Zimmerman to get "Stand Your Ground" hearing.....developing

[Simon W. Moon]

The known evidence does not say that at all.

Well, however you would like to phrase it. The gist is that GZ's story is hinky and hokey. That assessment is based on how the evidence compares to GZ's account.

Maybe the evidence doesn't actually "say it." W/e.

 

[Excon]

Since when?

Still playing it I see.

Unless there is a need to know an exact phrase or unless there's reason to believe that there's an error in the paraphrasing, it's usually quite fine.
When I have objections to a paraphrasing I can articulate those objections.

Still more games on your part.
You know damn well that a paraphrase is insufficient.
And those objections were articulated. It was not sufficient.

It seems like GZ held on to that passport for a week before turning it over.

No it doesn't.
And again, it was not a definitive statement from him.
Saying I think one is in the bag, is not the same as saying there is one in the bag. Duh!

And when rediscovered after the hearing, it was immediately turned over to O'Mara.

"Hold on to that," doesn't seem the equivalent of, "Get that to O'Mara." If he wanted to get it to O'Mara right away, he could have asked his wife to do so on the 17th.

And?
So what! He had no reason to even say such a thing.
He was under no obligation to turn over any passport at that time.
What do you not understand about that?
There was absolutely no reason at the time to do so.

I do think there's a way for it to sound hinky.

It only sounds hinky if it is twisted to fit what you want it too.

Well, however you would like to phrase it. The gist is that GZ's story is hinky and hokey. That assessment is based on how the evidence compares to GZ's account.

Maybe the evidence doesn't actually "say it." W/e.

:slapme:
Of course the evidence doesn't say that.
It is only those with convoluted thoughts that think it does.

The analysis of the evidence say quite the opposite of what you allege.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And those objections were articulated. It was not sufficient.

That was the entire objection to the paraphrasing? That it was paraphrasing?

No it doesn't.
And again, it was not a definitive statement from him.
Saying I think one is in the bag, is not the same as saying there is one in the bag. Duh!

While the point you're making is correct, it's not really THE point.
He said he thought he had one in a bag and she said he had one in the safe deposit box.
If they only knew of one of them, it seems that being in one place would have excluded it from being in the other and the conversation would have been different. More along the lines of, "No, it's in the safe deposit box"

But I get it. You think that there's no one reasonable who could look at the facts and reach a different conclusion than you have. You're free to make that choice.

 

[Furiounova]

Still playing it I see.



Still more games on your part.
You know damn well that a paraphrase is insufficient.
And those objections were articulated. It was not sufficient.




No it doesn't.
And again, it was not a definitive statement from him.
Saying I think one is in the bag, is not the same as saying there is one in the bag. Duh!

And when rediscovered after the hearing, it was immediately turned over to O'Mara.


And?
So what! He had no reason to even say such a thing.
He was under no obligation to turn over any passport at that time.
What do you not understand about that?
There was absolutely no reason at the time to do so.


It only sounds hinky if it is twisted to fit what you want it too.



:slapme:
Of course the evidence doesn't say that.
It is only those with convoluted thoughts that think it does.

The analysis of the evidence say quite the opposite of what you allege.

When was he obligated to turn in all his passports to the court?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Go to the evidence dump. You are much too lazy to go read the evidence for yourself or even to follow a link when its offered. You'd rather argue..

I do remember what was in his vehicle when his bail was revoked... A cooler, a gun, 3 mags, a knife and some snacks.

Well, looked through both of the evidence dumps and you're right. They don't mention any wallets or CCs or anything like that. Of course there are other things missing also. Like the fact that there were two cell phones used that night but only one is mentioned in the first evidence dump, the one that was found in the grass. Where's the other one? Looks to me like they didn't mention everything so you are making assumptions based on incomplete data.

 

[Excon]

That was the entire objection to the paraphrasing? That it was paraphrasing?

There is your little game again.
Yes Simon! Because a paraphrase does not even say it was said. While a quote does.
And it is your game because you already know this.

