17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[baldeagle]

...the minute I hit send, I knew I was going to have somebody grab at the difference between "defense" and "expenses"...nit-picking and playing the words are about all that can be done when hit with the truth...kinda petty, doncha think? but when that's all ya got.... the meaning was clear...money for legal defense and money for legal expenses is the same thing...pretty poor point of dispute...

...he was really interested in using it for his living expenses...and paying off his credit cards...to the point he and his wife worked hard to hide it...he's just not willing to use it to honestly pay a fair bond...a "legal defense" expense that he promised the good folks that donated he'd use it on...I could care less that they gave him money...and I don't know how "...It would appear that " I'm "bothered"...nothing posted says that...it's an unfounded conclusion that's being jumped to....but he and his wife are not acting in the same "good faith" that the donors acted in...they didn't give them the money to lie about and hide...maybe it'll be used as promised from now on, since they have someone else controlling it now...

Quoting from the link that YOU posted.

I have created a Paypal account solely linked on this website as I would like to provide an avenue to thank my supporters personally and ensure that any funds provided are used only for living expenses and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment. I will also personally, maintain accountability of all funds received. I reassure you, every donation is appreciated. (emphasis mine)

So why are you now insisting that he really only wanted it for living expenses? How can you claim to know what was in his head and heart?

[speedsix]

...I never insisted any such thing...I never said either of the things you say that I did...it must seem strange when folks read you taking me to task for something, and they can read for themselves that I never said what you accuse me of saying...better that you argue what I DID say without putting words in my mouth...

...the FACTS are, that having over 135,000 at the time available to him, he was busy hiding it, shuffling it around,and telling her to pay off their credit cards... and they went to the bond hearing and lied to the judge to keep from having to spend it on posting bond(a legal defense expense)...PROVING that he was not willing to honestly use it for what it had been given him for...I don't have to claim to know anything...just processing the facts...which do a pretty good job of showing what's on his mind...no need to guess...their own words and actions make it plain...the judge figured it out...

[Keith B]

New video on television this morning showing Zimmerman talking to investigators. Nose is clearly swollen/out of place, bandages on back of head and has bruising. The only thing the news anchor talked about was would the jury believe his story being TOO good. Inconsistencies with other interviews and in court testimony will play into that.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... d=16616864" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ScooterSissy]

...the minute I hit send, I knew I was going to have somebody grab at the difference between "defense" and "expenses"...nit-picking and playing the words are about all that can be done when hit with the truth...kinda petty, doncha think? but when that's all ya got.... the meaning was clear...money for legal defense and money for legal expenses is the same thing...pretty poor point of dispute...

Sorry you didn't like it being pointed out, but now you're the one nit-picking. Go back and reread what I've written and you'll see that not only is that not "all I've got", it's not what I've even been talking about. You seem to focus in on things that are said that you can argue, and ignore the rest.

My point was, and is still, he also said living expenses. Nothing has shown that's not what he's using it for.

...he was really interested in using it for his living expenses...and paying off his credit cards...to the point he and his wife worked hard to hide it...he's just not willing to use it to honestly pay a fair bond...a "legal defense" expense that he promised the good folks that donated he'd use it on...I could care less that they gave him money...and I don't know how "...It would appear that " I'm "bothered"...nothing posted says that...it's an unfounded conclusion that's being jumped to....but he and his wife are not acting in the same "good faith" that the donors acted in...they didn't give them the money to lie about and hide...maybe it'll be used as promised from now on, since they have someone else controlling it now...

You have nothing to show that he "was really interested in using it for his living expenses" (if, by that, you mean only for his living expenses). There's little doubt in my mind that he used some of that money for his bond. As far as you being "bothered", I don't see how you can say that's "unfounded". You're on here calling him a weasel, and claiming he lied. What has he used the money for besides living expenses and legal fees?

Before you jump on the credit card issue, I'll say this. If I knew I was going to be unemployed for a long period of time, I would consider paying off credit card debt (and any other outstanding debt) to be part of paying "living expenses".

You and I neither one give the guy a dime - I'm curious, who out there that did feels he has lied and taken their money under false pretenses? Maybe if we hear from some of his donors that would shed some light on whether this "lie" accusation is legitimate, or just more of your rant against the "weasel".

[ScooterSissy]

...I never insisted any such thing...I never said either of the things you say that I did...it must seem strange when folks read you taking me to task for something, and they can read for themselves that I never said what you accuse me of saying...better that you argue what I DID say without putting words in my mouth...

Here's what you said (at the risk of sounding like I'm "nit-picking":

...he was really interested in using it for his living expenses...and paying off his credit cards...

That, and the fact that you accused him of lying. I have yet to see any information that shows he's not using it for living expenses and legal fees.

