George Zimmerman Released on Bail

More news in the George Zimmerman case. He posted the $1 million bail and was released from jail.

The next discovery round will be available to the media on Monday through the court's media website. There are very few blogs with access to the media site -- and we have to pay the same amount for access as the mainstream media. I don't know the amount yet for this batch (we'll be told Monday), but I expect it to exceed $100.00 and I've agreed to pay whatever it is.

If you'd like to contribute a few dollars to help with the cost, it would be appreciated, and you can do so via Paypal, using either your PayPal account or your credit card. Here is the the paypal link. It's very easy (and takes credit cards even if you don't have a paypal account.) Or you can use snail-mail.

donate to TalkLeft


The media posts most of the discovery, but not all, and to continue accurately reporting on the case, I think it's essential to have everything that's been released. While I don't intend to republish all of it, I can host parts not published elsewhere and confirm something has or has not been released. It's also beneficial for determining if and when the media is cherry-picking -- referring to some documents or reports that support its reporting but not others that contradict it.

Again, when there's news on the case I'll be writing here, but for in depth and ongoing discussion, analysis, and links to available materials, head over to the TalkLeft Forums.

< Scott Peterson Appeals Death Sentence | Ill. Inmate Freed by DNA After Serving 32 Years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Per Internet news... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by heidelja on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 07:45:53 AM EST
    ...found here this morning:

    Shortly before Zimmerman's release, the Rev. Al Sharpton criticized Zimmerman for raising money through online donations. The civil rights leader and talk-show host was in New Orleans with Martin's parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton.

    "Now we see where they're soliciting money, saying, `If you would have done the same thing, send money to help with his bond,' showing no remorse over the loss of human life," Sharpton said.

    It appears that Lester's "flaunted" for "flouted" gaffe may likely never be forgotten by having gone viral! This was also published:

    The judge didn't buy it and expressed his unhappiness with Zimmerman and his wife in his second bond order. He accused Zimmerman of making plans to flee to avoid prosecution, misleading O'Mara by not disclosing the money from the website and trying to manipulate the judicial system.

    "Under any definition, the defendant has flaunted the system," Lester wrote.

    But the judge said current law limited his ability to deny a second application for bond.

    Or may this has been Lester's way to test the media's ability to correctly convey the matter.

    As Tawana Brawley incident proved (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by bmaz on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 09:00:03 AM EST
    Al Shrpton is more than willing to make an idiot and horse's ass of himself

    On the other hand, and from the other (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 09:20:47 AM EST
    side, O'Mara's exhorting those who
    ...feel Mr. Zimmerman was justified in his actions, ... who feel they would do the same if they were in Mr. Zimmerman's shoes...

    to give to the fund, could certainly be taken to be dismissive of the fact that his client killed someone.

    And, in my opinion, and in case you haven't been paying attention to the political leanings and sensibilities of some of the Zimmerman supporters who have flocked here from right-wing websites, it also panders to interests that are considerably less lofty than the rights of the accused.

    Guess that makes me an idiot and a horse's ass, too; go figure.


    I guess I would qualify as (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    as a rather dumb horse's posterior as well,  but one of a different color.  It is my view that Martin parents had every right to question the thoroughness of the investigation into the circumstances of their son's tragic death and to enlist in that endeavor the support of advocates, including the activist, Reverend Sharpton.  Indeed, if I were the loving parent I would do no less. Reverent Sharpton did note on his MSNBC show that his goals were to bring attention to the need for an investigation in keeping with the criminal justice system.

    So far so good, in my thinking.  But some of the intrinsic concerns related to an understanding of the defense available to the defendant in the criminal justice system as well as to the unique aspects of Florida's SYG. Moreover, misunderstandings existed with regard to the Sanford police department's ongoing, yet inarticulate, investigation--as bumbling as it may have been in reality and/or perception.

    The short-circuiting of the local prosecutor, including grand jury considerations, and worse, the intervention of the ethically-challenged Florida Governor Rick Scott and his appointment of Corey seemed unnecessary.   While Corey's first step of prayerful grief counseling may have been spiritually comforting, her expected purpose would seem to have been more in the temporal realm.

    The criminal justice system, after all, does involve a prosecution and a defense.  It seems a liberal position that we assure a full and effective defense to the accused who is presumed innocent.  


    Whew, I'm off the hook, because (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    I certainly never would do what Zimmerman did.

    I'm also not ready to say that he was justified in his actions.

    But that also lets me off the hook for donating to just about everyone else in this drama, with a lot of unjustifiable actions by everyone from the PD to the lawyers to the judge to the media. . . .


    never would do what Zimmerman did (none / 0) (#26)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 07:14:11 AM EST

    Just to be clear, you would not defend yourself against a violent physical attack that put you at risk of death, permanent brain damage, and/or blindness.

    Is that correct?



    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    1.  That's assuming a lot, and

    2.  Not carrying a gun/shooting someone is different than not "defending yourself".

    Assumed little (none / 0) (#29)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:01:08 PM EST

    That is exactly what Zimmerman did.

