Zimmerman gets 250k for his $500 gun

[PredFan]

No, Zimmerman got some justice. Not for defending himself against Martin, but for having his life destroyed for no reason.

How is that justice?

Well, in many ways actually but he can't get a job because of the racist violent leftists that will threaten anyone who hires him. Now, at least for a little while, he won't have to.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

BUT for the fact...

But for the fact that an American soldier wandered away from his base, he would not have been kidnapped by the Taliban.

Similarly, but for the fact that Zimmerman continued to stalk Martin after he was told not to, Martin would not have been killed.

 

[bodecea]

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.

see, i knew there would be an idiot out there that would believe the acquittal meant the jury found martin to have started the confrontation.

what they found was that the state couldn't make the case, that is all.

I don't waste time with mental midgets, have a good day.

For the rest of the class. Its quite clear that jury didn't think the state made the case because they didn't prove that Zimmerman started the altercation, so of course that means the jury believed Martin must have started the altercation b/c it sure didn't just spontaneously happen.

Actually it means that the jury decided that there was reasonable doubt. And one does not preclude the other. I'd be willing to bet that some of those jurors are now kicking themselves......

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No, Zimmerman got some justice. Not for defending himself against Martin, but for having his life destroyed for no reason.

How is that justice?

Well, in many ways actually but he can't get a job because of the racist violent leftists that will threaten anyone who hires him. Now, at least for a little while, he won't have to.

I think you meant to say he can't find a job b/c everywhere the son of a ***** goes someone ends up dead or threatened and no employer wants to deal with that.

 

[PredFan]

No, Zimmerman got some justice. Not for defending himself against Martin, but for having his life destroyed for no reason.

How is that justice?

It's not, it's disturbing.

I can't even imagine trying to profit off of having to take another person's life like that.

He wouldn't have to if the violent racists on the left didn't ruin his life.

 

[PredFan]

No, Zimmerman got some justice. Not for defending himself against Martin, but for having his life destroyed for no reason.

How is that justice?

Well, in many ways actually but he can't get a job because of the racist violent leftists that will threaten anyone who hires him. Now, at least for a little while, he won't have to.

I think you meant to say he can't find a job b/c everywhere the son of a ***** goes someone ends up dead or threatened and no employer wants to deal with that.

Liar.
Who else has died?
**** off liar.

 

[Manonthestreet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

When was Trayvon Martin ever a "lowlife thief"?

Ignorance on parade.........what ya get for just reading talking points

 

[Fair&Balanced]

BUT for the fact...

But for the fact that an American soldier wandered away from his base, he would not have been kidnapped by the Taliban.

Similarly, but for the fact that Zimmerman continued to stalk Martin after he was told not to, Martin would not have been killed.

what a stupid ******* comment.


And once again , for the terminally stupid, regardless of what you think, feel, or otherwise believe, Zimmerman was found NOT guilty.

 

[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?

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.

see, i knew there would be an idiot out there that would believe the acquittal meant the jury found martin to have started the confrontation.

what they found was that the state couldn't make the case, that is all.

I don't waste time with mental midgets, have a good day.

how could you spend all day with yourself then?

For the rest of the class. Its quite clear that jury didn't think the state made the case because they didn't prove that Zimmerman started the altercation, so of course that means the jury believed Martin must have started the altercation b/c it sure didn't just spontaneously happen.

see, you're proving that you don't understand logic.

if i don't prove 'A' that doesn't mean that 'not A' is true, it just means that 'not A' is possible.

it's possible that martin started the altercation. it's possible that zimmerman did. the state failed to prove that zimmerman was the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that anyone proved the aggressor one way or another.

i will say though that we know without a doubt that zimmerman acted aggressively by following martin.

 

[PredFan]

BUT for the fact...

But for the fact that an American soldier wandered away from his base, he would not have been kidnapped by the Taliban.

Similarly, but for the fact that Zimmerman continued to stalk Martin after he was told not to, Martin would not have been killed.

Zimmerman was never told not to. Just because you are watching a suspicious character doesn't mean that character has a right to assault you.

 

[PredFan]

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.

see, i knew there would be an idiot out there that would believe the acquittal meant the jury found martin to have started the confrontation.

what they found was that the state couldn't make the case, that is all.

I don't waste time with mental midgets, have a good day.

how could you spend all day with yourself then?

