Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[Londo_Jowo]

Agreed, it's time to walk away from this thread until there's something new to discuss. At this point there's no evidence that proves GZ committed 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. This case will either be dismissed during the evidentiary (immunity) hearing and end up with an acquittal/hung jury at trial due to the lack of evidence.

 

[airdata]

Actually, you can. The law has been explained 100s of times already. That's why it's so easy to dismiss all your "what ifs" with zero evidence showing that's what happened.

I actually didn't state any " what if's " fuck face. So please... take your place quietly back on my ignore list.

You just prove time and time again that your reading comprehension is severely lacking and you are simply too emotionally invested in pretending fairy tales and not looking at actual facts.

 

[airdata]

Agreed, it's time to walk away from this thread until there's something new to discuss. At this point there's no evidence that proves GZ committed 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. This case will either be dismissed during the evidentiary (immunity) hearing and end up with an acquittal/hung jury at trial due to the lack of evidence.

How about the judge being removed for being a judge? That's pretty significant.

It's pretty significant to note Zimmerman's defense doing all they can to mess with the legal process in order to better their chances of a mis trial or hung jury. This is typical in our broken justice system.

 

[spidey07]

I actually didn't state any " what if's " fuck face. So please... take your place quietly back on my ignore list.

You just prove time and time again that your reading comprehension is severely lacking and you are simply too emotionally invested in pretending fairy tales and not looking at actual facts.

You said chased and instigating fight. That's is a SEVERE what if as that's not what happened and there is ZERO evidence that's what happened.

And even if it DID happen that way zimmerman is still legally allowed to shoot when on back, mounted/straddled, unable to retreat, after being beaten multiple times about his head screaming for his life.

 

[nobodyknows]

It seems to me the better approach would be to simply lock this thread as a colossal waste of time and bandwidth.

Lock the thread before the case is over? Why? because you are tired of it and don't like the way things are going? BS to that.

 

[spidey07]

Lock the thread before the case is over? Why? because you are tired of it and don't like the way things are going? BS to that.

The frustration of team skittles is really starting to show after all their "what ifs" have been beaten down by facts, evidence, truth and the rule of law. All they have left is emotional bullshit, facts and evidence be damned. They know z-man is innocent but can't accept that in this country you are allowed to defend yourself against a brutal and vicious attack by a thug.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How about the judge being removed for being a judge? That's pretty significant.

It's pretty significant to note Zimmerman's defense doing all they can to mess with the legal process in order to better their chances of a mis trial or hung jury. This is typical in our broken justice system.

I think the judge intentionally made the comments knowing the chances of being recused would be high. He knows that it could be political suicide to rule in GZ's favor, even if it's the correct decision.

 

[TerryMathews]

And.....

Zimmerman's lawyers making a mockery of the justice system by managing to get the judge removed from the case.

Was he supposed to speak in a different way when he revoked Zimmerman's bond for lying to the court? I'm not sure how all of that stuff works since I'm just thinking about this as a matter of common sense.

Yes. He's a judge, not a sports commentator. He revoked Zimmermans bail because they had more funds available than were considered at the first hearing. All of the commentary was superfluous.

You can argue the merits all you want, or marginalize the decision. But there is no escaping the fact that a panel of three judges decided that the sum total of this judges commentary was not appropriate for an impartial judge.

And I don't think you're qualified to second guess their decision.

 

[TerryMathews]

How about the judge being removed for being a judge? That's pretty significant.

It's pretty significant to note Zimmerman's defense doing all they can to mess with the legal process in order to better their chances of a mis trial or hung jury. This is typical in our broken justice system.

No.

He was removed for expressing his biases about the case. Not for "being a judge".

 

[EagleKeeper]

How about the judge being removed for being a judge? That's pretty significant.

It's pretty significant to note Zimmerman's defense doing all they can to mess with the legal process in order to better their chances of a mis trial or hung jury. This is typical in our broken justice system.

Do you have any understanding on why Lester was removed?

 

[spidey07]

Do you have any understanding on why Lester was removed?

It seems Airdata and the rest of team skittles see something wrong with zimmerman and his attorneys making sure they get a fair trial. This also goes along with their believe that one has to prove innocence and that once is guilty until proven innocent.

Pretty fucked up if you ask me.

 

[Geosurface]

That's because they don't care about the law or the justice system or how it's supposed to work. They want it to work in whatever way it needs to to put the bad, bad racist man behind bars for shooting that poor widdle boy.

It's like an oil company hiring climate scientists and saying "um, go back and do the study again... until you get the result we want, the one that says there's no global warming"

Actually I'm sort of similar to them in that the justice system and law is secondary to me to an innocent man going free, that is my top priority.

 

[spidey07]

They want him to take their version of justice the same as they feel he should have just taken his well deserved beating. It's sickening.

 

[emperus]

Yes. He's a judge, not a sports commentator. He revoked Zimmermans bail because they had more funds available than were considered at the first hearing. All of the commentary was superfluous.

You can argue the merits all you want, or marginalize the decision. But there is no escaping the fact that a panel of three judges decided that the sum total of this judges commentary was not appropriate for an impartial judge.

And I don't think you're qualified to second guess their decision.

It was a close 2-1 decision. I think all you Pro GZ people are overstating the decision.

Let's look at this. The judge, gave him an initial lenient bail which allowed him to leave the state. When the judge found out he lied, he gave him bail again which was posted in less than 24 hours. He subsequently granted GZ the ability to leave his home to visit his attorney. I can't find any bias in any of his decisions.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It was a close 2-1 decision. I think all you Pro GZ people are overstating the decision.

Let's look at this. The judge, gave him an initial lenient bail which allowed him to leave the state. When the judge found out he lied, he gave him bail again which was posted in less than 24 hours. He subsequently granted GZ the ability to leave his home to visit his attorney. I can't find any bias in any of his decisions.

Lester restricted travel that previous was not there.
Lester Implemented electronic monitoring.

Zimmerman demonstrated that he was not a flight risk in the beginning when it would have been easy to take off.

Lester made public comments

 

[TerryMathews]

It was a close 2-1 decision. I think all you Pro GZ people are overstating the decision.

Let's look at this. The judge, gave him an initial lenient bail which allowed him to leave the state. When the judge found out he lied, he gave him bail again which was posted in less than 24 hours. He subsequently granted GZ the ability to leave his home to visit his attorney. I can't find any bias in any of his decisions.

Well I don't know what to tell you. Two appellate judges were able to find it.

Unless you're accusing them of some sort of bias or ignorance?

 

[emperus]

Well I don't know what to tell you. Two appellate judges were able to find it.

Unless you're accusing them of some sort of bias or ignorance?

So, what bias did the court find? Again it was a close 2-1 ruling.

I think u misread the ruling or are purposely misstating what you read. Here is the full ruling.

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330 requires a trial judge to grant a motion to disqualify without determining the accuracy of the allegations in the motion, so long as the motion is "legally sufficient." R.M.C., 77 So. 3d at 236. "A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well- founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial." Id. (citing MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990)). Although many of the allegations in Zimmerman's motion, standing alone, do not meet the legal sufficiency test,1 and while this is admittedly a close call, upon careful review we find that the allegations, taken together, meet the threshold test of legal sufficiency. Accordingly, we direct the trial judge to enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge.
PETITION GRANTED

 

[spidey07]

So they found the judge to have shown bias, what part of that don't you get? They essentially agreed with zimmerman that he wouldn't get a fair trial with this judge.

 

[emperus]

So they found the judge to have shown bias, what part of that don't you get? They essentially agreed with zimmerman that he wouldn't get a fair trial with this judge.

Show me where in the text they found him to show bias... The ruling is not that long. Take a second and go over it.

 

[spidey07]

Show me where in the text they found him to show bias... The ruling is not that long. Take a second and go over it.

They ruled zimmermans claims were legally sufficient, can you not read?

"A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well- founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

So they found the judge to have shown bias, what part of that don't you get? They essentially agreed with zimmerman that he wouldn't get a fair trial with this judge.

Spidey you are arguing about bias to a bunch of '100% trayvon did nothing wrong' supporters. They have the most twisted viewpoint of unbiased as is possible.

To them, they "know" zimmerman is guilty thus he is guilty - case closed.

 

[spidey07]

Spidey you are arguing about bias to a bunch of '100% trayvon did nothing wrong' supporters. They have the most twisted viewpoint of unbiased as is possible.

To them, they "know" zimmerman is guilty thus he is guilty - case closed.

It's mind boggling to tell you the truth, as if to be a team skittle you have to completely disconnect from reality, truth, fact and law and go strictly on "he gunned down that little boy skipping home with tea and skittles he purchased for his baby brother"

 

[emperus]

They ruled zimmermans claims were legally sufficient, can you not read?

Yes they did. And below is the definition of legal sufficiency. So where again did they find him to be biased? What do you think that line means?

. "A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well- founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial."

PS. You are making assumptions of what the ruling held. The ruling was narrowly held to that of legal sufficiency which is defined above. The court made no decision as whether the allegations were true, whether there was any bias in the case or whether there would be any bias in the future. The ruling was limited to whether a reasonable person would have a FEAR of receiving and impartial trial. And they decided that 2-1 and the majority opninion said it was a close call.

So to break it down 2 judges narrowly felt that GZ was well founded in having a FEAR that he may receive an impartial trial. That is all the ruling found. And everyone else is overblowing it.

Btw, given the language of the law, I agree with the ruling. Plus it saves time and tax payer dollars on an appeal. Though I don't agree with MOM's tactic of trying to pick and choose judges. His client lied. Deal with the repurcussions.

 

[Oyeve]

After reading this thread for months I totally dislike the banjo.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yes they did. And below is the definition of legal sufficiency. So where again did they find him to be biased? What do you think that line means?



PS. You are making assumptions of what the ruling held. The ruling was narrowly held to that of legal sufficiency which is defined about. The court made no decision as whether the allegations were true, whether there was any bias in the case or whther there would be any bias in the future. The ruling was limited to whether a reasonable person would a have a FEAR of receiving and impartial trial.

I get it. You aren't understanding the ruling because you're not a reasonable person.

It's the reasonable person standard. Same as self defense in Florida. They're saying, based on Lesters conduct and commentary, a reasonable person would believe they would not get a fair trial.

I'll be waiting for you to tell me I'm overstating the verdict and I'm lying and it doesn't count because they had to take the affidavit at face value.