    So he says (none / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:56:51 PM EST
    Some people choose to believe his story.

    So the injuries and witnesses show (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:35:24 PM EST

    Some people choose to believe the evidence.

    The injuries and witnesses ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:40:22 PM EST
    ... don't show how the fight started or what was happening in the critical seconds immediately before the shooting.  The bandaids he put on for the walkthrough were impressive, though.

    Some people choose to believe the evidence that fits the narrative they want to believe.


    No narrative at all (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:41:17 AM EST

    The injuries are consistent with a one sided violent physical attack.  The eye witness saw GZ on the bottom being attacked by TM.

    The one question yet to be addressed is why Martin had such poor victim selection judgment.



    The injuries are also ... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    ... "consistent" with a fistfight.  The eyewitness went from "MMA style beating" to "don't really know if he was hitting him."

    But the big bandaids on the walkthrough were impressive.

    The bigger question left to be addressed is how a paranoid, neighborhood watchman managed to forget he had a gun as he went "looking for a street sign" in a development with only 3 streets, where he had lived for years.


    "consistent" with a fistfight. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:54:36 PM EST

    only where one party to the fight is getting hit with a fist.  Pretty odd definition of a "fistfight."

    Not really (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 02:52:00 PM EST
    There are many fistfights where only one party gets hit.

    Is it a gun fight (none / 0) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 10:14:55 PM EST

    Is it a gun fight when only one party has and shoots a gun?

    Maybe not (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 11:02:45 PM EST
    Did Zimmerman leave his hands in his other pants?

    Definately not (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 06:41:29 AM EST

    A gunfight is when more than one participant is using a gun.

    Similarly when only one participant is hitting with fists it is more accurately described as a beat down rather than a fistfight.


    His decision (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 07:50:33 AM EST
    If someone brings a gun to a gunfight, but then loses the fight before firing a shot, it's still a gunfight.

    Of course, you're right about the fact that Martin had no gun.


    and (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 10:27:57 AM EST

    the injuries show that only Zimmerman was struck with a fist.  And repeatedly at that.

    Like I said - fistfight (none / 0) (#43)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    ... until he "remembered" that he had a gun.

    Not a fistfight (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 02:46:14 PM EST

    A one sided beating is not a fistfight.

    It is if Yman says so (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    So true n/t (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 03:52:18 PM EST
    OTOH - to stick with AAA's own example, a gunfight is still a gunfight if one gunfighter never manages to get off a shot - or misses entirely.  Same with fistfight.

    Unless he's gone back to suggesting that Z didn't have hands.


    He has hands (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 08:34:43 AM EST

    But no evidence of hitting Martin with a fist.  By Yman's logic the correct term for the JFK assassination is a gunfight.  

    Another analogy fail (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 08:45:15 AM EST
    JFK had no gun.  Zimmerman had his fists.  JFK didn't follow Lee Harvey Oswald and get in a physical confrontation with him.  Zimmerman did.  You have absolutely no idea whether Zimmerman hit Martin with his fist or attempted to do so.

    There is no evidence (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 11:30:42 AM EST

    There is no evidence that Zimmerman used fists before, during, or after Martin's attack.  There is plenty of evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman repeatedly.

    There is no evidence he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 11:48:17 AM EST
    Moreover, you don't actually have to use your fists to be in a fistfight.  If two people are fighting and one never lands a blow (or only lands a minor blow), they're still in a fistfight.

    OTOH - maybe you're right.  Maybe Zimmerman never even tried to hit Martin, and chose merely to shove and wrestle with him, but drew the line at hitting.  Or, maybe he just sat there like a potted palm the whole time.

    BTW - Is "repeatedly" supposed to sound scarier than twice?  Because "repeatedly" can mean two times or 2,000 times - or, as Zimmerman claimed, a couple of dozen times.  OTOH - as Serino told him, Zimmerman's injuries aren't consistent with being punched two dozen times, nor are Martins' (one tiny nick on one finger.


    evidence (none / 0) (#53)
    by LeaNder on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 12:47:56 PM EST
    The most important evidence in this case is gone. The other side's part of view.

    I notice you have arrived here on the 16th of July. What did bring you here?

    interesting name

    What is your special interest, or expertise you can provide to the discussion?


    I actually wante to say (none / 0) (#54)
    by LeaNder on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 12:49:27 PM EST
    "the other side's point of view", but I was to fascinated by your name, so I hurried past the introduction.

    BTW - "Victim selection judgment" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 02:58:41 PM EST
    Assumes GZ was a "victim".  Moreover, TM didn't "select" GZ.  Zimmerman was the one who selected Martin and decided to follow Martin.

    Have you ever seen (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 06:48:07 PM EST
     the hands of someone who has "repeatedly"  punched an opponent? I have, and they often look worse than their target.

    So, we are to believe that Trayvon Martin administered a "beat down," or, as some have offered, an "mmt style" beating, and it was so viscous that George was rightfully in fear of his life, and yet, from the coroner's report:

    "There is a small 1/4 x 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger".....his ring finger.


