Trayvon got in a few punches.  Trayvon had a right to stand his ground and defend his life from an older, LARGER, ARMED attacker.

          Tim Wise On Israel: "The right to live wherever one chooses has never included the right to live in someone else's house, after taking it by force or fraud."

          by yellow is my favorite color on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:41:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is the problem with the law (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobatkinson

            They both had the right to stand their ground.  Trayvon thought Zimmerman was some kind of predator, and Zimmerman thought Trayvon was a criminal.  Both were wrong, but under Florida law both had the right to kill the other for their own mistake.  It isn't Trayvon against Zimmerman, it's the law that's the problem.  

            •  Wrong again (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ozoozol

              SYG statute:

              776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself

              Tim Wise On Israel: "The right to live wherever one chooses has never included the right to live in someone else's house, after taking it by force or fraud."

              by yellow is my favorite color on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:57:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  It'll be interesting to find out what other (5+ / 0-)

      evidence shows. Until then, I'm just not going to bother with all the speculation flying around.

      Florida, still kind of the hanging chad state, though, it looks like.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:16:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Prosecution asked Z about text messaging something (0+ / 0-)

        about something about Martin's father at the time of the incedent. Defense countered with some procedural point.

        Analyst said the pros appears to have some sort of pertinent info from Zs phone to be brought up at trial.

        Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive. And... It’s the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by auapplemac on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 01:58:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  love Zimmerman apologizing (15+ / 0-)

    to Martin family for "loss" of son like he didn't kill him himself.

  •  I wonder if the conditions of bail include (8+ / 0-)

    appearing on the Sean Hannity show?

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:56:46 AM PDT

    •  I would imagine that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, HappyinNM, doroma

      his attorney has strongly advised against any such communications.

      Any conversation Zimmerman has with anyone other than his attorney is non-privileged, and can be presented in court by the prosecution if it would tend to incriminate Zimmerman.

      (The reverse is not true -- any self-serving statements by Zimmerman in the media would not be admissible in court, unless Zimmerman himself testified to them and opened himself up to cross-examination by the state.)

      sin and love and fear are just sounds that people who never sinned nor loved nor feared have for what they never had and cannot have until they forget the words

      by harrije on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:35:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  TV also said he is forbidden to drink alcohol (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamifah, HappyinNM

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    Real journalists know that lies do not bring "balance" to truth! (h/t elwior)

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:57:41 AM PDT

    •  Standard condition (5+ / 0-)

      It's almost always a condition of probation, parole, or other court-supervised release, that the subject refrain from alcohol, bars, clubs, etc.

      I don't think it's usally used as cause, by itself, for revocation, but if you are under court supervision and you get into a drunken bar fight, you are most likely going to be going back to jail.

      sin and love and fear are just sounds that people who never sinned nor loved nor feared have for what they never had and cannot have until they forget the words

      by harrije on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:37:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nothing about protection? No safe houses? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamifah, Matt Z, Tonedevil

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:58:55 AM PDT

    •  That's important that you saw it that way. (2+ / 0-)

      That means that he didn't come off as a sympathetic person. Part of the jurors' decisions are based on how they view the defendant, not just the facts of the case.

      Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

      by HappyinNM on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:30:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Slight correction (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, HappyinNM

        Jurors are cautioned not to use sympathy for one side or the other when deciding a case.

        What the jury does decide, and only they can decide it, is whether any given witness is credible. So if Zimmerman takes the stand in the trial, assuming we get that far, and gives a robotic and insincere sounding apology, then the jury might find him uncredible and that would damage all the rest of his testimony.

        sin and love and fear are just sounds that people who never sinned nor loved nor feared have for what they never had and cannot have until they forget the words

        by harrije on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:42:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Isnt $150K low? (4+ / 0-)

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:59:13 AM PDT

  •  Honestly, I think they're going to let him off (7+ / 0-)

    I've been following this case closely although I missed today's testimony and am just picking it up now. I think the case is basically being thrown. That's what it feels like to me. That they've arrested him and gotten an apology and viewed these as a sort of symbolic gesture of justice.

