(02-04-2016 08:54 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Then answer Bull's question and stop deflecting.

Guilty of what?

I'll rephrase. Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

Well?

Fit before trial: Zimmerman is guilty of murder!

Fit after trial: I still think he's guilty of murder! The jury got it wrong!!

Fit now: I never said he was guilty.

Misrepresenting what I said should be a bannable offense.

(02-05-2016 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 08:54 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Guilty of what?

I'll rephrase. Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

Well?

Fit before trial: Zimmerman is guilty of murder!

Fit after trial: I still think he's guilty of murder! The jury got it wrong!!

Fit now: I never said he was guilty.

Misrepresenting what I said should be a bannable offense.

Why don't you set us straight then? None of us can remember what you said and when, nor can we get you to answer direct questions.

(02-05-2016 11:13 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 08:54 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll rephrase. Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

Well?

Fit before trial: Zimmerman is guilty of murder!

Fit after trial: I still think he's guilty of murder! The jury got it wrong!!

Fit now: I never said he was guilty.

Misrepresenting what I said should be a bannable offense.

Why don't you set us straight then? None of us can remember what you said and when, nor can we get you to answer direct questions.

I would love to.

I thought then that Zimmerman profiled and killed Treyvon Martin and that he should have been charged in his death.

(02-05-2016 11:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:13 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 08:54 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Well?

Fit before trial: Zimmerman is guilty of murder!

Fit after trial: I still think he's guilty of murder! The jury got it wrong!!

Fit now: I never said he was guilty.

Misrepresenting what I said should be a bannable offense.

Why don't you set us straight then? None of us can remember what you said and when, nor can we get you to answer direct questions.

I would love to.

I thought then that Zimmerman profiled and killed Treyvon Martin and that he should have been charged in his death.

Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

(02-05-2016 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 08:54 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Guilty of what?

I'll rephrase. Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

Well?

Fit before trial: Zimmerman is guilty of murder!

Fit after trial: I still think he's guilty of murder! The jury got it wrong!!

Fit now: I never said he was guilty.

Misrepresenting what I said should be a bannable offense.

Perhaps, but I was paraphrasing not quoting verbatim. Nothing I posted is false.

(02-05-2016 11:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:13 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 08:54 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Fit before trial: Zimmerman is guilty of murder!

Fit after trial: I still think he's guilty of murder! The jury got it wrong!!

Fit now: I never said he was guilty.

Misrepresenting what I said should be a bannable offense.

Why don't you set us straight then? None of us can remember what you said and when, nor can we get you to answer direct questions.

I would love to.

I thought then that Zimmerman profiled and killed Treyvon Martin and that he should have been charged in his death.

Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

I don't know. I didn't get to see all the trial. My gut feeling however is that it would have been very hard to prove premeditation that I assumed was what was needed to convict him of murder. Does following a guy with a loaded weapon constitute premeditation? Was the jury instructed to consider his 911 call as evidence of premeditation or not? There is just too much that I don't know happened in the courtroom.

(02-05-2016 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:13 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Misrepresenting what I said should be a bannable offense.

Why don't you set us straight then? None of us can remember what you said and when, nor can we get you to answer direct questions.

I would love to.

I thought then that Zimmerman profiled and killed Treyvon Martin and that he should have been charged in his death.

Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

I don't know. I didn't get to see all the trial. My gut feeling however is that it would have been very hard to prove premeditation that I assumed was what was needed to convict him of murder. Does following a guy with a loaded weapon constitute premeditation? Was the jury instructed to consider his 911 call as evidence of premeditation or not? There is just too much that I don't know happened in the courtroom.

And there is the problem that everybody has with you in regards to this issue and others. You refuse to take a stance. When asked if you thought he was guilty you respond with "Guilty of what?" When asked if you think the jury reached the right verdict you respond with "I don't know". You say he is guilty of killing Martin, yet killing someone is not always crime. Zimmerman never said he didn't kill Martin. Your insistence that Zimmerman is "guilty" of killing Martin means absolutely nothing. It's a non-stance on the issue.

You are doing the same thing in this thread, arguing semantics over what you said rather than addressing the issue of her emails and having the courage to make your stance clearly known.

(02-05-2016 12:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:13 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Why don't you set us straight then? None of us can remember what you said and when, nor can we get you to answer direct questions.

I would love to.

I thought then that Zimmerman profiled and killed Treyvon Martin and that he should have been charged in his death.

Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

I don't know. I didn't get to see all the trial. My gut feeling however is that it would have been very hard to prove premeditation that I assumed was what was needed to convict him of murder. Does following a guy with a loaded weapon constitute premeditation? Was the jury instructed to consider his 911 call as evidence of premeditation or not? There is just too much that I don't know happened in the courtroom.

And there is the problem that everybody has with you in regards to this issue and others. You refuse to take a stance. When asked if you thought he was guilty you respond with "Guilty of what?" When asked if you think the jury reached the right verdict you respond with "I don't know". You say he is guilty of killing Martin, yet killing someone is not always crime. Zimmerman never said he didn't kill Martin. Your insistence that Zimmerman is "guilty" of killing Martin means absolutely nothing. It's a non-stance on the issue.

