27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 03:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

DAVID wrote:
I dunno if different colors freeze at different temperatures.
coldjoint wrote:
In this case self defense and fear for his life negate any color you wish to throw in.
And that is what should be taken away from this incident.
U raise an interesting point.
The way that the self defense statute has been written was unwise
insofar as it addresses the emotion ("fear") of a citizen
being related to his legal authority to fight back effectively.
The Legislature failed to consider the fact that when people
are put into positions of danger thay don 't necessarily KNOW it.
Tho thay might get killed, or near killed, thay are NOT necessarily afraid.
Winston Churchill spoke (from his own experience)
of "being shot at with no effect" as being exhilarating.
There was no evidence that Kennedy was afraid before Oswald's
first shot hit him. When someone took a potshot at me, I was not afraid;
not enuf time for that. I was merely observing events and drawing out my own gun.
Yet language in the Florida statute provides that experiencing fear
is a condition precedent to the right to kill in self defense.
If 2 men are together, subjected to the same lethal danger
one of them might be afraid and the other not. Shud it be
that only one of them has the right to fight back??

David
Frank Apisa wrote:
Nope!

What should happen is that you guys who are looking for an excuse
to shoot and kill someone should be lobbying for a law that will allow
gun owners to shoot anybody for any reason at any time.
I dispute n reject your characterization of us as wishing to harm others.
Freedom-lovers are not sadists.
We defend our freedom to fight back against predatory violence.
Other than that, as a libertarian Individualist hedonist,
I say live and let live.




Frank Apisa wrote:
Sounds like the logic light at the end of the tunnel you are travelling.
I dunno, but I suspect that if u sat with the problem
and gave it your best dispassionate analysis, u 'd then reach
the opposite conclusion qua the right to self defense against predatory violence.

Alternatively, if u unexpectedly became the victim of a violent predator (human)
in my opinion, u 'd understand that u have the natural right to fight back,
if he put u into danger. Whether u 'd experience fear or not is un-certain.

U shud not be required to generate that fear in your mind
before u begin to try to kill the predator. Yes ??

Stopping to consider it:
even if a victim does experience some degree of fear
in violent circumstances, how can he know whether he feels fear
of A SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE to reach the statutory minimum to kill the bad guy??

I 'm not able to draw a cartoon, but imagine this one:
Mr. Innocent Guy is expiring, bleeding to imminent death in the street
after being beaten and stabbed.

Police approach and ask him:
"Y didn't u shoot the guy who was beating u to death
and stabbing u ?" Mr. Innocent Guy replies:
"I was trying to get up enuf fear to satisfy the law
but I was too busy trying to fight him off
and I did not have enuf time to get afraid. OOOooooooooo; [death rattle]"



David
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 03:38 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The police found Zimmerman, in possession of a shotgun,
false. the cops never saw a gun at the incident, they later went to the courts to get a search warrant to search the house for guns.

Quote:
and he was unwilling to open the door for them
doubtful, all reports are that GF gave them a key and they entered, that they never tried to seek entry from George.

Quote:
Of course, such stalling behavior on his part might give him time to alter the crime scene, before the police got in...
law does not care about mights, it cares about dids, provable dids. besides there was nothing to alter, the only evidence alleged is the presence of a gun and broken stuff, George could not vanish a gun or unbreak stuff so your argument is yet another of your red herrings.

Quote:
after 8 police units responded to that one
a massive overreaction which was a poor use of police assets. someone should have been reprimanded,
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 04:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
false. the cops never saw a gun at the incident, they later went to the courts to get a search warrant to search the house for guns

Zimmerman admitted he had the shotgun in his own 911 call to the police.
Quote:
, all reports are that Shellie gave them a key and they entered, that they never tried to seek entry from George...

First, the woman's name is Samantha, not Shellie. So much for your accuracy.

And they definitely did try to seek entry from George. In his own 911 call, George told the dispatcher they were banging on the door and windows because they wanted to come in and speak to him--that's what made his 911 call so bizzare. He called the police, when they were already there, pounding on the door, requesting him to open it. That's why the dispatcher told him to just go outside and talk to them.

They were able to open the door with a key, but he had not removed the furniture he had placed to barricade the door--the police had to shove it aside to get in. He never removed the furniture, or opened the door for the police.
Quote:
besides there was nothing to alter, the only evidence alleged is the presence of a gun and broken stuff, George could not vanish a gun or unbreak stuff so your argument is yet another of your red herrings.

How do you know there was nothing to alter in that crime scene? He told the 911 dispatcher, for instance, that the shotgun was aways kept next to the bed. But, by the time the police got in, he had locked it away in a case.

In addition, in his own 911 call, with "his side of the story" he claimed she had "gone crazy" and thrown his stuff around, which might have been a complete lie on his part, but, by remaining locked and barricaded inside the house, he had time to throw some of his own stuff around, or break it, to bolster his own story and/or to incriminate or discredit her.

He had time to alter the crime scene. And there were things that might have been altered.

And your contention that the police always make arrests in these situations is unfounded. They did not do that in his September incident. They arrested him this time because they believed her, and they found him locked and barricaded in the house and unwilling to let them in.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 04:06 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

DAVID wrote:
I dunno if different colors freeze at different temperatures.
coldjoint wrote:
In this case self defense and fear for his life negate any color you wish to throw in.
And that is what should be taken away from this incident.
U raise an interesting point.
The way that the self defense statute has been written was unwise
insofar as it addresses the emotion ("fear") of a citizen
being related to his legal authority to fight back effectively.
The Legislature failed to consider the fact that when people
are put into positions of danger thay don 't necessarily KNOW it.
Tho thay might get killed, or near killed, thay are NOT necessarily afraid.
Winston Churchill spoke (from his own experience)
of "being shot at with no effect" as being exhilarating.
There was no evidence that Kennedy was afraid before Oswald's
first shot hit him. When someone took a potshot at me, I was not afraid;
not enuf time for that. I was merely observing events and drawing out my own gun.
Yet language in the Florida statute provides that experiencing fear
is a condition precedent to the right to kill in self defense.
If 2 men are together, subjected to the same lethal danger
one of them might be afraid and the other not. Shud it be
that only one of them has the right to fight back??

David
Frank Apisa wrote:
Nope!

What should happen is that you guys who are looking for an excuse
to shoot and kill someone should be lobbying for a law that will allow
gun owners to shoot anybody for any reason at any time.
I dispute n reject your characterization of us as wishing to harm others.
Freedom-lovers are not sadists.
We defend our freedom to fight back against predatory violence.
Other than that, as a libertarian Individualist hedonist,
I say live and let live.




Frank Apisa wrote:
Sounds like the logic light at the end of the tunnel you are travelling.
I dunno, but I suspect that if u sat with the problem
and gave it your best dispassionate analysis, u 'd then reach
the opposite conclusion qua the right to self defense against predatory violence.

Alternatively, if u unexpectedly became the victim of a violent predator (human)
in my opinion, u 'd understand that u have the natural right to fight back,
if he put u into danger. Whether u 'd experience fear or not is un-certain.

U shud not be required to generate that fear in your mind
before u begin to try to kill the predator. Yes ??

Stopping to consider it:
even if a victim does experience some degree of fear
in violent circumstances, how can he know whether he feels fear
of A SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE to reach the statutory minimum to kill the bad guy??

I 'm not able to draw a cartoon, but imagine this one:
Mr. Innocent Guy is expiring, bleeding to imminent death in the street
after being beaten and stabbed.

Police approach and ask him:
"Y didn't u shoot the guy who was beating u to death
and stabbing u ?" Mr. Innocent Guy replies:
"I was trying to get up enuf fear to satisfy the law
but I was too busy trying to fight him off
and I did not have enuf time to get afraid. OOOooooooooo; [death rattle]"
David


Gotta disagree with you here, David.

I think some of the folk ranting on and on about how Zimmerman had to defend himself look very much to me like people who sincerely want to shoot and kill someone else.

