• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zimmerman lawyer to ask Florida to pay up to $300,000 in legal costs: report

The state should pay his legal fees. They knew they didn't have a case from the get-go. Politics stepped in and forced one. And it needlessly cost GZ a small fortune. The state should be held liable.
 
are you happy with the amount of tax dollars the prosecution spent in a failed attempt to convict GZ?

IMO, when some one is charged and found not guilty, their defense expenses should be paid for by the prosecustion.

All of this might have been avoided if the State would have used a grand jury.
Nope, not happy about that either. But I really hate throwing good money after bad.
 
Yes, everyone who acts in self defense should be arrested, charged, jailed and stripped of every dollar they have plus be in debt - all of which is consistent with your views against self defense in real terms. It is particularly important to not allow a citizen's grand jury to be involved either, nor the police make the decision. ONLY politicians should make all legal decisions and everyone who acts in self defense should be charged and arrested for murder and forced into jail and trial to prove she/he isn't.

That'll teach those nasty evil people not to carry guns! You shoot someone in self defense and the government will declare you a murderer and treat you as a murderer. :roll:
Thanks for continuing your tirades. You really know how to make a case.
I never said any of that.
But you have to look at it from the third party stand point.
Say I meet you, dont like you, shoot you. No witnesses, no cameras. I claim self defence.
Your family would be fine with that? Period. No investigation, no charges (that can be dropped prior to trial). Just you are dead, and I say I felt threatened and stood my ground.
I carry, I know the rules and I also know that my life may very well change and not for the better once I may have to use my weapon.
 
They had a dead man. Thats close enough.

No. It's not even almost close to enough. You arrest someone because a crime was commited and you have proof of that crime. The state didn't have that. A dead man is not proof of a crime.

This is even more true when the defendant has injuries, a story supported by evidence and nothing to contradict that story. Even the jury member has said the case should never have been brought to trial - and she was right.
 
Because the state brought the case in good faith.
Weak as it was. If we pay every defendent that wins his case, Florida will be broke by weeks end.
Or we will just quit arresting people.

The state did not bring the case in good faith. The state had investigated the case and found it wanting. The state needs to go after Jesse, Al and Barry.
 
are you happy with the amount of tax dollars the prosecution spent in a failed attempt to convict GZ?

What was the final tally? more than a million?
 
No. It's not even almost close to enough. You arrest someone because a crime was commited and you have proof of that crime. The state didn't have that. A dead man is not proof of a crime.

This is even more true when the defendant has injuries, a story supported by evidence and nothing to contradict that story. Even the jury member has said the case should never have been brought to trial - and she was right.

Wrong, you arrest someone because you think you have a provable case. Not because he is guilty. We are innocent until proven guilty.
I am fine with his not guilty findings, but dont think the state (us) should have to foot the bill.
If we do, we should take it out of the salary of the prosecutors that failed miserably.
 
The state did not bring the case in good faith. The state had investigated the case and found it wanting. The state needs to go after Jesse, Al and Barry.

Good luck with that.
Zimmerman has ways to clear his legal bills. He dont look like he is starving or living like a hermit.
 
Good luck with that.
Zimmerman has ways to clear his legal bills. He dont look like he is starving or living like a hermit.

And going after the state is one of the avenues to clear the bills. I suspect there will be others.
 
Wrong, you arrest someone because you think you have a provable case. Not because he is guilty. We are innocent until proven guilty.

A provable case requires a lot more then just a dead body. The state didn't have anything else. So, even according to you, he shouldn't have been arrested.

I am fine with his not guilty findings, but dont think the state (us) should have to foot the bill.
If we do, we should take it out of the salary of the prosecutors that failed miserably.

The prosecutor didn't fail. They had zero evidence to work with. You can blame the governor for taking the case away from the investigators and prosecutor that originally said no charges and no case and giving it to Angela Corey with the expectation she would press charges.
 
