TexasCHLforum.com

gringo pistolero wrote:Put a few dents in the truck and get farm plates and he would blend right in around here.

Welcome to Texas, George.

Farm plates n a Honda Ridgeline?! I could reluctantly go with you if he had a Tundra. . . but a Ridgeline???

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?

And that's his burden to live with. Sure he made some errors in judgment, but non of them warranted getting attacked and beaten to the point of having to resort to self defense. I'm sure you guys throwing stones have made some mistakes in your past that you wish you could go back and change. I just hope for your sake they never end up resulting in the level of Zimmerman outcome. As far as I am concerned he should be welcome anywhere as he has been acquitted.

Keith B wrote:

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?

And that's his burden to live with. Sure he made some errors in judgment, but non of them warranted getting attacked and beaten to the point of having to resort to self defense. I'm sure you guys throwing stones have made some mistakes in your past that you wish you could go back and change. I just hope for your sake they never end up resulting in the level of Zimmerman outcome. As far as I am concerned he should be welcome anywhere as he has been acquitted.

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 ).

Keith B wrote:

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?

And that's his burden to live with. Sure he made some errors in judgment, but non of them warranted getting attacked and beaten to the point of having to resort to self defense. I'm sure you guys throwing stones have made some mistakes in your past that you wish you could go back and change.

I just hope for your sake they never end up resulting in the level of Zimmerman outcome. As far as I am concerned he should be welcome anywhere as he has been acquitted.

He spent his time ifo the jury and our system says he is INNOCENT. It is time for him to be allowed to live. I just hope he picks a very conservative county in TX as I fear he will one day be tracked down and have to defend himself again.

No our system says he's NOT GUILTY. Between NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT lies a universe...

EDIT: Not saying he can't come here. I'm saying since I'm here now, I've already used up Texas' limit on "not deep thinking individuals."
Find your own state!

Cedar Park Dad wrote:No our system says he's NOT GUILTY. Between NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT lies a universe...

EDIT: Not saying he can't come here. I'm saying since I'm here now, I've already used up Texas' limit on "not deep thinking individuals."
Find your own state!

Hogwash. Pure nitpicking semantics and a legalistic abuse of the English Language.

Our whole criminal legal system is predicated on the principle that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that the burden is on the state to prove guilt. The state did not prove guilt in this case, therefore the defendant is innocent.

bdickens wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:No our system says he's NOT GUILTY. Between NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT lies a universe...

EDIT: Not saying he can't come here. I'm saying since I'm here now, I've already used up Texas' limit on "not deep thinking individuals."
Find your own state!

Hogwash. Pure nitpicking semantics and a legalistic abuse of the English Language.

Our whole criminal legal system is predicated on the principle that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that the burden is on the state to prove guilt. The state did not prove guilt in this case, therefore the defendant is innocent.

No. The State did not prove guilt. Thats not semantics at all. It means what it says it means. The state didn't prove its case to the standard required, not that he's innocent.

Guilt was not proven. Innocence had nothing to do with it.

A woman of your acquaintance accuses you of rape.

You go to trial.

The state fails to prove you did it.

The jury hands down a "not guilty" verdict.

Are you innocent?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Guilt was not proven. Innocence had nothing to do with it.

I agree with this..

OJ was not innocent (IMO), but he was found "Not Guilty".
Zimmerman was innocent (IMO), and he was found "Not Guilty"

"Guilty" is a verdict based on the States ability to present solid evidence that supports a conviction under specific laws.
A verdict of "Not Guilty" did not confer any degree of "Innocence" to OJ.
The race baiters are trying to argue the same thing most of us felt when OJ was not convicted. Except that Zimmerman has some substantial facts to back him up.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:No our system says he's NOT GUILTY. Between NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT lies a universe...

EDIT: Not saying he can't come here. I'm saying since I'm here now, I've already used up Texas' limit on "not deep thinking individuals."
Find your own state!

Hogwash. Pure nitpicking semantics and a legalistic abuse of the English Language.

Our whole criminal legal system is predicated on the principle that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that the burden is on the state to prove guilt. The state did not prove guilt in this case, therefore the defendant is innocent.

No. The State did not prove guilt. Thats not semantics at all. It means what it says it means. The state didn't prove its case to the standard required, not that he's innocent.

Guilt was not proven. Innocence had nothing to do with it.

What part of "presumed innocent" do you not understand?

IF presumed innocent until proven guilty AND not proven guilty THEN he is still presumed innocent.

bdickens wrote:A woman of your acquaintance accuses you of rape.

You go to trial.

The state fails to prove you did it.

The jury hands down a "not guilty" verdict.

Are you innocent?

It means:
1. The state didn't prove I was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether I'm innocent hasn't been proven, and especially in the TM/GZ case (as there is no witnesses or video of the event). It also has no bearing on his lee than brilliant decisioning process. As Yoda would say "Saint he be not. Sharp tool he not be."
2. She Who Must Be Obeyed is still going to put me six feet under. You don't cross a Chicago Wimminz. Very very unhealthy. And yes she has shot a full auto Tommy gun...

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bdickens wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:No our system says he's NOT GUILTY. Between NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT lies a universe...

EDIT: Not saying he can't come here. I'm saying since I'm here now, I've already used up Texas' limit on "not deep thinking individuals."
Find your own state!

Hogwash. Pure nitpicking semantics and a legalistic abuse of the English Language.

Our whole criminal legal system is predicated on the principle that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that the burden is on the state to prove guilt. The state did not prove guilt in this case, therefore the defendant is innocent.

No. The State did not prove guilt. Thats not semantics at all. It means what it says it means. The state didn't prove its case to the standard required, not that he's innocent.

Guilt was not proven. Innocence had nothing to do with it.

What part of "presumed innocent" do you not understand?

IF presumed innocent until proven guilty AND not proven guilty THEN he is still presumed innocent.

Not proving something is far different from affirmatively proving innocence.

I agree with this..

OJ was not innocent (IMO), but he was found "Not Guilty".
Zimmerman was innocent (IMO), and he was found "Not Guilty"

"Guilty" is a verdict based on the States ability to present solid evidence that supports a conviction under specific laws.
A verdict of "Not Guilty" did not confer any degree of "Innocence" to OJ.
The race baiters are trying to argue the same thing most of us felt when OJ was not convicted. Except that Zimmerman has some substantial facts to back him up.

Also agreed.
Again his innocence is not my focal point. The fact he made crucial BAD decisions that I'd rather not associate with this great state, is.

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.

I guess we already have too much "hold my beer and watch this", huh?

The dude is innocent because the judicial system did not bear burden of proof to the contrary...

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.