Quote (eboyd)
the difference is that you presented a fan video where 2pac is clearly joking around ("i shot at chinese store owners" all the while winking his eye)
First of all, that video was not fan made. It was a professional interview conducted by Blackwatch. The reason 2Pac was winking and saying that he was describing a scene from the movie was not to implicate himself of doing those things if he were to be questioned by the authorities. Note his friend in the background immediately saying "Sike!" after Pac recounted his tale. If 2Pac was indeed joking, why would Kool G Rap confirm that they were both in Los Angeles busting guns?
Quote (eboyd)
the video i presented wasn't a fan video
Yes it is. Whether the uploader was a fan or Lil Wayne or not, the video was uncredited to any film company or any official credited source, that makes it a "fan made" video.
Quote (eboyd)
why would Lil Wayne's bodyguard be in the Escalade, rolling in an entourage, and Wayne not be with him?
I don't know, honestly. But what I do know is that Lil Wayne and his bodyguard are not connected at the hip. It is possible that his bodyguard was somewhere that Lil Wayne wasn't. It's a definite possibility.
Quote (eboyd)
if you get disrespected like that and don't speak up and do something about it you are a bitch, plain and simple
A bitch? Very likely. Guilty of being in the Escalade? Not enough proof. Remember, my argument has nothing to do with Lil Wayne being a thug. My case lies in the fact that there is no DIRECT EVIDENCE (if you don't know what that means, look it up) implicating Lil Wayne being in that Escalade.
Quote (eboyd)
40 Glocc should have gotten his ass beat or been shot the next week. he didn't and wasn't.
That's not the issue we're dealing with here. I am only discussing Lil Wayne being at the scene of the altercation. Save the thug stuff for another thread.
Quote (eboyd)
what implication? Wayne did nothing wrong here. he was the victim. if he would have spoken up he would not have been implicated in any way.
Right, but the definition I gave was subjective. I only stated it to show you that just because someone is silent doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty, of ANYTHING. It could very well mean that they are soft, or a bitch as you called it, but it SILENCE DOES NOT EQUAL GUILT ... that is the truth and you must respect that ... Our country's judicial system is based on principles stemming from this truth exclusively.
Quote (eboyd)
for the above reason, yes, it absolutely is enough proof.
No, it is not. If you had to prove your case in front of a judge, and all you had was the supposed fact that Wayne's bodyguard was at the altercation and Lil Wayne was silent in a future interview, I mean come on, you would be laughed out of the court room. Try to understand that your evidence is not concrete. You have no DIRECT PROOF that Lil Wayne was in the car.
Quote (eboyd)
the smart thing to do, which he did, was not speak up about it to try to let it pass unnoticed
Lil Wayne is the top dog in the realm of mainstream rap. How do you know he wasn't just staying quiet to make sure 40 Glocc didn't get any publicity? Like I said, rappers go to extreme lengths to get some shine. I agree with you that Wayne was doing the smart thing. Not because he was guilty of being at the altercation, but because he wasn't giving 40 Glocc any more shine than he deserves -- none.
Quote (eboyd)
if you don't consider this concrete enough evidence
Lol there is no such thing as "concrete enough" evidence.
Read this definition before I finish my post...
Quote (Direct Evidence)
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference. Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, directly supports the truth of evidence, from which the truth of the assertion may be inferred.
For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which B’s guilt may be inferred.
So looking at that example given, your "evidence" AT THE MOST is circumstantial, NOT direct ... NOT concrete ...
Direct evidence would be Lil Wayne rolling down the window in plain sight of the camera during the altercation, not a clip of his bodyguard or Wayne in a similar car on a different day. Jesus Christ man, this is not rocket science. It is definitely possible, even LIKELY that Wayne was in that Escalade that day in South Central. But the reality is you don't know as much as the next person. All you know is that Wayne's bodyguard was possibly there. That is ALL we know about the incident. Other than that nothing holds up. POSSIBLE, EVEN LIKELY, BUT NOT ABSOLUTE.
Quote (eboyd)
you must be the type of person who would expect to have to see a fully (not decomposed at all) set of transitional creatures from ape-like hominids leading to humans to believe that evolution is true which is completely unreasonable
When discussing the criminal activities of 2Pac you gave me no leeway. Everything I presented you challenged at different angles to see if my argument would hold up. I succeeded in that challenge because I presented evidence that was DIRECT and could be CONFIRMED ... I am simply giving you the same treatment you gave me earlier. If there are any holes in your argument, I will find them. And it seems as if I already have. Again, no hate towards you. I am just not too keen on conspiracy theorists. I deal with facts.
or do i need to post the video where Lil Wayne avoids questions about the situation before it becomes evidence? 