Thanks for continuing your tirades. You really know how to make a case.
I never said any of that.
But you have to look at it from the third party stand point.
Say I meet you, dont like you, shoot you. No witnesses, no cameras. I claim self defence.
Your family would be fine with that? Period. No investigation, no charges (that can be dropped prior to trial). Just you are dead, and I say I felt threatened and stood my ground.
I carry, I know the rules and I also know that my life may very well change and not for the better once I may have to use my weapon.

Like I've stated before, your consistent view is that anyone who has a firearm for self defense that isn't locked up and unusable should be punished.

And I was correct that fundamentally you are anti-Zimmerman because he used a gun by your constant anti-gun slogans, summary declarations and furious ragings. Your example is another example. You didn't give an example of murdering someone in anyway (knife, blunt object, vehicle, beating to death, gun), you LIMITED it to "shoot"ing the person as the means - for which the victim of acted in self defense should then have bad consequences as result of self defense with a firearm. Once again, your true anti-gun perspectives comes out in your own words.

Other than wife, children and in-laws, I have no family and never did. If I was shot dead, no witnesses and nothing to contradict a claim of "self defense?" I would expect the government to do absolutely nothing because - while you can't stand the concept - there is a presumption of innocence - not a presumption of guilt unless proven innocent after arrest, jailing and trial. Although you tend to declare a person still guilty even if found not guilty (ie the Randy Weaver case).

I have used firearms for self defense and my life radically improved thereafter, even beyond that my adoptive daughter's and my life didn't instead end. Oh, and there were no witnesses but her and I and she was a newborn. Since nothing contradicted my account, they accepted it - and had no choice because that is how law works - though I understand how intensely you oppose the concept of a presumption of innocence. That was quite long ago and a lag time before the legal system was involved as they didn't know who I was relevant to it.

However, the crime victim was myself and that recognized, just like it appears George Zimmerman was a crime victim by his injuries - but was instead summarily treated like a murderer presumed guilty for political motivations. He should have been treated like a crime victim, not a murderer, and which it was should have been decided by a citizen's grand jury if a case claimed by the police - not a politician circumventing both the police and the grand jury - should have made that decision.

Go ahead and post your anti-Zimmerman logic and why he deserves to be in the situation he is in now because he is a gun owner - like you furiously claim Randy Weaver brought about the deaths of his family and himself shot in the back because he is a gun owner.
 
Last edited:
Like I've stated before, your consistent view is that anyone who has a firearm for self defense that isn't locked up and unusable should be punished.

And I was correct that fundamentally you are anti-Zimmerman because he used a gun by your constant anti-gun slogans, summary declarations and furious ragings. Your example is another example. You didn't give an example of murdering someone in anyway (knife, blunt object, vehicle, beating to death, gun), you LIMITED it to "shoot"ing the person as the means. So, once again, your anti-gun perspective comes out.

Other than wife, children and in-laws, I have no family and never did. If I was shot dead, no witnesses and nothing to contradict a claim of "self defense?" I would expect the government to absolutely nothing because - while you can't stand the concept - there is a presumption of innocence - not a presumption of guilt unless proven innocent after arrest, jailing and trial.

I have used firearms for self defense and my life radically improved thereafter, even beyond that my adoptive daughter's and my life didn't instead end. Oh, and there were not witnesses but her and I and she was a newborn. That was quite long ago and a lag time before the legal system was involved as they didn't know who I was relevant to it.

However, the crime victim was myself and that recognized, just like it appears George Zimmerman was a crime victim by his injuries - but was treated like a murderer presumed guilty for political motivations. He should have been treated like a crime victim, not a murderer, and which it was should have been decided by a citizen's grand jury if a case claimed by the police - not a politician circumventing both the police and the grand jury - should have made that decision.

Go ahead and post your anti-Zimmerman logic and why he deserves to be in the situation he is in now because he is a gun owner - like you furiously claim Randy Weaver brought about the deaths of his family and himself shot in the back because he is a gun owner.
You need medication, and lots of it.
 
A provable case requires a lot more then just a dead body. The state didn't have anything else. So, even according to you, he shouldn't have been arrested.



