General Discussion

IL Lib

(190 posts)

121. Wtf?

Wed Jul 17, 2013, 03:10 AM

Jul 2013

Do you consider Martin to be an adult? I'm aware that you prefaced child with "hardly," but why the need to portray him as being something other than what he is, which is a child? How out-of-date do you think the photos are that have been "bandied" around? A year or two? 5-10 years? Just 5 would make him 12 in such a photo. Either the photos aren't that out of date or he's more of a child than an adult. Which is it?

It's telling that you continue to use the word attack, and in this particular post, the phrase "attack people in the street" as if he was some wild teenager assaulting random people. It's absolutely nothing wrong with an real adult following a teenager for no apparent reason, who just happened to be armed? I'd like to know why you have no problem with an adult stalking a teenager with a loaded weapon. I know from previous posts you say it's legal. Would it have been fine with you if it was your 17 year old (since it's legal)?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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