The Treyvon Martin case continues..
George Zimmerman was granted bail today in the amount of $150,000. The prosecution in the case wanted it set at over $1 million.Zimmerman was wearing a suit, was in handcuffs and was wearing what appeared to be a bullet proof vest.
ABC news, which earlier ran a video as an exclusive showing no injuries to George Zimmerman has now released a photo showing gashes and wounds to Zimmerman's head, taken by someone at the scene.
Ben Crump, the Martin family attorney responded about the way you would expect.
"How bad could it have been if they didn't take him to the hospital [and] didn't stitch him up," he said in a statement to ABC News in response to the image. "The special prosecutor has seen all the evidence and still believes George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin."
Testifying today, Zimmerman's father, Robert, a former magistrate, told the court that the day after Martin was killed he saw injuries his son suffered.
"His face was swollen quite a bit," Robert Zimmerman said. "There was a protective cover over his nose, his lip was cut and there were two vertical gashes on the back of his head."
Shortly before Judge Lester ruled on George Zimmerman's bail request, Zimmerman asked to address the court and made a short statement.
"I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said addressing Martin's family directly.
Martin's father, Tracy Martin, cried tears of anger after the apology, his attorney Ben Crump told reporters after the hearing. [......]
After the court hearing, O'Mara rejected the suggestion that they were "pandering" to the parents, and said Zimmerman wanted to apologize after hearing the parents on TV said that he had never done so.
"He wanted to respond. I took it that the family wanted to hear from him and he wanted to say it… It should have been done in a private setting but that wasn't afforded him," O'Mara said.
Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin's parents, said the family was furious that Zimmerman could "give this self serving apology so he could get a bond." One of the lawyers for the family called the apology "disingenuous and insincere."
In another interesting development, Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara cross examined one of the lead detectives in the case and got him to admit that there was no clear evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin first....which is the key to the whole murder two charge and the prosecution's insistence that it was Zimmerman who was 'responsible the confrontation'.
There's no telling what a jury will do, but it's pretty obvious that what we have here is a special prosecutor who went for a murder two charge they're going to have real trouble proving unless they have direct evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin and there was no self-defense issue involved.
The charges were obviously filed this way for political reasons, to get Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department off Seminole County's neck, and to try and avoid the sort of civil unrest people like Al Sharpton were in the process of ginning up. Even if this ends up as an aquittal or a hung jury, Seminole County can say 'we did everything we could.'
Another reason for the murder two charge was a possible attempt to intimidate Zimmerman into making a plea bargain. You can see it know..Zimmerman cops a plea for a lesser charge, does some time, the professional race pimps are happy at their victory, Seminole county's DA looks good, book deals are beckoning.. it's a win-win for everybody. Except justice.
Two predictions; First, no matter how this comes out, Eric Holder and the Department of Justice will prosecute Zimmerman for violating Martin's civil rights. And second, if the jury doesn't '
convict, expect racial violence in Seminole county and other areas around the country.
'No evidence he attacked Trayvon Martin'
ReplyDeleteRob, I can only pray that no one attacks you, either. At least by your definition...
Except it wasn't what my 'definition'...but what the police detective admitted under oath today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, nice to know that people with your viewpoint are willing to make pathetic attempts to play the race card no matter what..especially against someone like me you know absolutely nothing about.
Just a head's up...that particular card is pretty well maxxed out and doesn't work like it used to. At least not for the vast majority of people.
Regards,
Rob
Oh one more thing...not only did I not say what you said I did and not only are you attempting to slime me as a 'racist' with no evidence whatsoever, you don't even know whether I'm a Republican!
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, it's rare when you can find someone on the Lefdt with actual arguments beyond personal attacks, attempts at libel and sheer invective .
Rob -
ReplyDeleteOn what planet are you NOT a republican?
On this one...because that's not how I'm registered. Not that it matters. Let's a reiterate:
ReplyDeleteFirst, you attributed a statement to me that was actually admitted in cross examination by the lead detective FOR Seminole County, who's prosecuting Zimmerman.
Second, based on that, you wrote the nonsense that I was a 'Republican racist' with no facts whatever on either charge.
That's 0-3 bubba...and the best you can come up with is 'well, I bet you are a Republican.'
No wonder you're anonymous.
Now based on this little exchange, I might be justified in assuming that you're a cretinous, fact challenged, gutless asshole. At least on this planet.
Certainly, I'd have more evidence for believing that then you did for accusing me.
Of course, being a rational person, I'd never assume that since I don't know you and maybe (a)the meds got mixed up (b)No one ever taught you properly or (c) you were just having a bad day.
That's where I think we'll leave this.
