Man shoots black kid cops do nothing

[davedan]

I give up. If nobody is going to read everything I say... Well, I give up. Just forget it. Everyone is focusing on only half of what I've written. IF THAT!

I have given you all that I can. I have explained as best I can. At this point i'd just be rewording slightly what I have said already.

Oh and PS, obstruction of justice and accessory after the fact aren't synonymous. Not really. So stop interchanging them. 

I'm backing out because I'm tired of going around and around, repeating what I've said with more words or slightly different ones.

As I said, all that I can do is sit and watch and wait for this whole case to be over with.

So you aren't going to answer the question but that's everyone else's fault?

[DasFuchs]

So far reading thruough this I get the impression CS' stance is "Zim and his lawyers are guilty as sin!" while others are saying "No, not yet, the laws don't support the charges you're making"

Zac, this guy is a fucking conspiracy nut. You're saying for all we know he could have been running from the law and decided it would make him look guilty? That don't fly with me.
On top of the fact you really can't run from the law till the law is actually after you. I stand by what Distind has said. He was in hiding avoiding what he thought were lynch mobs looking for him, and seeing human reactions to things like this, I can see why he did.

[Dantes Virgil]

^^ Exactly.  I'm not trying to intentionally misread, and I'm not interchanging obstruction and accessory.  In fact, my post specifically differentiated between the two.  I've reread the posts, and I'm simply not seeing which part CS thinks is being ignored in favor of other parts.  The posts come off to me as though anything about Zimmerman, including his lawyers and their press conferences, must automatically be condemned in some way.  And if we don't have evidence for it, heck, let's read into it until we get some.  What does it matter if it's accessory after the fact, that isn't "that bad" anyway, so why not level that charge?  With all the media/internet attention this case has gotten, I'd be surprised if anyone gets any real justice. 

[Dantes Virgil]

http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html

His bail hearing is today I think.  I think the article is a bit misnamed -- I think the police have had this evidence all along, and as such it's not really "new," just newly released in the media.  It's better coverage than the video of his arrival at the police department can provide.  I was also surprised to read in the article that apparently denial of bail requires an even higher burden of proof than seeking conviction of someone in a trial does.  That seems weird to me. 

[erictheblue]

His bail hearing is today I think.

Bail set to $150,000.

I was also surprised to read in the article that apparently denial of bail requires an even higher burden of proof than seeking conviction of someone in a trial does.  That seems weird to me.

The first time I did First Appearances (bond hearing) during my internship, I didn't get a chance to talk to one of the attorneys beforehand. I cannot remember what the charge was, but it must have been a serious felony (or long list of charges) because I recommended no bond. The judge (who, of course, knew I am only a student) proceeded to give me a lecture on why the FL constitution does not allow "no-bond" except for violation of probation or first-degree murder. I, sadly, did not follow much of his lecture, but the end result stuck with me.