Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JRandomFreeper

Why is it legitimate for the legal system to penalize GZ or any other defendant by imposing a bail so high they know a bondsman will be required and a non-refundable 10% will be charged?

What would a higher bail do in this instance? All that would happen is the enrichment of another bondsman. GZ would have money taken from him by the state. Why isn’t this considered punishment before trial?

Now I recognize that lying to the court is not to be condoned, but it is not a good reason to imprison him until trial.

Bad screwup on his part, but somewhat understandable.

The court has to recognize that if he did go on the run, a lot of people would support him through contributions...


30 posted on 06/01/2012 9:51:00 PM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: CurlyDave

Mr Zimmerman did not “earn” that money, how can he claim that it was his?

He’s been through a lot. His brain had to be fried by what was happening to him. How can any court expect him to think clearly?

I’m sure some of us honestly forget to declare something either because we are so used to something or it is so new that we haven’t accepted it as our possession yet.

Anyway, he got that money AFTER the self defense shooting, not before.

I’m just wondering if this isn’t one way that the judge could stop donations coming in.
Another thought is that the Martins have NOT been able to raise as much as Mr Zimmerman has.


34 posted on 06/01/2012 9:59:42 PM PDT by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: CurlyDave
I'm afraid Zimmerman may not live to his trial. It could be like the defendant in To Kill a Mockingbird: "killed while attempting to escape." Or maybe just killed by another inmate.

I don't think they like the idea of Zimmerman being able to have a lawyer to defend him.

I'm not sure what the real reason why this story got so much coverage. Because of the "Stand Your Ground" law and their desire to get rid of the right of self-defense? Or because it was a rare case of a "white" person (who turned out to be Hispanic and part-black) killing a black person--to divert attention from the fact that most blacks who are killed are killed by other black people? Or because Jesse Jackson wants to relive the 1960s and needed someone to symbolize the bad old days in the South?

Or is it to send a message to "crackers" that they have no right to a fair trial in Obama's America?

The 'Rats didn't get away with lynching the Duke lacrosse players, but now they've got Zimmerman in their sights.

35 posted on 06/01/2012 10:05:58 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: CurlyDave
You do know you don't have to go to a bail-bondsman to make a deal, right?

You can, if you have assets, bond yourself...

And you don't lose the 10%.

/johnny

41 posted on 06/01/2012 10:29:51 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: CurlyDave
I'd rather see people support him so he can bond himself out.

/johnny

42 posted on 06/01/2012 10:33:19 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson