Zimmerman's new bail set at $1 million
July 5th, 2012
11:43 AM ET

Zimmerman's new bail set at $1 million

A Florida judge set the new bail amount for George Zimmerman - a Florida man charged with murder in the February shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin - at $1 million on Thursday.

It was unclear how quickly Zimmerman (pictured) could post the bail and be released from jail. His attorney argued that Zimmerman should not be jailed because the state's case is weak and his claim of self-defense is strong.

Zimmerman's previous bail - $150,000 - was revoked last month after the judge learned Zimmerman and his wife had failed to disclose more than $150,000 in donations from the public.

Leading up to the judge's decision Thursday, Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara asked the judge to set the same $150,000 bail amount that he granted in April. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda countered that Zimmerman should remain in jail without bail because he was complicit in lying to the court and can't be trusted.

Zimmerman, who says he shot the unarmed Martin in self-defense, could stay in jail until his eventual trial or could be released Thursday if he posts bail. He would not have to post the full amount. Only a percentage is needed to make bail.

Post by:
Filed under: Florida • Trayvon Martin
soundoff (116 Responses)

    What is the seemingly sadisic glee thatsome people take in the thought of what a man can expect if sent to prison, shheeeesh!
    In most states no limit on fees for nail bond but most do run 10-30%.
    It need not be cash but items of value, home or financial instruments.
    The whole case should be thrown out of court due to lack of speedy trial, and. to find a member of jury that has not heard and read of this case and formed bias either way, means only village idiots need apply.

    July 5, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Peace Lee

    Are you telling me that in America I can follow someone shoot and kill but still claim self defence? how can such a powerful country still nurse and nurture racism?

    July 5, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andrew Campbell

      He was following him to protect his neighbors and family. He shot him because he was attacked by the young man. Come off it with the racism comments. This had nothing to do with race.

      July 5, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Piers Morgan, Supervillain

      It's not about race so much as our LUST for guns. Half the country honestly believes that God WANTS them to be armed to the teeth. And if the other guy is too young to have a gun, or just unlucky enough to be unarmed, well, all the better. You know these people, they are the "try to pry this gun from my cold, dead hand" crowd.
      In Florida, yes, you can tuck your weapon into your pants and go looking for a fight, and if you start to lose, well, that's exactly why you brought your firearm.