Ya know...if it quacks, waddles, and likes to sit on water...most likely it is a duck.

So why not just lobby for legislation that will allow "decent, law abiding gun owners to shoot anybody for any reason at any time.

Not saying you have to kill them...you probably could get plenty of satisfaction out of just maiming them.

Right?
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 04:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I doubt that it costs George anything more than aggravation and being without his guns for a spell.


With all the death threats and the public knowledge that he is now unarmed it could end up costing him his life.

An event that I am sure Firefly would applause if it should happen.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 04:16 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I doubt that it costs George anything more than aggravation and being without his guns for a spell.


With all the death threats and the public knowledge that he is now unarmed it could end up costing him his life.

An event that I am sure Firefly would applause if it should happen.


Well...there is the possibility that the guns never were for protection. You know...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

...but sometimes it is something more.

Maybe the guns are just compensation for some minor deficiency or some sort. Wink
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 04:35 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Sorry Frank it was never about shooting anyone you care to at anytime it is about the right to defend your life from someone trying to take it away from you and without needing to go through an unfounded political trial should the attacker happen to be a black young man and you are not.

That is the reason that tens of thousands had open our wallets to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of dollars as such nonsense need to be end stop.

As the last thing my wife would need to worry about if her life is hanging in the balance is if the attacker have the wrong skin color will she and I be wiped out financially if she defend herself and Sharpton or his like force charges to be level against her.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 05:01 pm
Quote:
Zimmerman was represented by the 18th Judicial Circuit Public Defender's Office during a court appearance on Tuesday, the day after his domestic violence arrest. He was granted $9,000 bail and bonded out that day.

However, Zimmerman has now elected to drop the Public Defender's Office and hire a south Florida private criminal defense attorney, Jayne Weintraub, to represent him, said his former public defender, Jeff Dowdy

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-new-lawyer-20131125,0,5351979.story

lacking money never seems to be much of a problem for Zimmerman.
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 05:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Well...there is the possibility that the guns never were for protection

And he certainly wasn't using them, or threatening to use them, for "self-protection" lately--that's why he was arrested.

One would think that responsible gun owners would be concerned when others misuse guns--use them merely to intimidate or threaten others--rather than for legitimate self-protection. But the ones in this thread don't seem to be.
Quote:
Maybe the guns are just compensation for some minor deficiency or some sort.

That's the way it seems he's been using them lately--when threatening his wife, father-in-law, and, allegedly his girlfriend--to give himself a temporary sense of potency and power, because he likely feels powerless to control the events or relationships in his life now--his life is really in tatters. The guns are all he has left to give him that feeling of control over others--and that may be a heady feeling for him. That has nothing to do with self protection.

I really do think he's been trying to get himself arrested again, perhaps on an unconscious level. Maybe his friend Frank Taaffe is right, and he's wracked with guilt over having killed Martin, and fears he's going to Hell, so maybe he feels he should be punished on earth to avoid that. Maybe his girlfriend is right, and he's been longing for that total immersion in the criminal justice system, with him at the center of it, that he lost when the trial ended. His reasons might not be rational, but I do think he wanted to get arrested again, because that's the way he's been acting for a few months.

There's also the possibility that he really doesn't trust himself with guns any more, and his flirting around with using them, either on himself or others, is his way of demonstrating that--particularly if he does feel guilty that he's already used one to kill someone. So he might be relieved to be unburdened by those guns right now. He has allegedly already put one in his mouth while voicing suicidal thoughts, so he knows he's somewhat of a danger even to himself. Not being allowed near them, while on bail, does help to protect him from impulsive actions with a gun. He might feel relieved about that.

Zimmerman's supporters in this thread seem to feel he should feel wholeheatedly good about his acquittal, and absolved of any guilt. But that might not be where Zimmerman's head is at--he was raised with the Catholic church very much a part of his life, and he may be experiencing his own demons about taking a life that these supporters just can't understand. He didn't look immediately relieved when his trial verdict was announced--he just stood there, unmoving and expressionless. I've watched a lot of murder trials, and I've never seen such an expressionless reaction from a defendant, regardless of the verdict. It did seem odd.

