Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: George Zimmerman will ask the state of Florida to reimburse
willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Tue 08/27/13 08:34 AM
More power to Master Z. They need to replace the bullet he spent as well.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 08:48 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol How absurd

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 08:48 AM Edited by msharmony on Tue 08/27/13 08:49 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol How absurd the truth is sometimes absurd isn't it? truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations he needs to move on, he got a 'fair' trial, and his expenses contributed to him being kept free,,,,,thats life

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Tue 08/27/13 08:52 AM
Hating Hispanics is bigoted.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Tue 08/27/13 08:52 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol How absurd the truth is sometimes absurd isn't it? truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations he needs to move on, he got a 'fair' trial, and his expenses contributed to him being kept free,,,,,thats life The truth is that no trial would have occurred without intervention by the politicians and the mass media. The police knew they didn't have a case from the very beginning.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 08:53 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol "untrained MMA fighter", isn't that a contradiction in terms just repeating the justification given, he was throwing 'mma style' punches, while grabbing a bald wet head and repeatedly 'slamming' it into concrete,,,,what else could a grown man do but scream and shoot him? after all, we know he wrote graffiti at school and was late leading to suspensions,, of course that type of kid would assault a grown man for the heck of it,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 09:00 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol How absurd the truth is sometimes absurd isn't it? truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations he needs to move on, he got a 'fair' trial, and his expenses contributed to him being kept free,,,,,thats life The truth is that no trial would have occurred without intervention by the politicians and the mass media. The police knew they didn't have a case from the very beginning. that's a TRUTH that cant be proven, just like Zimmermans guilt ,,, moving on,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 08/27/13 09:01 AM


msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 09:03 AM
yeah, millions of youth and people of all sizes and shapes wear bed sheets and masks around at night?....lol jeans and a hoody, does not a crook make,,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 08/27/13 09:06 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol How absurd the truth is sometimes absurd isn't it? truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations he needs to move on, he got a 'fair' trial, and his expenses contributed to him being kept free,,,,,thats life The truth is that no trial would have occurred without intervention by the politicians and the mass media. The police knew they didn't have a case from the very beginning. that's a TRUTH that cant be proven, just like Zimmermans guilt ,,, moving on,,, Seriously? Moving On? When are you going to move on? You have been griping about this subject for months. Good idea... Maybe you should move on. truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations The clue here is "beginning of deliberations" Then these people looked at the evidence, the law and made a different decision. What they may or may not have thought at the beginning of deliberations is moot. It does not mean anything.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 09:09 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol How absurd the truth is sometimes absurd isn't it? truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations he needs to move on, he got a 'fair' trial, and his expenses contributed to him being kept free,,,,,thats life The truth is that no trial would have occurred without intervention by the politicians and the mass media. The police knew they didn't have a case from the very beginning. that's a TRUTH that cant be proven, just like Zimmermans guilt ,,, moving on,,, Seriously? Moving On? When are you going to move on? You have been griping about this subject for months. Good idea... Maybe you should move on. truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations The clue here is "beginning of deliberations" Then these people looked at the evidence, the law and made a different decision. What they may or may not have thought at the beginning of deliberations is moot. It does not mean anything. haaaa, whatever dude I didn't start this thread, but I need to 'move on' huh? typical anyway,, yeah, beginning of deliberations proves it was not 'clear cut',,,,one side had to persuade the other and interjecting that one possible charge wasn't completely understood,, says it was even less clear cut Z gets nothing but a have a nice day and enjoy being the hero to those who are so thrilled at the death of another alleged 'thug'

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Tue 08/27/13 09:35 AM
LOL...great example