While the point you're making is correct, it's not really THE point.
He said he thought he had one in a bag and she said he had one in the safe deposit box.
If they only knew of one of them, it seems that being in one place would have excluded it from being in the other and the conversation would have been different. More along the lines of, "No, it's in the safe deposit box"

No Simon. It is the point.
There was no reason at the time to turn it in. So assuming something nefarious from it is absurd.
And assuming people should speak the way you think they should speak is also absurd.

 

[Excon]

When was he obligated to turn in all his passports to the court?

Seriously? You do not know that, and are trying to argue anyways?
Wow! Talk about absurd.

 

[Furiounova]

Seriously? You do not know that, and are trying to argue anyways?
Wow! Talk about absurd.

You dodged the question because the answer proved you wrong.

 

[joko104]

You dodged the question because the answer proved you wrong.

no he didn't

 

[Excon]

And?
So what! He had no reason to even say such a thing.
He was under no obligation to turn over any passport at that time.
What do you not understand about that?
There was absolutely no reason at the time to do so.

When was he obligated to turn in all his passports to the court?

Seriously? You do not know that, and are trying to argue anyways?
Wow! Talk about absurd.

You dodged the question because the answer proved you wrong.

I didn't dodge your question.
And your question does not prove what I said above, or my argument wrong.

Apparently, as far as I can find, Zimmerman was not ordered by the Court to surrender his passport.
The rules of criminal procedure governing bail/bond does not require it either.

So that just further strengthens the point that there was nothing nefarious going on, and destroys your argument that there was.


It also shows just how absurd those are who are inferring something nefarious from what appears to be, at this point, a voluntary surrender of passports on Zimmerman's part.



If you think you have something else, please, by all means, provide it.

Because as it stands, you do not know, and are trying to argue it anyways. Just like I said.

 

[sharon]

I didn't dodge your question.
And your question does not prove what I said above, or my argument wrong.

Apparently, as far as I can find, Zimmerman was not ordered by the Court to surrender his passport.
The rules of criminal procedure governing bail/bond does not require it either.

So that just further strengthens the point that there was nothing nefarious going on, and destroys your argument that there was.


It also shows just how absurd those are who are inferring something nefarious from what appears to be, at this point, a voluntary surrender of passports on Zimmerman's part.



If you think you have something else, please, by all means, provide it.

Because as it stands, you do not know, and are trying to argue it anyways. Just like I said.

As a condition of bail, GZ was ordered to surrender his passport on April 20.

 

[OscarB63]

As a condition of bail, GZ was ordered to surrender his passport on April 20.

link? ......

 

[buck]

link? ......

3...2....1... Queue the link to a tomato pie recipie.

 

[Excon]

As a condition of bail, GZ was ordered to surrender his passport on April 20.

And if true I wasn't wrong either. Duh!

Although that is also what I originally thought, he actually wasn't as far as I can tell.

He voluntarily surrendered one at that hearing.
The Judge did not order that he turn over that which was already turned over.
Just like in the new order for bond, he does not order that they be turned over because they have already been turned over.
But he does order that he not apply for another one.



Unless you have documentation that says otherwise, {something like he was ordered to surrender his passport before the phone call on the 17th}, it matters not to the argument.

If it is as it appears to be, a voluntary surrender, or if it was put into writing in the elusive bond order from the bond hearing of the 20th, the argument still stands.


Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Courts - Brevard and Seminole Counties Florida

 

[joko104]

Court orders are about technical wording. If the judge or prosecutor screws up, it is their screw up.

If the bail order required GZ to turn over his "passport" as the exact word, he broke no rule whatsoever as it is singular. If the judge or prosecutor SCREWED UP and used "passport" as a singular, he was only required to turn in one passport. It was their screw up, not his. He nor O'Mara are obligated to point out to the judge or prosecutor technical f...k ups.

