General Discussion

John2

(2,730 posts)

197. I'm not sure those jurors

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 06:22 PM

Jun 2013

will deliver a fair verdict because even that is stacked.

I'm one of the people you can accuse of finding Zimmerman guilty before the Trial because the facts known was enough for me. The facts are:

I have no doubts Zimmerman killed an innocent person just going to the store and on his way home. Zimmerman called him suspicious, but I don't call that suspicious. Martin was committing no crime. Zimmerman was the initial aggressor is a fact and he followed Martin at first is a fact. So he has some fault in what happened afterwards. He is not void of it according to the Self Defense definition.

Zimmerman did not use all means to not confront Martin or get away from him. If he is going to claim Martin was beating him to Death, then Zimmerman did not use all means available to escape, before using Deadly force. He is pointing outwounds Martin might have given him, but strangely Zimmerman shows no wounds given to Martin, indicating he tried to fight back. If so, that is not using all means to escape. I simply don't believe Zimmerman's storyand I don't believe Mr Good either.

Mr Good is alluding that he saw Zimmerman getting beat to death by martin and that he didn't make any attempts to save Zimmerman's life while he was calling for help. Mr Good can be all robotic as he want in his answers, but I find his story unbelievable, especially in the Dark when all the other witnesses couldn't see anything he saw.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

398 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What kind of person would think that Zimmerman had the right to... [View all] MrScorpio Jun 2013 OP

Zimmerman is H2O Man Jun 2013 #1

Zimmerman is Wolf Frankula Jun 2013 #74

And he was timdog44 Jun 2013 #158

+1,000 malaise Jun 2013 #105

Zimmerman is: NYC_SKP Jun 2013 #2

+1000 smirkymonkey Jun 2013 #133

It seems so fucking obvious - I hope the jury can figure it out! AAO Jun 2013 #253

Even when armed, you have a right to talk to people in public Recursion Jun 2013 #3

You have a right to talk to people in public? burnodo Jun 2013 #5

Um... seriously? What amendment covers speech? (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #14

ludicrous burnodo Jun 2013 #18

You can talk to anyone you like on a public street... Pelican Jun 2013 #20

Yes, so what's your point? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #25

Follow the thread... Pelican Jun 2013 #32

It was a dark and stormy night.... SCVDem Jun 2013 #37

Absolutely! n/t marew Jun 2013 #49

Why didn't Zimmerman ask Martin a question while on the phone with csziggy Jun 2013 #224

"... no "punk" would be stupid enough to attack someone with a phone to their ear." oldhippie Jun 2013 #346

Z was NOT told to stay in his truck. GreenStormCloud Jun 2013 #387

You have no right to detain anyone going about their business, either. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #237

keep heaven05 Jun 2013 #271

It seems like there is enough emotion to keep this going until the sun burns out... Pelican Jun 2013 #272

yeah heaven05 Jun 2013 #273

So.. to sum up your post... Pelican Jun 2013 #285

ok heaven05 Jun 2013 #290

My favorite part of this whole thing... Pelican Jun 2013 #291

We aren't talking about a "Good afternoon" here. It's GD CREEPY to be approached AT NIGHT by a WinkyDink Jun 2013 #44

And don't forget this was a 17-year old minor being stalked by a grown man and a stranger. cheapdate Jun 2013 #219

Exactly. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #280

15 going on 16 years old. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #396

What Kind of Person? liberalmike27 Jun 2013 #51

Well said JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #80

The defense is not using the "stand your ground" approach. xtraxritical Jun 2013 #202

When a defense has to rely on strategic lawyering ingenuity, that says something about their case. pacalo Jun 2013 #240

Nope JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #265

Your second paragraph puts it well treestar Jun 2013 #242

Amen Threedifferentones Jun 2013 #269

.. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #178

kewl! burnodo Jun 2013 #236

You are so in denial. FarPoint Jun 2013 #209

Do you have a right to follow them around and intimidate them? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2013 #8

Follow? Yes. intimidate? no (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #16

Most people would feel intimidated if they were followed; especially at night and by a stranger DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2013 #24

A right to follow? burnodo Jun 2013 #28

Perden me iggerance here, but Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #161

Legally? I don't know. Do you? Recursion Jun 2013 #164

Actually, I don't know, but I imagine the FL statutes are online. Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #165

