I've never seen so many fucking armchair prosecutors in my life

[CatWoman]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the General Discussion forum).

It seems to be the same people thread by thread.

and I'm the stupid one for clicking on the threads in question.

[cthulu2016]

1. The utter contempt for law by people here who "know" stuff is sickening

[CatWoman]

6. ah

but there are knowns, and known knowns.

who knows?

[Honeycombe8]

25. But we don't know what we don't know, so how do we know? :) nt

[CatWoman]

28. stop it!!!

[Pelican]

52. It's amazing how often we see what the law "should" be...

... and somebody is just too stupid to apply it that way to nail that blankity blank so and so....

[demosincebirth]

90. they think they're opinion is the only one that counts, and to contradict them you have their

wrath behold.

[The Magistrate]

2. Hear Hear, Ma'am!

Zimmerman has been shown to lie habitually and self-servingly.

Jury instructions will note that everything said by a person shown to have lied should be disregarded.

[warrant46]

61. Ah yes, the old "Falsus in uno"

False in one thing, false in everything. 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 356; 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 338; 3 Wis. 645

Well Put, Sir

[kestrel91316]

67. I'd bet serious money that the judge does NOT give the jury this particular instruction.

[The Magistrate]

104. It Will Certainly Come Up In Closing Argument, Ma'am

The prosecution seems to be trying to force Zimmerman onto the stand, where he certainly would provide grounds for that instruction....

[onenote]

241. Agreed. To the best of my knowledge it is not part of the model Florida criminal jury instructions

While it was once a common part of the closing charge to the jury, it has become disfavored. As one of the leading treatises on criminal jury instructions stated in 2000, "Given this strong trend to refrain from charging the jury on (falsus uno), it is recommended that no instruction be given but rather that a general instruction on credibility be given and that this issue be left to the argument of counsel.

[RobinA]

226. That Could Be An Instruction???

It's a logical fallacy.

[The Magistrate]

232. Common Law Is What It Is, Ma'am

If you have caught someone out in a lie, it then becomes open to question whether any other statement that person makes is true or not, and so there is reasonable doubt whether anything that person states as a fact actually is a fact, and reasonable doubt whether anything that person says should be taken as true when it is not corroborated by some other evidence. In a situation where a person's own account of his state of mind and actions are both important elements of the matter, and describe matters mostly un-witnessed, the old saw 'false once, false always' is a useful rule of thumb.

[onenote]

242. Again, instructing jurors they "should" disregard the entirety of a witness' testimony is outdated

The current practice is to tell jurors they can reject none, some, or all of a witness' testimony on credibility grounds. I would be shocked if the judge in the Zimmerman jury tells jurors that they "should" disregard the entirety of any witness' testimony.

[The Magistrate]

243. Fair Enough, Sir

My antiquarian bent can get the better of me sometimes.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. I'ma gonna go out on a limb here...

...and speculate that the same ones who vehemently defend the 2nd Amendment are also the ones hoping for a Zimmerman acquittal. It plays into their paranoid fantasies about scary men invading their house so they have to shoot them (erection ensues).

[NutmegYankee]

7. And you would be flat out wrong.

[Cooley Hurd]

8. How am I wrong, friend?

[NutmegYankee]

10. Because I very much want Zimmerman convicted, and I support the 2nd Amendment.

As I do all of the Bill of rights. I also own firearms, and it sure as hell ain't to make up for a phallic condition.

Nice gross stereotyping though...

[Cooley Hurd]

13. You're the exception then, not the rule.

[premium]

30. Not true,

I'm a firearms owner also and I think he committed Manslaughter, but because the, IMO, total ineptness of the prosecutor's to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, I fear that he's going to be acquitted,

[Cooley Hurd]

43. Good for you. However, you're not on trial, George Zimmerman is.

[premium]

78. True,

and I've testified in numerous criminal trials, for the prosecution and defense, to know that the prosecution is failing to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Cooley Hurd]

83. If Zimmerman walks...

I have no issue with what might follow (i.e. LA - 1991).

[ProdigalJunkMail]

88. yay... race riots for everyone! n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

89. Maybe it's warranted?

I still see Emmett Till when I see pics of Travon.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

94. because you have been sold on one thinking by the media

and your own prejudices as have people on the other side. none of you know the actual facts of what happened. none of you are sitting on the jury. and thank god for that because all of you made your decisions before the trial even started and are simply hearing what you want to hear.

do you somehow believe that riots will be good for anyone? they almost never are...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

98. An innocent black teenager is dead.

If the justice system fails him, then it's not worth a bucket of piss.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

110. aside from your preconceptions

You have little to no idea what happened. And neither do the people on the other side of the argument. But you are utterly convinced of your position.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

111. I have facts. You have hopes...

FACT: Unarmed black teenager is dead.

FACT: Unarmed black teenager is dead.

FACT: Unarmed black teenager is dead.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

115. and THAT is the only thing that matters to you

You don't need to wait for the verdict... you should go ahead and start you riot now.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

117. Facts are important.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

118. yep... and you point to one as the only one that matters

You and your prejudice are just as wrong as that on the other side of the argument...but you can't see that.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

128. A fact is a fact. As my hero Pat Moynihan said:

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

131. or to elevate one fact to the dismissal of others

But you're good at that part.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

132. That fact has not been disputed. The others have been.

Sorry, man. Facts is facts.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

138. and that is the reason for a trial

But even you choice of the word innocent has been in dispute... and yet YOUR fact is the only one that seems to matter to you, despite IT being in dispute... so not really a fact and thus the trial at hand...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

141. Trials are hardly the final arbiter of truth...

Exhibit A: OJ.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

151. but they ARE the arbiter of guilt...

and riots are not a valid response.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

153. When verdicts are wrong, damn-straight they are.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

157. nope... just wrong

riots achieve nothing but hurting innocent people and destroying property and lives of those completely uninvolved in the case at hand. they would hurt your cause rather than help it... and probably kill innocent people along the way.

so, apparently killing innocent people is only ok if it meets with YOUR ideals...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

158. So... you're against protest in general?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

163. you are supporting fucking rioting ... not the same... n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

166. I'm supporting JUSTICE. Whether meted by a government or otherwise.

[premium]

170. Rioting, with the resulting death and destruction,

is not JUSTICE!!!!!

[Cooley Hurd]

175. If you knew what "justice" was...

...this conversation would be over. You seem to think that "justice" is something determined by a bunch of yokels forced to sit in a wooden box in the middle of a courthouse somewhere.

