General Discussion

Response to spanone (Reply #37)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The jury was absolutely right [View all] Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 OP

BULLSHIT MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #1

wow... what an articulate and well thought out rebuttal... n/t ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #70

Pffft. MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #75

It was the rebuttal the OP deserved Hugabear Jul 2013 #124

+1000000 forestpath Jul 2013 #107

Oh dear. Why? Ninga Jul 2013 #2

Ive been avoiding DU since the verdict because of bullshit like this. bunnies Jul 2013 #3

Waaaaaaaay to soon... Agschmid Jul 2013 #41

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #4

at least its a better mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #11

Was this argument as to how the head wounds occurred put into evidence? onenote Jul 2013 #13

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #36

Welcome to DU! Thanks for your great post. John1956PA Jul 2013 #25

The jury came to the only conclusion they Rex Jul 2013 #5

The defense only had to put forward evidence, not proof. onenote Jul 2013 #20

That is interesting. Rex Jul 2013 #38

What about John Good's eyewitness testimony? GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #99

Considering Zimmerman turned down medical attention Rex Jul 2013 #109

Witness and police arrived too quickly for Z to inflict the wounds on himself. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #112

Nice guess, do you enjoy guessing and then pretending Rex Jul 2013 #113

Check out the testimonies: GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #114

Bullshit. Fact: Once a person has lied, as Z did repeatedly the jury has the right to Vincardog Jul 2013 #6

When did Zimmerman testify under oath? onenote Jul 2013 #17

In several of his recorded statements to the police Vincardog Jul 2013 #19

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but statements made to the police are not made under oath. onenote Jul 2013 #21

Or suddenly expected to tell nothing but the truth lunatica Jul 2013 #72

If only such statements could be used against him in a court of law Orrex Jul 2013 #111

simple people mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #7

What a shock. Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #8

Gee thanks for weighing in Donald. redwitch Jul 2013 #9

the Colored Boy JI7 Jul 2013 #10

+ AtomicKitten Jul 2013 #73

Check yourself before I unrec yourself Blue Owl Jul 2013 #12

Wow. zappaman Jul 2013 #14

Me, too wryter2000 Jul 2013 #53

Ha! zappaman Jul 2013 #54

Thanks wryter2000 Jul 2013 #56

I agree!!! Times 100! Fringe Jul 2013 #115

...and if our system has been reduced defacto7 Jul 2013 #15

You're quite mistaken. GeorgeGist Jul 2013 #16

I am starting to see some pointy hats HipChick Jul 2013 #18

Yes, they've been lurking in the shadows Eddie Haskell Jul 2013 #44

You are working on the assumption that Zimmerman avebury Jul 2013 #22

No, actually I'm not. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #24

... alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #23

Gosh, your callously technical argument makes everything so much better Scootaloo Jul 2013 #26

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #27

So why did the state with unlimited resources not ceonupe Jul 2013 #65

prosocutors. The em fact the were using them let's you know they had a weak case. HangOnKids Jul 2013 #98

People defend the jury as if people's outrage is going to change the outcome. AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #28

+1 Tien1985 Jul 2013 #85

How do you know Martin attacked Zimmerman? DCBob Jul 2013 #29

Answered in the post you're replying to N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #40

So you know Martin attacked Zimmerman?? DCBob Jul 2013 #64

Since I say, explicitly, in the post you're answering, that I don't, this puzzles me. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #90

People find comfort in that being a fact... FarPoint Jul 2013 #102

Unrec. City Lights Jul 2013 #30

Trayvon's trial is over! Move on leftstreet Jul 2013 #31

You're absolutely wrong. Apophis Jul 2013 #32

It MAY... Have Been The Law... But It Certainly Was NOT JUSTICE !!! WillyT Jul 2013 #33

you forgot something KT2000 Jul 2013 #34

Sort of. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #43

As I understand it, KT2000 Jul 2013 #58

No, it's the reasonable man standard.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #83

NO. He did NOT have the right to hit Zimmerman. GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #86