    You might want to re-think those ties. - Erin Brockovich

    by mahakali overdrive on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:00:03 AM PDT

    •  i don't think Corey rolls like that (nt) (5+ / 0-)

      (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

      by Tamifah on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:01:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hate to speculate, but (6+ / 0-)

      This is a guess, but

      It seems more likely they couldn't find enough evidence to present at trial that they thought they could even guarantee a manslaughter conviction

      But if they didn't press any charges her career would have been over

      So she picked the highest charge that didn't require a grand jury, and then let her team cross their fingers

      But it is more likely they just have some strategy for keeping their cards close, which, in my observations, is less successful than a media offensive/leaking with damning evidence

      •  Draxinum - I think you are right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Be Skeptical, Kickemout

        Corey is up for re-election this November like all the other States Attorneys in Florida. Now that Zimmy will be out on bail look for this case to be quiet for months, and well past the 2012 elections. Both sides would like to see the media forget this case until the trial starts so they will have an easier time seating a jury. Look for the case to come to trial in about a year.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:26:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Will never get to trial, IMHO (0+ / 0-)

        There simple isn't a case after that hearing.  The state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is no way with current evidence even to make up evidence that would prove this case.  Even if you fabricate witnesses, how do you explain the injuries to Zimmerman and none to Trayvon?  It's over folks.

        •  So "coon hunting" is fair game for you? (3+ / 0-)

          Martin was walking home with a cell phone in one hand and a can of tea in the other.  Zimmerman was in a car, and when he talked to the cops about seeing Martin, a "fuckin' coon", the cop told him to leave Martin alone.  Instead he gets out of the car, confronts Martin, and shoots him dead.  The state's attorney considers it Murder 2.

          Your defense of Zimmerman makes no sense.  I just hope no white supremacist on a jury nullifies his conviction.

          •  The state has to prove this case beyond a reasonab (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac

            le doubt.  What you say happened is your surmise.  After the hearing today the police witness said there is no evidence of who confronted who.  None.  Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story.  I don't see how the state can prove its case.

            Also, remember the Prosecutor on the night of the crime refused to authorize and arrest.  He or she came to the same conclusion.  

            •  The police are covering their arses (4+ / 0-)

              They screwed the pooch miserably here and know it.  Zimmerman made up his "stand your ground" story, the racist cops simply assumed that a black kid was a crook, and they let him go without investigation.  It was extremely and obviously prejudiced.  They are probably reciting what their lawyers told them, the bleeding edge fo the truth (since lawyers can't tell them to outright lie).

              It is quite hard for a kid with a cell phone in one hand and a can of tea in the other to harm a man in an SUV.  Zimmerman had to get out and confront Martin.

          •  Kudos for your courage (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            brooklyn137

            to state that Zimmerman said what you just quoted.  Most people would be apprehensive of saying so, given that even the present indictment said specifically that he did not say that.  While I disagree with your statement, I admire your courage to risk a defamation lawsuit at this stage in order to uphold your principals.  You are one of the few who truely do risk something in expressing their beliefs!  

            •  Who's talking defanation? (2+ / 0-)

              I don't care what the indictment said; I heard the original recording and it was pretty damned obvious.

              •  If you heard the "original recording" then (0+ / 0-)

                you must be part of the prosecution team, (I am not sure that the defense team has access to the original tape, yet), and in that case are you sure that you should be talking here on a public forum?

                But since you are talking now, are you saying that you gave your expert opinion that what was on the tape was what you quoted here, but that for some reason your expert opinion was overruled or disregarded?  To whom did you report your analysis of your forensic determination regarding the contents of the call?  

                My kudos are even stronger than I even imagined now that we know that you are an official agent in the investigation! All this makes for a great new detail for this story (and give a good deal of publicity to this site)!  
                Congratulation once again you your bravery. (Swooning!)

          •  "f****** coon" has been proven not to be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac

            what was said that night.

            •  By a distorted tape? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              yellow is my favorite color

              Are you referring to the "redo" by an audio distortion specialist who turned "coons" into "cold" for the sake of a TV show?  His redo of the tape had as much credibility as a Saturday Night Live skit of the same, minus the satire.

              •  No by Corey and the prosecution team who (0+ / 0-)

                swore under oath that the word used was "punks" not "coons".  

                I am beyond certain that if there was any doubt at all that "coon" could have been the word used, they would have said as much, as it would help their case 200 percent.  Obviously they tested it with real expert audio engineers and have come to the conclusion "punks" was indeed the word used and as such is why they placed it in a sworn affidavit, read by millions of people.  

        •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auapplemac

          partly anyways.

          I do think the police and investigators bungle the first part of the investigation and probably "lost" some evidence.

          I also think the prosecutor is both smart and determined.  Whether she can overcome ineptitude of the initial investigation will be what decides the case.

