George Zimmerman Wants You To Pay His Legal Fees

From those donations this should have come first over everything else. He could have saved the money rather then bail out of jail for starters.
If anyone should be standing ground for this man it is the ones he felt the need to protect while on patrol.
If his lawyer is offering to do it then why would he need more money? He needs to live according to what he can. The money he just blew would carry me a very long time. That`s years I`m talking here.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I think you misunderstand what is going on, he is not asking for more donations. He is asking for the court to declare him indigent so his defense can be payed for by the taxpayers.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Oh, in that case, I don't buy it. He had a middle class job before and he did get quite a few donations, so I don't buy the indigent issue. OTOH trials are very expensive and many an innocent man has been ruined by defending himself, but the donations were a quarter of a million, IIR. Maybe not wealthy and may get sucked up very fast, but not indigent.

If I was his lawyer, I'd take the case pro bono because the publicity and business from a win would really boost the practice.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
what part of lying in court, concerning his finances have you failed to comprehend?

You stated he was a pathological liar and murderer.
What part of ... PROVIDE PROOF OF THAT .. have you failed to comprehend??
You fail to provide proof of 'pathology'. Do you even know what it is or are you just
throwing around big words to try to sound impressive?

You ignored the facts that were presented.
but hey, its your reputation

1 - you presented no facts .. just bloviating.
2 - my reputation is just fine and dandy. Yours .. not so much right now ...

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
If Zimmerman is having trouble covering his legal fees that is a personal problem.

No .. it's not. Anyone who can't pay for their legal defense gets a public defender. ANYONE. He has a right to this as much as anyone else who can't pay.

Especially considering how quickly he spent the money that was donated to him initially.

You have no idea what a charged with murder defense team costs ... what the additional security for him costs due to all the threats against him by the black panthers .... etc etc. GUess you missed the part where I said that OJ Simpsons defense cost $6 million dollars.

I donated yesterday

hopefully he beats this crap...

and yes I own guns, and about 10 years ago have fired it at someone trespassing on property after being warned and trespassing signs posted on property. Course this was a large field and they were arrested for poaching by the game warden, but I did fire 1 warning shot and then aimed to kill but missed, but that 2nd shot got him and his friend's attention fast cause that 2nd shot they turned and took off, only to be arrested by the game warden about 45 minutes later. Caught red handed with poached deer in their truck.


Anywho I've donated twice, once before all the drama with his bail and then yesterday, course I don't have much to give, but every little bit helps I hope.

It wouldn't be an issue (yet) if they hadn't upped his bond requiring him to use available money to stay out of jail.

The People of Florida are paying for the prosecution of Zimmerman, so why shouldn't they pony up an equal amount for his defense?

I know this story has faded from the headlines, but I still keep my eye open for developments. I totally understand why the prosecution does not want to go to trial quickly. I wish the defense would push for a speedy trial, so that any verdict and it's repercussions are front and center in November; but, I understand that might not be in Zimmerman's best interest.

I'm not unsympathetic to Martin's family, but their association with Krump and the well orchestrated narrative that got the eyes of the country on this case; makes me distrust their motives. They certainly want justice, but I feel they also want money and hired the person who is most likely to get it for them. Everything I've read about Krump makes me loathe the man, but he is very effective in shaking people down it seems.

I let my emotions get away from me in an earlier thread on this, and had one of the few posts I'd ever had removed by staff on it. So in a way I'm glad the noise around it has died down. I personally don't feel the case should even make it to a jury, but it looks like it will so lets just let both sides present their cases to the best of their ability and let the jury decide.

Reply to post by Cito

Im sorry what? Lol. You had trespassers on your property one night and shot at them therefore you support Zimmerman? I dont understand your logic. Martin was not trespassing on anyones property and this has nothing to do with gun rights....what is your motivation for supporting him?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by jefwane

Lol, you think the public should pay for Zimmermans defense? If he was that hard up he would have a public defender and the public would be paying for his defense. Anything outside of that is just ridiculous....I mean do you think every criminal should have their defense paid, outside of a lawyer, by the public?

Also, in what way are the Martins after money? Who are they trying to sue for monetary compensation? How many murder cases have you seen where the survivors of the victim recieved money? Exactly.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Zimmerman is a crafty con artist. He's been manipulating the court from day one. This has nothing to do with getting the public to pay for his defense. What he's doing is setting himself up in a better position to file an appeal, 'cause he knows he will lose his case going forward as he is now. And when he does lose, his well-paid, competent, and professional legal team will make his chances of filing an appeal on the grounds of an "Ineffective assistance of counsel" that much harder. Better to dump the good lawyers and go with the court-appointed public defenders, so your "Ineffective assistance of counsel" appeal has a better chance.

Like I say, the guy's a manipulator.

Reply to post by Blackmarketeer

From what that wiki entry said you have to claim your lawyer was ineffective in order to appeal. Zimmerman's lawyer has a good reputation and said he will defend him for free. They want money to cover the costs of experts and other legal fees. So I dont think that would apply here.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Every person has a right to a fair trial. Mr. Zimmerman, however, is an exception. At this point, there is no such thing as a fair trial. The media, in their own public trial, has made a mockery out of the rule of law.

I don't agree with Zimmermans initial approach....but when the moment came to fire the fatal shot, it sounds like he had no choice. And when I see pictures of him, he looks like a guy that was getting his butt kicked. Basically, according to Zimmerman, Martin was working him over real good, and then noticed the concealed weapon and went for it. Is there anything in the evidence that does not support this?

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
reply to post by khimbar

 

Why does any criminal have legal fees? Because they are cowards who instead of owning up to what they did have to waste everyone's time attempting to get off.

How do you tell that to the innocent people convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

Your a genius.

Reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Criminals have had fair trails even though the public thought they were guilty OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are two big ones. So I wish you people would stop acting like the man has already been convicted. If the evidence supports his story, which has changed several times, he should be fine.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by LucidDreamer85

-_- I clearly said criminals, what is a criminal? Exactly.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Criminals have had fair trails even though the public thought they were guilty OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are two big ones. So I wish you people would stop acting like the man has already been convicted. If the evidence supports his story, which has changed several times, he should be fine.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

LOL, "you people"?

But...to be serious, there are some differences here that are kind of important. Like that the police cleared him, and the state attorney demanded his arrest, and pursued charges separately. It was all in response to pressure from the "black community" (whatever that means). This is a race crime. Think 1969, a black man murders a white kid. Now switch it around. The same folks are outraged, and the same folks are demanding the same punishment with their torches and pitchforks in hand..

Now, we all know what kinds of kangaroo courts happen in the US when it becomes an issue of race.

And maybe it isn't an issue of race...I don't know. It just seems that the grassroots effort came about from the perspective of 'this white guy killed a black kid while on neighborhood watch" (it came out a few days later that he was actually of mixed ethnicity). I remember my initial reaction was, "That seems to be an act of overt racism that turned into homocide". And it seemed to be a prevailing opinion at the time. This was a case that, in my recollection, was built out of a grass roots effort by social rights groups that enjoyed the media taking a sensationalized, but untruthful, slant on the story.

And, since it was made into an issue of race, the front loading of it being a racial hate crime is....less than ideal in a world of perfect justice. And I will just leave it at that, without hyperbole.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


That's precisely my point - he wants to dump his high-quality lawyer because he does in fact have a great reputation as a competent lawyer. He wants to pretend he's indigent so he can get the public defender so he can later have a much easier time of claiming "ineffective counsel" on an appeal.

Reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Yes 'you people,' you people who are determined to make Zimmerman is a victim in all this. I find it funny though that you are comparing this to a black man killing a white kid. This isnt the 1960s but I guaruntee you if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, Zimmerman would have never walked that night. The police involved in the initial report admitted they should have done a more indepth investigation. The person who headed the initial report stepped down from his post to avoid discipline. Like they clearly messed up in the beginning.

This has not been about race since it first began. Everyone knows Zimmerman is not white. The black community has a right to be upset, Martin was killed and the police seemed not to care. Somebody has to right?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Nothing in the article say he has plans to dump his current lawyer, but if he does that theory makes sense.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Nothing directly along those lines were said, I'm just reading between the lines. He has a good lawyer. He had $250,000 (so far that has been reported) in donations for his defense. 100,000 of which allegedly has gone to his legal team. That should still leave him with 150,000 for his defense. His father is a retired magistrate judge. His family is by no means "poor".

Yet here he is trying to claim he is indigent and wants to be given a court-appointed public defender. Who in their right mind, facing a 2nd degree murder charge, would get rid of their highly-lauded legal-eagle defense team, in favor of some public defender? (Not attacking what public defenders do, but let's face it - they are not the cream of the crop in legal defense).

I think he recognizes his chances of being acquitted at trial are slim, no matter who his lawyer is, so for that reason he wants to dump his legal-eagle defense team and replace them with a public defender, to pave the way for a "ineffective counsel" appeal, which he would file after losing his case. When you have a top-notch lawyer, it's hard to claim ineffective counsel. When you have a public defender? Ineffective counsel almost goes with the territory. It is the number one claim for appeals.

In order to convince the judge to give him the public defender, he first needs to convince the judge he is "broke". Some how, he has to itemize just how he blew through $250,000 when less than half of that has actually gone to his defense. Hence, the $30,000 in rent (wow, really?), etc.

Why do people defend George Zimmerman, a sad sack of horse manure?

Even if you think the guy's innocent, he's clearly a pathological liar that should be locked up.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Yes 'you people,' you people who are determined to make Zimmerman is a victim in all this. I find it funny though that you are comparing this to a black man killing a white kid. This isnt the 1960s but I guaruntee you if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, Zimmerman would have never walked that night. The police involved in the initial report admitted they should have done a more indepth investigation. The person who headed the initial report stepped down from his post to avoid discipline. Like they clearly messed up in the beginning.

This has not been about race since it first began. Everyone knows Zimmerman is not white. The black community has a right to be upset, Martin was killed and the police seemed not to care. Somebody has to right?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I based my assessment off the initial response of myself and others I discussed this with. It was, in everyone's opinion initially (of the group i have just referenced) a racist act of homocide. The facts have come to show that this is not so. The initial media reports sensationalized this as a racial issue.

I don't understand why you find it funny that I would draw a parallel. It isn't the exact same situation, no. But it is close enough for you to understand why I am saying what I am saying.