[speedsix]

...the minute I hit send, I knew I was going to have somebody grab at the difference between "defense" and "expenses"...nit-picking and playing the words are about all that can be done when hit with the truth...kinda petty, doncha think? but when that's all ya got.... the meaning was clear...money for legal defense and money for legal expenses is the same thing...pretty poor point of dispute...

Sorry you didn't like it being pointed out, but now you're the one nit-picking. Go back and reread what I've written and you'll see that not only is that not "all I've got", it's not what I've even been talking about. You seem to focus in on things that are said that you can argue, and ignore the rest.

My point was, and is still, he also said living expenses. Nothing has shown that's not what he's using it for.

...he was really interested in using it for his living expenses...and paying off his credit cards...to the point he and his wife worked hard to hide it...he's just not willing to use it to honestly pay a fair bond...a "legal defense" expense that he promised the good folks that donated he'd use it on...I could care less that they gave him money...and I don't know how "...It would appear that " I'm "bothered"...nothing posted says that...it's an unfounded conclusion that's being jumped to....but he and his wife are not acting in the same "good faith" that the donors acted in...they didn't give them the money to lie about and hide...maybe it'll be used as promised from now on, since they have someone else controlling it now...

You have nothing to show that he "was really interested in using it for his living expenses" (if, by that, you mean only for his living expenses). There's little doubt in my mind that he used some of that money for his bond. As far as you being "bothered", I don't see how you can say that's "unfounded". You're on here calling him a weasel, and claiming he lied. What has he used the money for besides living expenses and legal fees?

Before you jump on the credit card issue, I'll say this. If I knew I was going to be unemployed for a long period of time, I would consider paying off credit card debt (and any other outstanding debt) to be part of paying "living expenses".

You and I neither one give the guy a dime - I'm curious, who out there that did feels he has lied and taken their money under false pretenses? Maybe if we hear from some of his donors that would shed some light on whether this "lie" accusation is legitimate, or just more of your rant against the "weasel".

...we don't really need an opinion poll...the JUDGE reviewed the evidence and made the "lie" accusation...except he likened him to a marigold...not a weasel...there you go again interpreting my words instead of reading them "(if by that you mean ...)"...how 'bout just reading my words instead of adding your own meaning...

...and as to this:" My point was, and is still, he also said living expenses. Nothing has shown that's not what he's using it for" ...nobody has said that that's not what he's using it for...or that paying off his credit card wouldn't be "living expenses"...it's quite obvious by the FACTS that he's doing those things...while lying to the judge about how much money he's got available to get a lower bond...and do you know for a fact that I didn't send him a corroded old dime?...you guessed right...now it's a fact...before I told you it was just another guess...

...amazing how some can totally ignore established facts and spend their time arguing with the exact wording of what someone has to say about them...but if there's no arguing the facts...I guess that's what's left...I just wish you'd argue with the words I post instead of what you think I said or what you think I mean...

[speedsix]

...I never insisted any such thing...I never said either of the things you say that I did...it must seem strange when folks read you taking me to task for something, and they can read for themselves that I never said what you accuse me of saying...better that you argue what I DID say without putting words in my mouth...

Here's what you said (at the risk of sounding like I'm "nit-picking":

...he was really interested in using it for his living expenses...and paying off his credit cards...

That, and the fact that you accused him of lying. I have yet to see any information that shows he's not using it for living expenses and legal fees.

...the words "really interested in" cannot be construed to mean the same as "only"...not in any dictionary or thesaurus I've seen...even if you twist really hard...I didn't ACCUSE him of lying...I commented that the JUDGE accused him of lying...and agreed heartily with the judge based on the EVIDENCE...not innuendo...

[ScooterSissy]

...the minute I hit send, I knew I was going to have somebody grab at the difference between "defense" and "expenses"...nit-picking and playing the words are about all that can be done when hit with the truth...kinda petty, doncha think? but when that's all ya got.... the meaning was clear...money for legal defense and money for legal expenses is the same thing...pretty poor point of dispute...

Sorry you didn't like it being pointed out, but now you're the one nit-picking. Go back and reread what I've written and you'll see that not only is that not "all I've got", it's not what I've even been talking about. You seem to focus in on things that are said that you can argue, and ignore the rest.

My point was, and is still, he also said living expenses. Nothing has shown that's not what he's using it for.

...he was really interested in using it for his living expenses...and paying off his credit cards...to the point he and his wife worked hard to hide it...he's just not willing to use it to honestly pay a fair bond...a "legal defense" expense that he promised the good folks that donated he'd use it on...I could care less that they gave him money...and I don't know how "...It would appear that " I'm "bothered"...nothing posted says that...it's an unfounded conclusion that's being jumped to....but he and his wife are not acting in the same "good faith" that the donors acted in...they didn't give them the money to lie about and hide...maybe it'll be used as promised from now on, since they have someone else controlling it now...

You have nothing to show that he "was really interested in using it for his living expenses" (if, by that, you mean only for his living expenses). There's little doubt in my mind that he used some of that money for his bond. As far as you being "bothered", I don't see how you can say that's "unfounded". You're on here calling him a weasel, and claiming he lied. What has he used the money for besides living expenses and legal fees?

Before you jump on the credit card issue, I'll say this. If I knew I was going to be unemployed for a long period of time, I would consider paying off credit card debt (and any other outstanding debt) to be part of paying "living expenses".

You and I neither one give the guy a dime - I'm curious, who out there that did feels he has lied and taken their money under false pretenses? Maybe if we hear from some of his donors that would shed some light on whether this "lie" accusation is legitimate, or just more of your rant against the "weasel".

...we don't really need an opinion poll...the JUDGE reviewed the evidence and made the "lie" accusation...except he likened him to a marigold...not a weasel...there you go again interpreting my words instead of reading them "(if by that you mean ...)"...how 'bout just reading my words instead of adding your own meaning...

...and as to this:" My point was, and is still, he also said living expenses. Nothing has shown that's not what he's using it for" ...nobody has said that that's not what he's using it for...or that paying off his credit card wouldn't be "living expenses"...it's quite obvious by the FACTS that he's doing those things...while lying to the judge about how much money he's got available to get a lower bond...and do you know for a fact that I didn't send him a corroded old dime?...you guessed right...now it's a fact...before I told you it was just another guess...

...amazing how some can totally ignore established facts and spend their time arguing with the exact wording of what someone has to say about them...but if there's no arguing the facts...I guess that's what's left...I just wish you'd argue with the words I post instead of what you think I said or what you think I mean...

Because words have meaning. BTW, I didn't "interpret" weasel, it was what you called him. That's another "fact" (you calling him one, that is. Whether or not he is one is strictly opinion, but then it would appear some are allowed to express opinions, thoughts, interpretations, etc - while others must stick solely to the "facts").

But, back to the topic at hand. Is it safe then, to say that you aren't saying or implying that he's not using the money for what he claimed he would. You're starting to confuse me...

[ScooterSissy]

...the words "really interested in" cannot be construed to mean the same as "only"...not in any dictionary or thesaurus I've seen...even if you twist really hard...I didn't ACCUSE him of lying...I commented that the JUDGE accused him of lying...and agreed heartily with the judge based on the EVIDENCE...not innuendo...

Let's be honest, you did indeed accuse both of them of lying:

and the bank/credit union records proved it...these aren't a couple of innocent waifs, caught up in a confusing legal system...they're a couple of lying scam artists...and they got caught...

As a matter of fact, you also accused them of being scam artists. There was no mention of the judge in the above referenced post by you, and the judge most certainly has not accused them of being scam artists. To be a scam artist, they would have had to request the money for something, and then be using it for something else. No one, including you, has shown that to be the case.

Frankly, the "I'm only giving facts, you guys are twisting stuff" is getting old. You've decided he's a "weasel" (your words, not the judge's, not something made up, not a miscontruction), and it appears anytime you're confronted with your own words, you'll go on the attack.

[speedsix]

...finally you respond to something I DID say...I accused them of being scam artists...and, once a fact has been put forth, there's no need to refer back to the source everytime I mention it...I never reported or agreed that they were liars until the Judge said they were...just the facts...you don't back-reference every fact you use in your posts, either...
...if you're tired of something(again quoting me as saying something I didn't say)...try commenting on what I actually say, instead of reading your own meaning into it or paraphrasing (as you just did) what I say......I have certainly decided he's a weasel(apologies to our furry friends) and anytime I'm confronted with words that I didn't say, I WILL go on the (proper word)DEFENSE...I have yet to attack anyone...disputing what you say and telling you to quit changing/adding to what I post is not an attack...it's an argument...
...if you're really tired of arguing...maybe not quoting and dissecting my posts quite so often would give you a bit of rest...

[Keith B]

OK guys, last warning, stay civil in your posts or don't post in here.

[JJVP]

George Zimmerman re-enacts shooting: 'It felt like my head was going to explode'

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... fense-team" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[baldeagle]

...I never insisted any such thing...I never said either of the things you say that I did...it must seem strange when folks read you taking me to task for something, and they can read for themselves that I never said what you accuse me of saying...better that you argue what I DID say without putting words in my mouth...

Apparently quoting your posts is insufficient to prove you said something.

[ScooterSissy]

...finally you respond to something I DID say...I accused them of being scam artists...

No sir, I responded by pointing out where you called them liars and scam artists. Since you're ignoring what I really said (which disputes your claim), I stopped reading at that point.

[recaffeination]

If someone contrbuted to the paypal account they are entitled to have an opinion how their donation was spent. However, I can't understand why anyone, anywhere, should give a rat's rear about the opinion of somebody who didn't contribute a single penny.

This is a general observatin that is not directed at anyone in particular.