[Wiskedjak]

I fail to see the relevance of Martin having THC in his system.

[subego]

Pot makes you aggressive. I know if I'm stoned and you get between me and a taco...

What was the question?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I thought pot was supposed to be a getaway drug

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

.

If his level was 7, higher than it typically falls to within three hours, than you can safely assume he had smoked within three hours.

If the effects of the drug are only reduced 3-4 hours after smoking, he was still under the effects of the drug.

First we'll just note how you latch on to the one 7.3 measurement and not the other 1.5 measurement. Second we'll just note how you completely ignored the article where it said THC levels spike after death. So Martin could have very well had a level below 1.5 that spiked to the 7.3 you are so fixated on. And third we'll note how you had no comeback whatsoever to the fundamental point. If the levels are in the 100-200 range immediately after marijuana use ... then a level of 1.5 is a trace, residual amount. Period.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You're challenging my reading comprehension while failing to grasp a high school level logical reasoning problem? Thank goodness they'll never let you in a courtroom. I would fear for all of our safety.

So says the person who apparently didn't understand the meaning of the term "within".

OAW

EDIT: Corrected measurement from 5 to 1.5 ng after Uncle Skeleton pointed out my earlier mistake. Even bolded it for his viewing pleasure.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Like how you didn't read the article that you posted yourself?

No I read it. It's just that you seem to not comprehend my fundamental point. Certain substances are labeled a "drug" arbitrarily. There's a fundamental difference between a plant that grows naturally and a substance that's produced by applying an artificial chemical process. So because a Wikipedia article reflects that same arbitrariness ... I'm supposed to what? Ignore reality?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

First we'll just note how you latch on to the one 7 measurement and not the other 5 measurement.

I didn't see that, where was it?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

To determine cause of death.

Well, by your standards for the detectives, it's obvious Travyon died from a bullet and there's no need for further investigation.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There is no double standard.

Zimmerman was alive to give a statement. Martin was not.

...you don't get screened for drugs if you're alive? C'mon.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Questioning or gathering a statement is sufficient to determine whether or not someone is of sound mind. Someone's behavior is a much better indicator of their state of mind then is a lab test. In martin's case, there was no such behavior.

This strikes me as the type of reasoning that would result from picking your position first.

You know it's possible that the cops can ****-up following standard procedure and Zimmerman can still be innocent, right? The two aren't tied together.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I thought pot was supposed to be a getaway drug

That funds terrorism.

[mduell]

Matt Gutman, who broke at least 3 important stories* regarding the shooting, is backpedaling a bit:
Two prominent U.S. lawyers are among the skeptics questioning whether evidence in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin supports the second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman, given the confessed shooter's apparent injuries and freshly released eyewitness accounts.
...
Previously unknown particulars, including the scrape on Martin's knuckle and photos of Zimmerman's battered and swollen face -- which were taken moments after he shot and killed Martin in what he says was self defense -- coupled with eyewitness accounts that back up Zimmerman's story, suggest for some that the prosecutor overreached.

* First to:
- report Sanford police had ignored witnesses’ testimony about the facts surrounding the shooting
- note Martin family attorney had obtained an affidavit from DeeDee with a timeline contradicting Zimmerman's defense
- obtain a copy of a Sanford police surveillance video showing Zimmerman’s face and head

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I didn't see that, where was it?

My bad. The THC level found in Martin's system was in fact 1.5 ng per the autopsy report. The article I cited said that THC levels are typically in the 100-200 ng range immediately after marijuana use. And falls to below 5 ng within three hours. I got so caught up going back and forth with Snow-i I managed to mix up the 1.5 ng number with the 5 ng number. I went back and edited a couple of posts where I made this mistake. Thanks for the heads up!

OAW

[mduell]

The 7ng/mL is the metabolite, THC-COOH. The -COOH metabolite is longer lived and not psychoactive, but it's what most workplace drug tests look for.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Matt Gutman, who broke at least 3 important stories* regarding the shooting, is backpedaling a bit:
Two prominent U.S. lawyers are among the skeptics questioning whether evidence in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin supports the second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman, given the confessed shooter's apparent injuries and freshly released eyewitness accounts.
...
Previously unknown particulars, including the scrape on Martin's knuckle and photos of Zimmerman's battered and swollen face -- which were taken moments after he shot and killed Martin in what he says was self defense -- coupled with eyewitness accounts that back up Zimmerman's story, suggest for some that the prosecutor overreached.

