Zimmerman Gains Over 100 lbs Since Killing Trayvon Martin

You can if he beats you up.

 

So this "cop" witnesses T writing graffiti and instead of stopping him in the act he waits a day to search his backpack? Sounds like the school-cops need a class in stale evidence. If the story is even true.


_

 

He found him on top his chest, punching him in the face

- - - Updated - - -

That's actually pretty normal.

Cops let criminals dig a deeper hole, so long as others arnt in danger

 

Yes, a child writing on the wall, they should have suited up and caught him in the act, because the videotape isn't proof enough, I mean seriously, lol?

 

He shot him because he thought he was going to get away.

 

"deal in facts"....lolz! the stolen jewelry is fact.

you can kill anyone who tries to kill you like tm did.

 

So you admit Zimmerman killed a child.

 

No it's not.

The "cop" used it as an excuse to perform an illegal search.

 

Courts have said that school officials can search students in public schools if there is a reasonable suspicion to search. They do not need probable cause.
http://www.acluutah.org/SKYR4.html

 

Well, the correct term is feral violent youth.

 

Now you're just making up nonsense.

 

And there was no reasonable suspicion either. The justification for the search was not reasonable because the evidence was stale, the "cop" had no way to know the same marker was located in the backpack, and a "marker" is not dangerous.

 

Or rhinestones.. Where is the appraisal and inventory?

 

George invented his reasons for profiling Trayvon.. He never knew TM was on the phone but he could tell that he was on drugs? LOLOLOLOL

George was angry when he left his house and needed to feel important.

 

Not it has not been reported as possible rhinestones. The cop reported some of the property as diamond earrings.

 

That's your opinion . The cops have to have reasonable suspicion. Not you .

 

Dont think that we all haven't noticed that you are now backtracking from your 'no proof of it was stolen' 'investigation found it wasn't stolen' to 'illegal search'.

I think you know that innocent Martin's good is cooked.

- - - Updated - - -

There we go. You just confirmed everything I wrote. You insist that he profiled Martin even though we have solid evidence that Martin was a thief.

 

You keep acting like reasonable doubt, reasonable suspicion etc are 100% things. No the cop didn't know for sure if it was in the bag. But it was reasonable to suspect that it was.

I really think that you need to get a dictionary your definitions are far from accurate.

 

I haven't backtracked anything. Two issues getting too complicated to keep up with? I'll help because I'm awesome like that:

1. The search was illegal

2. You STILL haven't provided ANY evidence that the property was stolen.

That help?


_

 

That's nonsense. It's a SCHOOL. It's reasonable think that 95% of the kids are carrying markers.

_

 

I don't care what the hell you think about the reasonable standard. The SCOTUS has flat out said that all school police and officials need in school is reasonable suspicion. That is a very low standard far lower than the probable cause required for cops searching adults.

I understand that you are just a kid and you think you should have the same rights in school as an adult. You don't.

- - - Updated - - -

The evidence is the property and Martins failure to account for it. The fact that his "friend" hasn't claimed it in over a year is further evidence.

And you are back tracing. You know the jig is up.

 

Well you should because I'm right and you're wrong. And it's not "reasonable standard"; it's "reasonable suspicion".

Martin accounted for it. He said his friend gave it to him. So show me the statute that says accepting a gift from a friend is a crime.

You probably should have taken a paddle with you before you went up this creek.

 

You could make that same statement about the street that Zimmy was on.

 

No you are trying to say that the SCOTUS is wrong because they were the one who set the standard that the cops have to meet in schools. I understand that you are a kid who thinks that you should have the same rights as an adult. You don't. We all thought the same crap when we were as young and ignorant. Guess what, its not true.

The legal standard is reasonable, as in reasonable doubt, reasonable suspicion. It is a legal standard that is rather specific. Once again you prove that you are just a kid who knows nothing of law.

What friend? What is his/her name? When did he/she give it to him? Martin refused to answer. That is not an adequate accounting. If he can't tell them who, what, when, where, why he cant account for it.

 

There are many lay people who think just because you throw the word reasonable in it always means the same thing. Of course they are wrong.

5th amendment. He doesn't have to. The burden is on you to provide PROOF. You only have speculation and conjecture. It's obvious at this point that you've failed to prove the property was stolen. You've also failed to prove the search was reasonable. Better luck next time kid.