A lot of truly dickish behavior is entirely legal and doesn't (legally) justify violence Recursion Jun 2013 #167

And only one had a gun Progressive dog Jun 2013 #207

Except only one created the scenario in which the other got killed. cui bono Jun 2013 #227

Zimmerman did not want Trayvon to go away hfojvt Jun 2013 #255

Really? locdlib Jun 2013 #270

I think "following" someone who's pretty obviously trying to avoid contact... Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #287

Did he have the right to chase someone around? MrScorpio Jun 2013 #9

If Z grabbed M he was wrong Recursion Jun 2013 #17

The answers that you're NOT giving to all of my questions are quite telling indeed. nt MrScorpio Jun 2013 #22

Would your beliefs change if it were a woman being stalked polly7 Jun 2013 #27

make it better d_r Jun 2013 #203

You'll be alright Cirque du So-What Jun 2013 #29

It's funny you say that Lordquinton Jun 2013 #99

No, I'm the one admitting I *don't* know the sequence of events. Recursion Jun 2013 #103

You're acting like it is fact that Martin even did that Lordquinton Jun 2013 #123

"Chase" is the right word to use. Mariana Jun 2013 #42

are you really suggesting it is AGAINST THE LAW to start a conversation with someone who does DrDan Jun 2013 #66

You have no right to force someone to have a conversation Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #70

my point is - it is not against the law to initiate the conversation DrDan Jun 2013 #75

But it is against the law to force another person to engage in conversation Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #78

thank you - here is the comment I was responding to DrDan Jun 2013 #81

No, you said there was a right to initiate conversation Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #86

I did say "start a conversation" - but I never implied that TM had to respond DrDan Jun 2013 #94

No reasonable person believes this was a simple "Hello" Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #128

good heavens - that was my example of "starting a conversation" DrDan Jun 2013 #134

As a female, I beg to differ... TinkerTot55 Jun 2013 #142

my . . . point . . . is . . . that it is NOT against the law DrDan Jun 2013 #147

An unarmed kid was shot and killed by the person who stopped him Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #154

And, as a woman, if some guy walked up to me in the dark and rain prole_for_peace Jun 2013 #157

It is irrelevant to whether it is against the law or not. What is relevant is would a MillennialDem Jun 2013 #169

this is what started this conversation DrDan Jun 2013 #172

To me stalking John2 Jun 2013 #192

this part of the thread originated from a question as to whether one can initiate a conversation DrDan Jun 2013 #194

look up the definition of asault... icarusxat Jun 2013 #321

look up the definition of "conversation" - (I could not find "asault", btw) DrDan Jun 2013 #324

yeah heaven05 Jun 2013 #281

guess it is too much to expect you to read anything - but what I said was that DrDan Jun 2013 #297

yeah heaven05 Jun 2013 #299

well why don't you just tell me what you think I said then . . . DrDan Jun 2013 #305

And if it was just two people out for a stroll, you might actually have a point. jeff47 Jun 2013 #87

wow - that is quite a stretch as to what is being discussed DrDan Jun 2013 #92

Because the entirety of your argument requires it. jeff47 Jun 2013 #97

I said that? Don't think so. DrDan Jun 2013 #104

In your attempt to justify Zimmerman's actions. jeff47 Jun 2013 #107

justified his actions? DrDan Jun 2013 #114

what heaven05 Jun 2013 #289

reading that was 5 seconds I wasted DrDan Jun 2013 #295

I'm heaven05 Jun 2013 #298

better get at your homework DrDan Jun 2013 #301

thanks heaven05 Jun 2013 #306

This is very disingenuous. The CONTEXT is being FOLLOWED through a development, not a mere WinkyDink Jun 2013 #77

This is perfectly legal under FL law. reusrename Jun 2013 #257

Well, that's one way of putting it Cirque du So-What Jun 2013 #12

Not if they don't want to talk to that armed person. bravenak Jun 2013 #13

A right to talk to, yes. Question, and demand answers, no. Chase down, no. Shoot, no. Scuba Jun 2013 #19

Question and demand answers, yes. And Martin had a right to ignore him. Recursion Jun 2013 #84

Ask, yes. Demand answers, no. Scuba Jun 2013 #88

Maybe we mean different things by "demand"? I think we're saying the same thing. Recursion Jun 2013 #90