          I certainly won't be surprised is the defense opts to plead to man 2.

    •  i disagree. He's going to prison, manslaughter or (6+ / 0-)

      the full charge of 2nd degree murder.  

      Keep in mind the state would have been required to all but completely prove their whole case to keep GZ from making bail.  

      ABC puts it well here:

      http://abcnews.go.com/...

      In a bail hearing in Florida, the burden of proof to deny bail, even in a second-degree murder trial, is higher than needed to seek a conviction in a trial.

      "They would have to prove that the presumption of guilt is great, and that the proof is evident," O'Mara said.

      In the capias -- similar to a warrant -- filed against Zimmerman last week, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey and her team set bail at "none."

      In order to avoid a reduction in bail to a set monetary sum, Corey's team would have to prove its case essentially, something legal experts say is unlikely at this point in the legal process.

      Zimmerman attorney O'Mara said he doubts the prosecutor will reveal its case before the trial.

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      In my heart, I think the Prosecutor pressed charges becasue she was sensitive to the public outcry - I'm not sure the evidence will be there to convict - but I really don't know how well this entire case was investigated but from what I have followed - after the initial investigations - the case was being treated as a self defense deal.

      The prosecuter has to be thinking - time will heal some wounds and if the state can drag this thing out long enough - eventually, it will go off radar.

      The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

      by ctexrep on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:23:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Corey will speak soon. My ? for her is... (7+ / 0-)

    I wish someone would ask her if there is any ongoing investigation of Sanford PD and Norm Wolfinger's actions and involvement in the hours after the shooting.  Because as far as anyone in the media can tell, there is no current investigation of this angle of the case.  

    If she and her team believe that Trayvon was murdered, then it seems to follow that Norm Wolfinger is either incompetent, corrupt or racially biased, or some version of all three since he let the shooter go home with no criminal charges against him.  

    My question for her would be some version of that: "Was Norm Wolfinger incompetent, corrupt, or racially biased when he let GZ go, and is there any outside body currently investigation his behavior in the wake of the shooting?"  

    •  GZ gave five statements, says Corey's man (7+ / 0-)

      When GZ was on the stand, he was able to be briefly cross-examined on the statement he made, ie, the apology to the (media and) family.  The exchange was short but illuminating.  The prosecutor (sorry, don't have his name yet) asked GZ if he had "said he was sorry" in the FIVE statements he had made to authorities in the time immediately after the shooting.  He also hinted strongly that the five statements "evolved" over time and have contradictions between them.  

      The investigator Gilbert, who was also on the stand was asked if HE had any evidence to show who instigated the fight.  He said he did not, which GZ apologists will make a lot of hay with, but keep in mind the prosecution doesn't want to show all their cards just yet, and any statement the investigator Gilbert gave does not hold for the entire prosecution team.

      •  The investigator (Gilbreath) indicated that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, willisnewton, doroma

        he wasn't prepared to testify today. O'Mara just called him without prior notice apparently. He also said that he and another investigator had divided the investigation, so there is evidence that he may not know about. The cross-examination of Z could only relate to anything Z said today. The prosecutor tried to go further, but O'Mara objected.

        Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

        by HappyinNM on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:38:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I still don't get why his lawyers let him testify (0+ / 0-)

        There was nothing to gain for Zimmerman there and a real possibility he incriminates himself.  And his "non apology" apology just came off weird and insincere.

        •  GZ was allowed to take stand since he was safe (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yellow is my favorite color

          from cross examination on anything but the three trite statements he made.
          1) I'm sorry for your loss
          2) I didn't know his age
          and
          3) i didn't know if he was armed or not

          This seemed like a good risk to his defense lawyer since it SEEMS to show he has nothing to hide and is sorry for the "tragedy" caused by Trayvon's assault on his client, etc.  It projects a good image for a while.  

          What happened, however it that GZ blew it on each statement and looked like a lying fool on cross examination on just the very first point.  

          It's extremely likely that he won't take the stand in his trial, but with this "limited hangout" he at least looks less guilty to his fans and those inclined to believe the spin generated by his appearance and "apology," etc.  

    •  I'm glad someone is making a distinction (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tamifah, greengemini

      between Zimmerman and the prosecution.  However this turns out for Zimmerman, I think the racism charges fall on Wolfinger and the Sanford PD.  

    •  this is not her problem (5+ / 0-)

      her task is the prosecution of George Zimmerman.

