Posted on 06/12/2012 1:37:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
But he is. He and his wife are/were on unemployment and are now dependent upon the charity of others.
Then in his testimony when he apologized to Trayvon’s parents. He said he was sorry, he had no idea how young Trayvon was. He thought he was around the same age as he is. But on the 911 tape, he told the dispatcher he was young, probably around 17.
So what??? How was he to accurately know without carding him??? It was dark. He was merely guessing at his age. He may have thought that he was 17 when he first reported him, but 27 when he was attacked by him.
Anyway it is immaterial how old an assailant is, 17 or 27. When he is beating you within an inch of your life, you defend yourself.
BTW GZ took a lie detector test that night and passed it. Regardless of what you think about whether he told the truth or not at the bond hearing, the lie detector test says that he told the truth in the statements that he gave to the SPD that night. And that, corroborated by the forensic evidence, is all that matters in this case.
The affidavit, the affidavit, the affidavit, the affidavit....
This is now all about their finances!!!
Lets check their back taxes too...Go over them with a government fine tooth comb! Who else to they owe?
Lets pull all their financial records going back 20 years!
Zim and his wife will now pay!! We got um!
Wow!
Your argument is morally bankrupt. You are arguing that the ends justify the means. With this argument you are in essence saying that there is no right or wrong. Perjury is ok if one perceives himself to be a victim. I said it before and I will say it again, Zimmerman is no hero.
Than perhaps you like to make a deposit regarding these two simple questions?
1. Has this been a politically motivated government sham from the beginning.
Yes or no?
Has Zim has been a target of corrupt politically motivated, biased, over zealous, grandstanding government prosecutors,and been smeared by the White House itself?
Yes or no?
If ya answer yes, it totally impeaches the government's credibility from the beginning, and everything that follows, is part of this corrupt ugly political sham.
Good luck, BLOC77.
I had to stop responding to one of the posters because she continued to ask the same question over and over again but my answers never satisfied her.
Like you miss, she won’t answer the question either.
lol...
But he is.
<><><><
Our respective definitions of indigent are a bit different.
They were moving around - according to the affidavit - over 100K in the days before the bond hearing. I’ve never understood the term indigent to refer to folks with that kind of scratch in their bank accounts.
They are dependent upon the charity of others at this time due to the prosecution's overcharging. That money that they were moving around was given to help them with legal costs and living expenses that are expected to reach $1,000,000. I'd say that if you need $1,000,000 to live and defend yourself, and you only have $150,000 to do so, and are without an income, and no job, and forced into hiding due to threats on your life, then you might consider yourself indigent. Take away the $150,000 charitable donations that the judge wanted to be used for bailbond, and then you are more than indigent.
Does that help???
That was a near perfect response.
Of course when the government is backed into a corner, they do much better against those who have little to defend themselves with.
Does that help???
<><><<>
Absolutely. Remember, though, that for the 150K bond, GZ was released after paying 10% of that number. By your own statements, that left them with 135K in the bank. Not indigent. They may yet get there, but they’re not there yet (and no, that is not suggesting that I look forward to them being indigent - I don’t).
You’re totally missing the point, do you believe in right or wrong? It is totally irrelevant what I think about your questions. It is apparent that you believe Zimmerman and his wife are justified in commiting perjury. The end justifies the means. This is a slippery slope that you are on.
Lawyer retainer, hidden houses, security from death threats, no current income.
The question was how much money they had for bail... given the above costs, the answer was reasonable. If they had wanted to know bank account balances then they could have asked.
If you want to play ticky-tacky and nit pick their answers then that is the rules of the game... but those same rules get applied to the questions too. Splicing hairs goes both ways and the truth is the prosecution did a poor job of trying to pin her down on their finances... evidently they didn’t care at the time.
That 135K went into Trust administered independent of them under the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for their legal fees and living expenses.
IOW they ain't got it no more. They are back to indigent, as if they ever left there in the first place.
"We used Rule .303!"
Perhaps you can point to the exact words that you believe to be perjury???
We learned from the Clintons that evasive answers are not perjury. They are evasive answers that the prosecution is supposed to follow up on and try to nail down. In this case the prosecution chose not to follow up. They let the words: "I don't know" stand. That was their error.
BTW Only Shellie has been charged not George. And she has only been charged not convicted. We won't charge you with perjury for that obvious misstatement.
Never said it was, Skeeter. I have not forgotten what this case is about at all. Not a chance.
At the time she perjured herself and said they were indigent they were not. They were recorded the day before on jailhouse tapes....with George telling her to transfer the paypal acct money to her credit union account. If they were indigent, she would not be charged with perjury. She lied. Hence the charge.
See 148,153,155 —
There have been numerous links showing the “alleged” perjury. LOL, she know enough to move around a great deal of money prior to the bail hearing. IMO, they have her cold on perjury. Zimmerman was present during her testimony and did not correct the record. They have shown that they are deceitful people. Zimmerman is on tape telling her to use some of the money to pay off all their bills. I would be embarrassed if I had contributed to this fund, finding out what he was using it to pay off debt, most likely incrued prior to the Martin incident.
Yes or no?
Has Zim has been a target of corrupt politically motivated, biased, over zealous, grandstanding government prosecutors,and been smeared by the White House itself?
Yes or no?
If ya answer yes, it totally impeaches the government's credibility from the beginning, and everything that follows, is part of a corrupt ugly political sham.
It is totally irrelevant what I think about your questions.
lol...
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.