TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:Yet folks are stating as fact that he is not innocent...how can this be?

because like you they weren't there, and there's no evidence he is.

Because you can't prove a negative: "not guilty." The system doesn't allow it. You may not like the guy. That's fine. It's your right. But legally, he's "innocent until proven guilty," not the other way around. That's how we roll in the United States of America. Get over it.

Nothing to get over, and I don't know him so don't like or dislike the guy. Ok I take that back. I don't like speeders but thats a separate issue.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. You see him as innocent. I see him as not proven beyond a reasonable doubt of being guilty.

VMI77 wrote:Well, George is welcome in my neighborhood. And he's highly unlikely to encounter any criminal activity.

Depends on if he looks suspicious or not...

This thread is cracking me up... Semantics....

There is a LEGAL definition of guilty and not guilty...
And a factual definition of "innocent".
They are NOT THE SAME THING.

It is incorrect to argue that because he was found "not guilty" in a court of law, that he is therefore "innocent" of anything, other than the legal charges brought against him.

Some folks will argue that his actions were overzealous (or whatever) and therefore bring upon him a measure of culpability for what eventually transpired that evening and Zimmerman is, therefore, "not completely innocent, even thought he is not legally guilty of any charges against him"..... You are certainly welcome to have that opinion, although I believe it to be incorrect, factually. HOWEVER... can we finally agree that being "free from legal guilt" is not the same thing as being "harmless in effect or intention"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RoyGBiv wrote:This thread is cracking me up... Semantics....

There is a LEGAL definition of guilty and not guilty...
And a factual definition of "innocent".
They are NOT THE SAME THING.

It is incorrect to argue that because he was found "not guilty" in a court of law, that he is therefore "innocent" of anything, other than the legal charges brought against him.

Some folks will argue that his actions were overzealous (or whatever) and therefore bring upon him a measure of culpability for what eventually transpired that evening and Zimmerman is, therefore, "not completely innocent, even thought he is not legally guilty of any charges against him"..... You are certainly welcome to have that opinion, although I believe it to be incorrect, factually. HOWEVER... can we finally agree that being "free from legal guilt" is not the same thing as being "harmless in effect or intention"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Agreed.

I wasn't talking to you...
You're among the few that had it straight all along..

Me -->

RoyGBiv wrote:This thread is cracking me up... Semantics....

There is a LEGAL definition of guilty and not guilty...
And a factual definition of "innocent".
They are NOT THE SAME THING.

It is incorrect to argue that because he was found "not guilty" in a court of law, that he is therefore "innocent" of anything, other than the legal charges brought against him.

Some folks will argue that his actions were overzealous (or whatever) and therefore bring upon him a measure of culpability for what eventually transpired that evening and Zimmerman is, therefore, "not completely innocent, even thought he is not legally guilty of any charges against him"..... You are certainly welcome to have that opinion, although I believe it to be incorrect, factually. HOWEVER... can we finally agree that being "free from legal guilt" is not the same thing as being "harmless in effect or intention"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something I heard somewhere comes to mind, "Innocent until proven guilty".

RoyGBiv wrote:This thread is cracking me up... Semantics....

There is a LEGAL definition of guilty and not guilty...
And a factual definition of "innocent".
They are NOT THE SAME THING.

It is incorrect to argue that because he was found "not guilty" in a court of law, that he is therefore "innocent" of anything, other than the legal charges brought against him.

Some folks will argue that his actions were overzealous (or whatever) and therefore bring upon him a measure of culpability for what eventually transpired that evening and Zimmerman is, therefore, "not completely innocent, even thought he is not legally guilty of any charges against him"..... You are certainly welcome to have that opinion, although I believe it to be incorrect, factually. HOWEVER... can we finally agree that being "free from legal guilt" is not the same thing as being "harmless in effect or intention"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You make a good point for one of the issues being discussed, but not the other. There are actually two points in play here. One is that GZ may have been found not guilty, but he had some culpability in the incident and therefore not innocent in a general sense. That can be debated forever. However, it's the other point that that Cedar Park Dad made repeatedly that is the issue for some, including me. That is that one needs to be proven innocent to be innocent. By legal definition, or Webster's, a person is innocent until proven guilty. GZ may have had culpability as Cedar Park Dad said, but using the term, proven innocent, sets the conversation off in a new direction other than what may have been intended. MHO

Is he guilty of speeding?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

2farnorth wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

PSTL*PAKR wrote:GET OUT OF MY STATE ZMAN!