If I'm lawfully occupying the space I'm in I'm going to tell you to fuck off... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2013 #98

And you'd have every right to do so Recursion Jun 2013 #101

I don't think that is "the big question". It's one of many, and not the most important. Scuba Jun 2013 #126

I tried that once Cirque du So-What Jun 2013 #129

Disgusting behavior Just Saying Jun 2013 #206

Only if you're standing in my yard. madashelltoo Jun 2013 #166

I disagree. If you knock on my door or come into my house or onto my property, yes. If you are just MillennialDem Jun 2013 #170

So it would be ok to punch you if you did? (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #173

If I chased you for five minutes as is what happened in this case, YES. MillennialDem Jun 2013 #174

If I were persuaded Z chased him, sure Recursion Jun 2013 #175

If TM came back and punched him, yes he was in wrong. If Zimmerman caught up to TM or cut him MillennialDem Jun 2013 #176

Totally agree. I don't know which happened (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #177

On another note, I need to stop multitasking while posting. The appears missing in two MillennialDem Jun 2013 #179

Ah, you Millenials... We Gen-Xers don't need to multi-task to have typos (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #180

Here is something that was posted by someone else, I'm not sure if it's accurate or not MillennialDem Jun 2013 #181

If those paths are correct, that's pretty damning of Zimmerman, yes. Are they? Recursion Jun 2013 #188

For what it's worth naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #208

I know, I am just presenting a case where it is possible Zimmerman was MillennialDem Jun 2013 #223

I agree with you 100% morally. naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #225

If that is true, then Zimmerman ambushed him davidpdx Jun 2013 #232

Of course, Zimmy is clearly racist. MillennialDem Jun 2013 #234

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #276

This message was self-deleted by its author jeff47 Jun 2013 #89

Beg your pardon sarge43 Jun 2013 #21

I encourage you to view the testimony of the dispatcher... Pelican Jun 2013 #34

Yeah, she did have authority to tell a civilian to stay out of a potential crime scene. sarge43 Jun 2013 #46

You should tell him that... Pelican Jun 2013 #62

Then Noffke was wrong sarge43 Jun 2013 #83

You should write a letter... Pelican Jun 2013 #116

Right after you write to Martin's parents about "real" world. n/t sarge43 Jun 2013 #130

What does that even mean? Pelican Jun 2013 #131

I can't ignore the common-sense advice Noffke gave Zimmerman that evening. pacalo Jun 2013 #241

Dispatch does not have authority to command. Just the fact of the law. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #91

OK then, they have authority to strongly advise. They're often first contact. sarge43 Jun 2013 #112

"OK, we don't need you to do that..." HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #43

Just in case you weren't sure about my intentions in starting this thread... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #71

Jump to the conclusions you want much? A Simple Game Jun 2013 #95

"What are you following me for..." makes HIM the initiator? Not the person actually following him? arcane1 Jun 2013 #132

fail SemperEadem Jun 2013 #160

Look back up thread at 181 davidpdx Jun 2013 #235

The fact that the 911 dispatcher is a "civilian" doesn't negate the common-sense advice pacalo Jun 2013 #245

What? Doctor_J Jun 2013 #266

actually, you dont pasto76 Jun 2013 #35

Agreed. no evidence Z did anything like that Recursion Jun 2013 #54

Where the HELL do you live?! I sure as hell don't want to be approached by total STRANGERS at NIGHT. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #41

Me either JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #85

We don't know exactly how Zimmerman initiated it. caseymoz Jun 2013 #109

Or Martin started with a punch to the face. We don't know Recursion Jun 2013 #148

And yet the only arguments you can posit are against Trayvon. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #196

No, Martin didn't start it. caseymoz Jun 2013 #201

you forgot the letter "s" fascisthunter Jun 2013 #228

Is that all Zimmerman wanted, to *talk* to the person he didn't recognize? pacalo Jun 2013 #243

You don't have a right to stalk them however. Maraya1969 Jun 2013 #249

If George Zimmerman has simply talked to Trayvon Martin, this would have ended very differently. Kennah Jun 2013 #258

Couldn't agree more. 99Forever Jun 2013 #4

Zimmerman is warrior1 Jun 2013 #6

Gun nuts. They 'are the law.' nt onehandle Jun 2013 #7

What it is. No mistake. nt MADem Jun 2013 #10

Trayvon Martin had every right to fight his stalker and hunter. polly7 Jun 2013 #11

Apparently your are only allowed to defend yourself with a firearm prole_for_peace Jun 2013 #159

so let's say Trayvon threw a punch Skittles Jun 2013 #261

Exactly prole_for_peace Jun 2013 #313

You are so right walkerbait41 Jun 2013 #15

Imagine the situation reversed kristopher Jun 2013 #23

This is an appropriate analogy. A Brand New World Jun 2013 #30

Yup, and people would not have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his defense fund. SunSeeker Jun 2013 #36

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #59

+1000 gollygee Jun 2013 #61

The defense would say the white youth initiated the confrontation with racist comments. OnlinePoker Jun 2013 #96

The question has a deeper meaning. It deals with his idea that he was "cop for the gated community" jwirr Jun 2013 #26

One DUer said we can't assume anything because we weren't there. Neither were the police Nanjing to Seoul Jun 2013 #31

There are those who think citizens not on the jury should have lobotomies pre-verdict. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #47

Zimmerman is a product of the NRA Tippy Jun 2013 #33

and Hate Radio Doctor_J Jun 2013 #267

Yes Tippy Jun 2013 #335

The same type of person who supported lynching in the past Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #38

K&R. Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed kid who was minding his own business. DLevine Jun 2013 #39

The hysterical groupthink on these threads is really something to behold Azathoth Jun 2013 #40

Considering he told the police he was following before the fight began... Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #45

In other words, you don't need evidence because you think your assumption is "obvious" Azathoth Jun 2013 #48

Are you suggesting the call to police I mentioned is not evidence? Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #52

Yes, it is "evidence" Azathoth Jun 2013 #58

He started the confrontation Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #63

So because he said "they always get away," we now KNOW that he started the confrontation? Azathoth Jun 2013 #72

It makes it pretty clear that he was not going to allow Martin to get away Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #76

You're misstating the evidence Azathoth Jun 2013 #120

well heaven05 Jun 2013 #307

How small does that corner have to get before you stop painting? Scootaloo Jun 2013 #185

lol, if you want to accuse me of a fallacy, you have to actually demonstrate it Azathoth Jun 2013 #190

you heaven05 Jun 2013 #303

zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed young person SemperEadem Jun 2013 #163

But it is up to the court to weigh the evidence, not you or me. n/t totodeinhere Jun 2013 #244

I am entitled to my opinion, The court can't tell me not to look at the evidence myself Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #247

well heaven05 Jun 2013 #302

Agreed. Anyone more than two brain cells. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #60

It demonstrates Zimmerman's intent. Enthusiast Jun 2013 #122

Bingo Little Star Jun 2013 #156

Do you know the difference between "intense" and the hyperbolic "hysterical"? Z was the STALKER. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #50

So now we're casually comparing Z to Manson, but it's wrong to call these threads "hysterical"? Azathoth Jun 2013 #55

My analogy was intended to be precise, to wit: The night-time "creepy-crawly" runs the Mansion WinkyDink Jun 2013 #64

You think it's a precise analogy to compare a guy on the phone with 911 following someone he claims Azathoth Jun 2013 #82

"Trayvon did not have the right to respond disproportionately." Says you. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #195

it really is not hard to understand how lynch mobs gained energy after reading DrDan Jun 2013 #69

No lynch mob mentality here JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #102

there are many here who have already concluded that Z is guilty - even though DrDan Jun 2013 #111

DrDan JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #117

before punishment - 2d murder charges need to be proven DrDan Jun 2013 #118

Ditto JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #127

I'm not sure those jurors John2 Jun 2013 #197

well it is a good thing we have jurors deciding this case who will be DrDan Jun 2013 #200

you heaven05 Jun 2013 #311

I do have faith in their upcoming decision - you have a problem with the jury? DrDan Jun 2013 #316

Need heaven05 Jun 2013 #319

so you don't trust the judgement of the jury . . . DrDan Jun 2013 #325

yes heaven05 Jun 2013 #328

No one here is advocating lynching Just Saying Jun 2013 #210

a week into testimony and there are those here who have decided Z is guilty DrDan Jun 2013 #212