From them, justice is rarely served. However, their desire to go home and watch Honey BooBoo, is almost always served.

[premium]

179. So what's your solution?

Do away with the jury of our justice system? What would you like to see? Something like the old Soviet justice system? Where the defendant was already judged guilty?
This is sick.

[Cooley Hurd]

184. There should be professional juries. Overseen by those who are schooled in criminal law.

...who are overseen by another layer.

"Juries of your peers" are a fallacy. Again, look at OJ.

[premium]

190. Wow, just wow!!!

So ordinary citizens shouldn't sit on juries because they might be, in your own words, yokels?
Juries of your peers mean just that, juries of ordinary citizens, as it should be.

[Cooley Hurd]

192. Yes. They don't understand law. They go by emotion.

Bad thing when it comes to justice.

WOW!

[premium]

194. That's not my experience with juries

and I've testified in numerous criminal cases, for the prosecution and defense.
Sure, sometimes juries get it wrong, but the vast majority of juries get it right.

[Cooley Hurd]

196. Okay then. In what capacity have you testified?

[premium]

201. As a Federal Law Enforcement Officer. nt.

[Cooley Hurd]

204. Gotcha.

Thank you for being honest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017129644

[premium]

211. For the record,

I've always opposed those DUI checkpoints, IMO, they're a violation of the 4th Amendment, but the SCOTUS disagrees.

[Cooley Hurd]

212. Then we have reached common ground.

[premium]

217. Which is always a good thing.

[Skittles]

236. if anyone "went by emotion"

it was ZIMMERMAN

[NutmegYankee]

199. And you have now admitted to opposing the 6th Amendment.

After the exhaustive list of opposed amendments so far tallied, perhaps I should just ask if there are any you support?

[Cooley Hurd]

202. The 6th amendment went on the assumption that juries could be "non-biased"

21st Century reality has shown otherwise.

[NutmegYankee]

205. Ah, because small villages and towns in the 18th Century were FAR better.

Nothing spreads faster than a rumor in a small town.

[Cooley Hurd]

207. ...or with Twitter, Facebook, et. al.

[NutmegYankee]

195. In other words you support vigilantism? Ironic considering what Zimmerman is accused of.

[Cooley Hurd]

198. I'm in favor of justice in the face of facts.

FACT: Trayvon Martin was unarmed.

FACT: He was walking. JUST walking.

FACT: He was confronted by someone who carried prejudices about "hoodies" or, even darker, Trayvon's "dark skin".

FACT: The unarmed person is dead.

[NutmegYankee]

203. And yet the court system and a Jury are the arbiters of fact.

You are advocating for violence and extra-judicial actions, which is coming very close to violating the TOS of DU, not to mention being quite disturbing just to read.

[Cooley Hurd]

206. I'm advocating for justice when justice is not served.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

250. nope... you're in favor of riots when you disagree with a lawfully obtained verdict

this is who you are... just go ahead and admit it. justice is only served if it is YOUR idea of justice.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

252. I am who?

[premium]

167. Peaceful protest? No,

violent protest, AKA, riots, yes. How does violent protest, AKA, riot, with the resulting death and destruction, solve anything?

[Cooley Hurd]

169. The Chinese thought that the man in front of the tank was a "riot".

[premium]

174. What does the Chinese have to do with this?

You have indicated that riots would be ok if a "wrong" verdict were rendered, riots that would result in the death of people and destruction of public/private property, I'll ask again, are you ok with that?

[Cooley Hurd]

177. You seem to have an issue with my explanation of "protest"

I showed you an example.

Am I okay with "protest"? Um... yup. Sure am.

[premium]

181. No, my problem is that you seem to indicate

that you would be ok with rioting if the "wrong" verdict is rendered. Would you be ok with rioting with the resulting death and destruction?

[Cooley Hurd]

185. The wrong verdict would be acquittal.

Unarmed teenager. Armed "neighborhood watch captain". Jeebus... we're talking a very simple concept here.

[premium]

193. Acquittal would not be the wrong verdict

if the prosecution can't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, it would most certainly be the correct verdict, that's how our justice system is supposed to work, the burden of proof is on the DA's office, not the other way around, and if the prosecutor can't prove his case, no matter if the defendant is guilty or not, then the proper verdict, by law, is not guilty.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

251. you're in favor of riots if the justice served is not YOUR idea of justice

or if it doesn't meet your prejudiced view...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

254. Did you just wake up from a nap?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

258. no... i went to a movie with my family

did you stay on DU the whole time?

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

262. Yes. Yes I did.

The whole time. Every second.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

265. given this...

i believe it...

you can laugh all you want... you're still a hypocrite and frankly, people like you are the ones who are laughable. claim that you're upset an innocent life was taken and THEN claim that you would be with the rioters should the verdict not go your way...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

267. You're easy to laugh at, junkmail...

Harumph! I went to watch a movie with my family and now I'm back, ready to personally attack anyone who doesn't agree with my idea of civility!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

269. oh no... i am not attacking you

calling you a hypocrite is stating a fact... and all you can do is laugh. you have none of your famous 'facts' to respond with.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

274. No, just another PA from a weak-minded 2nd Amendment supporter.

Y'all are just sooooo transparent.

[Cooley Hurd]

164. Protest is wrong! Follow the glorious leaders!

Here's someone who disagrees:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

165. ah now standing up to the gov't in a protest is the same as rioting...

nice false equivalency... your position is untenable...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

168. No, just your interpretation of justice.

Back into tenable territory!

[GreenStormCloud]

215. Another hero, uncelebrated, was the driver and tank commander of the lead tank.

They refused to drive over the protestor. Likely they agreed with him.

[Cooley Hurd]

216. I'm sure he wasn't promoted...

[GreenStormCloud]

220. Lucky if he avoided a work camp. N/T

[premium]

162. Really?

When verdicts are wrong, then riots, with the resulting death and destruction, are valid?
This is disgusting and vile.

[amandabeech]

233. Thanks for posting this premium.

I, too, think that the prosecutor has been inept in the portions of the case that I've seen.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard, and from what I've seen the prosecution may not have met it here. A hung jury or an acquittal would not surprise me.

Riots, in my mind, are not a valid response. Peaceful, but unhappy, protest is.

Former lawyer and clerk to a federal district judge.