He's more than welcome to my little part of this state.

He's been found not guilty and has the same rights as you and I. If the media would leave him alone he might have a chance at a more normal life. Except for the media part I think he would make a good neighbor.

Not guilty does not mean either innocent nor smart.
He's no hero. At best he broke some basic derp derp rules to live by that lead to the death of a human being and cost him what a million dollars?

Sorry man, but not living up to your expectations does not mean he "broke rules", nor does it mean he did anything wrong.

Yes, he's a hero.
Ask the kids he tutored.
Ask the neighbors whose homes were a little safer because of his previous actions (actually helping catch bad guys)
Ask the folks that he pulled out of the truck shortly after the acquittal.

They all undoubtedly disagree with you about his "hero status".

Yeah yeah, I realize it's pretty easy to sit back and armchair quarterback about what he should and shouldn't have done, but don't forget Most of those that have persecuted him put you in the same category has him, because you carry a gun

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Yes thats his burden. I'd rather our citizens be a little sharper.
1. He got out of the truck.
2. He followed someone into a location that was ideal for a bad day scenario.
3. We actually don't know what happened.
(4. He hasn't left for Canada yet, keeping him potentially liable for a DOJ investigation)

In either #1 or #2 he's an excellent example of "Kids don't ever do this, evah!" Again, he's no hero. Keep on truckin (pun intended ).

Gee, for someone who openly admits he doesn't know what happened, you seem pretty judgemental.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:Naturally, all you legalistic pedants have never made bad decisions in your lives, nor will you ever do so in the future.

Whole lotta second guessing and armchair quarterbacking by people who weren't there, have no idea what really happened, have never been in a similar situation and probably wouldn't have the guts to be on the neighborhood watch.

Dude, you're projecting a bit.

Interesting assessment from someone who admits he doesn't know what happened, but pronounces judgement on whether or not the man should settle in "his great state".

Personally, I'd trade a Zimmerman for the any number of the "mind my own business, try to keep out of the bad guys' ways, and run like a rabbit if one of them crosses my territory".

Cedar Park Dad wrote:And thats the key. He was not proven innocent. The state only failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

He's no hero.
1. He could indeed have done it. There's no evidence either way. Thats not enough to prove guilt, but nor is it enough to show he was innocent.

Absolute nonsense. He did do it. He admitted it. The question was whether or not he was justified. There was plenty of evidence that showed he was. The jury saw it, and agreed with it.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:2. He was guilty of poor judgement in two key decisions, and that has cost him much.

In your opinion. That's far from a fact.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:He is however, an excellent example of what NOT to do when you have a CHL.
1. Be a good witness. Once you've done that stay out of the way.

And what if, while in the process of being a good witness, you're jumped by the attacker?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:2. Avoid potential confrontations. Going into a dark space in the rain at night after someone lacks responsble thinking.

Ahhh, so if/when you ever try to be a "good witness", the bad guy should simply step into a "dark space" so you have nothing to witness, and then you will leave the property you have a right to be on, so as not to offend the poor attacker?

I'll repeat, I'll take a Zimmerman over 2 or 3 of those.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:Yet folks are stating as fact that he is not innocent...how can this be?

because like you they weren't there, and there's no evidence he is.

Because you can't prove a negative: "not guilty." The system doesn't allow it. You may not like the guy. That's fine. It's your right. But legally, he's "innocent until proven guilty," not the other way around. That's how we roll in the United States of America. Get over it.

Nothing to get over, and I don't know him so don't like or dislike the guy. Ok I take that back. I don't like speeders but thats a separate issue.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. You see him as innocent. I see him as not proven beyond a reasonable doubt of being guilty.

You don't know what happened, don't know him, don't like or dislike him, but you would "prefer he kept going to somewhere else"

Interesting...

ScooterSissy wrote:I'll repeat, I'll take a Zimmerman over 2 or 3 of those.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Well, George is welcome in my neighborhood. And he's highly unlikely to encounter any criminal activity.

Depends on if he looks suspicious or not...

Where I live that's pretty easy to determine.