* First to:
- report Sanford police had ignored witnesses’ testimony about the facts surrounding the shooting
- note Martin family attorney had obtained an affidavit from DeeDee with a timeline contradicting Zimmerman's defense
- obtain a copy of a Sanford police surveillance video showing Zimmerman’s face and head

Me thinks the Grand Jury was bypassed because the DA feared they would not return an indictment.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Me thinks the Grand Jury was bypassed because the DA feared they would not return an indictment.

Doubtful. Grand Jury proceedings are so one-sided that any decent prosecutor can easily get the result they want simply by choosing which evidence to present and which evidence to sit on. I suspect it was bypassed in this case in order to boost the stature of the Special Prosecutor Angela Corey. Remember all the commentary in the media about how "politically gutsy" it was for her to make the call herself?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The 5ng/mL is the metabolite, THC-COOH. The -COOH metabolite is longer lived and not psychoactive, but it's what most workplace drug tests look for.

It said 7 in what was posted here, not 5. It said 5 is the "typically" for THC and 7 is the "this case" for THC-COOH. Is there a different report?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It said 7 in what was posted here, not 5. It said 5 is the "typically" for THC and 7 is the "this case" for THC-COOH. Is there a different report?

More number confusion. Updated my post.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ok thanks

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, by your standards for the detectives, it's obvious Travyon died from a bullet and there's no need for further investigation.

Detectives don't determine cause of death. They do, however, interview suspects.

...you don't get screened for drugs if you're alive? C'mon.

Obviously not.

This strikes me as the type of reasoning that would result from picking your position first.

You know it's possible that the cops can ****-up following standard procedure and Zimmerman can still be innocent, right? The two aren't tied together.

I don't see where the cops "****ed up". I'm sorry, I just don't see the need to scrutinize the detectives for doing their jobs.

This is the media looking for a boogeyman when the evidence against the accused comes up way short. A way to keep the story going. I've never heard of a sobriety test being administered without probable cause to do so. In fact, under the 4th amendment they cannot administer sobriety tests or bloodwork without a warrant or probable cause. Where is the probable cause without Zimmerman acting or behaving as though he's under an influence?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I thought pot was supposed to be a getaway drug

Everyone knows caffeine is the gateway drug.

Soda, Coffee, and Energy Drinks are all billion dollar industries.

[hyteckit]

I still think the DA screwed up by going for a 2nd degree murder charge. Should be a manslaughter charge.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I've never heard of a sobriety test being administered without probable cause to do so. In fact, under the 4th amendment they cannot administer sobriety tests or bloodwork without a warrant or probable cause. Where is the probable cause without Zimmerman acting or behaving as though he's under an influence?

If killing someone isn't probable cause for further investigation, I don't know what is

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Everyone knows caffeine is the gateway drug.

It's a pretty good getaway drug too

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If killing someone isn't probable cause for further investigation, I don't know what is

Killing someone in self defense is probable cause for a sobriety test? On what grounds?

Thankfully, we don't get to throw out the law when the court of public opinion wants blood. We have real courts with real due process.

There is absolutely 0 evidence Zimmerman was inebriated in the slightest. I'm not sure why it was even brought up in the first place.

[Waragainstsleep]

Killing someone is a big deal, self-defence or otherwise. Plus you don't just take someone's word for it that it was self-defence, you investigate to try to make sure.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Killing someone in self defense is probable cause for a sobriety test? On what grounds?

They should have to *confirm* his story that it was self-defence, rather than just take his word for it. At the time of the incidence, all they had was his claim and the police should have investigated his claim of self-defence as thoroughly as possible, which I assume would include a drug test.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

They should have to *confirm* his story that it was self-defence, rather than just take his word for it. At the time of the incidence, all they had was his claim and the police should have investigated his claim of self-defence as thoroughly as possible, which I assume would include a drug test.