For the rest of the class. Its quite clear that jury didn't think the state made the case because they didn't prove that Zimmerman started the altercation, so of course that means the jury believed Martin must have started the altercation b/c it sure didn't just spontaneously happen.

see, you're proving that you don't understand logic.

if i don't prove 'A' that doesn't mean that 'not A' is true, it just means that 'not A' is possible.

it's possible that martin started the altercation. it's possible that zimmerman did. the state failed to prove that zimmerman was the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that anyone proved the aggressor one way or another.

i will say though that we know without a doubt that zimmerman acted aggressively by following martin.

Zimmerman had the right to do so, Martin had no right to assault him.

 

[bodecea]

No, Zimmerman got some justice. Not for defending himself against Martin, but for having his life destroyed for no reason.

How is that justice?

It's not, it's disturbing.

I can't even imagine trying to profit off of having to take another person's life like that.

He wouldn't have to if the violent racists on the left didn't ruin his life.

There's that personal responsibility of RWNJs.......

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

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.

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.

When was Trayvon Martin ever a "lowlife thief"?

Ignorance on parade.........what ya get for just reading talking points

How about you enlighten me...when was Trayvon Martin ever a lowlife thief?

 

[PredFan]

No, Zimmerman got some justice. Not for defending himself against Martin, but for having his life destroyed for no reason.

How is that justice?

It's not, it's disturbing.

I can't even imagine trying to profit off of having to take another person's life like that.

He wouldn't have to if the violent racists on the left didn't ruin his life.

There's that personal responsibility of RWNJs.......

And there is the stupidity of the left.

 

[bodecea]

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.

see, i knew there would be an idiot out there that would believe the acquittal meant the jury found martin to have started the confrontation.

what they found was that the state couldn't make the case, that is all.

I don't waste time with mental midgets, have a good day.

how could you spend all day with yourself then?

For the rest of the class. Its quite clear that jury didn't think the state made the case because they didn't prove that Zimmerman started the altercation, so of course that means the jury believed Martin must have started the altercation b/c it sure didn't just spontaneously happen.

see, you're proving that you don't understand logic.

if i don't prove 'A' that doesn't mean that 'not A' is true, it just means that 'not A' is possible.

it's possible that martin started the altercation. it's possible that zimmerman did. the state failed to prove that zimmerman was the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that anyone proved the aggressor one way or another.

i will say though that we know without a doubt that zimmerman acted aggressively by following martin.

Zimmerman had the right to do so, Martin had no right to assault him.

And the only person's word we have that that is what happened is cashing in as we speak.....the other one is dead.

 

[PredFan]

 

[bodecea]

No, Zimmerman got some justice. Not for defending himself against Martin, but for having his life destroyed for no reason.

How is that justice?

It's not, it's disturbing.

I can't even imagine trying to profit off of having to take another person's life like that.

He wouldn't have to if the violent racists on the left didn't ruin his life.

There's that personal responsibility of RWNJs.......

And there is the stupidity of the left.

Still waiting.........surely you have a answer.

 

[Manonthestreet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

When was Trayvon Martin ever a "lowlife thief"?

Ignorance on parade.........what ya get for just reading talking points

How about you enlighten me...when was Trayvon Martin ever a lowlife thief?

Why ...wont change anything...........

 

[PredFan]

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.

see, i knew there would be an idiot out there that would believe the acquittal meant the jury found martin to have started the confrontation.

what they found was that the state couldn't make the case, that is all.

I don't waste time with mental midgets, have a good day.

how could you spend all day with yourself then?

For the rest of the class. Its quite clear that jury didn't think the state made the case because they didn't prove that Zimmerman started the altercation, so of course that means the jury believed Martin must have started the altercation b/c it sure didn't just spontaneously happen.

see, you're proving that you don't understand logic.

if i don't prove 'A' that doesn't mean that 'not A' is true, it just means that 'not A' is possible.

it's possible that martin started the altercation. it's possible that zimmerman did. the state failed to prove that zimmerman was the aggressor, but that doesn't mean that anyone proved the aggressor one way or another.

i will say though that we know without a doubt that zimmerman acted aggressively by following martin.

Zimmerman had the right to do so, Martin had no right to assault him.

And the only person's word we have that that is what happened is cashing in as we speak.....the other one is dead.

His word plus the forensic evidence, plus the witnesses, but aside from that you are right.

You ******* idiot.

 

[bodecea]

View attachment 75852

So, if someone is acquitted, that means they are not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt?