Dunn trial begins in Florida

[Truth Detector]

Closing arguments have started...

Conservatives, should this guy go free because he was defending himself, did he have that right?

Or..

Should he be convicted of murder?

Unlike leftist twits; I will leave it up to a jury of his peers informed of the applicable laws to determine this guys fate.

I have never been a fan of prosecuting the fate and guilt of someone before they have had a trial by their peers. Much like the Trayvon case, I will wait and see.

Is it interesting to you how much media attention this case, like Trayvons, has garnered yet we don't hear one word about the trial for some black thugs who murdered a wheelchair bound veteran over a few bucks. Or the case of some black thugs who shot a white jogger just for kicks?

Why do you think that is counselor? I wonder what the media event would have been had the wheelchair bound man pulled out a guy and shot down his black assailants who were armed with nothing but clubs? Or the jogger had felt threatened and turned around firing first killing his potential assailants.

What we do know from the tortured logic of leftists like you is that it is okay to be a dead victim of thugs, but not to survive such attacks using a gun.

 

[Jarod]

Unlike leftist twits; I will leave it up to a jury of his peers informed of the applicable laws to determine this guys fate.

I have never been a fan of prosecuting the fate and guilt of someone before they have had a trial by their peers. Much like the Trayvon case, I will wait and see.

Is it interesting to you how much media attention this case, like Trayvons, has garnered yet we don't hear one word about the trial for some black thugs who murdered a wheelchair bound veteran over a few bucks. Or the case of some black thugs who shot a white jogger just for kicks?

Why do you thin that is counselor?

So you want share your thoughts about what you think should happen?

You wont tell us if you think this guy had a right to shoot these thugs in self defense?

You've never been at a loss of words before?

 

[Truth Detector]

So, you Cons are to afraid to share an opinion regarding this case?

It's not fear shit-for-brains; it is called the presumption of innocence before proven guilty. You know; silly things like the Constitution.

 

[Jarod]

It's not fear shit-for-brains; it is called the presumption of innocence before proven guilty. You know; silly things like the Constitution.

You can still share an opinion... your not the Government who is required to presume him innocent,. your not a juror, your not the judge.

You shared an opinion regarding the Trayvon Martin Killer didn't you?

 

[Truth Detector]

So you want share your thoughts about what you think should happen?

You wont tell us if you think this guy had a right to shoot these thugs in self defense?

You've never been at a loss of words before?

Wrong counselor dunce; I don't have enough of the evidence from a media who has shed all objectivity and practicing malfeasance to determine his guilt. I am perfectly fine waiting for the jury. Just as I was in the Trayvon case.

But I am also not a gullible dimwit like you to believe that the victims of this shooting were innocent law abiding kids minding their own business any more than Trayvon was just a kid buying skittles.

I also strongly support our right to bear arms, laws like "stand your ground" and the legal system with all of its warts and failings.

 

[Jarod]

Wrong counselor dunce; I don't have enough of the evidence from a media who has shed all objectivity and practicing malfeasance to determine his guilt. I am perfectly fine waiting for the jury. Just as I was in the Trayvon case.

But I am also not a gullible dimwit like you to believe that the victims of this shooting were innocent law abiding kids minding their own business any more than Trayvon was just a kid buying skittles.

I also strongly support our right to bear arms, laws like "stand your ground" and the legal system with all of its warts and failings.

So, this guy shot and killed a 17 year old who was unarmed and inside a car, went home and ordered a pizza and did not call the police before being arrested the next day, and you don't know if he was ligit in his right to kill the kid or not?

 

[Truth Detector]

You can still share an opinion... your not the Government who is required to presume him innocent,. your not a juror, your not the judge.

You shared an opinion regarding the Trayvon Martin Killer didn't you?

My opinion is that we have a case of two parties willing to engage in violence because a group of young blacks think they have the right to blare their music so loud that it is disturbing to all around them and a white dude who felt he had a right to ask them to turn their music down and wasn't going to be intimidated or back down.

It is a sad case of the sad state we have evolved where one group feels it is entitled to do whatever they feel like even if it disturbs those around them and can intimidate them through threats of violence and a leftist ideology that says such behavior has to be tolerated even to societal detriment.

Think I am not making sense? Just look at Detroit. We have a societal choice; we can shrink and run. Or we can say enough is enough and raise our kids to respect others, our laws and decency.

 

[Truth Detector]

So, this guy shot and killed a 17 year old who was unarmed and inside a car, went home and ordered a pizza and did not call the police before being arrested the next day, and you don't know if he was ligit in his right to kill the kid or not?

Wrong again shit-for-brains; I am saying that your version of the events are colored by your glaring liberal ignorance and I am not buying into any version painted by a leftist media engaging in malfeasance and misinformation for partisan political purposes.

But you're an incredibly dense dunce and I may have to repeat this a thousand times before it sinks into that thick myopic partisan skull of yours.