Again, there's this thing called the 4th amendment. Hasn't anyone ever heard of it? They need at the very least probable cause, which usually isn't much, to administer such a test. Lacking that, they need a judge to sign a warrant which unlike the CSI's and Law and Order TV shows isn't easily gotten in an hours notice.

Look, I know this story is extremely tragic and its our nature to want to vilify somebody in the death of a teenager. But to me, is that there are several "hoodie wearing racially profiled youths" brutally murdered everyday in places like Baltimore, DC, etc. And no one gives a flying rats ass. It doesn't even make the news. Where's the vehement outrage for them?

We mustn't allow our outrage to abandon the very tenets of our society's justice system just to make it easier to prosecute a perceived boogeyman. I'll be the first in line to demand Zimmerman gets locked away should there be any evidence that refutes his claim of self defense. So far though, the only evidence we have is outrage from the community and flimsy circumstantial evidence which does nothing to refute Zimmerman's claim of self defense.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Killing someone in self defense is probable cause for a sobriety test? On what grounds?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

They need at the very least probable cause, which usually isn't much, to administer such a test.

Probable cause "usually" isn't much, but in this case even a dead body doesn't qualify? What great moral relativism you have there!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Probable cause "usually" isn't much, but in this case even a dead body doesn't qualify? What great moral relativism you have there!

Again, what cause or inference could be made that Zimmerman wasn't sober?

Any evidence? Any cause? Anything other than "zimmerman was involved in a violent incident that led to someone's death" as reason to infer a lack of and test for sobriety?

Do you think all people involved in violent incidents should be tested for drugs and alcohol?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Again, what cause or inference could be made that Zimmerman wasn't sober?

Any evidence? Any cause? Anything other than "zimmerman was involved in a violent incident that led to someone's death" as reason to infer a lack of and test for sobriety?

Zimmerman claimed that in his judgement it was necessary to kill someone on purpose. Zimmerman was the one who created probable cause to verify that his own judgement was not impaired, by making that claim. That's why it's standard procedure to do a test.

Do you think all people involved in violent incidents should be tested for drugs and alcohol?

That is apparently standard procedure, yes. If the person was "involved" by making a judgement call to kill someone, their judgement should be tested/confirmed.

[OAW]

^^^^

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman "appeared" to be under the influence or not. It's called standard operating procedure in a homicide investigation. Again, we know Zimmerman was on prescription medications with known side effects of aggressiveness. This may not be readily apparent to a police officer responding to the scene. So a toxicology screen is supposed to be performed regardless in order to see if drugs (legal or otherwise) and/or alcohol were a factor in the incident. There really isn't anything all that difficult to understand about the concept. So I suspect all the excuses being made for standard procedure not being followed in this case is a prime example of choosing to be willfully obtuse.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman "appeared" to be under the influence or not. It's called standard operating procedure in a homicide investigation. Again, we know Zimmerman was on prescription medications with known side effects of aggressiveness. This may not be readily apparent to a police officer responding to the scene. So a toxicology screen is supposed to be performed regardless in order to see if drugs (legal or otherwise) and/or alcohol were a factor in the incident.

Something I was wondering and I haven't seen answered anywhere: would a standard drug test have detected Adderall or Temazepam?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Something I was wondering and I haven't seen answered anywhere: would a standard drug test have detected Adderall or Temazepam?

That I can not say for sure. I do know that some substances can only be detected if you are specifically looking for them. I'll touch base with some friends I have in the medical field and see if they know. In the meantime, if I had to bet my next paycheck on it I don't think it would have mattered all that much if these substances were detected by a toxicology screen. Proving that A) Zimmerman was suffering from a potential side effect of those drugs, and B) it played a role in the incident... is about as difficult as proving that the residual amounts of THC in Martin's system was played a material role as well. It's a distraction at best.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Proving that A) Zimmerman was suffering from a potential side effect of those drugs, and B) it played a role in the incident... is about as difficult as proving that the residual amounts of THC in Martin's system was played a material role as well.

