Zimmerman bond revoked

Dirty Harry said:

Doesn't matter. Zimmerman is the victim, Travon was the thug who picked the wrong person to mess with. Did you not see the cleaned up video showing Zimmerman had injuries that backed his story? The only reason this is not a cut and dry hanging is because none involved were white...They even said the latino (Zimmerman) was white...Talk about one sided news coverage.

Click to expand...

Yawnnnnnn go troll elsewhere

I am a retired vet. I done my time in hell, and I am licensed and carry, usually multiple because I had law enforcement training and you always carry a backup weapon. I don't care your race, creed, sexual orientation, or anything. If anyone threatens me or my family, they will be afforded every opportunity to dis-engage and leave. But there is a saying about messing with old veterans. If a veteran is too old or tired to fight, he may just kill you outright and take the judged by 12 over being carried by six option.

londonfog said:

I didn't get it because it seems you have done nothing to get. So basically you have done nothing for the cannabis community but bash others who have ?? Hmmmmm you sound strange to me now. Two years on a cannabis site with nothing to offer but political dribble.. Dude who are you really ??

Click to expand...

Let me lay it out for you. I am a Libertarian. I don't use drugs, or sell them, or grow them. I do, however, support the right of people to ingest whatever they want.

My reason for joining this site was prop 19. I naively thought this would be a place of more or less unanimous support for prop 19. My discussions about P19 on RIU was an eye opener for me. It became apparent that some of the most ardent supporters of prohibition were those who engaged in the cannabis business; in retrospect it was silly of me to expect that a bunch of guys making big bundles of money to support a change in the law that would significantly lighten their wallets.

If cannabis is ever going to be re-legalized it will be because of people like me. The dopers (some, not all) are either too dumb or too selfish to legalize, and most of the squares (like me) are too apathetic or too moralistic. I think legalization is coming but the "when" of it is not clear.

I sometimes engage in discussions about other topics because they interest me.

Who are you, really?

what desert douche conveniently "forgets" is that FDD opposed 19 because it would have lead to more people going to jail and didn't go far enough towards legalization.

smoke somewhere around your kids? you go to jail.

limiting growers to a 5'x5' space? not full legalization.

so he opposed the bill and wanted to hold out for a better one. what a "cartel" gang member prohibitionist freedom hating piece of shit, eh desert dip?

LOL!

and you are happy that he's in jail for his activities, which included a ton of hard work, dedication, harming no one, and helping many.

all because he told you that old mcronald and your incessant bleating about him was spam.



fucking rats. no wonder rontards are so loathed and hated.

I love the way "medicinal people" rag on pot dealers like they're all little Hitlers or something.

Newsflash you arrogant pricks, the 99% of people who don't have MMJ legislation...would you believe we actually have to buy our weed off said dealers when we run out of our own.

If anything, pot dealers provide an awesome service, leave them the fuck alone.

MuyLocoNC said:

Yeah whatever, keep projecting. I'm simply posting the latest revelation that is hitting all over, except the MSM of course, they won't report it until they have to. The fact you don't know about this shows where you get your filtered news from.

Like I said and apparently I didn't write in simple enough terms, the Zimmermans and their lawyer have NO as in ZERO access to the funds.

How are they going to use money (in coded language or not) in an independent trust that they can't touch?

To be honest, after viewing the latest flood of hostile reporting of the undeclared funds, I thought he was screwed, but if this report holds water, it's just another case of bias against Zimmerman by the media.

Click to expand...

lol, right.

they just discussed how they would use the funds because they had no access to them. got any bridges? LOL!

doesn't matter if they had access to it or not. they were asked if they knew how much was in there. they said no. but they are on tape discussing exactly hw much is in there. that's perjury.

suck it!

Zimmerman has ruined his credibility, now the jury knows he has the capability of lying. Also if a person lies about how much money they have in the bank, then they will definitely lie about commiting a murder with their freedom on the line. He's double fucked himself now, bottom line

NoDrama said:

There is no law against approaching people at any time of the day, but I assure you there are laws that say you don't get to assault people.