      July 5, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Peace Lee

    Many of us do not really know the difference between self-defense and fighting. Sometimes one might be fighting and later (especially in the court of law) claim that he/she was defending him/herself.
    Self-defense is not about fighting and is one of the most misunderstood concepts among our community members. It is further complicated by the common belief that you can be arrested for "attempted self-defense". Self-defense isn't fighting. But if it isn't then what is it?
    Here is a short version of what self-defense means: Imagine you are sitting in a restaurant waiting to be served and a total stranger walks up to you and says "Hey moegoe, I'm going to downer you and swing a punch at you. What you then do to stop that attack, that's self-defense. Here's another example: You're walking to your car and three guys jump out of the shadows and attack you.
    Now looking at these three scenarios, what you should seriously consider is that:
    (a) in both cases the attack was unwarranted and unprovoked, (b) there is a serious element of surprise, confusion (that is to say, there was no mental preparation to get ready to fight) and downright fear that will very likely inhibit you from performing well, (c) there is no escalation or provocation on your part to warrant such violent responses and (d) while it is coming out of the blue to you, the attacker(s) obviously is/are prepared to attack. But the most important point to consider is (e) that these situations are not about "winning"‚ they are about surviving.
    At this moment, your best chance for success is to get your way clear of the attack and escape. That means you only engage an attacker long enough to get out of there and only using enough force as is warranted. Now many will begin to proceed with "what ifs" and excuses as to why they cannot escape or how under the stress of being attacked they won't be able to control the degree of force they use or how they have go full force on the attacker because anything less "might not work".
    Let me say again and very directly, the goal of self-defense is not to win; winning is the realm of fighting and is concerned with ego, pride, gain, coercion and the countless other motivations for fighting. The goal of self-defense is not to be physically injured by an unprovoked or unwarranted attack by using a reasonable amount of force. If you are engaged in physical conflict for any other reason or using excessive force, it is not self-defense. It is something else. That is what you will be judged by. And yet, it is exactly those motivations mentioned above that many people have who believe they are "defending themselves"‚.
    Under our legal standards it is not self-defense if: You were an active participant in the creation, escalation and continuation of the conflict. If you engage in violence for any reason other than immediate physical preservation then both the law and society considers you to be fighting. Your pre-conflict behavior is going to be carefully scrutinized to determine if it was, as you claim self-defense, or in fact, a fight. Your conduct during and after is going also to be carefully scrutinized to determine if it was an assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, manslaughter or even murder.
    And we can tell you right now a very, very important point: self-defense is legal, fighting and all those other behaviors are illegal.
    On the other hand if you are fighting, you are part of the problem. Fighting implies that you are not only part of the conflict, but that you assisted in its creation and escalation. This is what we meant when we said your pre-conflict behavior will be carefully reviewed. If you, in any way, were (a) instrumental in the creation of the problem that lead to the physical violence, (for example, if you were threatening him/her, insulting him/her or arguing with him/her), (b) continued to attack after s/he was obviously losing and/or had broken off his/her offensive actions or (c) instead of attempting to escape you stayed there and fought to "win" you are fighting and not defending yourself.
    A "fight"‚ is a knockdown, drag out, and tooth and nail conflict with someone who is just as tough if not tougher than you. And that somebody is as dedicated to getting a piece out of you, as you are dedicated to getting him/her. And that means the only thing keeping from doing unto you before you do unto him/her is you and your fighting skills. Someone who is not more interested in saving face than avoiding a fight will do certain things: Like leave. Someone who is seeking to prove something to a thug could walk away from the conflict, but s/he chooses to remain in the immediate area. Now the motivation for not really leaving is varied and beyond the scope of this article. However, no matter what your motivations, neither the police nor the courts look at choosing to be there, as a true indication that you were serious about not wanting to be involved in a conflict. It means you put other priorities ahead of doing something that would have prevented violence.
    You may have a long litany of reasons as to why you didn't leave and/or "had"‚ to stay and engage in further conflict. But they are, more often than not, emotional and prideful, not reasonable. Our legal system is predicated on "what a reasonable person”‚ would do under the same circumstances and that is how it will be looked upon. A "reasonable"‚ person would have left a confrontational public area rather than fight.
    Perhaps the easiest way to realise when you are fighting is when you are trying to win or that you are either trying to prove something to yourself or to someone else.

    July 5, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Joe Blow

    Yes, in America you kill someone who mounts you and smashes your head into the pavement, while walking on a public street.

    July 5, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Obama Mama

      Yeah, someone follows you, pulls a gun on you, and you are gunless, you smash their head or anything you can get your hands on.

      July 5, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • mickey1313

      Obama, he pulled the gun state he was asulted, following someone is not a crime. If it were private investigators would be illegal.

      July 5, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Piers Morgan, Supervillain

      Yeah, poor George was just walking around minding his own business when the evil black child pounced on him. Oh wait, you are totally up a tree, that's not what happened at all. Zimmerman got out of his car, with his gun, to follow Trayvon, intending to confront him, which he did. Trayvon was on the phone with someone and you can hear the beginning of the confrontation. Your description is not accurate, no matter how hard you push your lie.

      July 5, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Lady Vee

    Wow, some of the absurd things typed on these blogs just makes me smh. Deb crawl ur path etic a$s back under the rock in which u came. U want this young man 2 b a "thug" b'c then ur i's killing him is justifiable no matter what the situation was. Ur Zim murdered a young man walking from the store, talking to his gf on his cell phone with his hood up due to it raining. He was not bothering any1, he was not looking for touble, he was not creating any drama. Can u Deb say the same of ur precious Zim?

