Zimmerman gets 250k for his $500 gun

[ogibillm]

No he wasnt.......C ,,,just the facts......which dont change no matter how much you bark........B.....oooooops.....gee someone with crime history............

that's a bit of a mess... anyhow it's know that zimmerman followed martin. that's a fact. we don't know why martin didn't call the police, or how the two came into conflict. we never will. if you claim to know you are a liar.

Doesnt matter,,,,,,,witness statements back Zimmerman,,,,and you have.....oh right...self righteous sermonizing.........poor trayvonn......physically fit teen couldnt our run a fat man........thats what you want us to believe

first, he shouldn't have had to outrun anyone. i believe he is allowed to stand his ground, is he not?

witnesses say at one point martin had the upper hand. that is all. there is no witness that accounts for how the conflict started.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

No he wasnt.......C ,,,just the facts......which dont change no matter how much you bark........B.....oooooops.....gee someone with crime history............

that's a bit of a mess... anyhow it's know that zimmerman followed martin. that's a fact. we don't know why martin didn't call the police, or how the two came into conflict. we never will. if you claim to know you are a liar.

Doesnt matter,,,,,,,witness statements back Zimmerman,,,,and you have.....oh right...self righteous sermonizing.........poor trayvonn......physically fit teen couldnt our run a fat man........thats what you want us to believe

He is "poor Trayvon". It seems a teen can't walk to the corner to buy a snack for munching, for the NBA game on TV that night. It seems a teen who got spooked has to think like a 40-year-old, rather than a boy who just turned 17 the week before.

 

[Care4all]

So, not only does he get away with murder, literally, but he's also able to cash in on it.

That punk that jumped him

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

GZ was WATCHING a criminal that he had observed peeking into peoples windows, then he had to shoot the piece of shyte because Martin had jumped him and was pounding GZ while GZ was on the ground.

What is particularly hilarious is when you idiots claim this is an example of Stand Your Ground laws, roflmao.

so much information from you on this, with so LITTLE TRUTH.....

trayvon was not peeking in people's windows he was being stalked by an unknown perp....

zimmerman didn't take a pounding to his face, nor beat to a pulp, he hardly had any injuries at all...

from the police files of pictures taken of zimmerman the night of the attack

There is no reason for Martin to double back and attack GZ; none whatsoever. Had he just gone home nothing would have happened, but he did go aback and attack GZ and paid for it with his life.

Martin was protecting his little brother who was at his home alone waiting for Martin to return.

Trayvon Martin was being followed by a perp, even mentioned he was being followed by a strange guy when on the phone with his friend, while walking home...that's a fact....

Trayvon's father had gone to the movies, his little brother was at his home and Trayvon knew he was being followed and DID NOT want to lead the perp following him to his home, where his little brother was.... thus the REASON for confronting the person who was stalking him away from his house, where his little brother was..........

YOU AND I, would have done the same thing Trayvon did, to protect a 10 year old brother.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No he wasnt.......C ,,,just the facts......which dont change no matter how much you bark........B.....oooooops.....gee someone with crime history............

that's a bit of a mess... anyhow it's know that zimmerman followed martin. that's a fact. we don't know why martin didn't call the police, or how the two came into conflict. we never will. if you claim to know you are a liar.

Doesnt matter,,,,,,,witness statements back Zimmerman,,,,and you have.....oh right...self righteous sermonizing.........poor trayvonn......physically fit teen couldnt our run a fat man........thats what you want us to believe

first, he shouldn't have had to outrun anyone. i believe he is allowed to stand his ground, is he not?

witnesses say at one point martin had the upper hand. that is all. there is no witness that accounts for how the conflict started.

The fact they were in contact shows Martin went back...otherwise they could not possibly be contact could they....no way Zimmerman could have caught him....which as phone records indicate was not his goal...thus the call to police.....stand his ground implies he was attacked.....which you have no evidence of...ooops a lie.........

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So, not only does he get away with murder, literally, but he's also able to cash in on it.

That punk that jumped him

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

He did have the right to self defense. That , however, is not what a jury decided happened. They instead decided that Zimmerman was the one who used his right to self defense.

And George is a piece of shit, and selling this gun just further cements that.

 

[ogibillm]

No he wasnt.......C ,,,just the facts......which dont change no matter how much you bark........B.....oooooops.....gee someone with crime history............

that's a bit of a mess... anyhow it's know that zimmerman followed martin. that's a fact. we don't know why martin didn't call the police, or how the two came into conflict. we never will. if you claim to know you are a liar.

Doesnt matter,,,,,,,witness statements back Zimmerman,,,,and you have.....oh right...self righteous sermonizing.........poor trayvonn......physically fit teen couldnt our run a fat man........thats what you want us to believe

first, he shouldn't have had to outrun anyone. i believe he is allowed to stand his ground, is he not?

witnesses say at one point martin had the upper hand. that is all. there is no witness that accounts for how the conflict started.

The fact they were in contact shows Martin went back.

no, it doesn't. you may believe that, but it is not proof.

 

[ogibillm]

So, not only does he get away with murder, literally, but he's also able to cash in on it.

That punk that jumped him

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

He did have the right to self defense. That , however, is not what a jury decided happened. They instead decided that Zimmerman was the one who used his right to self defense.

And George is a piece of shit, and selling this gun just further cements that.

no, the jury did not decide that. the jury decided the state did not make the case for murder.

 

[Meathead]

Trayvon's father had gone to the movies, his little brother was at his home and Trayvon knew he was being followed and DID NOT want to lead the perp following him to his home, where his little brother was.... thus the REASON for confronting the person who was stalking him away from his house, where his little brother was..........

Well, here's an original take. Sheesh!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

That punk that jumped him

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

GZ was WATCHING a criminal that he had observed peeking into peoples windows, then he had to shoot the piece of shyte because Martin had jumped him and was pounding GZ while GZ was on the ground.

What is particularly hilarious is when you idiots claim this is an example of Stand Your Ground laws, roflmao.

so much information from you on this, with so LITTLE TRUTH.....

trayvon was not peeking in people's windows he was being stalked by an unknown perp....

zimmerman didn't take a pounding to his face, nor beat to a pulp, he hardly had any injuries at all...

from the police files of pictures taken of zimmerman the night of the attack

There is no reason for Martin to double back and attack GZ; none whatsoever. Had he just gone home nothing would have happened, but he did go aback and attack GZ and paid for it with his life.

Martin was protecting his little brother who was at his home alone waiting for Martin to return.

Trayvon Martin was being followed by a perp, even mentioned he was being followed by a strange guy when on the phone with his friend, while walking home...that's a fact....

Trayvon's father had gone to the movies, his little brother was at his home and Trayvon knew he was being followed and DID NOT want to lead the perp following him to his home, where his little brother was.... thus the REASON for confronting the person who was stalking him away from his house, where his little brother was..........

YOU AND I, would have done the same thing Trayvon did, to protect a 10 year old brother.

No you wouldn't have , or rather I hope you wouldn't have. I know I wouldn't have turned around and started a fight with the guy.

Regardless of what you BELIEVE happened, a jury ruled differently. So , once again we see liberals hating our justice system.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No he wasnt.......C ,,,just the facts......which dont change no matter how much you bark........B.....oooooops.....gee someone with crime history............

that's a bit of a mess... anyhow it's know that zimmerman followed martin. that's a fact. we don't know why martin didn't call the police, or how the two came into conflict. we never will. if you claim to know you are a liar.

Doesnt matter,,,,,,,witness statements back Zimmerman,,,,and you have.....oh right...self righteous sermonizing.........poor trayvonn......physically fit teen couldnt our run a fat man........thats what you want us to believe

first, he shouldn't have had to outrun anyone. i believe he is allowed to stand his ground, is he not?

witnesses say at one point martin had the upper hand. that is all. there is no witness that accounts for how the conflict started.

The fact they were in contact shows Martin went back.

no, it doesn't. you may believe that, but it is not proof.

Yes it does.....facts are not your friend are they

 

[ogibillm]

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

GZ was WATCHING a criminal that he had observed peeking into peoples windows, then he had to shoot the piece of shyte because Martin had jumped him and was pounding GZ while GZ was on the ground.

What is particularly hilarious is when you idiots claim this is an example of Stand Your Ground laws, roflmao.

so much information from you on this, with so LITTLE TRUTH.....

trayvon was not peeking in people's windows he was being stalked by an unknown perp....

zimmerman didn't take a pounding to his face, nor beat to a pulp, he hardly had any injuries at all...

from the police files of pictures taken of zimmerman the night of the attack

There is no reason for Martin to double back and attack GZ; none whatsoever. Had he just gone home nothing would have happened, but he did go aback and attack GZ and paid for it with his life.

Martin was protecting his little brother who was at his home alone waiting for Martin to return.

Trayvon Martin was being followed by a perp, even mentioned he was being followed by a strange guy when on the phone with his friend, while walking home...that's a fact....

Trayvon's father had gone to the movies, his little brother was at his home and Trayvon knew he was being followed and DID NOT want to lead the perp following him to his home, where his little brother was.... thus the REASON for confronting the person who was stalking him away from his house, where his little brother was..........

YOU AND I, would have done the same thing Trayvon did, to protect a 10 year old brother.

No you wouldn't have , or rather I hope you wouldn't have. I know I wouldn't have turned around and started a fight with the guy.

Regardless of what you BELIEVE happened, a jury ruled differently. So , once again we see liberals hating our justice system.

you understand that the jury did not decide who started the confrontation, right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

That punk that jumped him

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

GZ was WATCHING a criminal that he had observed peeking into peoples windows, then he had to shoot the piece of shyte because Martin had jumped him and was pounding GZ while GZ was on the ground.

What is particularly hilarious is when you idiots claim this is an example of Stand Your Ground laws, roflmao.

so much information from you on this, with so LITTLE TRUTH.....

trayvon was not peeking in people's windows he was being stalked by an unknown perp....

zimmerman didn't take a pounding to his face, nor beat to a pulp, he hardly had any injuries at all...

from the police files of pictures taken of zimmerman the night of the attack

GZ was not a perp; that is simply a lie. GZ was doing what any normal might that wants to protect his neighbors from a lowlife thief walking around in the rain peeping into peoples windows which is what started it all.

making shit up. you do not know that.

There is no reason for Martin to double back and attack GZ; none whatsoever.

and you don't know that happened.

Had he just gone home nothing would have happened, but he did go aback and attack GZ and paid for it with his life.

you really love your lies, don't you?

when the hell do you liberals ever accept the responsibility and consequences of your ******* actions?

Lol, and yes, there are injuries to GZs face enough that it cleared him of charges and the witnesses corroborated GZ's story.

that the state couldn't prove their case doesn't make zimmerman innocent.

Do or dont, I dont care, but Martin got what he had coming and you morons should pay attention to the lesson; if you dont want to be put int he ground, dont go around attacking people.

what he had coming? the only thing you know for sure was that he was walking in a neighborhood. is that a capital offense?

There is more evidence for what I said than you libtard's half baked lies.

 

[ogibillm]

that's a bit of a mess... anyhow it's know that zimmerman followed martin. that's a fact. we don't know why martin didn't call the police, or how the two came into conflict. we never will. if you claim to know you are a liar.

Doesnt matter,,,,,,,witness statements back Zimmerman,,,,and you have.....oh right...self righteous sermonizing.........poor trayvonn......physically fit teen couldnt our run a fat man........thats what you want us to believe

first, he shouldn't have had to outrun anyone. i believe he is allowed to stand his ground, is he not?

witnesses say at one point martin had the upper hand. that is all. there is no witness that accounts for how the conflict started.

The fact they were in contact shows Martin went back.

no, it doesn't. you may believe that, but it is not proof.

Yes it does.....facts are not your friend are they

no, it doesn't. you can speculate that's what it means, but you do not have proof.
also stand your ground means martin did not have to back down from zimmerman and could confront his pursuer.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Even the person on the phone with Trayvonn told him to go home........

 

[ogibillm]

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

GZ was WATCHING a criminal that he had observed peeking into peoples windows, then he had to shoot the piece of shyte because Martin had jumped him and was pounding GZ while GZ was on the ground.

What is particularly hilarious is when you idiots claim this is an example of Stand Your Ground laws, roflmao.

so much information from you on this, with so LITTLE TRUTH.....

trayvon was not peeking in people's windows he was being stalked by an unknown perp....

zimmerman didn't take a pounding to his face, nor beat to a pulp, he hardly had any injuries at all...

from the police files of pictures taken of zimmerman the night of the attack

GZ was not a perp; that is simply a lie. GZ was doing what any normal might that wants to protect his neighbors from a lowlife thief walking around in the rain peeping into peoples windows which is what started it all.

making shit up. you do not know that.

There is no reason for Martin to double back and attack GZ; none whatsoever.

and you don't know that happened.

Had he just gone home nothing would have happened, but he did go aback and attack GZ and paid for it with his life.

you really love your lies, don't you?

when the hell do you liberals ever accept the responsibility and consequences of your ******* actions?

