TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

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.

Here as well. We have a strict antitreehugger immigration policy in Cedar Chopper land...

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

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

yes, please keep going. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed and why isn't he driving to Canada already?

It would be poetic if the Zimmerman supporters have a dozen guys like George move into their neighborhood.

And the Zimmerman bashers have a dozen guys like Trayvon move into theirs.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

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

yes, please keep going. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed and why isn't he driving to Canada already?

It would be poetic if the Zimmerman supporters have a dozen guys like George move into their neighborhood.

And the Zimmerman bashers have a dozen guys like Trayvon move into theirs.

Just so I am clear on the logic here.
GZ was innocent before trial.
GZ was found "Not Guilty"
GZ is now not innocent because he was accused and found not guilty.


Like GZ was wrong for trying to observe TM by following.
But TM was innocent for circling back and attacking GZ.

Now I get it............No I don't.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

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

yes, please keep going. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed and why isn't he driving to Canada already?

It would be poetic if the Zimmerman supporters have a dozen guys like George move into their neighborhood.

And the Zimmerman bashers have a dozen guys like Trayvon move into theirs.

suthdj wrote:Just so I am clear on the logic here.
GZ was innocent before trial.
GZ was found "Not Guilty"
GZ is now not innocent because he was accused and found not guilty.


Like GZ was wrong for trying to observe TM by following.
But TM was innocent for circling back and attacking GZ.

Now I get it............No I don't.

You need them to repeat the whole argument?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

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.

Here as well. We have a strict antitreehugger immigration policy in Cedar Chopper land...

Trust me, there are more tree huggers, Wal Mart haters, and anti-gun whack jobs in CP than you care to know.

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

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.

Here as well. We have a strict antitreehugger immigration policy in Cedar Chopper land...

Trust me, there are more tree huggers, Wal Mart haters, and anti-gun whack jobs in CP than you care to know.

Not at Eagle Peak or Best of the West.

(Ok I'll admit I don't like Walmart either but thats not political, I just don't like the KMART lite culture that seems to have kicked in there in the last few years).

bizarrenormality wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

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

yes, please keep going. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed and why isn't he driving to Canada already?

It would be poetic if the Zimmerman supporters have a dozen guys like George move into their neighborhood.

And the Zimmerman bashers have a dozen guys like Trayvon move into theirs.

I hadn't read this thread in awhile. Did any of you watch the trial or large portions of the trial???

The defense proved at least to the preponderance of the evidence and probably beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was innocent. This isn't a case like OJ's where the prosecutor just did a really poor job. This is a case where the facts completely disproved the prosecutor's case.

Having said that, all the jury could do is find him not guilty. But what the jury could find and what the defense team proved are not the same. The defense team proved him innocent.

stroo wrote:I hadn't read this thread in awhile. Did any of you watch the trial or large portions of the trial???

The defense proved at least to the preponderance of the evidence and probably beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was innocent. This isn't a case like OJ's where the prosecutor just did a really poor job. This is a case where the facts completely disproved the prosecutor's case.

Having said that, all the jury could do is find him not guilty. But what the jury could find and what the defense team proved are not the same. The defense team proved him innocent.

I actually watched most of the trial and, oddly enough, the prosecution "proved" him innocent! Witness after witness, the prosecution kept demonstrating that TM attacked Z and Z defended himself, while simultaneously claiming that their evidence showed something completely different. It truly was the most bizarre trial I have ever seen.

I didn't want to say that but you are right. The prosecution's case by itself basically proved him innocent.

Yes the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Remember boys and girls, the jury found him "not guilty" NOT "innocent."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/zi ... berations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Yes the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

Here is my last comment on this. You are playing semantics. They found him not guilty. The definition of guilty is:

guilt·y/ˈgɪlti/ Show Spelled [gil-tee] Show IPA
adjective, guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est.
1. having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable: The jury found her guilty of murder.
2. characterized by, connected with, or involving guilt: guilty intent.
3. having or showing a sense of guilt, whether real or imagined: a guilty conscience.

So, he was found free of guilt or guiltless in this case.

The definition of innocent says:

in·no·cent/ˈɪnəsənt/ Show Spelled [in-uh-suhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.
5. devoid (usually followed by of ): a law innocent of merit.

So by definition he was innocent of the crime. If you want to argue it more, take it up with Mr. Webster and his dictionary.