It seems that way. And it's hard enough to remain objective, and then we have closing statements that spin a story and push for emotional reactions. How about the rebuttal in this case talking about the human heart and putting all that emphasis on the "child" and good thing it didn't work with this jury.

Just to confirm how I understood what MOM was to be paid:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... ark-o-mara

"How much have I been paid?" O'Mara said. "Zero."

O'Mara has vowed to represent Zimmerman for free, if need be. An indigency ruling would require the state to pay all other legal expenses — for example, the cost of a private investigator, experts and transcripts.

The testimony of Don West in the Sanctions Hearing (June 6 / to be continued post-trial) was that the hourly rate charge he and MOM are recording is $400 and $450 per hour, respectively. I have never heard or read that they are doing the case "pro bono," but I am open for correction on that point.

Sanction Hearing - West Testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf_0D6Bfr_M

That would be $350/hr and $400/hr, respectively.
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mo ... df#page=17

I was under the impression, that the US justice system WAS NOT to be used for personal vendettas or vengeance ? Basically, the NAACP is irate that based on Florida law, GZ did NOT murder TM, he did use self defense, and they want revenge. They cannot accept the outcome, because "in their hearts", they "felt" GZ was guilty, and they will not stop until they get what they want.

But, they need to be very careful. GZ's civil rights are being broken as we speak.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety and individual rights such as privacy. The right of self-defense.

I fully understand that the NAACP has the right to petition, rally, and the right to assemble, as long as it doesn't delve into GZ's civil rights, and it has...IMO !

I need clarification...HELP !!

Every morning, with my cup'o'coffee, I get online and read the news. I have come across several headlines this morning in regards to Zimmerman "could still be held responsible for Trayvons death".

Am I missing something here ? I thought, for absolute sure, that GZ has never once denied taking the life of Trayvon, he just denied "murdering" him...and a jury of 6 agreed that he DID NOT murder him.

Please, for my sanities sake, I need clarification. Thank You.

They are just trying to hype up the civil cases that could be filed and the DOJ being able to file hate crime charges. It will never amount to anything.

My new concern is what is going to happen to Shelly. Anyone heard anything on that? I heard that Guy is supposed to be prosecuting her, but that would be dumb because he has his work to do on the Dunn case.

It was literally all they had. They had no facts, no evidence, no logical inferences, no law. If any one of them had a conscience or any respect for legal ethics, they'd have dropped the charges, or refused to be any part of the case when it was clear there was nothing there.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

gummybear, you fit in here so well! I am enjoying your posts.

I don't know if you followed the Anthony case but there was a lot of talk of re-trying her federally after those idiots ignored the law and facts and acquitted her. There is a quirk in the law, more like the language of the code, that some non-lawyers misunderstood and got all excited about. You're likely seeing some of that kind of wishful thinking, along with other things.

The BGI is demanding that GZ be tried for violating TM™'s civil rights. Under these circumstances, that is legally impossible. OTOH, so was GZ being tried for murder or any other crime, so who knows for sure? At this point, seems most experts do not think GZ will be tried federally. Also Holder and Obama made statements that did not include a promise of charges being filed.

This has come up a few times here at RT so I've actually given it a bit of thought. (Don't be scared! ) IF federal charges were filed, all of the info about TM™ will come out at least in the press. No one in authority, especially the schemers, want that. They're trying to make TM™ a civil rights martyr so as to try to salvage something out of all of their efforts and investments in this case because it's doubtful they'd get anything out of a lawsuit against GZ since he's been acquitted. And who else is there for them to sue? And besides, all of the TM™ info will come out; civil suits have very, very broad discovery. So, they'd have to give up tons of info they've so far managed to keep hidden; that and all the other TM™ info would be admitted in the civil case; and don't lose sight of the fact that GZ was acquitted. That is a huge hurdle right there. Yes, OJ was held responsible through a civil case but he was guilty and evidence was presented in civil court that wasn't allowed in criminal court.

So, in answer to your question: While GZ *may* be charged with other things at some point as described above (VERY unlikely!), he can only be charged with murder if the legislature gets together and changes the law retroactively, and the president signs it.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Yes, as petty and vindictive as those evil people are, they're likely to try to exact vengeance through Shellie. I haven't followed that aspect so have no clue who is prosecuting her, or if it's all of the lying, should-be-disbarred group. AC is technically the one who filed, right?

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

RE: Shellie Zimmerman

According to the State Court docket, the case is scheduled for trial August 21.

The Judge on the case is Marlene M. Alva.

h/t Katie Pavlich.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Thanks Liesel...

I did not follow the Anthony case, due to the mere mention of her name made me throw up in my mouth a lil.

In regards to a civil suit by TM's parents, it won't happen. Under the "stand your ground" law, any civil suit filed for wrongful death will be dismissed any future filings will be blocked.

The civil rights stuff...nah...Mr. Holder is only agreeing to an "investigation" to keep a slew of pissed off NAACP peeps off of his...um...butt...

My question is, and I know I'm not mistaken here, is....Has GZ ever once denied taking TM's life ? Yes, he denied "murdering" him, as murdering someone in cold blood and taking someone's life in self defense are 2 different things...

Thanks, gummybear!

Rumpole will probably start a new thread on Shellie, especially when things start moving in that case. She deserves it, I think.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Thanks! I suppose I just did not listen well when West addressed the hourly wage and had ASSUMED he meant the $400/hr was his wage and MOM made $50 more. The humor from his remark I loved! The link is handy, so kind of you!

GZ admitted to LE and neighbors immediately that he shot (at) TM™, and has never denied shooting. As you wrote, GZ denies murder because he didn't murder anyone - he killed the young man who attacked him, in or to prevent his attacker from killing him or causing him great bodily harm.

I have not heard anyone claim GZ denied shooting, even Trayborg™. What are you hearing/seeing?

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

So apparently Tony Pipitone will be airing an interview with Angela Corey today. He asks her to describe George Zimmerman in one word. Corey's response: murderer.

She is no longer speaking in her official capacity as the prosecutor of the State's case against Zimmerman, since he has been acquitted. Does not this statement, then, constitute slander, for which she personally can be held responsible?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

This is precisely what I was thinking. If it goes to a jury, she will in no way get a fair trial. Even if she gets a change of venue...there is no way they would be able to find a jury who has no knowledge of her hubby's case, anyone that says they do know of his case, but has no opinion either way, IMO, would be fibbing.

Anything said outside of court is actionable. However, from what you described, it seems she was giving her opinion, so it's not exactly open/shut, imo. Since GZ was acquitted he is legally (and factually, imo!) not guilty, but she's allowed to have her own opinions. I'm not saying he couldn't prevail, I'm saying imo it wouldn't be easy based on that one statement. Did she say any more?

Let me be clear - GZ should not put up with anyone going on national tv and calling him a murderer, especially someone who clearly knows he was found not guilty. He very well may have a cause of action, but she will plead 1st amendment protection of her opinion. If she had stated it as a fact, that would be different.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

I was interested in what Rush had to say this am concerning the fallout, DOJ, etc. Cause CNN has had ppl on talking about it. In any event, Rush mentioned about the Miami-Dade School system and hasn't said the words yet of "Baker Act", but mentioned cover up of crimes. His show just started if you want to check it out.

I thought of SD when he began about this topic and was wonder if SD will ever get the full credit for disclosure of the Baker Act stuff going on. He deserves it, however, we kinda know he's not the kind to go for the glory so to speak ... just the truth.