You are doing the same thing in this thread, arguing semantics over what you said rather than addressing the issue of her emails and having the courage to make your stance clearly known.

I don't think I ever said that Zimmerman was "guilty" of killing Martin. If I did, I simply meant that he was culpable or responsible for his death not "guility" as in a court of law.

(02-05-2016 12:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I would love to.

I thought then that Zimmerman profiled and killed Treyvon Martin and that he should have been charged in his death.

Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

I don't know. I didn't get to see all the trial. My gut feeling however is that it would have been very hard to prove premeditation that I assumed was what was needed to convict him of murder. Does following a guy with a loaded weapon constitute premeditation? Was the jury instructed to consider his 911 call as evidence of premeditation or not? There is just too much that I don't know happened in the courtroom.

And there is the problem that everybody has with you in regards to this issue and others. You refuse to take a stance. When asked if you thought he was guilty you respond with "Guilty of what?" When asked if you think the jury reached the right verdict you respond with "I don't know". You say he is guilty of killing Martin, yet killing someone is not always crime. Zimmerman never said he didn't kill Martin. Your insistence that Zimmerman is "guilty" of killing Martin means absolutely nothing. It's a non-stance on the issue.

You are doing the same thing in this thread, arguing semantics over what you said rather than addressing the issue of her emails and having the courage to make your stance clearly known.

I don't think I ever said that Zimmerman was "guilty" of killing Martin. If I did, I simply meant that he was culpable or responsible for his death not "guility" as in a court of law.

(02-05-2016 12:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I would love to.

I thought then that Zimmerman profiled and killed Treyvon Martin and that he should have been charged in his death.

Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

I don't know. I didn't get to see all the trial. My gut feeling however is that it would have been very hard to prove premeditation that I assumed was what was needed to convict him of murder. Does following a guy with a loaded weapon constitute premeditation? Was the jury instructed to consider his 911 call as evidence of premeditation or not? There is just too much that I don't know happened in the courtroom.

And there is the problem that everybody has with you in regards to this issue and others. You refuse to take a stance. When asked if you thought he was guilty you respond with "Guilty of what?" When asked if you think the jury reached the right verdict you respond with "I don't know". You say he is guilty of killing Martin, yet killing someone is not always crime. Zimmerman never said he didn't kill Martin. Your insistence that Zimmerman is "guilty" of killing Martin means absolutely nothing. It's a non-stance on the issue.

You are doing the same thing in this thread, arguing semantics over what you said rather than addressing the issue of her emails and having the courage to make your stance clearly known.

I don't think I ever said that Zimmerman was "guilty" of killing Martin. If I did, I simply meant that he was culpable or responsible for his death not "guility" as in a court of law.

See, you don't even know what you said.

(02-05-2016 12:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 11:45 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Do you think the jury reached the right verdict?

I don't know. I didn't get to see all the trial. My gut feeling however is that it would have been very hard to prove premeditation that I assumed was what was needed to convict him of murder. Does following a guy with a loaded weapon constitute premeditation? Was the jury instructed to consider his 911 call as evidence of premeditation or not? There is just too much that I don't know happened in the courtroom.

And there is the problem that everybody has with you in regards to this issue and others. You refuse to take a stance. When asked if you thought he was guilty you respond with "Guilty of what?" When asked if you think the jury reached the right verdict you respond with "I don't know". You say he is guilty of killing Martin, yet killing someone is not always crime. Zimmerman never said he didn't kill Martin. Your insistence that Zimmerman is "guilty" of killing Martin means absolutely nothing. It's a non-stance on the issue.

You are doing the same thing in this thread, arguing semantics over what you said rather than addressing the issue of her emails and having the courage to make your stance clearly known.

I don't think I ever said that Zimmerman was "guilty" of killing Martin. If I did, I simply meant that he was culpable or responsible for his death not "guility" as in a court of law.

See, you don't even know what you said.

If I said it then post it.

http://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/2...ry-scandal

I don't know which way "The Hill" leans, but article talks about how Obama's legacy could be stained by Hillary.

(02-05-2016 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't know. I didn't get to see all the trial. My gut feeling however is that it would have been very hard to prove premeditation that I assumed was what was needed to convict him of murder. Does following a guy with a loaded weapon constitute premeditation? Was the jury instructed to consider his 911 call as evidence of premeditation or not? There is just too much that I don't know happened in the courtroom.

And there is the problem that everybody has with you in regards to this issue and others. You refuse to take a stance. When asked if you thought he was guilty you respond with "Guilty of what?" When asked if you think the jury reached the right verdict you respond with "I don't know". You say he is guilty of killing Martin, yet killing someone is not always crime. Zimmerman never said he didn't kill Martin. Your insistence that Zimmerman is "guilty" of killing Martin means absolutely nothing. It's a non-stance on the issue.

You are doing the same thing in this thread, arguing semantics over what you said rather than addressing the issue of her emails and having the courage to make your stance clearly known.