I'm not so sure KT2000 Jul 2013 #88

That murder-line is the intended money-shot of your post Anansi1171 Jul 2013 #35

yes, you can kill a child with a gun at will. yes, the jury was right. spanone Jul 2013 #37

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #48

bite me spanone Jul 2013 #60

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #74

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #66

If that "child" is a 17-year old launching a serious criminal assault, then yes you can. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #97

there is absolutely NO evidence that martin "attacked" zimmerman noiretextatique Jul 2013 #39

Which would be important to bring up if Martin were being tried for assault. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #45

this is a key element of his self-defense claim noiretextatique Jul 2013 #61

Police failing to properly investigate ceonupe Jul 2013 #68

This diatribe extolling billh58 Jul 2013 #42

You have more confidence in the facts than the evidence supports. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #47

Of course you billh58 Jul 2013 #49

Your observation doesn't make any sense IL Lib Jul 2013 #57

all the defense team did was play on racial stereotypes and fears noiretextatique Jul 2013 #62

Based on the prevailing law Crepuscular Jul 2013 #46

I agree. Captain Stern Jul 2013 #50

The suspect did not get away this time. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #51

Idiotic nonsense. reusrename Jul 2013 #52

you don't get to make up your own jury instructions TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #55

That is quite correct, I don't. N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #91

then why did you? TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #118

Thats a load. jessie04 Jul 2013 #59

LOL, trying to start a fight I assume. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #63

Bullshit. 99Forever Jul 2013 #67

Your analysis is factually correct. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #69

Yeah... what a fight. jessie04 Jul 2013 #71

#5 Self defense is an admissible defense. VIDEO Doremus Jul 2013 #76

Watch the juror on AC360- they abdicated their responsibility to consider bettyellen Jul 2013 #77

"Martin was killed as a result of physically attacking someone whose only "crime" was to follow him" Yavin4 Jul 2013 #78

Please read before commenting. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #93

Zimmerman was clearly lying treestar Jul 2013 #79

*Shooting someone you have physically attacked because you are losing the fight is not legal. Sparkly Jul 2013 #80

You're "supposed" not to be certain BRD that he wasn't. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #94

I seriously don't know why you're bothering explaining yourself brett_jv Jul 2013 #120

Walking through a neighborhood with candy is legal. Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #81

If "protecting yourself from someone who is following you" = taking a swing at, then no, not legal. X_Digger Jul 2013 #84

Florida declared hunting season on black kids. Agnosticsherbet Jul 2013 #122

No, "protecting yourself" by attacking someone is absolutely 100% illegal in most circumstances. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #95

"Lynching" is both a wholly inappropriate and woefully ironic term for you to have used here. stranger81 Jul 2013 #100

When this much verbiage has to be typed to understand the situation there is some stretching going Lint Head Jul 2013 #82

You're ignoring the fact TM was a minor. FourScore Jul 2013 #87

Martin was 17 - hardly a child, despite the out-of-date photos I've seen bandied around. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #96

I didn't say "child", I said "minor". FourScore Jul 2013 #105

Wtf? IL Lib Jul 2013 #121

You'll never penetrate the emotional response that COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #89

post of the day Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #101

Your spelling skills are straight from Free Republic RandiFan1290 Jul 2013 #104

another of the usual suspects heard from HiPointDem Jul 2013 #92

an innocent teenager is dead because of the reckless actions of Zimmerman Skittles Jul 2013 #103

The jury got it wrong Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #106

Maybe one or more had a political agenda... jessie04 Jul 2013 #117

I think the jury got it wrong. You know the rule is beyond "reasonable doubt" not any doubt. DCBob Jul 2013 #108

That's Juror B37 for you on line 2. She's so glad you understand. (nt) Paladin Jul 2013 #110

The jury was wrong and racist. Fringe Jul 2013 #116

Oh god ... you're serious etherealtruth Jul 2013 #119

Holy fuck, what a festering pile of codswallop... RetroLounge Jul 2013 #123