Moderator: Community Team
because people aren't separated into "good" and "evil" categories? most people in the world are selfish assholes, especially after suffering a media lynching, crushing legal debt, and the hatred of an entire race.Phatscotty wrote:Why do you guys think Zimmerman is guilty this time? I don't get it
a manufactured media circus is only evidence to people who believe everything they are told. open your mind.Symmetry wrote:Their was plenty of evidence to provide his guilt. If there was no evidence it wouldn't have gone to trial.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Why would I be?Symmetry wrote:Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Um, again, they did feel there was enough evidence to go to trial. I mean quite a few people decide on that stuff, and its not typically done lightly. Suggesting there was no evidence whatsoever, again, is just so devoid of intelligence as to be a phatscotty. Oh. I understand now. Nevermind.Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Still nobody has answered why they think Zimmerman is guilty this time.
Wowjohn9blue wrote:honestly i think martin might be better off dead,
Right back atcha big guy.john9blue wrote:because people aren't separated into "good" and "evil" categories? most people in the world are selfish assholes, especially after suffering a media lynching, crushing legal debt, and the hatred of an entire race.Phatscotty wrote:Why do you guys think Zimmerman is guilty this time? I don't get it
can you accept that maybe zimmerman did something wrong? honestly i think martin might be better off dead, but even i am willing to admit that zimmerman is likely at fault here.
a manufactured media circus is only evidence to people who believe everything they are told. open your mind.Symmetry wrote:Their was plenty of evidence to provide his guilt. If there was no evidence it wouldn't have gone to trial.
Of course. I too realize Zimmerman's life is in tatters and is under extreme stress, all from being dragged into a trial with no evidence to support the charges.john9blue wrote:because people aren't separated into "good" and "evil" categories? most people in the world are selfish assholes, especially after suffering a media lynching, crushing legal debt, and the hatred of an entire race.Phatscotty wrote:Why do you guys think Zimmerman is guilty this time? I don't get it
can you accept that maybe zimmerman did something wrong? honestly i think martin might be better off dead, but even i am willing to admit that zimmerman is likely at fault here.
Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?Phatscotty wrote:Why would I be?Symmetry wrote:Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Why are you surprised? Typical Jb.Symmetry wrote:Wowjohn9blue wrote:honestly i think martin might be better off dead,
No, a political lynching and mob threats encouraged by presidential race baiting is what got it to trial.AAFitz wrote:Um, again, they did feel there was enough evidence to go to trial. I mean quite a few people decide on that stuff, and its not typically done lightly. Suggesting there was no evidence whatsoever, again, is just so devoid of intelligence as to be a phatscotty. Oh. I understand now. Nevermind.Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Still nobody has answered why they think Zimmerman is guilty this time.
and dismissed as fantasy by a jury of peersSymmetry wrote:Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?Phatscotty wrote:Why would I be?Symmetry wrote:Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Now who's imagining things? Too fucking funny.Phatscotty wrote:No, a political lynching and mob threats encouraged by presidential race baiting is what got it to trial.AAFitz wrote:Um, again, they did feel there was enough evidence to go to trial. I mean quite a few people decide on that stuff, and its not typically done lightly. Suggesting there was no evidence whatsoever, again, is just so devoid of intelligence as to be a phatscotty. Oh. I understand now. Nevermind.Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Still nobody has answered why they think Zimmerman is guilty this time.
There was only evidence of self defense
I know what "evidence" means, apparently.Phatscotty wrote:and dismissed as fantasy by a jury of peersSymmetry wrote:Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?Phatscotty wrote:Why would I be?Symmetry wrote:Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
The prosecutor sandbagged the images of Zimmerman's busted up head from the affidavit.
You don't know enough to have this conversation.
Phatscotty: Zimmerman is not guiltyAAFitz wrote:Now who's imagining things? Too fucking funny.Phatscotty wrote:No, a political lynching and mob threats encouraged by presidential race baiting is what got it to trial.AAFitz wrote:Um, again, they did feel there was enough evidence to go to trial. I mean quite a few people decide on that stuff, and its not typically done lightly. Suggesting there was no evidence whatsoever, again, is just so devoid of intelligence as to be a phatscotty. Oh. I understand now. Nevermind.Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Still nobody has answered why they think Zimmerman is guilty this time.
There was only evidence of self defense
I love how you ignore all time and activity, right up until a fight as if its irrelevant. I'm not saying I'm surprised. Ignoring facts is kind of your thing. I just find the irony so perfect, if tragic, that I simply love watching you continue on.
While we are talking about aquitals, Phatscotty...what is your opinion of the OJ Simpson case?Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:and dismissed as fantasy by a jury of peersSymmetry wrote:Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?Phatscotty wrote:Why would I be?Symmetry wrote:Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
The prosecutor sandbagged the images of Zimmerman's busted up head from the affidavit.
You don't know enough to have this conversation.
I know what "evidence" means, apparently.
Then what happened to it? Why didn't the jury find him guilty if there was evidence? (heh This is not a trick question heh)Symmetry wrote:I know what "evidence" means, apparently.Phatscotty wrote:and dismissed as fantasy by a jury of peersSymmetry wrote:Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?Phatscotty wrote:Why would I be?Symmetry wrote:Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
The prosecutor sandbagged the images of Zimmerman's busted up head from the affidavit.
You don't know enough to have this conversation.
Again, there is an actual difference between being guilty and being found guilty, unless you are suggesting that in every trial ever, the jury verdict actually was correct?Phatscotty wrote:Phatscotty: Zimmerman is not guiltyAAFitz wrote:Now who's imagining things? Too fucking funny.Phatscotty wrote:No, a political lynching and mob threats encouraged by presidential race baiting is what got it to trial.AAFitz wrote:Um, again, they did feel there was enough evidence to go to trial. I mean quite a few people decide on that stuff, and its not typically done lightly. Suggesting there was no evidence whatsoever, again, is just so devoid of intelligence as to be a phatscotty. Oh. I understand now. Nevermind.Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.
Still nobody has answered why they think Zimmerman is guilty this time.
There was only evidence of self defense
I love how you ignore all time and activity, right up until a fight as if its irrelevant. I'm not saying I'm surprised. Ignoring facts is kind of your thing. I just find the irony so perfect, if tragic, that I simply love watching you continue on.
AAFitz: Zimmerman is guilty
Zimmerman is found not guilty
AAftiz continues lecturing Phatscotty about who has the facts wrong. I think I'm past worrying about that, as I have already been vindicated and proven right, like always.
You have been proven wrong.
They did what juries do, they examined it. That they did not find it persuasive enough does not mean it didn't exist,Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Then what happened to it? Why didn't the jury find him guilty if there was evidence? (heh This is not a trick question heh)
Its not a trick question.Phatscotty wrote:
Then what happened to it? Why didn't the jury find him guilty if there was evidence? (heh This is not a trick question heh)
Make a thread dude. Your respectibility will bring good conversationthegreekdog wrote:You guys are still fighting about this?
There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.
Fighting really does more justice to this conversation than it deserves.thegreekdog wrote:You guys are still fighting about this?
There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.
I wouldn't call it fighting either. For them, it's venting; they need someone to blame and yell at.AAFitz wrote:Fighting really does more justice to this conversation than it deserves.thegreekdog wrote:You guys are still fighting about this?
There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.