Lol, and yes, there are injuries to GZs face enough that it cleared him of charges and the witnesses corroborated GZ's story.

that the state couldn't prove their case doesn't make zimmerman innocent.

Do or dont, I dont care, but Martin got what he had coming and you morons should pay attention to the lesson; if you dont want to be put int he ground, dont go around attacking people.

what he had coming? the only thing you know for sure was that he was walking in a neighborhood. is that a capital offense?

There is more evidence for what I said than you libtard's half baked lies.

you may believe so. but when you claim speculation as fact, when you make claims about what happened when you cannot possibly know - you are a liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

you understand that the jury did not decide who started the confrontation, right?

That is not something that jury is commissioned to decide, moron.

The evidence as laid out does say exactly that, however and that is where MOST of us get our data and support GZ because of it.

From Martin, to Mike Brown, to Freddie Gray the libtard narrative about what happened is repeatedly disproven over and over and over.

You morons put your ideology group think first like a big ole cult, and then you defend it no matter what the Truth is or the evidence.

No wonder that Jim Jones was a Democratic stooge as well as a cult leader.

 

[bodecea]

So, not only does he get away with murder, literally, but he's also able to cash in on it.

Who did he supposedly murder? That punk that jumped him and had him pinned with his back on the ground pounding him in his face?

How many times do you libtrards think an armed man has to let idiots beat on them before we can shoot the stupid dogs?

We only have his word for that, and see the pics of him afterwards and his behavior since.....he's in the cellar when it comes to believability.

 

[bodecea]

he should sue democrat party for reparations......hard to believe dems havent tried to tag him for another fake crime in the last yr

Zimmerman's your kind of man, isn't he?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So, not only does he get away with murder, literally, but he's also able to cash in on it.

That punk that jumped him

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

He did have the right to self defense. That , however, is not what a jury decided happened. They instead decided that Zimmerman was the one who used his right to self defense.

And George is a piece of shit, and selling this gun just further cements that.

no, the jury did not decide that. the jury decided the state did not make the case for murder.

Incorrect. Please educate yourself before commenting further.

The jury had SEVERAL choices, they could have found George guilty of 2nd degree murder, they could have found him guilty of manslaughter. They found him NOT GUILTY of all charges. Ipso facto , they found that George did NOT precipitate the events that led to the shooting, which obviously means they found that Trayvon did, meaning that obviously Trayvon was not exercising his right to self defense in the eyes of the jury.

George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in Trayvon Martin's death - CNN.com


What you believe, think, feel, or imagine is completely irrelevant to the subject. A jury decided that Trayvon was NOT defending himself when shot by Zimmerman.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

you're making that up. you have no way of knowing who confronted whom. in fact, the only thing you know for sure is that an armed man stalked an unarmed man. why didn't martin have the right to self-defense against his armed pursuer?

GZ was WATCHING a criminal that he had observed peeking into peoples windows, then he had to shoot the piece of shyte because Martin had jumped him and was pounding GZ while GZ was on the ground.

What is particularly hilarious is when you idiots claim this is an example of Stand Your Ground laws, roflmao.

so much information from you on this, with so LITTLE TRUTH.....

trayvon was not peeking in people's windows he was being stalked by an unknown perp....

zimmerman didn't take a pounding to his face, nor beat to a pulp, he hardly had any injuries at all...

from the police files of pictures taken of zimmerman the night of the attack

There is no reason for Martin to double back and attack GZ; none whatsoever. Had he just gone home nothing would have happened, but he did go aback and attack GZ and paid for it with his life.

Martin was protecting his little brother who was at his home alone waiting for Martin to return.

Trayvon Martin was being followed by a perp, even mentioned he was being followed by a strange guy when on the phone with his friend, while walking home...that's a fact....

Trayvon's father had gone to the movies, his little brother was at his home and Trayvon knew he was being followed and DID NOT want to lead the perp following him to his home, where his little brother was.... thus the REASON for confronting the person who was stalking him away from his house, where his little brother was..........

YOU AND I, would have done the same thing Trayvon did, to protect a 10 year old brother.

No you wouldn't have , or rather I hope you wouldn't have. I know I wouldn't have turned around and started a fight with the guy.

Regardless of what you BELIEVE happened, a jury ruled differently. So , once again we see liberals hating our justice system.

This is not about what YOU would have done. You don't know for certain that Martin started the fight. From the way you write, it seems that you're older than 17. You don't live in a dog-eat-dog hood. Etc.