So you're only a republican if you're registered as one? That's a new one. You run a blog that is 99.9999% pro-Republican and 99.9999% anti-democrat. Are you really trying to pull the 'I'm not aligned with any party' garbage? Being a racist is a separate issue. You're clearly a republican. Why are you so ashamed to say that you are?
ReplyDelete*chuckle*
ReplyDeleteSo now the story changes from a blanket libel of 'another racist Republican' to 'being a racist is a separate issue'! Why not just man up, apologize and admit you were totally wrong and out of line?
Now, as to my being 'ashamed to admit' I'm a Republican...why aren't you ashamed to admit you were wrong about that too?
My party registration is not Republican, simple as that. Why should I 'admit' to something that isn't true?
As for the coverage on the site, is it my fault that the Democrats have morphed so far to the radical Left and the party's leadership is corrupt, incompetent and incapable of being trusted with government?
Unlike you, that's what I react to...not the D or R behind someone's name.If you actually read this site and saw some of the things I've written about, say, George W. Bush you'd PERHAPS understand that better.
But then, probably not. Much simpler to simply double down and label people and sling invective, isn't it? It's what the Left does, because there's very few of them that actually have arguments.
Wow. I'm starting to see why you censor comments around here. Your logic is way too easy to pick apart.
ReplyDeleteSo first I'll gladly apologize for calling you racist. It is a separate issue (you might want to look that phrase up) and I shouldn't have conflated the two. I don't know you personally and maybe you're not racist at all, even though you come across that way on your site.
But the idea that you're not a republican because you're not registered as one is silly. I understand why you would be ashamed to label yourself as republican - these days it's nearly as bad as being labeled a child molester - but it's ridiculous for you to call yourself independent when you side with republicans no matter the issue. Have some guts. Call a spade a spade.
And criticizing George W. Bush as you have done in the past doesn't suddenly you make you not a republican. Especially as you've always criticized him from the right. That makes your point meaningless. It would be like criticizing Hitler for not killing enough jews. How that would not make someone not a nazi is beyond me.
What's funny, though, is that you take me to task for making assumptions and then you . . . start making assumptions about me! Nice consistency there, bub. I generally vote about 70%/30% democrat/republican and I voted republican for president until 2008. I don't know what that makes me, especially as I am not registered myself. I would bet my life that makes me more independent than you, not from the left, as you accuse. But continue to make assumptions. I understand that it's okay for you to do, but it's 'invective' if anyone does it to you. Brilliant.
And feel free to show me an article where you criticized Bush from the left. That challenge alone means I'll never see this comment on your republican site.
First of all, thanks for the apology, grudging though it was. You really don't have any idea whom you're talking to. If you want to seriously have a conversation about race and racism,have the courage to send me your real name and e-mail, which I'll acknowledge but not publish. Let's see what you got.
ReplyDeleteOh, and BTW, speaking of racism..how racist is it of President Obama to spend a couple of billion in an undeclared war to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power and kill Moamar Khaddaffi while not even putting together so much a no fly zone to prevent black Christians in the South Sudan from being victims of jihad? Of course, the Brotherhood is involved there, too.
You bet I censor comments here Anonymous. I didn't used to, but it became a necessity as this site got more popular. It keeps out the spam and the stupid.
Just today I exxed out a comment with a cleverly embedded link to a porn site, another one with a link on how 'yiddites' are trying to take over the world citing the Czarist forgery known as 'The Protocols of Zion' and a third that had an obscene and slangy reference to a well known woodland animal attached to the name of a public figure I'm sure you hold very dear to your heart.
Your own remarks made the cut simply because I find them ludicrously funny, to the point of caricature.
Lessee...in a few short paras, you compared Republicans to child molesters, had a nice romp with the 'Bush is Hitler' meme and questioned the actual dictionary definition of 'Republican' as a noun all while referring to yourself as an 'independent' - with a straight face, no doubt.
I find the Bush/Hitler comparison particularly odious, since anyone whom would use it is obviously clueless about whom Hitler and the Nazis actually were, ( the red Nazi banner is a giant hint) what their ideas were, what they did, and how they came to power...but I suppose at this point, all things being equal, such shocking ignorance isn't surprising.
The only part that remotely qualifies me as a republican is the noun use as 'one whom favors a republican ( note the small 'r') form of government.'
I'll plead guilty to that one in a heartbeat. It obviously does not define you or those whom think like you, which again is no surprise to me.
I'm really quite surprised you bother to hang out here, since the ideas expressed are so horrid for you to confront.
By the way, you can do your own search on site and find whatever you desire. Possible topics include Al Franken, Joe Lieberman, Mitch McConnell and of course, George W. Bush.
Nah..maybe you better not. I wouldn't want your head to explode.