Jimmy you're under a FALSE impression that if he does 'something cute' she'll come running back and want to hear him out....

it sucks he's on suicide watch, but honestly this sounds more like a ploy to 'keep her' and it doesn't sound like she's buying it..."I can't live without you, go ahead leave I'll just kill myself...." or other variations, I watched shipmates stay with complete wrecks because the didn't want to be the ones responsible for someone else's death.....

it's a manipulation tactic, so is lying for a year, I'd be willing to bet he's controlling of her as well, normally someone if leading a double life (regardless of intentions) they tend to be hyper focused on their significant other, mistrusting (he didnt trust her for a year), snooping (I would almost guarantee this one),, etc...

the guy had issues, and NEEDS counseling from a PROFESSIONAL

I'd be willing to bet your profile views are going to skyrocket!

Persistent

which will be made worse by having an affair.....

If you disrespect the woman you're married this much,

How much much less would you disrespect a stranger you just met?

Grow a pair, and deal with the problem you have instead of self-medicating with an affair

As many as I can!

Been to:
Singapore
Malaysia
India
Panama
Hong Kong

Have flights booked for:
Paris
Bahamas

want to visit:
Australia
New Zealand
Iceland
Rome
Ireland
Germany
Palua
(To name a few)

if you have to explain the incident, I don't understand how it can be a 'white lie'

Yes the your LEGAL definition is made up, I know words can have different context's but one should understand that mixing those context's whenever they feel like it, isn't how the courts work(you referenced learn the courts),



So who decides whether they match or not? shouldn't it be the people who have all the facts, the evidence, who were picked to hear both sides and decide?

Or is it a movement, who just 'thinks' that they got it wrong, don't have the facts, operates from a place of emotion instead of logic, that should decide whether they are innocent?

Anyone with half a brain should be choose the correct the answer.

Again, learn how courts work, there is a phrase "legal definition" and using your own definition of "not guilty, until proven guilty" gives rise to the arguments above.

There is a REASON that the phrase is "INNOCENT until proven guilty"

Your logic allows for this to be true.


Now if we use the LEGAL definition(instead of made up ones to suit our own agenda)

Then the quote would be


HMMM..wonder I wonder why the courts chose those words...maybe, just maybe...they knew what they were doing.

agreed, but it's not my logic it's your logic

Okay back to the topic then. When it comes to inciting violence BLM isn't innocent, they just haven't been proven guilty(yet). But they definitely can't be innocent(at least not in a legal precedence, according to your own logic).

So they are a non-innocent violent inciting organization, that enough evidence hasn't presented itself to prove they are anything different.

Okay,

Agreed, Hilary and Zimmerman are both Innocent, the courts said so.

I agree maybe you should start reading and learn how the courts work....

"innocent until proven guilty" is the saying...

the sayings isn't "not guilty, until peiven guilty"

Maybe read a law book and learn the system that you don't trust

So Hillary is not innocent of her alleged crimes? That means she should be in prison......

You have the a very bug double standard, everyone around you sees it, but you....

A tennis racket (quit stalling let's play already! )

Hand things might

A water balloon!

A riding crop, you need something to keep all those boys in line

You trust the justice system when it comes to proving Hillary's innocence,

But you don't trust the justice system when it comes to proving Zimmerman's innocence. .

if you can't see your own double standards and prejudices, no one will be able too, because you yourself are blind to them