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 08/27/13 09:51 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol How absurd the truth is sometimes absurd isn't it? truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations he needs to move on, he got a 'fair' trial, and his expenses contributed to him being kept free,,,,,thats life The truth is that no trial would have occurred without intervention by the politicians and the mass media. The police knew they didn't have a case from the very beginning. that's a TRUTH that cant be proven, just like Zimmermans guilt ,,, moving on,,, Seriously? Moving On? When are you going to move on? You have been griping about this subject for months. Good idea... Maybe you should move on. truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations The clue here is "beginning of deliberations" Then these people looked at the evidence, the law and made a different decision. What they may or may not have thought at the beginning of deliberations is moot. It does not mean anything. haaaa, whatever dude I didn't start this thread, but I need to 'move on' huh? typical anyway,, yeah, beginning of deliberations proves it was not 'clear cut',,,,one side had to persuade the other and interjecting that one possible charge wasn't completely understood,, says it was even less clear cut Z gets nothing but a have a nice day and enjoy being the hero to those who are so thrilled at the death of another alleged 'thug' This thread is a breaking NEWS STORY "dude." It is not about the trial and the verdict or your opinion of it.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 08/27/13 09:53 AM
yeah, millions of youth and people of all sizes and shapes wear bed sheets and masks around at night?....lol jeans and a hoody, does not a crook make,,,, This is true, but if you have been robbed by people wearing jeans and a hoody, and you see countless videos of places being robbed with people wearing that, eventually, you get a bit nervous when you see that. And you can't blame a person for that.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 09:56 AM
they had a case, they just chose six jurors who believed zimmermans narrative with little to no supporting evidence of his account and plenty to the contrary,,,, If there was Plenty of evidence to the contrary, then why didn't at least one of the jurors find Z guilty?(it was a unanimous decision) There was NO evidence on the prosecution's side, Thats why they had to find a prosecutor from an outside jurisdiction to even try the case. at least ONE Did,, initially three did, by the end of deliberation all however voted unanimously he needs to 'get over it',, he doesn't get any more special treatment than the millions of others who pay expense in court and are not proven guilty,,,, there was evidence from an ear witness who heard trey tell z to get off of him,, there was evidence from an eye witness who heard voices arguing and saw the two tussling upright for at least a few seconds,,,, but the jury chose , apparently , to either ignore that, or find it irrelevant to Zs right to 'defend himself' from the 158 pound untrained MMA fighter,,,lol How absurd the truth is sometimes absurd isn't it? truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations he needs to move on, he got a 'fair' trial, and his expenses contributed to him being kept free,,,,,thats life The truth is that no trial would have occurred without intervention by the politicians and the mass media. The police knew they didn't have a case from the very beginning. that's a TRUTH that cant be proven, just like Zimmermans guilt ,,, moving on,,, Seriously? Moving On? When are you going to move on? You have been griping about this subject for months. Good idea... Maybe you should move on. truth is, it wasn't clear cut,, three guilty and three not guilty at the beginning of deliberations The clue here is "beginning of deliberations" Then these people looked at the evidence, the law and made a different decision. What they may or may not have thought at the beginning of deliberations is moot. It does not mean anything. haaaa, whatever dude I didn't start this thread, but I need to 'move on' huh? typical anyway,, yeah, beginning of deliberations proves it was not 'clear cut',,,,one side had to persuade the other and interjecting that one possible charge wasn't completely understood,, says it was even less clear cut Z gets nothing but a have a nice day and enjoy being the hero to those who are so thrilled at the death of another alleged 'thug' This thread is a breaking NEWS STORY "dude." It is not about the trial and the verdict or your opinion of it. lol not about the trial just about the defendant wanting to be reimbursed his expenses ,,,sorry, didn't realize the line was so explicit regarding what could be addressed and by whom in a thread on ZIMMERMANS REQUEST,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 09:57 AM Edited by msharmony on Tue 08/27/13 09:59 AM
yeah, millions of youth and people of all sizes and shapes wear bed sheets and masks around at night?....lol jeans and a hoody, does not a crook make,,,, This is true, but if you have been robbed by people wearing jeans and a hoody, and you see countless videos of places being robbed with people wearing that, eventually, you get a bit nervous when you see that. And you can't blame a person for that. nope, cant blame folks for addressing others based upon what they see in media,,,, cant blame T for thinking this strange 'white looking' male watching him in his vehicle and getting out to follow him may be a potential serial killer or pedophile either,,, but in any case,, z gets no reimbursement, his expenses kept him a free man,, like the millions of other people ever acquitted of charges by the state,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 08/27/13 09:58 AM
Whatever, I think we all are clear on your disagreement with the verdict.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 10:00 AM
and now, all clear on my opinion about z being reimbursed ON TOP of his freedom

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Tue 08/27/13 01:58 PM
and now, all clear on my opinion about z being reimbursed ON TOP of his freedom The law in that state actually allows for him to be reimbursed, except for lawyer's fees.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 08/27/13 04:19 PM
which law is that?