Thinking someone is guilty Just Saying Jun 2013 #214

you are entitled to your opinion - as am I DrDan Jun 2013 #215

Sure Just Saying Jun 2013 #216

hmmmmm - I sense a bit of guilt DrDan Jun 2013 #217

As with so many things you've posted today Just Saying Jun 2013 #218

like stating EVERYONE deserves a fair trial" DrDan Jun 2013 #220

Yes clearly you're the victim here. Just Saying Jun 2013 #221

never claimed to be a victim, now did I DrDan Jun 2013 #222

Intent was proven to me when he got out of his vehicle. Can you prove me wrong? A Simple Game Jun 2013 #79

cannot disagree with your gun comment - agree completely - read my tagline DrDan Jun 2013 #121

So you're saying he intended to confront/fight Trayvon while he was on the phone with 911? Azathoth Jun 2013 #125

I'm saying he intended to confront Martin when he ignored the advice given by 911. A Simple Game Jun 2013 #182

"groupthink" yeah, you keep telling yourself that is all it is fascisthunter Jun 2013 #233

The "gunner" namecalling has become the DU version of "socialist" namecalling Azathoth Jun 2013 #260

yeah heaven05 Jun 2013 #317

if heaven05 Jun 2013 #296

Under the principles of self-defense ewagner Jun 2013 #53

The self-defense and FL stand-your-ground laws are predicated upon legal conduct. reusrename Jun 2013 #144

How do we know that? naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #211

From testimony. reusrename Jun 2013 #238

A paranoid schizophrenic orpupilofnature57 Jun 2013 #56

isn't the real question whether a law was broken? DrDan Jun 2013 #57

Freerepublic conservatives, that's who. Kablooie Jun 2013 #65

I can only venture guesses as to what kind of person would think zimmerman had the "right" etherealtruth Jun 2013 #67

Exactly. K&R, n/t. ms liberty Jun 2013 #68

Zimmerman was claiming authority that he did not have. He was packing heat. Is there any chance AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #73

The Young Turks had a good segment with Zimmerman muttering "Fucking Coons" under his breath OnlinePoker Jun 2013 #115

That's what I hear too. It's definitely not 'goons'. imho. nt. polly7 Jun 2013 #119

Yes, sounds like he mumbles 'fu**ing coons' just before the responder says lumpy Jun 2013 #162

Lets play my favorite version of this game: Nevernose Jun 2013 #93

This message was self-deleted by its author polly7 Jun 2013 #100

Not a single person JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #124

In your version, the 17 year old white girl also holds the black man down Azathoth Jun 2013 #139

Sure, why not? Nevernose Jun 2013 #145

Well, if you're going to play, you have to get the facts correct Azathoth Jun 2013 #153

You Are Awfully Invested In This Case HangOnKids Jun 2013 #168

You illustrate Zimmermans credibility problem nicely Nevernose Jun 2013 #186

This is why I find John2 Jun 2013 #205

Here is logic for John2 Jun 2013 #288

George's actions were grossly negligent and highly irresponsible. egduj Jun 2013 #106

I agree Zimmerman called the cops obama2terms Jun 2013 #108

Not me! hedgehog Jun 2013 #110

I agree 100%. Zimmerman was the aggressor... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #113

I'm no lawyer, but if I were---I'd call it pre-meditated homicide. BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2013 #135

I think it was, too, but it would be hard to prove. NYC_SKP Jun 2013 #136

HEY SKP! BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2013 #140

Very well put, Mr. Scorpio. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #137

+1,000,000 madaboutharry Jun 2013 #138

He didn't. krispos42 Jun 2013 #141

Zimmerman followed and murdered an unarmed teenager. Everything else is just defense B.S. OregonBlue Jun 2013 #143

If Zimmerman is innocent.... dtom67 Jun 2013 #146

If Zimmerman had been killed with his own gun Generic Other Jun 2013 #149

It's Neighborhood WATCH, not Neighborhood CHASE many a good man Jun 2013 #150

Also Neighborhood Watch guidelines are very specific sarge43 Jun 2013 #171

Good OP. I haven't read any of the replies yet, Moses2SandyKoufax Jun 2013 #151

If Trayvon was an adult and had a gun darkangel218 Jun 2013 #152

Do you mean if the circumstances had been the same, or if Zimmerman had assaulted Trayvon? RichardPatrick Jun 2013 #189