Unfortunately, I cannot respond to responses because I am visiting my mother in a very small town, and the computer system at the library can barely load DU. Sorry.

[premium]

235. My pleasure. nt.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

260. ALL the facts are important...

but you only like the facts that fit your prejudice...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

280. Prejudice? The dead man was unarmed.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

282. go look up prejudice and then see where yours lies n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

285. Apparently, you need to do the same.

Was Trayvon guilty of a crime? Was he?? Why is he dead?

[NM_Birder]

257. keyboard won't reach.

[premium]

97. You would have no problem with the death and destruction that might

follow an acquittal? Wow. Just, wow.

[Cooley Hurd]

109. We're talking FACTS here...

Trayvon Martin was walking home from a convenience store carrying candy and iced tea. Zimmerman decided to harass him for an unknown reason. Hoodie? Skin color?

Trayvon is shot dead.

If he is aquitted of the MURDER of Trayvon, then I will be with the protestors. And their anger will be justified. Period.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

112. you conveniently leave out all the detail

As if none of it matters. People like you are the problem...


sP

[premium]

119. So, you're ok with the death and destruction that might follow

because of an acquittal. Thanks for the clarification.

If he's acquitted, and I believe now he will because of the ineptness of the prosecutors to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, so, blame them.

[NutmegYankee]

126. Anger would be justified, but violence against innocent people would not.

Riots have a way of harming people who in no way were involved in the incident that caused the anger, and should always be opposed.

[wercal]

221. Hold on

You've been trying to twist your words into advocating protest:

"I have no issue with what might follow (i.e. LA - 1991)."

Would you care to enlighten the group with how much blood has to be spilled (LA - 1991 style) to meet your standard of 'justice'.

BTW, I can't resist:

"We're talking FACTS here...Trayvon Martin was walking home from a convenience store carrying candy and iced tea."

Part of that statement is factually incorrect...initially mis-rported by the media. Perhaps you aren't up to speed on other elements of the case?

[Cooley Hurd]

223. "Trayvon Martin was walking home from a convenience store carrying candy and iced tea."

And, since you seem to know more than anyone else, how is that not factual?

[wercal]

225. You don't know?

I don't have any secret insider information. I've just listened to the detective testimony, read the police report, and looked at the evidence photographs.

You could too...its not as emotionally cathartic as calling for riots, though.

Here's a hint: 'iced tea'.

But back to the riots, since you didn't answer. You have called for 1991 LA style rioting. How many people have to die, to meet your standard of street justice?

[Cooley Hurd]

227. I've called for justice if justice is NOT served.

[wercal]

229. Understood

If Z is not convicted, you have called for riots.---1991 LA style. Got it.

(you might check your date next time, though).

I'm just asking how many people need to die, before you're happy. The LA riots caused 53 deaths....just wondering if that's about how many you want to die this time.

Pssst....this isn't iced tea.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5062238443798644&pid=1.7&w=249&h=122&c=7&rs=1

[ProdigalJunkMail]

248. you still using the word 'protester'

when earlier it was rioting... you're a hypocrite. make up your mind...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

249. Name calling?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

256. nope ... just facts

you conveniently switch from riot to protest when you get called on your shit...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

259. How was your nap? Did you dream of armed Zimmermans?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

261. no... i had a fun afternoon with my family

did you have a fun afternoon with your keyboard?

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

263. Yes. Yes I did.

[NutmegYankee]

277. TMI. nt

[FormalObserver]

147. How many Reginald Dennys....

do you want to see beaten if there's an acquittal?

Also, Google "LA Riots 1991"

and you might get, "Did you mean 1992?"

[Cooley Hurd]

149. Welcome to DU!

[FormalObserver]

155. Thank you

One year today.

Will you be participating in the riots? Need a new TV?

[Cooley Hurd]

156. I will support any community activity that serves as a backlash to the failure of the justice system

[ProdigalJunkMail]

161. 58 people died as a direct result of the LA Riots and that was OK with you?

NONE ZERO ZIP ZILCH... not ONE of them had anything to do with the verdict. they were INNOCENT. but that's ok with you.

i thought you were worried about innocent life... now i see you are full of shit.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

186. If the courts did their job correctly...

...none of that would've happened. Keep the faith in our corrupt "justice" system!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

253. so, you're still ok with innocent people dying...

got it. you're a hypocrite...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

255. Wakey wakey, junkmail...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

264. to bad you missed the movie...

and what would it matter if i did take a nap? nice rainy day for it...

but you're just interested in shrugging off the fact that you think killing innocent people in riots is ok if YOU don't like a verdict.

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

266. After that family-fun-filled movie...

...did you come home and pop some corn?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

268. no... disappointed to find you

backing off from your support of rioting. guess you aren't the badass you purport to be. the internet does that to people though. good luck with your rioting if the verdict doesn't go your way. i hope you're not one of the innocent people that get killed in those sorts of things... but, it would be ok with you if you got killed. and other people too...

goodnight...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

271. If Zim skates, the LAW-ABIDING community will have EVERY reason to RIOT!

Because the LAW (snarf) FAILED Travon Martin.

Cling to your gun, Bucko...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

273. i own no firearms...

just goes to show what the internet does for you... assumptions galore. the good news is i don't have to assume about you... you made it very very clear...

sP

[Cooley Hurd]

278. Your "assumptions" remind me of a great scene from "The Odd Couple"

..except, you've made an ass only of yourself.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

281. ok... i have no more time to play on the intertubes with hypocrites

who just can't admit that they are just that. it is like talking to a wall. sorry, you got called on your shit about supporting riots and then backed off and hid behind the term 'protest' when your hypocrisy was pointed out.

all you have is a video...

sP

[wercal]

279. Well at least you're not backing off of this anymore

Let me get this clear:

You want to have 1992 LA Style riots.

Where 53 people died.

You still haven't answered the question: Will 53 corpses satisfy you? Too many/not enough? How big of a riot are you demanding?

[Cooley Hurd]

283. Is Trayvon's corpse NOT enough for you???

That's my answer, Werc. Is he just "collateral damage" in the defense of the 2nd Amendment?

You sicken me.

[wercal]

294. Oh no...no...no

You aren't turning this around on me.

You are calling for RIOTS.

What do you want to accomplish with these riots?

What death toll will be enough to satisfy your blood lust for 'justice'?

I sicken you? Because I'm a little bit squeamish about several dozen dead bodies from your pet project riot?

