mnealtx

I'm seeing lawyers on both sides of the fence disputing the law and the law being applied unevenly where interpretations by different courts result in different applications in similar situations. I don't think you can reasonably dispute that. That is what is telling me that the SYG law was not well enough written to be more specific with regards to limiting those interpretations. Yes, you could probably dispute MY interpretation of what I'm seeing. Here's the applicable statute: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." How are you going to re-write it to 'be more specific with regards to limiting interpretations'? Fuck all with sanded lube, dude. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. Do you? First, I imagine, you'd have to get a good grip on just what interpretations are conflicting with the intent of the law and go from there. How the hell did they come up with a gang banger drug deal qualifies and all those similar stories. Maybe all those stories are fiction. Reading many of those stories, it looks like the defense threw SYG out there in misguided attempts to get the charges dropped. While I didn't read the gangbanger drug one, since SYG explicitly *denies* the defense when a crime is being committed by the actor it shouldn't count, anyway. It means being attacked at some venue outside of their own home where they have a legal right to be - a public street, grocery store, etc etc. How does "other" make it confusing? How would removing it 'limit interpretations'? The courts already have - the 'reasonable man' concept. Are you being deliberately obtuse? What do you want - a specific list of injuries that a victim can check off in the course of getting their head pounded in? "Broken nose" - check. "Broken jaw" - check. "Broken neck" - fuck, can't move my arms anymore to check that one off. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

I'm seeing lawyers on both sides of the fence disputing the law and the law being applied unevenly where interpretations by different courts result in different applications in similar situations. I don't think you can reasonably dispute that. That is what is telling me that the SYG law was not well enough written to be more specific with regards to limiting those interpretations. Yes, you could probably dispute MY interpretation of what I'm seeing. Here's the applicable statute: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." How are you going to re-write it to 'be more specific with regards to limiting interpretations'? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

We're ok - we learn about the Holocaust *before* college. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Old news. Again, poorly written law. Florida will obviously need to get it changed to clearly define circumstances for SYG. Contrary to how it's portrayed in this thread, the circumstances are about a clearly defined as is possible for this sort of law. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

I'm speaking of the extant case and coverage, not the initial refusal to press charges at the time of the shooting. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

circular - here we go again The judge and courts disagree with you and they appear to be following the Florida Statutes, given the number of factors allowed under the statute. Really? Let's run that down, shall we? (a) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged. (b) The weight of the evidence against the defendant. State ain't looking too hot on this one. Falls in favor of Zimmerman. (c) The defendant’s family ties, length of residence in the community, employment history, financial resources, and mental condition. Falls in favor of Zimmerman. (d) The defendant’s past and present conduct, including any record of convictions, previous flight to avoid prosecution, or failure to appear at court proceedings. Falls in favor of Zimmerman. (e) The nature and probability of danger which the defendant’s release poses to the community. Falls in favor of Zimmerman. (f) The source of funds and whether it may be linked to or derived from the crime alleged to have been committed or from any other criminal or illicit activities. Falls in favor of Zimmerman (g) Whether the defendant is already on release pending resolution of another criminal proceeding or on probation, parole, or other release pending completion of a sentence. Falls in favor of Zimmerman. (h) The street value of any drug or controlled substance connected to or involved in the criminal charge. Not applicable (i) The nature and probability of intimidation and danger to victims. Not applicable (j) Whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a new crime while on pretrial release. Not applicable (k) Any other facts that the court considers relevant. This is about the only one that doesn't go in Zimmerman's favor. (l) Whether the crime charged is a violation of chapter 874 (Criminal Gang). Not applicable So, looks like it's 6 in Zimmerman's favor, 3 non-applicable and one that goes for the court. What's that about the 'number of factors', again? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

It always was. I'm in agreement with the other poster that thought it was an attempt to force Zimmerman into a plea bargain. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

yet you object to the bond being revoked. even after Mark posted the FL statutes.... wow, Someone who has voluntarily turned themselves over to police not once, but TWICE has pretty conclusively proven they aren't a flight risk. I know you're unable to grasp the concept, but it may be instructive for other posters. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Must've missed where I claimed that he didn't deceive the court - can you point it out for me once you're through making up new scenarios, Bill? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