Those closest to him feel the man is unraveling, and he does seem to be in need of psychiatric help. I sincerely hope he gets it. I see no occasion for "glee" in either his current arrest, or his recent disturbing provocative actions. And I am stunned at the lack of any real compassion, or understanding, for the very real internal distress this man seems caught up in, on the part of his supporters in this thread. His behavior, since his acquittal, can be seen as a cry for help. And these "supporters" aren't concerned about that, or really concerned about him at all. He's just a prop for them to use to promote their own agendas--they don't care about him at all.

I really hope he gets the help he needs before this turns into another tragedy.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 05:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
lacking money never seems to be much of a problem for Zimmerman.

Amazing, with allegedly only $149 in assets. Rolling Eyes

However, the move to drop Jeff Dowdy, and the public defender's office, might have also come about because of revelations about Dowdy I read about just this morning, that might have resulted in his getting into controversy if he defended Zimmerman, because it looked like Zimmerman might be getting preferential treatment--Dowdy doesn't usually handle individual cases--he's an administrator in the PD's office-- and he was previously a staunch Zimmerman supporter...

Read this article:

The Curious Case Of George Zimmerman’s Public Defender (Updated)
By Judd Legum
November 25, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/25/2988941/curious-case-george-zimmermans-public-defender/
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 05:32 pm
@firefly,
letting public defenders handle the bail and then getting a real lawyer later is so common it is cliche. I cant imagine that zimmerman would ever go ghetto with his liberty at stake if he did not need to, which he clearly does not.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 05:36 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Sorry Frank it was never about shooting anyone you care to at anytime it is about the right to defend your life from someone trying to take it away from you and without needing to go through an unfounded political trial should the attacker happen to be a black young man and you are not.


Yeah...like it's not about the money...it's about the principle.

There are people here who give all the appearances of being someone who wants to shoot somebody. Anybody. Protecting self seems like the best excuse...so they use it.

Quote:
That is the reason that tens of thousands had open our wallets to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of dollars as such nonsense need to be end stop.


The nonsense is mostly coming from your side. Save your money...or give to people opposing your side...then you would be doing some to stop the nonsense.


Quote:
As the last thing my wife would need to worry about if her life is hanging in the balance is if the attacker have the wrong skin color will she and I be wiped out financially if she defend herself and Sharpton or his like force charges to be level against her.


There are wives in households all over this nation who have a hell of a lot more to fear from gun-owning husbands than they do froom Al Sharpton, Bill. And probably your wife is one of them.
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 05:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
letting public defenders handle the bail and then getting a real lawyer later is so common it is cliche. I cant imagine that zimmerman would ever go ghetto with his liberty at stake if he did not need to, which he clearly does not.


You didn't read that article.

The Curious Case Of George Zimmerman’s Public Defender (Updated)
By Judd Legum
November 25, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/25/2988941/curious-case-george-zimmermans-public-defender/

Having Dowdy as a PD to represent him would hardly be"going ghetto"--he's a very experienced veteran attorney who has been in private practice for most of his career. That's why there would be controversy, and questions, about how he'd come to represent Zimmerman, particularly in a matter that is not a major case, in terms of criminal charges. Dowdy is definitely "a real lawyer". And, in the PD's office, he doesn't usually handle individual cases--he's an administrator--he's the Chief Assistant Public Defender for Seminole County. And his involvement in Zimmerman's case was already raising questions.

Sometimes you should try to educate and inform yourself before you shoot your mouth off. I gave you the link...you didn't read the article--now your comments just look foolish.

And Zimmerman pleaded poverty to the judge, that's why a PD was appointed. But, we know he's lied to judges, about being indigent, before..
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 06:01 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
You didn't read that article.
correct

Quote:
Having Dowdy as a PD to represent him would hardly be"going ghetto"
even if you draw a good lawyer under the PD program you still will not get anything but ghetto lawyering, because they dont have the time or the money to provide anything but that.