Answer the question - how many dead are enough for you? Don't call me names.

[Cooley Hurd]

295. I called you a name?

[Duckwraps]

228. Including those that may cause death and destruction?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

270. he... that's pretty good n/t

[wercal]

230. LA Riots killed 53 people

Absent an answer from Cooley....I'd say 53 is about what he was thinking.

[ellisonz]

171. That won't happen.

Police forces are far more militarized today than in riots of the past.

[Cooley Hurd]

180. ...and that might be the modern Boston Massacre.

Crispus Attucks is still in my thoughts.

[ellisonz]

187. ...and zombie Paul Revere might rise from the dead

...and proclaim Sarah Palin the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

[Cooley Hurd]

191. Wow... you don't know Mr Revere, do you...

He would scoff at Palin.

You're the 2nd DUer that has attempted to equate me to Palin in as many days.

[ellisonz]

197. Hey as long as we're dealing with hypotheticals...

...why not take reality out for a spin?

And I did not equate you with Sarah Palin, I suggested a preposterous hypothetical similar to your presumptuous statement that there will be race riots like those that followed the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King if Zimmerman is not convicted and that this would somehow be as galvanizing as the Boston Massacre.

[Cooley Hurd]

200. It should be.

[onenote]

244. Were there riots immediately following the acquittal of 6 of the 8 soldiers that fired on civilians

in the Boston Massacre? I missed that in my history books.

[NutmegYankee]

189. Actually, that could make it worse.

Nothing like trigger happy cops with machine guns and very emotional violent crowds combined in one place. I'm concerned that another poster appears to be condoning such a showdown.

[ellisonz]

210. This is America.

The police will not put up with nonsense like the much more recent London riots (if we're looking for comparisons). It will be over real quick. I am also concerned that the other poster seems to think rioting is an acceptable response to injustice.

[NutmegYankee]

213. Understood.

I just fear that emotion could overwhelm reason to result in a very tragic outcome. I remain hopeful that Zimmerman will be found guilty of some appropriate charge.

[GreenStormCloud]

219. A modern race riot would be very different from 21 years ago.

People have long since noticed that the Koreans who used guns to defend their stores did not suffer severe losses from the rioters. In the last 21 years about 75 million new guns have been sold in the U.S. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf

Citizens are unlikely to be passive about allowing their property to be burned, and themselves to be beaten.

[WovenGems]

121. Even if

the prosecution has not proven a thing the jury can still convict. Right?

[premium]

123. They could,

but it would most likely be overturned on appeal.

[WovenGems]

125. Nope

There would have to be more than opinion to be grounds for appeal.

[premium]

127. Wrong,

if the lawyers could prove to an appellate court that the jury convicted despite the lack of evidence, then the verdict would most likely be overturned and a new trial ordered.

[The Magistrate]

218. Yes And No, Ma'am

Overturning a conviction for lack of evidence is possible. Sometimes this will come about because something is subsequently ruled inadmissible, and that something was essential to the prosecutor's case. That is unlikely in this trial. The other usual ground is a showing the state had no evidence for an element of the charge, that it had no evidence the crime that was charged was even committed. A person could be charged with, say, receiving and selling stolen goods, and convicted of both, even though the state never produced evidence a sale occurred, even if it produced plenty of evidence stolen goods were purchased. Things like this do happen on occasion, and an appeal would likely strike down the selling charge. In this case, the state has produced evidence for all elements of the charge, and if the jury finds it proof beyond reasonable doubt, there would be no grounds for appeal citing insufficient evidence for conviction.

[Duckwraps]

129. Not true

[Lurks Often]

18. Why is it the anti gun people are the only ones equating firearms with sex?

If you really feel that way you might want to seek professional help.

[Cooley Hurd]

21. If you own and covet a gun...

...perhaps you're the one in need of speaking to a shrink.

[Lurks Often]

24. Along with about 100 million other Americans n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

40. Yep. That's why the 2nd Amendment is under review...

...because 100 million Americans have failed to police their ranks and have allowed assholes like Nancy Lanza and James Holmes to own firearms.

[Lurks Often]

62. Yes and most of the court cases are clear wins for the gun owners n/t

[NutmegYankee]

66. Blaming gun owners for Holmes and Lanza is like blaming Protestors (using the 1st) for Fred Phelps.

Nice attempt at guilt by association though.

[Cooley Hurd]

81. You, as a gun owner, should be RAILING against the NRA and others for fucking up the 2nd Amendment

YOU, as a gun owner, should understand that the tack pro-gun organizations like the NRA have taken have lead you down a garden path of "slippery slopes" to make it EASY for Lanza and Holmes to procure firearms.

I understand the 2nd amendment. However, I DON'T understand the purists who defend it per the letter.

[NutmegYankee]

101. So you don't understand why people defend a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

Here's a thought, I defend it just like I defend the 1st, or the 4th, or the 5th, or very much so the 9th, which I consider the basis for the Right to privacy to keep Abortion safe and legal without restriction.

I understand that you HATE us for exercising this right. So much so that you resorted to a juvenile insult about the vascular mechanics of the phallus in the start of this sub thread. Charming... The right to own firearms is just that, a right to own an object. The shootings and deaths on the streets are the result of societal ills, like poverty, desperation, and a lack of justice. I know our society is ill, I watch it tear itself apart as we speak. But instead of joining forces to end the disparity of wealth, to end the crushing blows the poor suffer day to day, you turned your sights on me. And the Republicans laugh as you destroy your own.

[Hoyt]

154. You have the right to carry a confederate flag or wear a swastika, but

we/I have the right to consider that against norms.

[NutmegYankee]

160. Ah, Mr. Hoyt, the arbiter of the Norm.

Aren't we glad that such affairs are in your unbiased hands...

[Hoyt]

172. So you approve of confederate flags, etc. Rights don't have to be exercised.

[NutmegYankee]

183. I will refer back to the quote usually attributed to François-Marie Arouet

Otherwise known as Voltaire,
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Rights apply to all, whether I find them tasteful or not. And nice use of Sophistry in accusing me of approving of the confederate flag! I do ask which one though, as only the battle flag is associated with racial hate, while the others are flown over the Confederate dead at battlefields throughout the country. Not my thing as my family fought for the Union, but amusing nonetheless that you make such a baseless accusation.

[premium]

272. Meh,

baseless accusations are his forte.

