Jun 13 2012
Evidence Against Zimmerman “Strong”
While the news media is distracted by the news George Zimmerman’s wife has been arrested for perjury (a crime co-committed with her husband ‘saint’ George), the bigger news to come out was the description by the judge regarding the case against George Zimmerman:
The judge writes that his considered several factors, most of which weighed against Zimmerman.
Among them, “this is a serious charge for which life may be imposed; the evidence against him is strong; he has been charged with one prior crime, for which he went through a pre-trial diversion program, and has had an injunction lodged against him” for domestic violence.
This is pretty damning, coming from the judge who will oversea this man’s trial. As I have suspected (and Saint George’s groupies have dutifully ignored) it looks even more clear now that George Zimmerman’s off-the-cuff alibi and subsequent statements are at odds with the crime scene evidence and witness testimony. The only relevant aspect of this is the ease with which Zimmermans tried to snooker the legal system.
Even worse, Zimmerman apparently also has a history of violent actions. His saintly frock is slipping badly.
To lie about this means they would lie about just about anything. It is just one more in a long line of disclosures that show George Zimmerman is not worthy of anyone’s support. He is not (and better never be) the poster child for 2nd amendment rights, concealed weapon permits or stand your ground laws. This is the kind of vigilante nonsense that risks all those worthy views. Never, ever let the exception drive the rule. That’s how liberals gain control over law abiding citizens, by claiming the need to avoid giving criminals opportunities.
Of course, the fallacy in all this is that to completely avoid opportunities for any crime requires all citizens to be treated as potential criminals. You’d think by now we would be able to understand this PR trick. But here we are again, defending the indefensible.
Jinny,
Were did I ever say anything about a bullet in the back of the head???
And reviewing the evidence in a crime pretrial is not a crime. And since you may be one of those who acquitted GZ pretrial…
Pot, meet Kettle
“I must remind a lot of readers here that one of the few gifts I have is pretty good powers of observation and seeing where things don’t add up.”
shouldn’t this be ‘self-evident’? why should readers need to be reminded of it?
“When I posted on Able Danger I drove to the matter because of inconsistencies in the story line. All of which panned out.”
So the argument here is that since you were right before, you are right again? Well, that’s one argument, I suppose.
“When I took on the New York Times over the FISA story it all began because I noticed serious but subtle disconnects in the narrative. I was right then as well, as Bush never did bypass FISA as originally claimed.”
right again, must prove you’re always right. Well, I guess.
“People may not like the fact the story is unfolding as I suspected, ”
Really, I certainly haven’t noticed that. Printing a story about a biased judge attempting to pollute the jury pool certainly is not convincing.
“We have seen silly fantasies proposed from people with no first hand knowledge,”
Are you saying your fantasy is proposed from your ‘first hand knowledge’?
From day one, I’ve said that the true facts are not known but it is clear that no facts have been presented to the public that indicates anything but that GZ acted in self defense when a ‘kid’ was sitting on top of him bashing his head onto a concrete sidewalk. Now in some places, that may be what angelic children do, but not in most places.
Clearly this judge you are quoting has an agenda, and the truth does not appear to be included, only a conviction. Is that the kind of judge we should have in our courts?
My prediction remains that when the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is known, GZ will be a free man.
Jinny:
It was I who used the phrase about taking someout out to the alley and putting a bullet in the back of his head. In the context of the previous posts it was obvious that this was hyperbole for the purpose of sarcasm. I was was going after those who already have Zimmerman convicted before the trial has already begun.
I mean, seriously, we know he’s a lyin’, cop wanna be, on a power trip, backed up by his gun. Why bother to have a trial? Why wait for the facts to come out? Why not just save the taxpayers a bunch of money? We may not have the incident on video, but the second hand hearsay speculation of a girl on the phone is just as good! Right?
“but the second hand hearsay speculation of a girl on the phone is just as good! Right?”
Absolutely!!! especially since she had so much vital information that was so urgent that she waited approximately 6 weeks to ever tell anyone about it. (After april 2)
“Why bother to have a trial? Why wait for the facts to come out?”
Layman, I gotta go along with you here. And with the presiding judge also. He’s out telling the jury pool that the state has a really strong case. Clearly if he believes that he is going to do all he can to make sure the jury sees it as he does. After all, justice is only for those the we think are not guilty. If we think they are guilty, go ahead and sentence them, a trial is a waste of time. Isn’t it? or something…
Sorry Layman, I missed the sarcasm and I’m sorry AJ thought I meant him.
I did smile at the pot/kettle reference AJ, but I’d rather give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt until I see what evidence is presented in the trial.
Pot/Kettle – hmmm. In a court of law, GZ is entitled to a presumption of innocense. Not on this blog though. (And that is fine – just as commenters are permitted to have other opinions. And AJ is free to insult all those people who don’t agree with him on this issue. Charles Johnson-esque, although I believe AJ is ultimately more balanced.)
AJ – I agree that you have previously reviewed and deduced critical information, particularly wrt Able Danger. +1 AJ
However, there is another indicator that is also an excellent predictor; MSM bias. Whichever direction MSM leads people by the nose, you can be sure that actual facts will result in the opposite. The immediate MSM reaction was to convict GZ in the court of public opinion. Therefore, it suggests to me that GZ is probably innocent. -1 AJ.
I think it is important for you to distinguish (at least in your mind, for your own sanity) the difference between ‘didn’t do what I would have done’, ‘did it wrong’, ‘did it so wrong that it would be gross negligence and therefore prosecutable as manslaughter’, and ‘prepared himself in such a manner that a death was a reasonably foreseeable occurance’ or something similar that would justify M-2D.
There are only a couple issues that you’ve ever done this on, but it is like watching bizarro AJ when you stubbornly refuse to incorporate all the information that is available into your worldview.
I get that you don’t approve of what he did. I get it that you see him as, at minimum, a reckless individual who threatens all of our rights because of how he abused those rights. However, from what I have observed through the MSM, what I’ve observed of the prosecutor’s actions, what I’ve observed of GZ’s behavior (both good and bad), I believe that there is reasonable doubt and possibly (though not definitively) positive justification for his actions, and I find it curious that you do not even entertain reasonable doubt as an option.