Quote:
In Florida’s Miami-Dade County, lawyers often meet their criminal defendant clients moments before they walk into the courtroom, without having visited the crime scenes or interviewed witnesses. They become, in effect, what courts have called “mere conduits for plea offers” for some clients. It’s not the quality of representation they want to provide for clients facing time behind bars. But with caseloads that are often more than double the recommended legal standard and no choice but to take almost every case they are assigned, it is the only legal representation they have time for.
To varying degrees, this problem of underfunded public defenders mandated to take on ever-growing caseloads has crippled the criminal justice system, in many cases, turning criminal courtrooms into what the U.S. Supreme Court called last year “for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials
.” On Thursday, Florida’s highest court called the evidence a “damning indictment of the poor quality of trial representation,” and held for the first time that public defenders may be relieved from case assignments when they are so overloaded that their representation would violate the defendant’s right to counsel. The five-justice majority wrote:
While we cannot succinctly recount the lengthy records in these two cases, we are struck by the breadth and depth of the evidence of how the excessive caseload has impacted the Public Defender’s representation of indigent defendants. For example, the number of criminal cases assigned to the Public Defender has increased by 29% since 2004, while his trial budget was reduced by 12.6% through budget cuts and holdbacks over the fiscal years 2007 – 2008 and 2008 – 2009. After the implementation of Article V revisions in July 2004, the Legislature only funded 32 of the 82 overload attorneys that Miami-Dade County had been funding. [...]
Witnesses from the Public Defender’s office described “meet and greet pleas” as being routine procedure. The assistant public defender meets the defendant for the first time at arraignment during a few minutes in the courtroom or hallway and knows nothing about the case except for the arrest form provided by the state attorney, yet is expected to counsel the defendant about the State’s plea offer. In this regard, the public defenders serve “as mere conduits for plea offers.” The witnesses also described engaging in “triage” with their cases – giving priority to the cases of defendants in custody, leaving out-of-custody defendants effectively without representation for lengthy periods subsequent to arraignment. The witnesses also testified that the attorneys almost never visited the crime scenes, were unable to properly investigate or interview witnesses themselves, often had other attorneys conduct their depositions, and were often unprepared to proceed to trial when the case was called. Thus, the circumstances presented here involve some measure of non representation and therefore a denial of the actual assistance of counsel guaranteed by Gideon [v. Wainright] and the Sixth Amendment.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/28/2060821/florida-high-court-pushes-back-against-state-underfunding-of-public-defenders/

Quote:
-now your comments just look foolish.
turn that finger around, missy.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 06:01 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
There are wives in households all over this nation who have a hell of a lot more to fear from gun-owning husbands than they do froom Al Sharpton, Bill. And probably your wife is one of them.


Strange opinion that I have anything to fear from my wife or she have anything to fear from me due to us both being gun owners with CC licenses!!!!!!!

We both was raised in households with firearms in them as a matter of course as around 30 percents of all households in the US.

Then it hardly take a gun for a husband to killed his wife or for that matter a wife to kill her husband as a knife or a heavy object used on a sleeping mate will work just fine or rat poison for that matter see the ID cable channel for all the real life cases of such killings with no gun needed.

The secret of protecting yourself from being murder by your mate is having good judgment in picking him or her not in outlawing firearms or knives or rat poison and so on.

My wife have the means and the training to protect herself in walking to her car at night alone from the hoodlums.

An I know you wish her to not have that protection but you can go to hell in that regards.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 06:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
even if you draw a good lawyer under the PD program you still will not get anything but ghetto lawyering, because they dont have the time or the money to provide anything but that.

Are you simply trying to demonstrate your ignorance even more?

If so, you're doing a splendid job.

None of that article, or your contentions, would apply in the case of Jeff Dowdy defending Zimmerman as a PD--Dowdy doesn't carry a caseload in the PD's office. That's why his involvement in the Zimmerman matter was rather curious, and had already started raising questions about Zimmerman getting preferential treatment.