Glenn Beck fans. Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #155

Making him the ' Neighborhood Threat ' orpupilofnature57 Jun 2013 #184

I've been shaking my head for days wryter2000 Jun 2013 #183

Incarcerated or free, I think he's a deadman either way. He's not gonna avoid "fucking coons" forevr DRoseDARs Jun 2013 #187

I hope that you don't approve of the thought that if he goes free someone should totodeinhere Jun 2013 #246

Trayvon with a y and no I don't. He's made such a mess of his own case, then there's his def team. DRoseDARs Jun 2013 #252

One word;Vigilante. that is all. Rain Mcloud Jun 2013 #191

Absolutely right Jake2413 Jun 2013 #193

I'm unclear on the rules for a claim of self defense. tclambert Jun 2013 #198

Zimmerman has to prove John2 Jun 2013 #213

My understanding is ctaylors6 Jun 2013 #230

That does help, John2 Jun 2013 #256

Yeah, that helped. Thank you. tclambert Jun 2013 #397

Did you want us to actually answer your questions? If so, then here: ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #199

Are you arguing that the rules of felony murder come into play? tclambert Jun 2013 #204

a gun-humping, cowardly piece of SHIT, Mr. Scorpio Skittles Jun 2013 #226

A bigot Eddie Haskell Jun 2013 #229

you nailed it... I'll add that Zimmerman's Defenders believe a gun owner... fascisthunter Jun 2013 #231

I don't defend what Zimmerman did. But I do defend his right to a fair totodeinhere Jun 2013 #248

Mahalo MrScorpio for providing.. Cha Jun 2013 #239

I think they should have tried him for manslaughter madville Jun 2013 #250

Great Opening Statement! AAO Jun 2013 #251

you don't start a fight by following somebody hfojvt Jun 2013 #254

I'm a little curious here... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #262

What difference does that make? hfojvt Jun 2013 #350

It makes every difference in the world why Zimmerman was chasing after Martin and how... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #353

The seed for the confrontation was Zimmerman's staring hard enough at Trayvon to make him pacalo Jun 2013 #263

I think George's version of the events are very strange. Notafraidtoo Jun 2013 #259

People keep asking Mkap Jun 2013 #264

That is the main point WhataKnight Jun 2013 #268

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #274

My heart bleeds for you MrScorpio Jun 2013 #275

1. Z killed with a gun. 2. Trayvon had no drugs. 3. Thus, you are part of the "fantasy" contingent. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #279

I heaven05 Jun 2013 #282

ohh heaven05 Jun 2013 #326

you heaven05 Jun 2013 #277

Look at the post #274 MrScorpio Jun 2013 #278

he's heaven05 Jun 2013 #283

POOF! nt MrScorpio Jun 2013 #284

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #336

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this site's rules MrScorpio Jun 2013 #338

This is the precise reason I couldn't care less if Trayvon swung first. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #286

The fact he had a round in the chamber madokie Jun 2013 #292

Wow. He chambered a round beforehand... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #293

The DA told about this in his opening statement madokie Jun 2013 #312

Carrying with an empty chamber is actually extremely uncommon. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #318

But It does show that he took an additional step, in preparation to fire the gun right away MrScorpio Jun 2013 #320

True. I think anyone carrying at all can be considered "prepared to use it." Lizzie Poppet Jun 2013 #322

Excellent point nt MrScorpio Jun 2013 #323

Empty chamber? you are kidding right? RGR375 Jun 2013 #304

Especially when you're on the hunt for black teenagers... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #308

Isn't he cute? Can we keep him for a while? ETA, luv his name also uppityperson Jun 2013 #310

Well, I did write the OP for his benefit MrScorpio Jun 2013 #315

Sorry not me madokie Jun 2013 #314

The golden rule RGR375 Jun 2013 #294

So basically, in Florida, it's open season on Black Teenagers... That explains everything! MrScorpio Jun 2013 #300

Take a deep breath RGR375 Jun 2013 #327

So you think Trayvon started beating up Zimmy because he felt "disrespected"? This is all Trayvon's uppityperson Jun 2013 #330

you heaven05 Jun 2013 #331

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #363

I take that you've determined Trayvon Martin to be the initial aggressor... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #334