Click to expand...

I guess it's ok to do if you have a gun cause you can shoot if you think they stepped out of line, eh?

desert dude said:

And furthermore, there are consequences to assaulting people beyond the laws. Sometimes you wind up dead as a result of your unjustified violence.

Click to expand...

So if you come up on someone who has a ccw and your in a SYG, MMD state it's ok to shoot em, not assault them?

I think this law has fucked this case. the people that perpertrate it are fucking shitbags, IMHO

UncleBuck said:

lol, right.

they just discussed how they would use the funds because they had no access to them. got any bridges? LOL!

doesn't matter if they had access to it or not. they were asked if they knew how much was in there. they said no. but they are on tape discussing exactly hw much is in there. that's perjury.

suck it!

Click to expand...

Grow up. I'm just updating the thread. If it's true and they dont have access to the money, it's existence is meaningless to the bond and they told the truth. They can discuss it all they want, that doesn't grant them super special "we discussed it" access to the trust. I can discuss all day long how I'm gonna spend the money my parents could will me, but it ain't my money until they give it to me, is it?

Same thing applies here, it's not their money until the trust releases it to them. It might seem somewhat disingenuous, but legal is legal. I guess we'll see how it plays out. I do find it amusing that stories that break on certain organizations sites, take a couple days to break throughout the MSM. Especially, when they are positive for Zimmerman or negative to the administration. It almost like they do so reluctantly.

NetGuruINC said:

Zimmerman has ruined his credibility, now the jury knows he has the capability of lying. Also if a person lies about how much money they have in the bank, then they will definitely lie about commiting a murder with their freedom on the line. He's double fucked himself now, bottom line

Click to expand...

We don't know if it's a lie, yet. But we know it wasn't money they have in the bank, if it is sitting in an independent trust that they have no access to.

MuyLocoNC said:

We don't know if it's a lie, yet. But we know it wasn't money they have in the bank, if it is sitting in an independent trust that they have no access to.

Click to expand...

dude, they lied.

they were asked if they knew how much was in the fund, they said no. but they knew damn well how much was in that fund! we have it on tape!

that's perjury, plain and simple. doesn't matter if they have access or not, they lied about knowing what was in the fund.

UncleBuck said:

dude, they lied.

they were asked if they knew how much was in the fund, they said no. but they knew damn well how much was in that fund! we have it on tape!

that's perjury, plain and simple. doesn't matter if they have access or not, they lied about knowing what was in the fund.

Click to expand...

Actually, Z's wife was asked about the money and she said she didn't know. The rap on Z is that he was in the courtroom and said nothing to correct her. At least, that is how I understand the story.

UncleBuck said:

what desert douche conveniently "forgets" is that FDD opposed 19 because it would have lead to more people going to jail and didn't go far enough towards legalization.

smoke somewhere around your kids? you go to jail.

limiting growers to a 5'x5' space? not full legalization.

so he opposed the bill and wanted to hold out for a better one. what a "cartel" gang member prohibitionist freedom hating piece of shit, eh desert dip?

LOL!

and you are happy that he's in jail for his activities, which included a ton of hard work, dedication, harming no one, and helping many.

all because he told you that old mcronald and your incessant bleating about him was spam.



fucking rats. no wonder rontards are so loathed and hated.

Click to expand...

Happy, no. Unsympathetic, yes.

The supposed objections you list are pure BS. I don't recall if FDD listed those but I will take your word for it, in any case those objections are just smoke and mirrors.

Smoke a joint in front of your kids... and you are guilty of a crime today.

5X5 is not enough, so hold out for full legalization... more BS. Legalization, if it happens, will never be carte blanche, there are bound to be limits imposed.

FDD was opposed to legalization. End of story.

desert dude said:

Happy, no. Unsympathetic, yes.

The supposed objections you list are pure BS. I don't recall if FDD listed those but I will take your word for it, in any case those objections are just smoke and mirrors.