Which is *really* why this particular line has dragged on as long as it has. In their attempt to not vilify someone in the death of the teenager, they're trying to vilify the *teenager*.

"Martin had drugs in his system. Clearly Zimmerman was justified in killing him."

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Zimmerman claimed that in his judgement it was necessary to kill someone on purpose. Zimmerman was the one who created probable cause to verify that his own judgement was not impaired, by making that claim. That's why it's standard procedure to do a test.

I'm not sure if you've been watching too much law and order but, thats not how it works. Probable cause means that you've got some small standard of evidence to investigate further. I.e. your car smells like pot therefore I'm going to search it.

Where is exactly is the probable cause for Zimmerman being intoxicated? Still waiting on an answer.

That is apparently standard procedure, yes. If the person was "involved" by making a judgement call to kill someone, their judgement should be tested/confirmed.

Standard procedure according too.... a CNN opinion journalist? Yeah, ok. There's still that little thing call the "Bill of Rights" that has a 4th amendment.

"tested/confirmed" needs probable cause. I've still yet to see you point out where that exists. Under Florida law, Zimmerman is allowed to stand his ground. I'm still waiting for you to point out where exactly he deviated enough from the law to constitute probable cause. "He could have" isn't enough.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Which is *really* why this particular line has dragged on as long as it has. In their attempt to not vilify someone in the death of the teenager, they're trying to vilify the *teenager*.

"Martin had drugs in his system. Clearly Zimmerman was justified in killing him."

Attempting to explain behavior is not equal to "vilifying".

I've yet to see any physical evidence to support "their" claim that Zimmerman murdered the kid in cold blood. None. The latest report, however, supports Zimmeran's claim that he was attacked.

Still waiting for "them" to address the broken skin on Martin's knuckles vs Zimmermans broken nose, cut on the back of his head, and two black eyes.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I've yet to see any physical evidence to support "their" claim that Zimmerman murdered the kid in cold blood. None. The latest report, however, supports Zimmeran's claim that he was attacked.

Still waiting for "them" to address the broken skin on Martin's knuckles vs Zimmermans broken nose, cut on the back of his head, and two black eyes.

Why are you wasting everyone's time with this non-issue, over and over and over again? No one denies they fought. The issue, which you have constantly evaded for this entire thread, is: who was the instigator?

The 911 call shows that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Or yeah, and: 4 witnesses change stories in Trayvon Martin shooting

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Attempting to explain behavior is not equal to "vilifying".

I've yet to see any physical evidence to support "their" claim that Zimmerman murdered the kid in cold blood. None. The latest report, however, supports Zimmeran's claim that he was attacked.

Still waiting for "them" to address the broken skin on Martin's knuckles vs Zimmermans broken nose, cut on the back of his head, and two black eyes.

Does the death have to be "cold blood" for it to be "murder"? Once there is a fight between two people, is it always justified for someone to be killed? If one of the people involved in the fight had THC in his system, is it guaranteed that the people will be overly agressive, thus justifying killing that person?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure if you've been watching too much law and order but, thats not how it works. Probable cause means that you've got some small standard of evidence to investigate further. I.e. your car smells like pot therefore I'm going to search it.

Where is exactly is the probable cause for Zimmerman being intoxicated? Still waiting on an answer.

He shot an unarmed man. That's more than a small standard of evidence. That type of behavior is far more common among the intoxicated than the sober.

Standard procedure according too.... a CNN opinion journalist? Yeah, ok.

Do you have any indication that it's not?

There's still that little thing call the "Bill of Rights" that has a 4th amendment.

If he wasn't actively asking for the state to approve his homicide, that would be a valid point. If he denied killing someone, then the state would be on its own to prove that he did in fact kill them, and they wouldn't be able to force him to give anything including samples to test. But since he admitted to the killing, and now he's asking for the state's assistance to approve it as justified, the 4th amendment doesn't apply.

Here let me ask you another way, if the police on the scene had asked him for a drug test, even if it had never been done before and it was their spontaneous inspiration, do you think he would have agreed? Was he trying to hide something, or did he think he was justified? After all, he's the one who called them there. Why would he not cooperate?