You miss the mark RGR375 Jun 2013 #339

So Z could attack and fight with TM with no problem, but as soon as TM defending himself, he "cooked uppityperson Jun 2013 #341

You mean that you believe Zimmerman's story, even if it makes absolutely no sense MrScorpio Jun 2013 #342

two heaven05 Jun 2013 #389

Mr Scorpio, that should be RGR375's only son murdered. sarge43 Jun 2013 #329

So in Florida you can attack someone and when they fight back you can kill them? Wow. Welcome to DU, uppityperson Jun 2013 #309

776.041 Use of force by aggressor RGR375 Jun 2013 #332

I attack someone, when they fight back, I am justified in killing them. Which gunz site did you come uppityperson Jun 2013 #333

It's clear to me that it's people exactly like you whom we should be afraid of MrScorpio Jun 2013 #337

Apples and oranges RGR375 Jun 2013 #343

Are you saying that Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted? MrScorpio Jun 2013 #345

Sir you misunderstand me RGR375 Jun 2013 #348

Again with the statute recitations MrScorpio Jun 2013 #351

I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman was ever on the ground being pummeled. yardwork Jun 2013 #340

Watch the trial RGR375 Jun 2013 #344

It was too dark to see colors. Eyes physically can NOT differentiate colors when it is dark. uppityperson Jun 2013 #347

Tricks of light RGR375 Jun 2013 #355

Except he did not say light or dark but RED. He could NOT see red. That was impossible. uppityperson Jun 2013 #356

Obviously you haven't heard Good's testimony. He said that one was wearing "dark" the other "red." yardwork Jun 2013 #374

"Dark" and "red"? Huh, thanks for that. uppityperson Jun 2013 #379

Thank you for posting the careful explanation for why Good couldn't have been able to distinguish yardwork Jun 2013 #380

oops! RGR375 Jun 2013 #388

Huh, since I replied to yardwork about Good's testimony, I do not know wtf you are talking about. uppityperson Jun 2013 #398

with heaven05 Jun 2013 #390

Sadly, your OP and the many other threads etherealtruth Jun 2013 #349

People just do not understand RGR375 Jun 2013 #352

I posted about that statute upthread... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #354

Now is the time! RGR375 Jun 2013 #357

Yeah... Did you see this? MrScorpio Jun 2013 #358

Ok? RGR375 Jun 2013 #359

Mr Scorpio did in the link in post you are replying to. Here, look at my post, click on the link uppityperson Jun 2013 #362

First... I'd like you to define who you think was the aggressor here... I say it was Zimmerman MrScorpio Jun 2013 #364

Wow! RGR375 Jun 2013 #366

Hello. Can you see this post? uppityperson Jun 2013 #367

Ok I'm 17. You're a creepy guy in a car following countingbluecars Jun 2013 #368

That's the gist of it! etherealtruth Jun 2013 #369

That's it. Anybody who can't see that doesn't want to see it. yardwork Jun 2013 #378

What you're trying to do is lazily win people over to you own faulty reasoning MrScorpio Jun 2013 #370

you heaven05 Jun 2013 #391

I think people do understand etherealtruth Jun 2013 #361

what kind of person would think a thug like Zimmerman alc Jun 2013 #360

Zimmerman is getting a fair trial, is he not? MrScorpio Jun 2013 #365

No problems RGR375 Jun 2013 #372

Personally, I'd love for Zimmerman to get a fair trial... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #373

I feel so sorry for you. RGR375 Jun 2013 #376

How old are you? MrScorpio Jun 2013 #377

Then i shall tell you RGR375 Jun 2013 #382

Well, cool... MrScorpio Jun 2013 #386

Thank you for your service RGR375 Jun 2013 #392

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #393

Why? RGR375 Jun 2013 #384

hahahahaha. RGR375 "will accept a juries decision. RGR375 "will not". heh uppityperson Jun 2013 #385

since he IS getting a fair trial, not sure what your point is. uppityperson Jun 2013 #371

That's much more than Trayvon Martin got. /nt yardwork Jun 2013 #375

Not trying to start a fight RGR375 Jun 2013 #381

You heaven05 Jun 2013 #395

k&r Liberal_in_LA Jun 2013 #383

What kind of person? A bigot. Or at the very least, one who thinks black human life is less Liberal_Stalwart71 Jun 2013 #394