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

dsc

(52,166 posts)
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:52 PM Jul 2013

Oh for the love of Christ, Lawerence

Not testifying doesn't necessarily equal guilty. It might be that you have been convicted of other things in the past. It might be that it is the 1980's and you are gay. It could be you are a Communist in the 50's or a civil rights activist in the 60's. It could be lots of things. You should know better, shame on you.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oh for the love of Christ, Lawerence (Original Post) dsc Jul 2013 OP
OR you could be George Zimmerman.... VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #1
I think he was guilty but even if he weren't dsc Jul 2013 #2

dsc

(52,166 posts)
2. I think he was guilty but even if he weren't
Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:09 PM
Jul 2013

his past was reason enough not to testify. Like it or not, his past was both probative and prejudicial, and thus he couldn't go on the stand.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Oh for the love of Christ...