And if he cooperates, how can it possibly be a 4th amendment issue?

[subego]

If I was thinking straight, I'd seriously consider refusing.

The only thing the police would be interested in doing with the results is to try and pin something on me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

If I was thinking straight, I'd seriously consider refusing.

The only thing the police would be interested in doing with the results is to try and pin something on me.

It's pretty obvious he wasn't thinking straight. If I was thinking straight then I wouldn't have called the police to investigate a murder I had just committed.

[ghporter]

The functional process with concealed carry in Texas works like this:

Confronted by an assailant, Joe Citizen attempts to avoid the confrontation. Assailant rushes Joe, brandishing a knife. Joe shoots the assailant to "stop the attack," and then immediately calls 911 to report the shooting and summon an ambulance. Police arrive and Joe places his gun on the ground and raises his hands, officers scope out the scene and find the assailant down, ambulance arrives and whatever happened to the knife guy is dealt with. Officers interview Joe, inspect the scene, impound the gun, etc. Typically, Joe's case goes to the DA's office within hours. If Joe's story matches all the evidence found, the DA decides whether to drop the issue (blatantly obvious that the knife guy was attacking Joe), send the case to a grand jury (not everything is clear), or investigate further (some things are fishy - maybe just about the knife guy). If Joe had not called the police immediately, it would do two things: lessen his apparent veracity in the eyes of the police and reduced the ability of the police to establish the facts of the case.

The rule in Texas law is that, in certain, (mostly) well defined situations, the use of deadly force is legally appropriate, but there is a progression of "levels of force," from avoiding the conflict through use of deadly force. A law abiding citizen who uses a firearm to defend himself is expected - through the required training for concealed carry - to use the minimum force necessary to stop the threat. Joe would tell the police "I fired because he rushed at me with a knife, even after I tried to leave and threatened to use force. I feared for my life and my last resort was to shoot to stop the attack," not "I killed him because he came at me with a knife." And there is (in most Texas counties, anyway), no real drawback to Joe telling the officers "I'm really upset right now, so I'd like to wait until I've calmed down and my attorney is there before I answer questions." Again there's a semantic point in his statement: not "I want my lawyer," but "I'm not ready to answer questions because this was such an upsetting event."

So I think Zimmerman calling 911 after the fact would have been smart. Shooting someone while on the phone with 911 dispatch, especially after they told him to back off, was not smart at all, and is not in keeping with the basic concepts of the use of a concealed weapon for self defense. While there was no "duty to retreat," it was Zimmerman who escalated the issue, and he had many opportunities to de-escalate or even end the encounter. It was Zimmerman who caused the situation in the first place, it was he who caused it to escalate, and it was his actions that (per his story) put him in a situation where he could be in danger. That is not how "stand your ground" works, nor is it an appropriate setting for the use of deadly force. It does not matter whether Martin actually did lay hands on him, it does not matter that Martin may or may not have used pot, it was Zimmerman who caused, escalated and forced the situation.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

So I think Zimmerman calling 911 after the fact would have been smart. Shooting someone while on the phone with 911 dispatch, especially after they told him to back off, was not smart at all, and is not in keeping with the basic concepts of the use of a concealed weapon for self defense. While there was no "duty to retreat," it was Zimmerman who escalated the issue, and he had many opportunities to de-escalate or even end the encounter. It was Zimmerman who caused the situation in the first place, it was he who caused it to escalate, and it was his actions that (per his story) put him in a situation where he could be in danger. That is not how "stand your ground" works, nor is it an appropriate setting for the use of deadly force. It does not matter whether Martin actually did lay hands on him, it does not matter that Martin may or may not have used pot, it was Zimmerman who caused, escalated and forced the situation.

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And there is (in most Texas counties, anyway), no real drawback to Joe telling the officers "I'm really upset right now, so I'd like to wait until I've calmed down and my attorney is there before I answer questions." Again there's a semantic point in his statement: not "I want my lawyer," but "I'm not ready to answer questions because this was such an upsetting event."

Assuming you're polite about it, what's the downside to just flat-out asserting your rights?