I think Dowdy, and the PD's office, is off the case because controversy about Dowdy's representation of Zimmerman was already brewing. The last thing the PD's office likely wants is to get embroiled in controversy over Zimmerman, and how his case is handled, and whether he's getting preferential treatment.

You already made yourself look foolish because you shot your mouth off without bothering to read that link I posted, and your uninformed remarks were ignorant of the facts about Jeff Dowdy--who you didn't seem to know was a veteran attorney and definitely a "real lawyer".

Now your're trying to save face by claiming there was validity to what you said, by posting an article that has nothing to do with Dowdy or the situation with Zimmerman--because Dowdy doesn't carry a caseload in the PD's office, and rarely gets involved in individual cases. And since he'd been a stauch, and very public, supporter of Zimmerman in the past, I don't think he'd neglect Zimmerman, or his case, time wise now, if he was his PD--Zimmerman would not have gotten "ghetto lawyering" from Dowdy.

The Curious Case Of George Zimmerman’s Public Defender (Updated)
By Judd Legum
November 25, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/25/2988941/curious-case-george-zimmermans-public-defender/

The more you try to wipe the egg off your face, the more you spread it around. Your transparent attempts to make yourself look less foolish only make you seem moreso. Right now, your face is a mess--egg all over it. Smile





hawkeye10
 
  3  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 06:33 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
--Dowdy doesn't carry a caseload in the PD's office. That's why his involvement in the Zimmerman matter was rather curious, and had already started raising questions about Zimmerman getting preferential treatment.
you keep arguing like we can assume that zimmerman would have gotten taken care of by Dowdy, and then you point out that if this were to happen there would have been huge political problems.......it never was going to happen, zimmerman would have wound up getting the same ghetto lawyering that everyone else gets.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 06:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
even if you draw a good lawyer under the PD program you still will not get anything but ghetto lawyering, because they dont have the time or the money to provide anything but that.


I remember being on a Federal Jury where the defendant had a lawyer that did not even have a language in common and you could tell that the lawyer had spend zero time in setting up a defense.

The lawyer placed the man on the stand who then plenty must confessed to all the charges.

The whole case seems to be a throw away case so the very young prosecutor could get some court room training.

If the man had a decent lawyer who care the whole matter should had been plead out not going to a jury.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 06:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
you keep arguing like we can assume that zimmerman would have gotten taken care of by Dowdy,..and then you point out that if this were to happen there would have been huge political problems.......it never was going to happen, zimmerman would have wound up getting the same ghetto lawyering that everyone else gets.

SCHMUCK, Dowdy agreed to take the case...he was appointed. And, there is every reason to believe he volunteered to take this case, based on the fact he was a very strong, very public supporter of Zimmerman in the past, and the fact he rarely handles individual cases.

That's why the controversy, and questions, were already beginning about how Zimmerman wound up with Dowdy. Dowdy is very much the equivalent of a seasoned, high priced private attorney, that's exactly what he was before becoming a chief administrator in the Seminole County PD's office, and Zimmerman was curiously getting this man, who rarely takes individual cases as a PD, for free.

You're more interested in trying to win an argument, than in learning anything, or discussing anything. That's why you are never able to admit it when you are wrong--which you clearly were about your assumptions in this matter, mainly because you failed to read that link before shooting your mouth off with your foolish and uninformed comments.

You just keep trying to save face, and you just wind up making yourself look like more of a fool in the process.

Unless you're too dumb to comprehend the situation, and brewing controversy, about Dowdy. That strikes me as more and more likely a possibility.

Now I'm interested in how the allegedly "indigent" Zimmerman can afford a private lawyer so quickly, when he only had $149 in assets a week ago, and he hasn't paid his previous attorneys yet.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 25 Nov, 2013 07:59 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Now I'm interested in how the allegedly "indigent" Zimmerman can afford a private lawyer so quickly, when he only had $149 in assets a week ago, and he hasn't paid his previous attorneys yet.
a combination of people who care about him and yet another person who has found a way to use Zimmerman to advance their lives (the lawyer).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/02/2025 at 05:48:37