[backwoodsbob]

77. the 2nd is under review?cool

can you give a link to the pertinent government authority reviewing the 2nd amendment to our constitution?

[Cooley Hurd]

106. Certainly not by the government - which should be happening...

...but by CITIZENS fed up with the inaction of the government.

[premium]

102. The 2nd Amendment is under review?

Since when? Can you provide a links to your claim?

[Cooley Hurd]

108. The last 7 months, since Sandy Hook...

Google is easy. Here's a link:
http://www.google.com/

[premium]

114. You supply a link to the google search engine as evidence"

Here's how it works, you made the claim that the 2A is under review, you are supposed to provide the proof, so, do you have any links that the 2A is under review?

[dkf]

130. The 4th is apparently under review too...unbeknownst to we the people.

Along with the 1st.

That's just great.

[NutmegYankee]

133. No Kidding!

[Cooley Hurd]

134. The 4th and the 1st haven't lead to mass killings.

The 2nd, however...

[dkf]

136. Well there are citizens who have been targeted with drones.

We don't know what we don't know.

[NutmegYankee]

137. The 1st has led to many mass killings.

Speeches have led many a mob to go forth and massacre innocent people. Horrible slaughters like the Tulsa race riot.

As for the 4th, we keep hearing that it has to be suspended to prevent a mass murder. You know, safety...

[uppityperson]

68. Maybe only out loud. eom

[Honeycombe8]

42. I haven't seen anyone hoping for an acquittal. There have been a lot of posters expressing his guilt

though, from the very start, before even any evidence came out. Just the fact that he was supposedly white, had a gun, the defend your ground law in FL, and that the decedent was black, was all they needed to know. He should be given the death penalty, some said.

OTOH, all I've seen on the other side (myself included) is to point out evidence, including evidence that supports GZ's version. That doesn't mean GZ is not guilty of 2nd degree murder. But some people don't like evidence pointed out when it doesn't fit in with their "he's guilty" verdict.

One poster even said that it's not true that GZ is an accused. He's obviously guilty because he admitted shooting TM. The poster obviously not understanding what GZ is on trial for.

I've read one...just one...post that said that there wasn't evidence to convict GZ of 2nd degree murder. What I have said is that it's too soon to say...all the evidence isn't in....but a good bit of the evidence does tend to support GZ's version. Not all of it, though. And we're all aware that the person who could give the opposing version is dead.

It's not a slam dunk case, either way. And some people don't like that.

[Cooley Hurd]

47. An unarmed person walking home from a convenience store...

...is harrassed and then shot. How is this NOT slam-dunk???

[kestrel91316]

70. [phone]

[Honeycombe8]

82. Look at the evidence. Key point: Did TM attack GZ? If so, not a slam dunk.

The jury could find that TM was the aggressor and caused the incident. But even so, the jury could also find that GZ responding with a gun was too much and was criminal.

Some posters don't understand the law and evidence, as well as what needs to be proven to get a guilty verdict.

Also...was TM "walking home" at the time TM approached GZ? TM could have gone on his way home, but he did not. He chose to approach GZ (there are 2 pieces of evidence that say that). So he wasn't clearly "on his way home" AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.

Also, what makes you think that someone following you is "harassment" under the law?

This is legal stuff, not the gut feeling you're talking about. And thank goodness. Murder must be proven by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is made up of bits and pieces, and very specific points must be proven, under the law.

[Cooley Hurd]

87. Who fucking started it???

The kid who is trying to get home, or the asshole seeing the color of his skin and deems it necessary to fuck with him?

[Honeycombe8]

92. "Who f____ing started it" is not an element of 2nd degree murder in Florida.

Also, projecting racism onto GZ, when so far there's no evidence of that, is racist in and of itself.

[Cooley Hurd]

95. Who FUCKING started it?

Trayvon was walking home. As I have done. As you have likely done. I'm white, and survived the experience.

Oh, and FUCKING isn't a banned word on DU. Fuck, fuck, fuckity fuck. *cough* fuck.

[Honeycombe8]

214. Read up on the elements of the law that are needed to be proven in the case.

Is it relevant that GZ was legally following TM and called 911? Is it relevant that GZ was legally carrying a gun?

What is relevant is....who started the fight. GZ says it was TM who started the fight.

Who f____ started the fight IS relevant. The jury will decide that. So far, there is no evidence that GZ did. But that doesn't mean the jury has to accept his version. The jurors may decide that it is more likely that GZ struck the first blow, or that responding to a first blow by TM didn't warrant pulling out his gun.

If someone keeps ringing my doorbell, harrassing me, irritating me, "starting" something...that doesn't give me a right to open the door and shoot him dead. Doesn't matter that the doorbell ringer "started" it. That is the law, as I understand it.

If these were two women, this incident probably wouldn't have ended in injury or death. It's the testosterone, I've read. It makes people more aggressive.

[Hoyt]

79. +1. They suppport Zimmy for several reasons, including they acquired their weapons and permits

because they fear minorities (their bogeymen). They know that they could easily be in Zimmerman's position when they strap a gun or two on to venture out, and want self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws defined quite broadly.

The blood-thirsty NRA and similar organizations have bribed legislators to expand these type laws to protect the gun nuts (who scarf up most of the guns).

[Honeycombe8]

86. That's a racist thing to say. nt

[yardwork]

99. How so?

Stating that it's obvious that Zimmerman supporters fear minorities is not a racist statement. It's pointing out obvious racism.

Is it racist to note that the Ku Klux Klan hate and fear minorities?

[Honeycombe8]

116. You only state that because of GZ's race...you state that based on some preconceived idea you

have about non-blacks. If GZ were black, you wouldn't state that. Therefore, it's racist. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in this case that GZ called 911 because of TM's race (when he knew TM's race is unclear, even) or has any prejudice or a hatred of blacks (when you say minorities, you mean black, I assume, since GZ himself is a minority). In fact, he referred to the guys burglarizing his neighborhood as punks, which is not a term referring to race at all. It's been used for many decades & often referred to white young males.

The KKK has in its STATED PLATFORM racism. So it's not racist to state that the KKK is a racist org. That's a matter or public record. (Although they do not state they have "fear" of minorities.)

I'd go along with him calling 911 because TM appeared MALE, though. Would he have called 911 if TM seemed female? Can't say.

Also, TM referred to GZ with a racial slur twice, and cussed with it. So is that evidence that TM was racist and acted accordingly? If GZ had used a racial slur even once, would you say that proves he is racist?

Just sayin' to go by proof and not preconceived ideas or generalizations. GZ was many things, we know...a bully, out of control, someone with issues, etc. But really, there is no proof that he is a racist or targeted TM because of race.

[yardwork]

124. The subject is Zimmerman supporters.

Check my post above. Says nothing about Zimmerman.

In other posts I've noted that Zimmerman may not have known that Martin was black. He could have profiled him on the basis of young male with hoodie.

[Hoyt]

135. Do you honestly think Martin would have grabbed his gun and taken off after a skinny white kid?

And, when a white guy is stalking you with a gun, "creepy cracker" is an apt description.

[Honeycombe8]

159. So it's okay to call a white a derogatory term under certain circumstances, but not okay

to call a black person a derogatory term under certain circumstances.

You're trying to explain away a racial slur...but only because it's by a black against a white.

Just pointing out that racism exists among all the races, and that people sometimes think or say racist things w/o realizing it's racist. To them, it's "truth" or said in anger or not said seriously.

I cannot read GZ's mind, now or back then. And neither can you. Fact: He called 911 at a time when, as far as the evidence shows, GZ did not know TM's race.

As for whether I would guess whether GZ would've followed a white "punk," yes, I do. He thought the guy was acting suspiciously (and he told 911 WHY he thought so)...and none of it had to do with race. He never mentioned race and wasn't asked about it at that time.

But neither you nor I know for sure what would have happened if it were people other than GZ and TM in that situation. We also can't read either of their minds. We have to go by evidence. There is no evidence that GZ is now or was then racist or called 911 because he thought TM was black.

[The Magistrate]

224. How Do Us White Folks Manage To Bear Up, Ma'am, Under All This Oppression?

No one suffers more from racism than white people....

[Skittles]

122. of course it is the gun humpers

in their tiny pinheads, fear and ignorance trumps all

[NutmegYankee]

140. And yet the sub-thread above contradicts that premise. nt

[Skittles]

144. but by your own description, you are not a gun humper

there's a difference between gun owners and gun humpers

[NutmegYankee]

146. Given the extreme levels of hate, what is the difference?

So many seem to make no distinction at all.

[Skittles]

150. those whose fear and ignorance trumps all

trumps, for example, the right for a teenager to walk a public street minding his own business without being confronted by a gun-toting vigilante

[NutmegYankee]

176. Unfortunately, it appears that many posters are a bit more broad in scope

Generally, a gun owner is going to defend the Second Amendment, lest he/she no longer be an owner of such objects. This is really no different than defending the First, with fear that you would lose those rights without vigorous defense (another belief of mine, I'm an ACLU member). The post that started this sub-thread, #3, was not very narrow in it's scope nor on it's juvenile insult of genitalia. When I see posts like that, I believe that they should be countered, for people often come to apply such contempt to the whole population of gun owners. It sucks that I need to spend energy on that at all, as the right is wasting no time in attacking the other rights. I fear that our brethren in Texas will lose on the second round to defend their freedom of choice. One of many fights we have lost sight of lately.

[Skittles]

245. I suspect those folk have never been around guns

my grandparents were farmers and I was in the military so guns are not, er, "foreign" to me.....but misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment is a HUGE problem

[NutmegYankee]

247. Interpretation is the debate.

Those who do not want guns are prone to interpret it in a manner that allows then to remove guns from people. I interpret is as one would have in the 18th Century. The country (security of a free state) needed citizens with knowledge of firearms (well regulated) who could be called up to defend the country if needed (militias) as the US was opposed to standing armies at the time. To ensure it was common knowledge, the people were guaranteed the right to own firearms, which were often tightly controlled in other nations of the time period.

Things have changed since then with standing armies, but the right to own firearms has been with us all this time. Restrictions have been allowed by the SCOTUS (based on 5th amendment due process for removal of said right), and some laws like background checks are not an impediment to ownership, only targeting those who have had it removed by due process. But other laws seem more like a poll tax in scope; a punishment to those who have the audacity to exercise their rights to own firearms. I will always vehemently oppose those types of laws.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. DU is infested with "experts" on every topic you could imagine...

and the further they are from the subject, the more they seem to know about it.

Best not to click on those threads and just wait for the jury.

[WinkyDink]

48. And you know all posters' experience, education, and knowledge, how?

[Laurian]

5. I agree. I cannot watch the trial,

I find it too upsetting. I do look at threads here to try to get some sense of what's going on, but even that becomes too stressful and I have to back away. I can only hope for the best and a verdict that will send a clear message that Zimmerman's actions that night were unwarranted and criminal.

Hang in there.

[treestar]

9. Amazing how certain people are willing to be about their opinions

The jury convicts Zimmerman and they have to lay low.

Also don't like the idea that it's lawyer performance alone that determines trial results - that is very cynical and unflattering to jurors. Whoever gets assigned a high profile case will have a lot of experience and I would not question their judgment that much, not having that experience myself.

[backwoodsbob]

38. lets make a bet treestar

Z is up for murder2.

If he is convicted of murder2 i'll never post on DU again.
If he isn't you leave forever.

Deal?

[treestar]

72. I do not deserve that

For that matter, neither do you. If Zimmerman does not walk, you might look weird being so certain now, that is all I said.

You'll have to backpeddle or blame the prosecutor.

[dembotoz]

11. lets just be happy they are not all on the federal payroll or our taxes would go up

[WinkyDink]

50. Har-de-har-HAR. Taxes might go up! Gee, what Party usually screams about taxes?

[AgingAmerican]

12. Welcome to the internet

Enjoy your stay!!

[CatWoman]

17. whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

considering the source, i'm not even going to alert.

I can call myself stupid, but i don't have to take that shit from a POS.

[Logical]

27. LOL, I just agreed with you. That bothers you? Alert it. Let the jury decide.

[Logical]

37. Ahh...more whining about the DU. And you hurt my feelings calling me a POS. I am sad now! n-t

[Sheldon Cooper]

57. Aaaaand the jury has decided...

you are off the island!

[demwing]

58. The jury decided. You lose.

Thank you for daring someone to alert your post. All the encouragement I needed...


At Fri Jul 5, 2013, 12:01 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Ahhhh....whining about the DU. I guess "discussion board" is hard for you to understand. I agree....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3175506

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Called the OP stupid then, in the next post, dared someone to alert.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jul 5, 2013, 12:04 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Thank you.

