Conquer Club

evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.

Still nobody has answered why they think Zimmerman is guilty this time.

Phatscotty wrote:Why do you guys think Zimmerman is guilty this time? I don't get it

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.

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.

Symmetry wrote:Their was plenty of evidence to provide his guilt. If there was no evidence it wouldn't have gone to trial.

a manufactured media circus is only evidence to people who believe everything they are told. open your mind.

Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.

Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.

Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?

Why would I be?

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.

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.

john9blue wrote:honestly i think martin might be better off dead,

Wow

john9blue wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Why do you guys think Zimmerman is guilty this time? I don't get it

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.

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.

Symmetry wrote:Their was plenty of evidence to provide his guilt. If there was no evidence it wouldn't have gone to trial.

a manufactured media circus is only evidence to people who believe everything they are told. open your mind.

Right back atcha big guy.

john9blue wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Why do you guys think Zimmerman is guilty this time? I don't get it

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.

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.

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.

I also understand women when it comes to using things against men. I'm not taking her word for it, not for a second.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.

Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?

Why would I be?

Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:honestly i think martin might be better off dead,

Wow

Why are you surprised? Typical Jb.

I'm sure his family feels the same way John.

AAFitz wrote:

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.

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.

No, a political lynching and mob threats encouraged by presidential race baiting is what got it to trial.

There was only evidence of self defense

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.

Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?

Why would I be?

Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?

and dismissed as fantasy by a jury of peers

The prosecutor sandbagged the images of Zimmerman's busted up head from the affidavit.

You don't know enough to have this conversation.

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

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.

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.

No, a political lynching and mob threats encouraged by presidential race baiting is what got it to trial.

There was only evidence of self defense

Now who's imagining things? Too fucking funny.

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.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.

Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?

Why would I be?

Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?

and dismissed as fantasy by a jury of peers

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.

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

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.

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.

No, a political lynching and mob threats encouraged by presidential race baiting is what got it to trial.

There was only evidence of self defense

Now who's imagining things? Too fucking funny.

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.

Phatscotty: Zimmerman is not guilty
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.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.

Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?

Why would I be?

Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?

and dismissed as fantasy by a jury of peers

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.

While we are talking about aquitals, Phatscotty...what is your opinion of the OJ Simpson case?

Was there no evidence?
Was he not guilty?
Was it all fantasy?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:evidence and 'how you feel' are two different things as well.

Your argument was that there was no evidence to support guilt. Are you at least reasonably doubtful about that claim now?

Why would I be?

Because there was a court case you followed in which the evidence you deny exists was presented by the prosecution?

and dismissed as fantasy by a jury of peers

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)

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

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.

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.

No, a political lynching and mob threats encouraged by presidential race baiting is what got it to trial.

There was only evidence of self defense

Now who's imagining things? Too fucking funny.

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.

Phatscotty: Zimmerman is not guilty
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.

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?

As I explained, quite clearly, the jury found him guilty, and he is absolutely not guilty, but that does not mean he may not still be guilty of the crime in a real sense, if not a legal one.

If I felt Scooter, or you" Mr Martin is better off dead" were worthy of more detail, sure, Id go into it, but for now, Im happy to supply about what I feel is necessary and warranted.

By the way, you are an absolute piece of human garbage for saying Martin is probably better off dead, and I so hope you are right about your God and all, because Im pretty sure hes gonna mention that one, if you are lucky enough to be shot to death walking through your parents neighborhood some night, too.

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)

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:
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.

Its a stupid one.

They chose to find him not guilty, because they may have felt there was not enough evidence, or there was a reasonable doubt, or a thousand other reasons, but if you are so stupid as to think a not guilty verdict means there is no evidence, well, you should call yourself Phatscotty.

They also could have been bigoted morons. In any case, a jury verdict does not reveal what evidence was there or not there, just how they viewed it.

What you seem to be suggesting here, is that every not guilty plea ever, means there was never any evidence in any case?

You guys are still fighting about this?

There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.

instead of drooling all over the evidence, why don't you bring it to the table.

Show me the evidence RIGHT NOW!

thegreekdog wrote:You guys are still fighting about this?

There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.

Make a thread dude. Your respectibility will bring good conversation

I would name it "Racism in America" If you make it I will provide all the videos

thegreekdog 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.

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog 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.

I wouldn't call it fighting either. For them, it's venting; they need someone to blame and yell at.

For me its dunkin on foos