Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Probably the best 2nd Amendment speech ever. [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)119. interrogation 101
Cop 101: as the investigator said, variances in the story indicate that it isn't rehearsed. If you tell the same thing the same way, it comes across rehearsed and dishonest. Trees, bushes, etc. doesn't matter. So, not a valid point. There is no evidence that the overall story was a lie.
She did? Given that cops never interviewed her, who knows?
Her recitation of events during the shooting was almost identical to her version to the prosecutor. It seemed memorized, she even used the same word choices in multiple places. While she denied listening to her taped interviews with Crump or the prosecutor (at least not the whole thing), her story on direct was almost a total match.
the bolded is big red flag
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/26/223210/512/crimenews/-Rachel-Jeantel-Court-Antics-and-How-Martin-Profiled-Zimmerman
I didn't say he started it. Given the timeline and his violence issues at school...
One admitted to lying under oath twice, and was caught in lies on the stand. One didn't.
Why is that? Is it possible that you are as influenced by the stereotype of the dangerous black male as Zimmerman was?
You mean like his college law teacher? Or his neighbor, also African American, who said "that was George's voice?"
Short answer to your question: being in a family of cops, I learned it the hard way as a kid.
Even if someone is walking behind you, or you think someone is following you doesn't give you the right to attack them.
That still doesn't excuse Mr. Park's disgusting statement.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
129 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Allow me to provide some context in the form of a more complete presentation by him:
NYC_SKP
Jul 2013
#2
Your argument could be applied to the other nine amendments, it's not 1776 any more.
NYC_SKP
Jul 2013
#7
As a Vietnam Era vet and son of a combat wounded WWw2 Vet I would tell Aaron he is a delusional
Vietnameravet
Jul 2013
#59
"No war in your life time was fought for your rights. It's fought for to grow the wealth of the 1%."
KansDem
Jul 2013
#6
This isn't about you (and you are not the only one who fought in Viet Nam). He said HE fought for
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#23
The truth of the matter is that his inconvenience outweighs dead children.
Bonhomme Richard
Jul 2013
#20
Blithely ignoring that gun control works in England, Australia, Japan, etc. ... eom
Kolesar
Jul 2013
#54
Although you did not ask me, I think that the governmental policy of shipping jobs to foreign
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#28
DU is big on racism accusations, it's like a drug to juice up your "liberalism,"
Eleanors38
Jul 2013
#42
Sergeant Voice Crackle doesn't know that prosecutors and law enforcement want regulations on guns
Kolesar
Jul 2013
#52
Obivously I was using the figurative sense. Your literal sense post indicates you're the who's not.
MotherPetrie
Jul 2013
#81
good stuff, well laid out arguments supported by facts, and to the point. n/t
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#109