 

[Jarod]

My opinion is that we have a case of two parties willing to engage in violence because a group of young blacks think they have the right to blare their music so loud that it is disturbing to all around them and a white dude who felt he had a right to ask them to turn their music down and wasn't going to be intimidated or back down.

It is a sad case of the sad state we have evolved where one group feels it is entitled to do whatever they feel like even if it disturbs those around them and can intimidate them through threats of violence and a leftist ideology that says such behavior has to be tolerated even to societal detriment.

Think I am not making sense? Just look at Detroit. We have a societal choice; we can shrink and run. Or we can say enough is enough and raise our kids to respect others, our laws and decency.

What violence did these "black" kids engage in?

 

[Jarod]

Wrong again shit-for-brains; I am saying that your version of the events are colored by your glaring liberal ignorance and I am not buying into any version painted by a leftist media engaging in malfeasance and misinformation for partisan political purposes.

But you're an incredibly dense dunce and I may have to repeat this a thousand times before it sinks into that thick myopic partisan skull of yours.

So what about my version is wrong? Its all stuff the defense admits to.

 

[Truth Detector]

The leftist dunces of the forum who are devoted to purposeful ignorance have to ask themselves this question; what would the outcome have been had the black youths apologized bout their noise and turned the music down until their business was done and waited until they drove away to turn it up again?

I know; such rational acts are beyond the comprehension of race hustling dunces stuck permanently on stupid.

I am more curious about parents who raise such rude children than I am an old white guy tired of being forced to tolerate blaring music that is not to his liking.

 

[Truth Detector]

What violence did these "black" kids engage in?

You don't think that intimidation and verbal threats are violence counselor?

 

[Jarod]

The leftist dunces of the forum who are devoted to purposeful ignorance have to ask themselves this question; what would the outcome have been had the black youths apologized bout their noise and turned the music down until their business was done and waited until they drove away to turn it up again?

I know; such rational acts are beyond the comprehension of race hustling dunces stuck permanently on stupid.

I am more curious about parents who raise such rude children than I am an old white guy tired of being forced to tolerate blaring music that is not to his liking.

That makes it okay to kill the "black" kids?

 

[Jarod]

You don't think that intimidation and verbal threats are violence counselor?

1. No I don't call that violence.
2. Of all the witnesses who testified, the defendant is the only one who testified to verbal threats or intimidation.
3. Do verbal threats make it okay to kill a 17 year old kid? Even if he is "black"?

 

[Truth Detector]

So what about my version is wrong? Its all stuff the defense admits to.

It is colored by YOUR liberal bias and YOUR version of the events which is not how it has been presented in court by the defense. Do you find it odd that you only argue the prosecutors point of view with zero objectivity?

But it has been amusing seeing you once again cajole someone for their opinion then spend an inordinate amount of effort and time attacking that opinion in an effort to accomplish what counselor?

 

[Big Money]

Didn't you say "they go on feelings", Counselor?

 

[Jarod]

It is colored by YOUR liberal bias and YOUR version of the events which is not how it has been presented in court by the defense. Do you find it odd that you only argue the prosecutors point of view with zero objectivity?

But it has been amusing seeing you once again cajole someone for their opinion then spend an inordinate amount of effort and time attacking that opinion in an effort to accomplish what counselor?

Again, I only stated facts that are admitted to by both sides.

 

[Truth Detector]

1. No I don't call that violence.
2. Of all the witnesses who testified, the defendant is the only one who testified to verbal threats or intimidation.
3. Do verbal threats make it okay to kill a 17 year old kid? Even if he is "black"?

So if I tell a woman I am going to rape and beat her; that, in your view, is not violence or threatening?

If a group of young black teens approach you in a threatening manner after you ask them to stop doing something, that is not threatening?

You have a laughably stupid interpretation of the law. Of course, you also believe that law abiding citizens don't have the right to defend themselves and should shrink and cower in the face of such threats.

Like I said; I am perfectly happy waiting for the juries decision and will accept it as justice. I don't know why you find that so terribly difficult to do.

 

[Truth Detector]

Again, I only stated facts that are admitted to by both sides.

Wrong dishonest dunce; you stated them in a biased way. Of course, you're either too stupid, or dishonest, to admit as much.

Now why are you trying to argue with me? You asked for my views, and I stated I would wait for the jury's decision. Then you asked my opinion, now you want to argue with me over that opinion; to what purpose? To remove all doubt bat a dishonest dunce you are?

 

[Jarod]

So if I tell a woman I am going to rape and beat her; that, in your view, is not violence or threatening?

If a group of young black teens approach you in a threatening manner after you ask them to stop doing something, that is not threatening?

You have a laughably stupid interpretation of the law. Of course, you also believe that law abiding citizens don't have the right to defend themselves and should shrink and cower in the face of such threats.

Like I said; I am perfectly happy waiting for the juries decision and will accept it as justice. I don't know why you find that so terribly difficult to do.

I never said it was not threatening?

I don't think you should kill someone under these circumstances, even if they are "black" youths.