It was a "thrill-killing"

[PCIntern]

81. I'm with you libodem

as they say in the game of bridge, "Let's review the bidding":

We're on a supposedly liberal website, at least supposedly populated by liberals, and so this white guy, and this is UNDISPUTED, mind you, shoots a black kid who is unarmed, who has committed no crime, who was walking with a pack of skittles and something to drink; the shooter was warned not to approach by the police dispatcher, and I'm supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt because...because...there's a law on the books which states that he can do this in the State of Florida?

I'm sure he'll get a fair trial and I'm sure he'll get adequate representation and I'm sure he'll get an impartial jury. I've been on two juries and one thing I can tell you is that you really try to hear the arguments and that if the law states that he would be not guilty, I'd vote that way. But not happily that this miscreant is returned to the population so that he can do it again if he is so moved.

But since when is it OK for this to be legal and since when do I have to act as though I'm a juror when I'm not/ I and everyone else here is entitled to an opinion...if some don't like others' opinions then say so civilly or say nothing. I noted in the OP that his demeanor was that of a cold, vicious killer. So it is now up to the lawyer, if I WERE on the jury, to convince me that he should be found Not Guilty by reason of the Law, and I would vote that way...but I wouldn't have to like it...or would I? is that the meme of some members now? Do it my way or to quote cherokeeprogressive, well, I won't, since the F-word is not part of rational discussion. that's my oopinion, if I'm still entitled to have one, that is.