      Let the FBI and justice department handle the Sanford PD

      (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

      by Tamifah on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:19:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  except of course they are NOT investigating the PD (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tamifah

        Please, if you have specific proof that the FBI or DoJ is looking into anything other than the possibility that Trayvon Martin's civil rights were violated by GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, share it with me.  

        It's a ruse, it's spin, it is the appearance of a real investigation and there doesn't seem to be one.  Has Norm Wolfinger retained an attorney?  Has police chief Bill Lee been questioned or deposed by the FBI or DoJ?  I haven't seen any news about that.  Don't be fooled.  

        •  Whatever the FBI and DOJ are doing or not (3+ / 0-)

          doing has nothing whatsoever to do with what Angela Corey's assignment is.

          She has one purpose in this matter and that is to prosecute the murder of Trayvon Marton.

          (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

          by Tamifah on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:07:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes, Corey is not after corruption in PD or DA's (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobatkinson

            She has her marching orders and is carrying them out.  We'll see at trial if she can prove murder 2 or not.  I happen to think she will have little problem proving that GZ is a liar, and therefor if a fight took place, which it seems it did, that it did't happen the way he claims.  Therefore, it was not self defense, in which case it must be something else.  

            Proving murder, manslaughter or other criminal assault is a bit harder, but we still don't know what witnesses and evidence she has in that regard.  

    •  willis - Corey will never be critical (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rubyr, a gilas girl

      of the SPD or Norm Wolfinger, who is retiring this year. There is no upside for her to say anything in public regarding those departments. The SPD officers at the scene will be key prosecutions witnesses at the trial. She isn't going to throw rocks at a department she needs to prove her case.

      The DoJ is investigating the SPD and Corey has no jurisdiction over another States Attorney office. You will never see her comment on the questions you asked.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:32:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i agree Corey won't tread on Wolfinger (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        I just want everyone to know that there is NO ONGOING INVESTIGATION of his office and their behavior regarding this case.  The DoJ is NOT, I REPEAT, NOT investigating that angle of the case, and if anyone has any evidence to the contrary I'd LOVE to see it.  

        The DoJ is investigating Trayvon's potential civil rights violation by GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.  And that's all, at present.  Yes, Holder says that his investigation will follow the clues wherever they may lead, but with that specific premise in mind they are NOT being led to an investigation of the initial investigation by Sanford PD and Norm W.

        The family of Trayvon sent a letter specifically to the DoJ asking them to look into this part of the case, AFTER the DoJ announced its civil rights probe had begun.  They have not been answered in that regard.  

        The only other body looking into this case is Corey's special prosecutor's office, and for the reasons you listed above, she isn't interested in that angle either.  So for all we know, Norm Wolfinger is the grand dragon of the KKK and obstructed justice and had a big party with GZ the minute he got out of jail.  I'm not suggesting that is how it went down, just pointing out the no once is actually investigating if that happened or not.  

        I feel like the fool on the hill to keep harping on this, but despite yelling it from the rooftops for weeks now, no one can refute these claims.  

    •  I doubt she would answer. They seem to be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OleHippieChick

      trying very hard to pretend that there was no problem with the Sanford Police dept. Remember her defense of them in her first presser?

      "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

      by rubyr on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:46:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the prosecution has more evidence, trust that they (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamifah, HappyinNM

    do.

  •  Bad framing (12+ / 0-)

    Zimmerman stopped being a neighborhood watch volunteer the second he left his vehicle.

    And became an armed vigilante.

    Don't make that mistake again, please.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:16:40 AM PDT

  •  Florida is prepping to let a murderer walk (8+ / 0-)

    I certainly will not travel to Florida for a vacation ever again. I'd be too fearful some jackass would shoot me down for having skittles and an iced tea.

  •  a legal analyst pointed out today (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dancun74, HappyinNM, Tonedevil, doroma

    that in his opinion the prosecutor would rather have Z out on bail than to reveal all of their evidence at this time.  Save it for trial and not give defence an opportunity to use it to their advantage.  Let's hope.

  •  He's certainly entitled to bond, I would think (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brooklyn137, HappyinNM

    He's not a flight risk and he's not a risk to kill anyone (else).  

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:24:28 AM PDT

  •  George Zimmerman is going to walk. He is out on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes, Matt Z, politicalceci

    bail now and his attorney will go before the judge and plead the Stand Your Ground law and he will walk. They arrested him to get the media onto something else and to calm racial tensions. He is going to walk and he knows it. He looked as smug as a bug at the bail hearing.