[ghporter]

Because at the time of the incident, one's body is flooded with adrenalin which can impair judgement and memory. In the heat of the moment, the citizen made a grave decision, but the aftereffects last for quite a while, often as much as an hour, and this can lead to a poor choice of words, confusion about the sequence of events, or emotional outbursts that prejudice the individual's valid use of force in the eyes of the law. (Laws aren't usually written to include consideration for how we as humans react to a life-or-death situation.) Emotional statements, or those that sound emotionally charged as in "I want my lawyer" tend to wind up presented without context during a hearing, while statements that acknowledge the seriousness of the situation provide their own context.

In a very few Texas counties, DAs are in a position to "make a political statement" about their personal feelings about the law, and they do this by selectively prosecuting cases that "make their points." Fortunately, these are becoming more rare as the evidence builds that 1) Texans support concealed carry, and 2) concealed carry appears to have decreased crime against individuals.

[subego]

In this particular case the law seems to accommodate it perfectly. If you've been arrested, you have the right to attorney. What other context is needed?

[OAW]

The plot thickens ......

Neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman made statements to police that help establish his guilt in the second-degree murder case against him for killing unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, prosecutors said in a court filing on Thursday.

The claim came in a motion by prosecutors to keep some of Zimmerman's statements under seal pending his trial in a case that triggered civil rights protests across the United States, while sparking widespread debate over guns, self-defense laws and U.S. race relations.

"Defendant (Zimmerman) has provided law enforcement with numerous statements, some of which are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses," the prosecutors said in their court filing.

They said the statements by Zimmerman were admissible in court and "in conjunction with other statements and evidence help to establish defendant's guilt in this case."

The court filing offered no details about the statements Zimmerman made to police or other law enforcement officials. It said Florida's public records law had no provision requiring "the disclosure of a confession" of a defendant.

"The state asserts that this provision includes an admission of a defendant that could be used against him at trial," the filing said.

Trayvon's killer said to make self-incriminating statements | Reuters

OAW

[OAW]

Dude is establishing a pattern of deception. Not a good look ...

In a shocking and unexpected turn, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester has revoked George Zimmerman's bond in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The decision came after revelations that Zimmerman and his wife may have conspired to lie about thousands of dollars in donations they'd collected before his bond hearing.

In a new motion, prosecutors accused Zimmerman and his wife of lying to the judge during a bond hearing about money they collected for his defense.

Prosecutors allege Zimmerman's wife knew about the donations her husband had collected through a PayPal account, but didn't mention the money at his bond hearing.

Zimmerman's PayPal account ultimately collected more than $200,000, his attorney later revealed.

"Defendant has intentionally deceived the court with the assistance of his wife," the motion says. "During the jail phone calls both of them spoke in code to hide what they were doing."

Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda told the judge today that "this court was led to believe that they didn't have a single penny" at the earlier bond hearing.

Zimmerman's wife "flat out lied to this court," de la Rionda said. Lester agreed, revoking Zimmerman's bond. He must turn himself in, the judge said.

George Zimmerman bond revoked: A judge today revoked George Zimmerman's bond in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin - Orlando Sentinel

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I totally want to see a transcript of the supposed code they were talking in.

[The Final Dakar]

OH MAN
George Zimmerman's Bond Revoked - ABC News

Prosecutors had filed a motion today to revoke his bond, accusing Zimmerman of "deceiving" the court about his finances and his possession of a second passport, which he apparently acquired two weeks after the shooting.

...

Although one of his passports was due to expire in May, prosecutors said today, Zimmerman applied for a second passport, informing the State Department that the original had been lost lost or stolen.

In the conversations Zimmerman and his wife speak in code -- reducing the amounts in their financial accounts by a factor of 1,000. Prosecutors said the couple knew that their jailhouse conversations were likely being recorded.

...

The new documents show that Zimmerman had $135,000 in his bank account the day before his bail hearing -- in which he declared himself financially indigent.

[OAW]

I'm actually perplexed why certain media outlets are so "shocked" by this development. This has been a possibility since late April when the subject first came up. I posted about it here.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

What media outlets?