The prosecutor didn't fail. They had zero evidence to work with. You can blame the governor for taking the case away from the investigators and prosecutor that originally said no charges and no case and giving it to Angela Corey with the expectation she would press charges.
Personally do I think he should have been arrested? No, but I am not a prosecutor.
The state should have done a much better UNBIASED investigation prior to the arrest and or if they did arrest have more than they did before trial.
But I dont think there is ever going to be a case where you have one dead man, and one man saying self defence or SYG and the cops just shrug their shoulders and say "OK, sounds legit". And walk away.
 
But I dont think there is ever going to be a case where you have one dead man, and one man saying self defence or SYG and the cops just shrug their shoulders and say "OK, sounds legit". And walk away.

That's not what they did. They investigated and continued investigating. Almost all of the evidence supported Zimmerman's account.
 
That's not what they did. They investigated and continued investigating. Almost all of the evidence supported Zimmerman's account.

"almost". Would you want the death of your loved one decided on "almost"?
 
"almost". Would you want the death of your loved one decided on "almost"?


Once again you tell of your wishing a presumption of guilt unless proven otherwise.
 
They had a dead man. Thats close enough. They had a man who admitted shooting him. All else you had was a living "victim" and his side of the story.
I had no problem with him being arrested, I am glad that SYG was not used and self defence won out. But I have no problem being made to prove it.

Still again, your claim of a persumption of guilt unless a person can prove they are innocent. I was correct all along that fundamentally you were intensely anti-Zimmerman - and still are.
 
Still again, your claim of a persumption of guilt unless a person can prove they are innocent. I was correct all along that fundamentally you were intensely anti-Zimmerman - and still are.
Well, he is not my hero. Unlike you who need a demagog to follow like puppy.
But I agree with the verdict.
 
While I have a very poor opinion of Zimmerman because I hate amateur cops, the reality is that he was found not guilty. When you are prosecuted, it costs a fortune to defend yourself. I hope this establishes a precedent that the innocent are reimbursed for their legal expenses. Too often, the state will arrest someone for harassment purpose knowing that no matter if they win or lose, they will have damaged their victim financially. This should be discouraged and making them pay the legal expenses will result in more caution when prosecuting people.
 
Watching the trial made it clear that the state had no reason to bring charges. That had zero evidence of a crime. They didn't even have a theory of a crime.

Crue on any topic has certain premises and increasingly and furious escalate upon it. These are the premises.

Anyone who deviates from behavior perfectly acceptable to the government is inviting their death and the death of their family.
Anyone who has a firearm that isn't keep locked in their house should be in jail.
Anyone who uses a firearm in self defense should be presumed to be and treated as a murderer, imprisoned, and continue to be presumed guilty unless proven innocent at trial. However, if the government continues to contend the person is guilty then he/she is guilty anyway.
Anyone the government alleges has committed a crime should have all that person's firearms taken away.

On this thread, he is now increasingly insisting that George Zimmerman should have been presumed guilty, should have been arrested, jailed, lose all his money in legal fees, required to wear a tracker and prevented from movement - and that this by politicians to do this was right, and unless and until Zimmerman could prove he was innocent he should have been found guilty. That is what is due to anyone who uses a - OMG A GUN!!! - for self defense. This will increasingly lead to insults, raging and sneering against anyone who disagrees.
 
Well, he is not my hero. Unlike you who need a demagog to follow like puppy.


Of course he's not your hero. To you he's a GUN NUT!!
 
Once again you tell of your wishing a presumption of guilt unless proven otherwise.

So, you are out doing your water cop job. You and some dude have alittle disagreement. Well he feels threatend and pulls faster than you and drops you in your tracks.
Calls 911 and says "hey, dude in uniform starts hasslin' me and tried layin' hands on me so, I dropped him with twins to the blood pumper".
Other cops show up and homeboys story sounds legit. They hand his gun back to him, bid him a fond farewell and you go to the cooler till wifey comes to claim your carcass.
Sounds perfectly acceptable to you?
 
Back
Top Bottom