If the judge meant to order him to turn in his "passports" or "all passports," AND HAD THAT IN THE ORDER - then possibly he did not comply. Otherwise he did.

But as I've often stated, the judge is INCOMPETENT (and his overturn rate by appeals court proves it) and the prosecutor so corrupt she shes no reason to act correctly.

 

[OscarB63]

3...2....1... Queue the link to a tomato pie recipie.

more likely that same graphic of the neighborhood that she's posted a zillion times with little red X's all over it

 

[OscarB63]

Court orders are about technical wording. If the judge or prosecutor screws up, it is their screw up.

If the bail order required GZ to turn over his "passport" as the exact word, he broke no rule whatsoever as it is singular. If the judge or prosecutor SCREWED UP and used "passport" as a singular, he was only required to turn in one passport. It was their screw up, not his. He nor O'Mara are obligated to point out to the judge or prosecutor technical f...k ups.

If the judge meant to order him to turn in his "passports" or "all passports," then possibly he did not comply. Otherwise he did.

But as I've often stated, the judge is INCOMPETENT (and his overturn rate by appeals court proves it) and the prosecutor so corrupt she shes no reason to act correctly.

exactly. how many criminals have been guilty as sin and gotten off on a technicality because someone screwed up and didn't sign a form, or signed in the wrong place, or misworded something, etc, etc, etc?

 

[Excon]

exactly. how many criminals have been guilty as sin and gotten off on a technicality because someone screwed up and didn't sign a form, or signed in the wrong place, or misworded something, etc, etc, etc?

Very few and far between.
And there is a reason for that.


"Reversible Error", rarely (if ever) happens nowadays because of what is known as "Harmless Error".

Harmless Error legal definition of Harmless Error. Harmless Error synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

This was fought for and won by Prosecutors, and has made the system even more biased against the accused.
Trial/Appellate records are replete with examples of "Manifest Injustice" occurring, but then being ruled as "Harmless Error".

Manifest injustice Legal Definition - Lawyers.com

Manifest Injustice Law & Legal Definition

 

[joko104]

My point is a simple one. A person does not have to comply with a court order beyond the specific wording of the order. No one ever has to extrapolate beyond what the order literally says. If the bond condition required he turn in his "passport," he was not required to turn in "passports."

 

[sharon]

link? ......

Here's the motion to revoke bond.

Prosecutors' motion to revoke George Zimmerman's bond

 

[Excon]

As a condition of bail, GZ was ordered to surrender his passport on April 20.

link? ......

Here's the motion to revoke bond.

:slapme:
iLOL

Please Sharon, tell us how in the world you believe that is applicable to what is being discussed, when it is irrelevant?

 

[joko104]

Here's the motion to revoke bond.

Prosecutors' motion to revoke George Zimmerman's bond

That is not the court order.
Corey is a pathological liar, instructing witnesses to lie, and has engaged in open criminal activity against George Zimmerman. What she says is worthless.
Regardless, that is NOT the bond order. NOR is it a transcript of George Zimmerman's testimony.

 

[Excon]

That is not the court order.
Corey is a pathological liar, instructing witnesses to lie, and has engaged in open criminal activity against George Zimmerman. What she says is worthless.
Regardless, that is NOT the bond order. NOR is it a transcript of George Zimmerman's testimony.

She obviously knows that, but is trying to distract from her being wrong.

 

[sharon]

My point is a simple one. A person does not have to comply with a court order beyond the specific wording of the order. No one ever has to extrapolate beyond what the order literally says. If the bond condition required he turn in his "passport," he was not required to turn in "passports."

Americans turn in their expired passports when they apply for a new one.. and it is returned with the new one except the old one is punched full of holes.

Haven't you ever had a passport?

 

[sharon]

:slapme:
iLOL

Please Sharon, tell us how in the world you believe that is applicable to what is being discussed, when it is irrelevant?

Some one has repeatedly said that George wasn't required to surrender his passport as a condition of bail..