I?ve tried to stay out of the question of ?The Bail? issue
I just can't bite my lip any longer
When asked under oath if George Zimmerman has X dollars for bail, he answered ?NO?
That was a truthful answer
George Zimmerman did not have X dollars for bail
There is/was a fund set-up for his DEFENSE
Now everyone is arguing that this was his money to use as he saw fit?.NO, not ethically !
Here are a couple simple (hypothetic) examples
A fund is set-up to help bury Trayvon Martin
It collects tens of thousands of dollars
The Martins take a thousand bucks, have the kid cremated on the cheap and then vacation in the Bahamas with the rest of the money
OR?.
Money is donated to help rebuild a small Church ravaged by a wild fire
The Pastor takes the funds and remodels the Kitchen and Bathroom at the Parish House instead
OR........
Moneys are earmarked to feed one thousand homeless people, but the Fund Organizers first spend a majority of the cash (enough to feed another fifteen hundred people) and throw a lavish banquet for the Fund Raisers
How would that fly ?
It may be legal, but it?s not ethical
So think on this?.Maybe George answered the question "NO", because he is actually an ethical man?.HE DID NOT HAVE MONEY FOR BAIL, he had money for his defense !
And that?s the point GZ?s lawyer was trying to make to that ?Judge? (and I use THAT term loosely)
Everyone who touches this case is looking to make a name for themselves
It?s the OJ ordeal all over again
If you want to make a moral argument for not tying this money up with a bail bondsman (not sure why that matters - obviously he has and can afford an attorney and has ample legal defense, but regardless...) - tell the judge that you have X dollars but that it was donated for purposes of legal defense and that make the argument that it shouldn't considered for bail purposes. I personally find that viewpoint to be a bit naive and frankly inconsistent with the current state of the law, and I doubt it would fly in a bail hearing, but even if that argument is 100% right, the moral way for GZ to resolve the issue is to be truthful about the funds and to make that argument to the judge during the bail hearing.
Instead, GZ chose to lie to the judge about his funds, to have his wife move the funds from his personal checking account to another account with multiple <$10,000 withdrawals, and generally acted scummy when it came to the entire issue. You can bash the judge if you want, but he was 110% correct on this issue.
Remember also that instead of giving a bail bondsman $100,000-150,000 after the judge increased the bail to $1,000,000, GZ could have simply stayed in jail. Understand that the legal system does not REQUIRE him to make bail. It gives him the option to post bail or stay in jail. As such, GZ first lied about his resources, and then he purposefully chose to give money donated to his "legal defense fund" to a bail bondsman, at which point the bail bondsman posted the $1,000,000 bail on his behalf. He could have easily preserved these donations only for legal defense purposes, which may mean not posting bail, just as easily as he could have not lied to the judge in the first place. If you want to place blame here for your donations going to a bail bondsman, it's not on the judge - it's on GZ.
Honestly, any arguments suggesting that GZ was "morally" in the right here are laughable to me, and just evidence a clear misunderstanding of how our criminal system works. I'm all for supporting a fellow CCW holder but this was not a moral act on GZ's behalf, and any sort of rationalizing his lies after the fact is nonsense.