    OMG. That is a shocker. (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 06:51:34 PM EST
    What's even more fun... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    ...it seems that the judge's revised written order changed "flaunted" not to "flouted", but to "flauted".

    Maybe George is a big Jethro Tull fan.


    Most annoying writing style ever. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 10:59:35 PM EST
    Seriously.  Just write, and leave out the italics and the scare quotes; it might allow people to read your opinions without feeling like they are trapped in a bad Saturday Night Live skit.

    I deleted it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    So the comment... (none / 0) (#24)
    by heidelja on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 07:56:34 PM EST
    that violates the rules

    No personal insults or attacks on me, TalkLeft or anyone commenting here.


    Your comment must be on the specific topic of the post.



    Raising the bail amount was completely unjustified (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by xkdifj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:47:18 AM EST
    Raising the bail amount was completely unjustified.   Prior to his arrest Zimmerman was an upstanding citizen with a job, wife and family in the area.   After his arrest he quickly became and international celebrity.   So in short he was never a flight risk, and was less of one after becoming world famous.  He was well known enough that even in Peru he would have trouble hiding.   So the $1,000,000 bail did nothing but channel $100,000 into the pocket of the bail bondsman(*).  I suspect that bail bonding agencies are often well connected politically so the whole thing reeks of a scam.  The correct bail amount was the original $150,000 if that much.   Judge Lester disgraced himself.  

    * Since I do not believe Zimmerman is a flight risk, the only issue is the time value of money, if this process were to drag on for a decade for example.    

    As a full disclosure I have donated money to the GZ legal defense fund so this whole farce is being paid for by people like me (as they say during PBS fund drives).  

    Guess we can add the bail bondsman to the (none / 0) (#27)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:32:29 AM EST
    growing list of those who are corrupt and have it in for GZ and his family.  

    Paypal link isn't working for me (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kyreth on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 07:21:07 PM EST
    Clicking it gives a "Last action could not be completed" message.  

    I swapped the links, do they work now? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    Yep, the picture link worked fine. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kyreth on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 07:42:12 PM EST

    Copy of Appearance Bond (none / 0) (#4)
    by expy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:34:26 PM EST
    Here's one document available online:
    Appearance Bond

    Shows the bonding agency & source of collateral (it appears that the parents put up their house)

    The Zimmerman's Sr.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 04:10:14 AM EST
    ...don't really have one million dollars worth of house, do they?

    Or did they say it's worth "one", meaning 100K, and it was mistaken for Zimmerman jailphone speak to mean 1 million?

    : - )


    I think that (none / 0) (#13)
    by expy on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 05:40:00 PM EST
    the bonding agency has flexibility as to what they accept for collateral.

    That is, just as they can be flexible about the terms for payment of the premium (note that the bond form says that the principal has "given or promised to give" the amount specified) -- they probably can be flexible about whether or not they require the bond to be fully collateralized.

    Once a bondsman is involved, the bonding agency has assumed the risk of loss, so they can really make their own determination of how much of that risk they are willing to shoulder. $1 million is a very big risk, but the agency may be satisfied that the risk of loss of the parents' home is more than enough to guarantee that the defendant will show up in court. Or, alternatively, they may have agreed to write the bail with insufficient collateral at the outset, together with a promise to provide additional collateral at later date.

    We already know that this particular bonding agency has been very flexible in working with the defense: they wrote the original bond with an initial payment of only 1/3 of the 10% premium ($5000), though they ultimately received their $15K;  and they have given the defense credit for that first $15K in writing the new bond-- asking for $85K more rather than $100K.

    It can be a competitive business, and they make their money on the premiums collected, not the collateral. Also, in the event that a defendant fails to appear, the bond amount will be exonerated and returned in full to the agency when the fleeing defendant is found and returned to custody. When there is $1 million at stake, the agency will happily hire this guy to go after the absconder.

    In other words, the risk to the bonding agency in this case is fairly low -- especially as the Judge has sent a very clear message that any violation of bond conditions will be have severe consequences.


    Doesn't that speak volumes? (none / 0) (#14)
    by labrat on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 06:52:09 PM EST
    If the bonding agency is willing to be that flexible, I would assume the means the agent, who has great experience in these matters, considers GZ a fairly low flight risk.

    More like (none / 0) (#18)
    by expy on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 01:25:51 AM EST
    the agent thinks that the +$85,000 is enough to compensate for the risk.

    From the Judge's perspective: the bail bond agency is one more part of the system in place to make sure the defendant gets to court. A bond agency is going to pay close attention to its million-dollar risks.

    Bond agencies don't just put up the money and disappear. They are often very proactive in monitoring court calendars and reminding their clients of court dates. And they will take on the responsibility of going out and looking for a client who doesn't show up to court.


    If you have comments about (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    the case that are not on the topic of this thread, please take them to our Zimmerman Forums. (And check the commenting rules on Zimmerman here and at the forums.)