    July 5, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • mickey1313

      Lady, so tm evaded zimmermam, then jumped him, and he should not die, what a crock of sh it

      July 5, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |

    A 17 year old should not be a child unless judged so by medical proffession, they should be young adults otherwise
    Don't give a darn,even then age has very little bearing on how dangerous a human can be, and that the smothering attitude. of some. portions of soviety delays the individuals growth into aduldthood and acceptance of responsibility for ones own actions.
    Not all deaths are tragedys,some come about through necessity of protecting others from. harm and oneself.
    That is what is to be judged in this case, and weeping willows and their willys hankies may get wet but let the facts try the case.

    July 5, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Joe Blow

    After expending copious amounts of energy to decipher the previous post, I can tell you that people who attack you are thugs, and use of deadly force is allowed under Florida law.

    July 5, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Joe Blow

    If he wasn't looking for trouble, he would have kept walking. Attacking someone from behind and smashing his head into concrete is not a sign of someone who isn't out to create any drama.

    July 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Obama Mama

      Says the guy who resisted arrest, was aggetated when he called the dispatch, whom was told not to persue the person, whom said he was sick of it, whom lied not once but 2ce to the bond court. Gee, what is not to believe, since the other man is dead.

      July 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Joe Blow

    Reading these comments, is like the underpants gnomes' business model. 1) Steal underpants 2)??? 3) Profit
    With these comments: 1)Zimmerman followed Trayvon (legal) 2)??? 3) Trayvon is dead. What is the step 2? That's when Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, something that is missing in all the accusatory comments against Zimmerman.

    July 5, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Obama Mama

      I guess you were there when Zimmerman shot him?

      July 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Mr Dalloway

    Will someone please set up a website to collect pantyhose that Z will definitely need in prison?

    July 5, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Lady Vee

    ALSO @ Deb... He lied to his lawyer and the judge about having a passport(s) and he & his wife also lied about their financial holdings. That's probably why his first lawyer left. Zim has a problem with being honest. No matter who or when a situation 2 this magnitude happened, "Stand ur ground" was always going 2 b Zims' defense. "That was his planned defense from the begining u idi ot!" Sadly Trayvon was his opportunity 2 b that cop he was never cut out 2 b.

    July 5, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • mickey1313

      ah but a week before this case, a black man and a white vey got into an attainment in a fl park. The black man left, got a gun, came back, and killed the vet. He claimed the syg law, and was not arrested. Zimmerman should be free, and when found Nokia guilty, he should sue for slander and libel.

      July 5, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |

    I thinkthe real tragedy in this case is that by all the media hype we now will never truly know what happened, no matter the verdict.
    The media "made" this incident into an entertainment reality program, one that has a smattering of interest to almost every nabob in nation.
    They scripted a black child gunned down while drinking a pop and eating candy by an overzealous gun toting killer just because the "child" was black.
    Then after the introductory they further inflamed audiences by giving every fringe group a reason to keep watching and reading the next programed event.
    Of course they ommited fact parts of plot lines so as to have more surprises in store for later issues in order to keep their ratings up.
    Things like the child was a 17 year old punk. shot by not a white man but a latino with what sounds like a name for a white man. an.d then went into judt how incompetent lo al police forces were and maybe they were racist, a ploy that almost hot out of hand ad bountys for capture ended up harrasding whites blacks and hispanics alike
    Weltheir ratings are still highand the delibetately ill informed keep watching and spe ulating.

    July 5, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  13. matt

    there are watch groups all over the country. I am white and was stopped many times and asked what I was doing, not a crime. I don't think it's a race thing as much an age thing. the guy stops ya, you give him static like nonyeas. and then you talk to the cops a few blocks later. I thought it was crap then, but now that I am older I get it.

    July 5, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Jeff Frank (R-Ohio) "Right Wing Insanity"

    One million bail set for a pusher that settled the debt for a user that refused to pay for his dope.
    Zimmerman probably thinks he gets the million, if his counsel can persuade the jury into a not guilty plea. 🙁

    July 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Obama Mama

    Trayvon 5'9" 158lbs. Zimmerman 5'6" 185lbs.

    July 5, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Linda

      According to George Zimmerman's recently released medical report, on 27 February he was 5 ft 7.5 inches and 204 lb.
      According to Trayvon Martin's autopsy report, he was 5 ft 11 inches and 158 lb.
      The police reported that neither man had any special training or special fighting advantage.

      July 5, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5