[Cooley Hurd]

51. You didn't have to. I did...

[NM_Birder]

284. Odd, that you desire a jury of your peers to judge somebody speech.

you pretty mush trashed the idea up-thread.

[Cooley Hurd]

286. Hi!

No idea what you mean, but welcome to DU!

[NM_Birder]

287. Thanks !

So far I'm just observing more than anything.

I might be mistaken, I thought I read your post up-thread about juries and how a professional jury system is preferable to jury of peers ?

Why not just let the moderators judge ? If it wasn't you that said that, my apologies.

[Cooley Hurd]

289. Cat Woman didn't shoot anyone, nor did the responent to her OP.

Apples, meet pineapples.

[NM_Birder]

292. Not sure "I" know what you mean there, the jury comments were yours.

Your only concern is that Zimmerman be found guilty of killing an unarmed Martin, without taking into account anything that happens in-between. And were advocating a riot in the streets, if a guilty verdict isn't rendered.

I don't think there is any justification for Zimmerman to have shot Martin, I think we all agree on that. But, I hoped there would have been a solid progression of facts, but what I've seen is a remarkably lame performance by the prosecution.

I don't advocate a riot that will result in innocent people being harmed, property damage, loss of revenue etc etc etc...because the state is presenting a weak case, when it appeared there was no room for reasonable doubt. I don't think Zimmerman will be acquitted because of a bad jury decision, it will be because of a bad prosecution of the case. The prosecution has fallen just short of TELLING the jury there is reasonable doubt,...in my opinion.

[Cooley Hurd]

293. My concern is that justice is served.

My fear is that it will not. This is, after all, the land of OJ.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. You won...Logical's poison missive was hidden.

.

[Skittles]

143. "Logical"

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. it is NOT discussing...

it is essentially the mode of 'discussion' where everyone is an idiot except YOU (the poster giving his/her 'slam dunk' evidence) and you* are willing to tell them so because YOU* have figured it all out and there might as well not be a trial nor should there be any additional 'discussion' because everyone else is just plain wrong...

sP

*this YOU is not about Logical... (for clarity's sake)

[Logical]

29. LOL, where did I say there should not be a trial. And I said I bet he gets off. You know....

you can ignore posters or posts you do not like. But I guess whining is more fun for you?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. not you... YOU

perhaps you could re read the post and see that YOU in the context (and hell, even spelled out) was not directed at Logical...

sP

[Honeycombe8]

56. If the jury finds "not guilty," he won't be "getting off." He'll be declared not guilty....

of 2nd degree murder.

I wonder if the jury will have a lesser charge to consider? An all or nothing verdict will be tough for the jury. Still, they may well be able to settle the issue.

[demwing]

74. The lesser charge of Manslaughter is included in all FL 2nd Degree Murder charges by default /nt

[Honeycombe8]

96. Ah. I see. If I had to guess NOW, that'd be my guess of the way the evidence is shaping up.

But we out here are not like the jury, who has the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses in person, they hear it ALL, and they will be able to examine it closely and discuss it later. If they do that (some juries nullify & disregard the evidence).

It's good they'll have an alternative, just in case they can't agree on the 2nd degree charge.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

63. oh, damn, looks like someone got your rudeness hidden

and now you can't come back and respond ... but it would likely just be more rudeness so maybe that's a good thing.

have fun in the other threads today...

sP

[demwing]

65. You could also just stop being rude and calling people "stupid"

but that requires some self control.

[WinkyDink]

54. Awww, so sad.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

60. thank you for your contribution

it says all anyone needs to know about you...

sP

[WinkyDink]

80. I can't believe how many grown-ups are griping about posting styles re: this trial. But hey:

judge me. Your prerogative. But then go re-read your own words about "slam-dunk" pronouncements.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

85. i judged you on the content of your contribution

you don't like it... so be it.

sP

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. yep... everyone KNOWS that their 'slam dunk'

bit of evidence is the one that just PROVES he is either guilty or not... comical, but i have to admit, i have been sucked into them too.

sP

[MineralMan]

16. I've been passing over all of those threads.

I'm waiting for the jury verdict, and will read that when it happens.

I actively dislike threads about active cases. I'm not there, and I'll wait for the verdict.

[WinkyDink]

39. Whatever. But there is NOTHING SUPERIOR about that approach.

[MineralMan]

45. Did I say there was? I just don't follow

speculative threads about subjects that will have a clear endpoint. Others do as they please.

[WinkyDink]

59. In the context of an affirmative reply to the OP, it is implied.

[MineralMan]

69. Not really. You inferred it. I didn't imply it.

There is a difference between the two words.

[pipi_k]

100. I didn't

see it that way, to be honest.

But then, I don't have an issue with MM, so I'm not prone to seeing that sort of thing from him.

[The Straight Story]

19. Not nearly as many as there are armchair presidents (nt)

[Phentex]

22. ...

This made me LOL!

[CatWoman]

23. that's the second time someone has made me spit water all over my monitor

in the past 15 minutes. i'm going to need a new one.

soon.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. good one

[tallahasseedem]

276. +1

And a heck of a lot more if I could!

Well played!

[WinkyDink]

31. So it's your position that one must not discuss any trial as it is occurring?

[CatWoman]

34. I never said that

[WinkyDink]

41. Then exactly what DOES your pejorative term mean?

[CatWoman]

49. I said I've never seen so many armchair prosecutors

not once did I say there should be no discussion about the trial.

AGAIN:

I said I've never seen so many armchair prosecutors.

Not ONCE did I say there should be no discussion about the trial.

[WinkyDink]

76. Well, there is a leetle descriptive term you've nicely omitted. So:

If I said, "I've never seen so many G**d**n defenders of a murderer," you would draw no inferences from that, re: my opinion on discussions?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. one must not discuss any subject unless they hold at least a masters in it

and have 25 years experience in it. Let's keep the discussion focused on our strengths--not what we happen to be interested in.

[Deep13]

33. Asst. Prosecuting Atty., criminal appellate division, Ohio 2003-2011. nt

[Just Saying]

44. Ah who are you kidding!

You're enjoying the discussion.

I don't see anything wrong with discussing this case which I think is an important one. Not only does it shine a light on the still very prevalent racism in America but also shines one very brightly on these SYG and self defense laws that are basically making murder legal.