I don't think I ever said that Zimmerman was "guilty" of killing Martin. If I did, I simply meant that he was culpable or responsible for his death not "guility" as in a court of law.

See, you don't even know what you said.

If I said it then post it.

(05-12-2015 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Which is why I have always said that just because he was found "not guilty" does not necessarily mean he was "innocent".

If he isn't "innocent" what is he?

This is a perfect example of how you hide behind semantic arguments and why nobody on here has any respect for your comments. Your convictions are so weak that you can't even make definitive statements or voice your opinions.

(02-05-2016 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/2...ry-scandal

I don't know which way "The Hill" leans, but article talks about how Obama's legacy could be stained by Hillary.

It's fairly neutral, but I think AB Stoddard, who wrote this opinion piece is most conservative IIRC.

(02-05-2016 01:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  And there is the problem that everybody has with you in regards to this issue and others. You refuse to take a stance. When asked if you thought he was guilty you respond with "Guilty of what?" When asked if you think the jury reached the right verdict you respond with "I don't know". You say he is guilty of killing Martin, yet killing someone is not always crime. Zimmerman never said he didn't kill Martin. Your insistence that Zimmerman is "guilty" of killing Martin means absolutely nothing. It's a non-stance on the issue.

You are doing the same thing in this thread, arguing semantics over what you said rather than addressing the issue of her emails and having the courage to make your stance clearly known.

I don't think I ever said that Zimmerman was "guilty" of killing Martin. If I did, I simply meant that he was culpable or responsible for his death not "guility" as in a court of law.

See, you don't even know what you said.

If I said it then post it.

(05-12-2015 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Which is why I have always said that just because he was found "not guilty" does not necessarily mean he was "innocent".

If he isn't "innocent" what is he?

This is a perfect example of how you hide behind semantic arguments and why nobody on here has any respect for your comments. Your convictions are so weak that you can't even make definitive statements or voice your opinions.

Hes culpable. He wasnt found guilty in a court of law but he is the reason Trayvon is dead. He should have been found guilty of manslaughter.

You say I hide behind semantics but in reality it is you how is trying to corner me using simantics. Ive been abundantly clear on this event. You are just trying to play word game of gatcha .

Im very familiar with it. Some people even save my comments. You might be one of them.

Its the highest form of flattery.

How is self defense manslaughter?

(02-07-2016 11:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  How is self defense manslaughter?

How is it self defense when you are the one following an unarmed boy with a loaded weapon? What would you do if someone started following you in the dark?

(02-05-2016 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't know. I didn't get to see all the trial. My gut feeling however is that it would have been very hard to prove premeditation that I assumed was what was needed to convict him of murder. Does following a guy with a loaded weapon constitute premeditation? Was the jury instructed to consider his 911 call as evidence of premeditation or not? There is just too much that I don't know happened in the courtroom.

And there is the problem that everybody has with you in regards to this issue and others. You refuse to take a stance. When asked if you thought he was guilty you respond with "Guilty of what?" When asked if you think the jury reached the right verdict you respond with "I don't know". You say he is guilty of killing Martin, yet killing someone is not always crime. Zimmerman never said he didn't kill Martin. Your insistence that Zimmerman is "guilty" of killing Martin means absolutely nothing. It's a non-stance on the issue.

You are doing the same thing in this thread, arguing semantics over what you said rather than addressing the issue of her emails and having the courage to make your stance clearly known.

I don't think I ever said that Zimmerman was "guilty" of killing Martin. If I did, I simply meant that he was culpable or responsible for his death not "guility" as in a court of law.

See, you don't even know what you said.

If I said it then post it.

You just said this in another post...

Quote:Fit before trial: Zimmerman is guilty of murder!

Fit after trial: I still think he's guilty of murder! The jury got it wrong!!

Fit now: I never said he was guilty.

Yet you have the nerve to question MY misrepresentations, when you said you never ever said what I paraphrased above.

(02-07-2016 11:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 01:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 12:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think I ever said that Zimmerman was "guilty" of killing Martin. If I did, I simply meant that he was culpable or responsible for his death not "guility" as in a court of law.

See, you don't even know what you said.

If I said it then post it.

(05-12-2015 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Which is why I have always said that just because he was found "not guilty" does not necessarily mean he was "innocent".

If he isn't "innocent" what is he?

This is a perfect example of how you hide behind semantic arguments and why nobody on here has any respect for your comments. Your convictions are so weak that you can't even make definitive statements or voice your opinions.

Hes culpable. He wasnt found guilty in a court of law but he is the reason Trayvon is dead. He should have been found guilty of manslaughter.

You say I hide behind semantics but in reality it is you how is trying to corner me using simantics. Ive been abundantly clear on this event. You are just trying to play word game of gatcha .

Im very familiar with it. Some people even save my comments. You might be one of them.

Its the highest form of flattery.

But you denied ever saying you thought he was guilty. Now who's playing the gotcha game? Certainly not myself nor 200yrs.

(02-07-2016 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 11:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  How is self defense manslaughter?

How is it self defense when you are the one following an unarmed boy with a loaded weapon? What would you do if someone started following you in the dark?

Still torturing the facts I see.