    $150,000 tells the whole story as far as I am concerned. They gave their game away with that tiny bail.  

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:40:24 AM PDT

    •  rubyr - the next event is a SYG hearing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HairyTrueMan

      which is before a judge, not a jury. If the judge feels that SYG applies, the case may be over at that point. The SYG hearing will show us a lot of the evidence in this case. The burden is on the prosecution, but with a lower standard. They don't have to prove that the case does not fall under the SYG law beyond a reasonable doubt. They only have to show that by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the SYG does not apply. Even if Z loses in that hearing the SGY defense can still be an affirmative defense at trial. In that case the jurors will be the finders of fact.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:58:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it will ever make it to a jury. (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry to be negative but that's just how it seems to me.

        "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

        by rubyr on Sat Apr 21, 2012 at 09:49:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  have SOME faith in the system. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HappyinNM, greengemini, rubyr

      I agree there is much to be angry about here, but GZ is in the system now, and will have his day in court with a prosecutor who is POLITICALLY motivated to get a conviction.  THe judge has a good rating as being fair, and the media is beaming the procedures to the world. Two million people organized to pressure the state of Florida to put this killer on trial for his actions.  

      To me, the outrage is best focused on the initial "catch and release," and the terrible SYG laws that led to this, as well as the institutional racism that aided and abetted this decision.  There needs to be a real investigation of the Sanford PD and Norm Wolfinger's behavior, as well as legislation to repeal these SYG laws, and of course some effective gun control that keeps the guns off the streets.  

  •  No possession of firearms? Jeez louise! (2+ / 0-)

    That leaves him practically defenseless and unable to exercise his right to Stand His Ground!  Why, I heard of a case just a few weeks ago about a kid who was shot to death while walking to his relative's house by some guy on a citizens watch.   It's a dangerous world out there, Georgy needs his second amendment rights.

    Romney is campaigning to be President SuperBain; his cure is to cut wages, end pensions, let companies go bankrupt, and let the assets of production go dark or be sold to China. He really thinks thats the best of all possible Americas.

    by Inland on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 09:57:41 AM PDT

  •  Let's just say it. (4+ / 0-)

    George Zimmerman makes me ill.  It is hard enough hearing that half-assed apology while his dead looking eyes betrays his true countenance. He just wants to get off.  He does not have any remorse and he will use practically any angle to stay free.

    I'm keeping the Martin family in my prayers.  It's going to be a long, hot summer.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

    by politicalceci on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 10:11:37 AM PDT

    •  The apology was pretty surreal. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      politicalceci

      I would guess it was the idea of his lawyers.

      •  his apology is calculated for sentencing (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, politicalceci, LordMike

        And also gives red meat to his apologists, while we wait for trial.  Plus, it makes him look like he's willing to take the stand at trial, which he likely won't.  

        but lets examine the strategy here by the defense

        It's unlikely he will be put on the stand at a full trial - they are going to have to defend his final version (the coached, rehearsed and exculpatory one given almost 24 hours after that fact) of his statement to police and create reasonable doubt about any evidence presented to the contrary - and that is all.  

        Putting him on the stand here and now was a risk, as we just saw.  He seemed to be lying when cross-examined regarding potential contradictions of his statements to police.  But look at the potential upside to the defense in putting him on the stand HERE, in this way.  He was only exposed to cross examination on the guarded statements he made about the age of the "suspect," his regret over the death (which he caused) and the idea that he didn't know if Trayvon was armed or not.  

        On this slim area of testimony alone the prosecutors had him running scared and back-peddling quickly.  He claims his five statements did not evolve or contradict themselves in places.  "Absolutely not" was his answer when asked.  How likely is that, even if he told the absolute truth each time?  

        But nonetheless, it gave the impression that he is wiling to go under oath and face questions.   Better here, in such a VERY limited way than later at the full trial.  It's a good move for now, according to his defense lawyer who allowed it, in any case, while we wait for trial.  He's now spoken publicly, in a suit and a bullet proof vest, directly to the parents and he showed remorse ( if you believe their version of all this) and demonstrated that he isn't afraid of cross examination.  And, this happened in a hearing where he made bail.  It all looks good on paper for him.  

        Too bad it's all downhill from here for him.  The prosecution wouldn't charge him with murder 2 if they didn't have a lot of confidence they could get a conviction.  

