Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I ship all of you together indiscriminately like nobody's business, so conversations like this delight my little black heart.

---

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShipperOnDeck

Amuses the hell outta me too, but mostly I'm just tellin em so to watch their brains explode.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Y'know, it's much easier to get Byte's head to explode than it is mine; all I need do is start in on graphic descriptions of sex acts between you two! ;)

(Yeah, I just shipped y'all, too. That happened.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Y'know, it's much easier to get Byte's head to explode than it is mine; all I need do is start in on graphic descriptions of sex acts between you two! ;)

(Yeah, I just shipped y'all, too. That happened.)

---

You win this time...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is bail supposed to be a form of punishment before the fact, before a trial ever takes place?

I don't know WHY Z's bond was revoked, but it does seem to be somewhat punitive on its face, a way of trying to "pre-punish" him in some way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Just because the media was reporting a certain amount collected by Zimmerman's website does not mean that is what the court was told. The Judge has to go by evidence presented to him and not what is being said on the news.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is bail supposed to be a form of punishment before the fact, before a trial ever takes place?

I don't know WHY Z's bond was revoked, but it does seem to be somewhat punitive on its face, a way of trying to "pre-punish" him in some way.

---

In theory, no.
Legally, no.

In FACT, yes - always.
I mean the violation of the Eighth Amendment is so commonplace that it's not only fallen beneath the notice of all and every, but that whole industries have been built on supporting this violation, i.e. bail bonds, etc.

The entire POINT of bail is to ensure the accused will appear for trial, and if that cannot be reliably assured they are then to be remanded (held) via legal proceedings which determine this - HOWEVER, since the legal proceeding often doesn't go their way since the State has to actually prove their case as opposed to their unverified word being taken as gospel from on-high, what they do instead of that is set the bail at some ludicrous amount that often totals several multiples of an individuals net worth, when even ONE PENNY MORE is entirely sufficient to have totally breached the protections of the Eighth Amendment.

It's also a VERY common method of holding someone in slam, away from resources, away from support, away from the ability to gather witnesses and evidence, away from any private conversations with their attorney (cause we know damn well those consultation rooms are wired) and/or subjecting them to further abuses to "encourage" them to take a plea, fold up and admit guilt (even if not guilty) and so on and so forth.

For fucks sake, Zimmerman ain't GOIN anywhere - nobody is gonna hide him, nobody is gonna take the risk of aiding and abetting an attempt to flee cause it's too high profile a case and they *will* get rolled.
Ergo, IMHO they can go fuck themselves - cause this isn't about whether he might bugger off or not, this is The State being pissed off about not getting its pound of flesh, about not getting its "cut", which is straight bullshit any way you slice it.

Just cause I hold Zimmerman MORALLY guilty doesn't necessarily mean he would be LEGALLY guilty, that's WHY we have fekkin trials - again, in theory, cause even those are rife with enough really blatant abuses they fail the Constitutional Standard on the spot, but at least a goddamn pretense would be refreshing, for once.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But was the court required to be told anything in regard to this? Did the court ASK?

At the time of the bail hearing, if the court asked if Z had $200,000 available, and he didn't (say he had $130,000 in that account at that time, for instance), and he answered "No," then he wouldn't be lying, would he?

The way it's being reported, it has a feel like the judge is taking it out on Zimmerman for having the gall to raise what the judge felt was an exorbitant bond amount in a short time.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression that I get on first blush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But was the court required to be told anything in regard to this? Did the court ASK?

At the time of the bail hearing, if the court asked if Z had $200,000 available, and he didn't (say he had $130,000 in that account at that time, for instance), and he answered "No," then he wouldn't be lying, would he?

The way it's being reported, it has a feel like the judge is taking it out on Zimmerman for having the gall to raise what the judge felt was an exorbitant bond amount in a short time.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression that I get on first blush.

---

Zimmerman would have been required to provide financial records to the court so bail could be set. I also don't think Zimmerman used any of the website money top post bond but instead used a bail bondman.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---