No, that would be the facebook messages talking about dealing/using drugs and the youtube subscriptions to drug-related and MMA channels, as well as the message from his cousin talking about Martin attacking a bus driver. Then, there's the stolen jewelry...but I'm sure he was just holding it for Sumdood, right? Funny how you don't mention Zimmerman initiating contact with Sanford PD to turn himself in prior to the arrest warrant in the first place. If he was going to run, it would have been then while he had the passport and money, don't you think? But that doesn't fit the 'narrative', now does it? Funny how it's not mentioned that Zimmerman is faithfully maintaining contact with the supervising officers, maintaining curfew, maintaining GPS monitoring, etc. But that doesn't fit the 'narrative', now does it? Funny how it's not mentioned that the money was transferred to the control of the legal team and he hasn't had access to it since about FIVE DAYS after the initial bail hearing. But that doesn't fit the 'narrative', now does it? Bias indeed. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

No need to go slow on MY account, I can read without having to move my lips. Feel free to make it as slow as you need for YOUR situation, though. Money is a factor in flight risk and bond So is proven compliance with LE. Must suck when you can't prove your own argument that Z was a flight risk. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Once again, you elevate your own personal opinion above the court of law in Miami Dade County Doesn't take a law degree to identify bias and stupidity. The purpose of bail is to make sure the suspect shows up for trial. Given that he voluntarily surrendered himself in the initial proceedings, when he evidently had access to at least part of the money, coupled with surrendering his only valid passport and voluntarily surrendering himself to authorities a *second* time, makes it clear that Zimmerman is *not* a flight risk to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. You first. You can submit it along with an essay on the Eighth Amendment and analyses of Stack v. Boyle and United States v. Salerno. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

I already did - the amount of money you have IS a reflection of your flight risk (skippy), or maybe you missed it. Evidently you AND the judge missed where he returned to face the court, even after supposedly having all this money available. Now, he's returned yet AGAIN. *Hardly* the 'flight risk' you and the "judge" seem to think he is. I have. I sat in a courtroom plenty of times in the past 3 years. Guess you didn't learn as much as you THINK you did, then. And there's that bias again. Got evidence to back up your oh-so-expert legal opinion there, sport? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

back that up with a fact please. Certainly in the USA, there is a long precedent of courts not following the law.... You first - maybe you can come up with some case studies showing where bail should be based on income and not risk of flight, for a start. Nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing - my opinion is not on trial here, Z, is. He had a clear cut case fo self defense laid out in front of him and I have only ever asked for him to have a day in court instead of getting off scott-free. He has his day in court, he is blowing it - he is a douchebag. Whether you think this is a media case or not, it is not smart to lie to a judge. It is not smart to play 'contempt' He did that and he got burned. The media did not ask for his bail to be revoked, nor did I. It was reported AFTER it happened. outside people had little if any influence on it whatsoever. perhaps you should read more. try sitting in a courtroom once in a while and pretent at least to pay attention to what is going on. I have. Maybe YOU should try it sometime - I would say 'you might actually learn something', but probably not. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Yeah she's "intersting" but well let me put it this way i would step over my own mother for a dat with Mr. January Jones! Good FREAKING GOD SHE IS HOT! Very much my type! I don't care if she is a cannibal likes to play with knives...she is freaking HOT!

I'd completely forgotten about that...good point. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Evidently more familiar than you, since I know that bail amount is *SUPPOSED* to be based on risk of flight and not on income. He came back TO Florida to turn himself in - he already left, therefore he has the means to leave. Speaking of obtuse - you evidently missed the part when he went back TO Florida to turn himself in the FIRST time, too. Nice spin. Too bad it's based on the court doing something that you agree with and not any legal precept. You mean like how he *could* have gone AWOL instead of turning himself in the first time? Or perhaps you did not think of that. And *HERE* we get to the REAL reason you agree with the court - your own personal bias. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Income level IS a consideration of flight risk.....skippy.... And again....since *when* is a legal defense fund 'income'? But yes...Z is evidently *SUCH* a flight risk, the judge gave him a two-day deadline instead of sending the deputies to pick him up. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

I believe you're right. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

No, Martin did that all by himself by dealing drugs and attacking people. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Since the court said it is so.... If you don't like the courts and the judges decisions, then you are welcome to run for office and write new laws to change that. "Since the court said it is so" - looks like you and the judge both need to do some reading. Bail is *supposed* to be set according to flight risk, not income level, skippy. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

You don't think money influences elections? See attached. Funny how FJ01 doesn't mention it in his little screed, though. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Nice spin - since when is a legal defense fund treated as an asset for figuring bail (other than this case, of course)? As for the passport - sorta hard to get through immigration with an expired passport - try it sometime and see if it works for you. Why should the gun lobby see idiots with unreasonable fear of weapons as their problem? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Apples/oranges, although I do recall discussions about cracking down on people hiring illegals in the fairly recent past - guess it didn't make it past your filters since it was the conservatives talking about the idea being a good thing, while the liberals said it wasn't. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

jclalor hardest hit. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706