  •  Gotta hand it to Meara, he's running circles (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    around the State DA's. It was a stroke of brilliance on his part getting the State to agree to allow the Zimmermans to testify from home. Trying to evoke sympathy in the community for the family and by default his client.

    Not to mention his luck of the draw with the new judge. Those past acts of aggression on Zimmerman's part were trivial no need to consider them when evaluating him as a threat. Uh huh.

    We'll see how things play out from here but so far it appears that Zimmerman and his family are receiving extraordinary priviledges and rulings.

  •  Did anyone else think.... (2+ / 0-)

    this comment was really strange?

    Zimmerman said, “I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.”
    Why did he bring up the point about how old Trayvon was or that he was younger than himself? Was that somehow supposed to be part of his rationale for killing him? I just don't get this.

    I hope there's more debate about the wisdom of SYG laws. In this case it appears someone's life was in the hands of someone with very poor judgement.

  •  GZ not in handcuffs in bloody head pic ?? (3+ / 0-)

    Supposedly this photo is 3 minutes after the shooting.  At that time the only person on the scene ALIVE besides GZ was officer Timothy Smith, the same officer who wrote the exculpatory police report that was questionably entered into the record later that same night.  (Yet inexplicably absent from an intial press release.)

    Zimmerman, if this is indeed him, is not handcuffed and appears to be speaking into a cell phone.  His right arm is visible in front of his body and not in proximity to his (missing from photo) left arm, and it's not behind his back, either.  

    That's not what officer Timothy SMith says he was doing at this time.  

    One more thing about this case that stinks.  

    I have heard that it was taken with an iPhone 4, which is equipped with a flash.  Does anyone know what kind of phone officer Tim carries?  

    •  He also had his friend there (0+ / 0-)

      standing over him, taking pictures and contaminating whatever evidence was on his person, if not the crime scene itself (depending on where the picture was taken).

      (At least, I read that it was his friend that took the picture.  Reading something doesn't make it true, but I likewise haven't read anything saying that this was an official LE picture.)

  •  Bail is good (0+ / 0-)

    I'm glad Zimmerman has been charged and will have to face the justice system.

    It's kind of a bummer to me that some people are upset that he was bailed out.  Remember, as of right now Zimmerman is innocent.  He won't be guilty unless he's convicted.

    The right to be bailed out of prison prior to being convicted derives from the Excessive Bails clause of the Eighth Amendment of our Bill of Rights.  In our system, the right to reasonable bail derives from abuses the English suffered at the hands of royalty in the 1500's and 1600's.  Back then people could be locked away forever without ever being charged with anything.  I consider the right to reasonable bail to be one of our most cherished rights, and one that is currently under threat by those who would restrict it in the name of national security.  Guantanamo anyone?  

    The fact that a person has been bailed out doesn't mean justice hasn't been done, it means civil rights have been vindicated.  If you're reading this post, you're entitled to reasonable bail prior to conviction.  I'm entitled to reasonable bail prior to conviction.  So is Zimmerman and any other defendant - it's a core civil right that needs to be defended like all other civil rights.

  •  Wolfinger fri news dump: won't run for reelection (2+ / 0-)

    http://www.allvoices.com/...

    Looks like maybe Norm Wolfinger has other things to worry about than running for re-election after 27 years.  

    After 27 years in office, Norm Wolfinger announced today through his office that he does not plan to seek another term as Seminole-Brevard State Attorney.
    "It has been an honor to hold this post, and I thank the people of Brevard and Seminole counties for the privilege they have granted me," he said in a statement.
    Wolfinger made the decision early in his current term, his office said. He wants to spend more time with his family, spokeswoman Lynne Bumpus-Hooper said.
    I've been upset for weeks now that there is no real outside investigation of Norm Wolfinger's actions in the wake of the shooting announced.   The family of Trayvon Martin wrote a letter to the DoJ requesting an investigation into this aspect of the case but never got an answer.  Previous DoJ announcements of investigation had a focus of Trayvon's civil rights in regard to the question of George Zimmerman only.  
  •  another Z lie revealed today: shadow chase witness (4+ / 0-)

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...

    Gilbreath also said the state had a witness who reported seeing the shadows of two people running, one chasing the other, but could not identify who they were.
    Zimmerman claims he was sucker punched after a short verbal exchange, and the rest of the fight was on the ground.  A two person foot chase is NOT part of his narrative, regardless of who was chasing whom.  

    He's lying, and the state has a witness to prove it.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site