Smoke a joint in front of your kids... and you are guilty of a crime today.

5X5 is not enough, so hold out for full legalization... more BS. Legalization, if it happens, will never be carte blanche, there are bound to be limits imposed.

FDD was opposed to legalization. End of story.

Click to expand...

you are such a self-righteous tard.

if someone doesn't share your exact same rationale and beliefs about a proposition, they deserve to go to jail for their harmless activities.

justify it any way you want, but you are a self-righteous piece of shit. end of story.

desert dude said:

Actually, Z's wife was asked about the money and she said she didn't know. The rap on Z is that he was in the courtroom and said nothing to correct her. At least, that is how I understand the story.

Click to expand...

she said she didn't know, but she did know. it's on tape.

that's perjury.

if the zimms lie about money, you think they're going to tell the truth about chasing someone around and killing them?

LOL!

those psychopath professional victims care only about themselves. no remorse. sickening.

NetGuruINC said:

Zimmerman has ruined his credibility, now the jury knows he has the capability of lying. Also if a person lies about how much money they have in the bank, then they will definitely lie about commiting a murder with their freedom on the line. He's double fucked himself now, bottom line

Click to expand...

People with money lie about it every day. Zimmerman is no different that a corporation or politician who hides assets in over seas bank accounts. The IRS sucks and people try and trip them up. When has the fact of having money make someone guilty? It seems to of gotten OJ off!

desert dude said:

Actually, Z's wife was asked about the money and she said she didn't know. The rap on Z is that he was in the courtroom and said nothing to correct her. At least, that is how I understand the story.

Click to expand...

That's my understanding as well. If the judge didn't ask Zimmerman directly, he doesn't have to say shit and it isn't lying either. Maybe Zimmerman's wife lied, but that has nothing to do with him.

I think I also read that she answered she didn't know "exactly" and the judge didn't pursue it any further. Technically, since the amount in the fund was increasing daily, she was truthful in saying she didn't know "exactly" how much was there. If the judge had simply continued and asked her to make an educated guess, she would have to disclose the approximate amount. It isn't perjury if you avoid giving an answer by wording your response in a certain manner and you don't get called out for it. That's the judge's fault, plain and simple.

I need to go back and check this, I can't remember where I saw this.

MuyLocoNC said:

That's my understanding as well. If the judge didn't ask Zimmerman directly, he doesn't have to say shit and it isn't lying either. Maybe Zimmerman's wife lied, but that has nothing to do with him.

I think I also read that she answered she didn't know "exactly" and the judge didn't pursue it any further. Technically, since the amount in the fund was increasing daily, she was truthful in saying she didn't know "exactly" how much was there. If the judge had simply continued and asked her to make an educated guess, she would have to disclose the approximate amount. It isn't perjury if you avoid giving an answer by wording your response in a certain manner and you don't get called out for it. That's the judge's fault, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

the zimms can do no wrong in your eyes.

bias identified.

UncleBuck said:

the zimms can do no wrong in your eyes.

bias identified.

Click to expand...

Crazy talk. You're convicting Zimmerman based on his wife's possible perjury and I'M BIASED? I'm trying to bring some sanity to the discussion. For weeks you've quoted Zimmerman's dad and used that quote as if Zimmerman himself said it. You can't do that, there won't be guilt by association in this case, no matter how much you want it.

there's typically a pre-hearing interview done where things like assets are discussed. things like owning property and a business or having large sums of cash laying around are all considered and pre-trial services gives the judge a report, often with a recommendation of bail based on these items.

if you lie during this pre-hearing interview (including your spouse), you are mis-representing yourself which changes the equation. It's a risk assesment, when they don't have accurate information they can't make an accurate assesment. they'll bring him back in and the process will start over again. he'll request a bail hearing, he'll have the opportunity to show why he shouldn't be considered a flight risk. they'll re-asses the risk and set bond based on that assesment. I don't believe he is considered a threat to the community which of course is also part of the equation.