permanently.
Posted on 04/20/2012 9:14:17 AM PDT by servo1969
BTW, has anyone noticed that besides this Crump guy, there’s 2 or 3 other lawyers that go on the cable channels and speak as the Martin family attorney.
How many attorneys does the Martin family actually have?
But what if he dies or is severely injured because he didn’t have a gun to defend himself with? Is the judge held liable for his death?
They’re busily trying to turn Zimmerman’s statement into an apology, then claim that the apology is evidence of guilt. If you read the comment in context, he expressed sympathy for their loss, but didn’t provide an apology for the simple reason that he has nothing to apologize for.
It’s just amazing how far the MSM is willing to diverge from reality in pursuit of their agenda.
Thanks Cboldt. I missed the hearing, and have only read comments here at FR.
That argument cuts both ways, and you’ll have to admit that (while it may not apply here), the risk of futher violent acts on the part of someone charged with committing one is higher than the risk of someone charged with committing a violent felony being assaulted by a stranger.
And... no... the court has no liability in the event of an assault on Zimmerman.
But he hasn’t been convicted of a crime, just charged. When Zimmerman is exonerated how will he go about having his right to bear arms restored for a crime he never committed?
permanently.
The bail conditions apply only during the time he’s out on bail.
Thank you for the transcript links.
I missed it live. From comments it sounds as if O’Mara was very good.
Zimmerman Bail Hearing - Transcript Section 3
O'Mara did a very good job. The prosecution has no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight, no evidence that he did not abide by dispatch suggestion to not follow. No evidence for some of the critical assertions in the affidavit.
I found it very interesting that in making the ruling, the judge commented on the prior arrest of Zimmerman suggesting that run-ins with alcohol agents in the "UCF corridor" are "run of the mill" and that the particular case involving Zimmerman was a mild one. This was specifically in response to the prosecution's request that he consider Zimmerman's "history of violence."
Both sides seemed to tip their hands a bit. The prosecution pretty clearly suggested that they are going to focus on what they believe to be contradictions between different statements that Zimmerman gave.*
The defense, I thought, hinted that they will focus on how the timeline does not support the pursuit and confrontation theory that the prosecution has put forth (along with, of course, witness statements.)
Zimmerman is a victim again.
Related to the injuries, I also found it very interesting that under questioning by O'Mara, Gilbreath said he was not aware Zimmerman's nose had been broken and had not seen, or requested the medical reports of this. O'Mara said he would give them the records. I assume to be filed under "thorough, unbiased investigation."
So would I. However, from what I understand, he's getting lots of contributions to his Defense Fund. I doubt if his folks will have to re-mortgage their home.
Some bitter lib pundit stated on TV last night that some gun-rights group in Texas (?) contributed $10 grand to the fund.
Oh, those naughty gun-clingers.....
Leni
It’s not that I think Mr. Zimnerman is necessarily innocent. I actually don’t know and neither do all the pundits and race baiters in the media. In ordinary times a trial would decide guilt it innocence after presentation of the facts and evidence. But these aren’t ordinary times. The reach of a corrupt Justice Department is extensive, and I have doubts Mr. Zimnerman will get a fair trial.
Thank you for the link
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.