I'm hoping that whatever the outcome Americans continue to discuss how much power armed citizens should or shouldn't have.

[CatWoman]

55. I am enjoying the discussion

however, some people should stop trying to channel their inner Hamilton Burgers.

Besides - he lost all his cases, didn't he?

Wait!!! I think Perry did let him win. Once.

[Just Saying]

71. Lol

It's human nature.

I'm a big football fan and everyone in Cleveland thinks they could run, coach or quarterback our team better. Of course in the Browns case it may be true!

[malaise]

46. LOL

I avoid most of them

[LanternWaste]

64. Defense lawyers too...

Defense lawyers too And what they may lack in numbers, they certainly more than make up for with pretending to be disinterested, objective, and patient for all the fact to come out.

[Just Saying]

93. This ^^^

They won't even admit to it which makes their credibility, like the accused's, sketchy at best.

[pipi_k]

75. It's like

a train wreck.

We try not to look, but can't help it.

Anyway, yeah...armchair prosecutors who just KNOW things that haven't been presented as actual facts.

Armchair finger-pointers who insist that racism is involved, from cops right through to the defense attorneys, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is also a racist.


People who sound like they were right there when the whole thing happened.

bleh

[WinkyDink]

84. Where is there a post calling the cops and defense attorneys racist?

[pipi_k]

113. I've seen a couple.

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not the type to save things to prove my point at some later time, so I'm sorry I can't provide evidence.

I've even seen at least one post in the past day or two where someone said that if Zimmerman walks, it's because the jury is either stupid or racist. If I happen to run into it, and if I remember, I'll be sure to post a link to it here.

And I'll even go so far as to say that I firmly believe if Zimmerman does walk, there will be more than one post (or even OP) accusing the nearly all-white jury of being racists.

Oh, and I do recall that when Rachel Jeantel was on the stand, someone stated (again, can't remember who) that the reason she was kept on the stand so long and questioned so aggressively by the defense was because...

drum roll...

she's black.


Edit: It didn't take long...a post accusing fellow DUers who support Zimmerman of being racists...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023175292#post208

There will be more, I have no doubt of that

[Duckwraps]

91. Sadly I must state

my amazement, as a newbe, at the lack of power to reason of some here. It appears that if they have no argument or fact to present they resort to name calling which says a lot about them.

[HangOnKids]

148. Your Posts Say A LOT About You

Could it be that you have no arguments or facts that anyone considers worth debating?

[Duckwraps]

173. Naaa.

My posts are always thought provoking and "debatable." At least in my very humble opinion.

[HangOnKids]

178. Stuff Your Beer Cheer

Not into you. Later Fishwraps.

[Duckwraps]

222. What? I don't understand what you mean, please explain.

[Pab Sungenis]

103. Which ones?

The ones who are convicting Zimmerman? Exonerating Zimmerman? Convicting Snowden? Impeaching Obama?

We've got millions of different armchair lawyers here.

[Duckwraps]

145. I think that that

may have been CatWomen's intent. Brilliant.

[Pab Sungenis]

239. Kind of figured.

But with all the unfocused outrage here lately, who can tell?

[Duckwraps]

240. Yes I am new here and the outrage on the part of some has really amazed me.

Earlier today 5 or 6 of us were having a good, spirited discussion on some of the principles of law in the Zimmerman case. Then this member jumped in an instead of adding to the discussion began calling everyone names. I asked why he was so bitter and then I got attacked by some others trying to defend him. I hope this is unusal here on DU?

[premium]

105. OMFG!!!!!

This guy is a fucking disaster for the prosecution!!!!!

[avebury]

209. I actually like the guy.

He refuses to make definitive comments were he can't. He expressed the fact that opinions are not locked in concrete buy evolve based upon new information and experience, and he also explained to Knock Knock the definition of the word opinion. This guy is not going to be led down the garden path by anyone.

[elleng]

107. I've avoided them,

but also haven't seen much of the trial. We DO opine here on DU, don't we?

[Skittles]

120. you want I should kick some armchair prosecutor ass, girl???

LEMME AT THEM!!!

[Duer 157099]

139. Your Honor

I object. Speculation that an armchair is involved.

[Orsino]

142. Or armchair quarterbacks, politicians, scientists, critics or anything else.

Welcome to the Internet!

[alcibiades_mystery]

152. ROFL

[Marrah_G]

182. Oh, there you go, now you got SKittles all riled up!!!!!!!!!!

[Cooley Hurd]

188. .

God Bless Skittles!!!! (okay, I'm a humanist so I don't believe in "God"

[Skittles]

237. you want I should kick your blessing humanist ass, Cooley Hurd?

I'D DO THAT FOR YOU MY SWEET

[Rex]

208. They are rooting for Zimmerman to get off free of charge.

I agree, some of them are revolting. I also think some of them are just doing this to stir the shit pot...which they seem good at for just about any topic.

Then there is the other reason, some of them are racist and you are seeing that racism come out in their defense of Zim.

[Just Saying]

291. They're not all racists

Some are gun nuts!

Although I can't for the life of me figure out why they'd want Zimmerman as their poster boy. He's everything that's wrong with concealed carry IMO.

[DrewFlorida]

231. 2 things we know regardless of the outcome of the trial.

#1 O J Simpson is a murderer and guilty of a double murder.

#2 George Zimmerman stalked and murdered Trayvon Martin who was forced to stand his ground and fight for his life.

A not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not a finding of innocence, and general sensibility and logic tells us what really happened regardless of the legal findings.

[Major Hogwash]

234. It does seem to be the same people thread by thread.

You've got a keen eye.

[Corruption Inc]

238. TV creates them by focusing on emotional things like trials

TV/media people present limited pieces of information to try to get an emotional rather than a rational response from viewers.

It's called propaganda.

[Myrina]

246. Yeah, imagine people on a discussion board having opinions!!

How dare they?!?

[Apophis]

275. It's obvious Zimmerman murdered TM and lied about it.

I hope he gets the chair.

It's amazing that so many are claiming he's innocenct here.

[Cooley Hurd]

288. I am against the death penalty. In all circumstances.

I hope that he receives an appropriate punishment for his crime. If he walks, I cannot fault the community for taking matters in their own hands.

[Apophis]

296. Touché.

[premium]

290. Gets the chair?

The DP isn't even an issue in this trial. Who here is claiming he's innocent, he killed Trayvon, that's established, the question is whether it was self defense or 2nd Murder.