George Zimmerman's Girlfriend Wants to Drop Charges, 'Be With Him'

You would get away with hitting me in the face because my dear departed Mum would be very dissappointed if I hit a lady.

I stay out of neighborhoods and situations where low lifes roam.

 

When you have a court ruling that says a school or any government entity can confiscate someone's property without due course let me know. No one is arguing they could not search him.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course I am presuming what would happen DUH and the police officer was not aware of the stolen property report nor was the school. But he DID think something about it as they seized the property, Martin being a minor he let the school handle the matter.

 

This case will not be forgotten. If anything it had a higher profile than the Michael Jackson and OJ trials. At the very least, more people folllowed it in greater detail.

On this site, you're right...the horse not only left the barn, but has been beaten into jelly.

People on either side have become implacably opposed.

I will never know for sure what happened that night, but what Zimmerman has admitted to is enough for me to fault him, because if those hasty actions weren't carried out, they both would have slept snug in their beds that night.

 

YOu do not understand the difference between New Jersey vs TLO and what is an improper search under the Supreme Court doctrine.

If you are admitting that the school police officer was not aware of the stolen property, then why would you then demand and state that TM was the guilty person by not providing a name?

 

You don't understand the law and the Constitution, of course he could be search, but they can't just confiscate rightfully owned property of any kind. A search is not a seizure.

He was unaware of the report which described the jewelry that was in Martin's possession.

We now know there was one so connecting all the dots the reasonable conclusion is that he was in possession of stolen items and that he was the thief.

- - - Updated - - -

Margot where are you? I posted the law when will you respond?

 

Your idea of law and Constitution are not in line with 200 plus years of jurisprudence, judicial review, and what currently happens. Being searched is the gateway to seize property under the law. Taht is why the 4th amendment creates a doctrine of "unreasonable" search and seizure.

Currently, there are about a dozen exception in which a warrant is not needed to search property and seize it. It hreally has nothing to do what you think is reasonable, but how the court sees what is reasonable.

In the schools, there is given great leadway to search studnet lockers, take cell phones, and other things that are not based on the precept of "due course."

Again, your knowledge of the law, the Constitution, and how things are done is wrong on everty account. Everty lawyer will agree with me on this, legally. That is why there are lawyers.

No, we have an opinion from bloggers who are allegedly "connecting the dots.: There is no report, according to Miami Dade police that connects TM to any burglary.

 

So using your logic, the Sandy Hook kids who died were doing something wrong then? You dont get the luxury to pick your fate or where you will be attacked or experience a fatal event. The snobbery that comes with that assumption is kinda shocking. I am god fearing, maybe thats my problem.

 

Ummm...Rose.....the Sandy Hook kids did not follow the guy who shot them into a dark alley, and the cops weren't already on the way when the guy started shooting.

 

Umm, that was not the point. You seem to think you can shop at a mall and no one could come up to you and hit you in the head and kill you. You are acting as if only you know where to go where its safe and you can choose the actions of others. If being in your neighborhood is dangerous then you should stay out of harms way, lol, but to protect someone who was dangerous under the guise Zimmerman was scary and creepy is weird- just saying. Zimmerman had every right to be in his neighborhood, but then again, you know that already.

 

But that has nothing to do with what Zimmerman did that night. You made an analogy, and it wasn't an apt one.

If I were a neighborhood watch person that night. I would have stayed in the truck after I called the cops and knew they were on the way, especially if I was armed, and I wouldn't have charged off into the dark where someone I supected as probably dangerous could be lurking around.

And if Zimmerman would have done that, and I feel he should have...Martin would be alive, and at the worst, arrested by the cops. But he didn't committ any burgalries that night did he?...so Martin would have woke up the next morning, and been allowed to grow old, and Zimmerman wouldn't have ever been on trial

 

How do you know he didn't commit any burglaries that night? I mean do you really think you know the actions of someone you totally never knew in life? Not to get preachy about God and fate, but Trayvon was not meant to live any longer than he did. His time was up and thats how life works. You dont have to agree or like it but thats how it works.

 

No burgalries were reported that night in the neighborhood Martin was in.

God didn't kill Martin, Zimmerman did, and could have easilly avoided it. God doesn't pull strings and push levers to orchestrate the shooting of 17 year olds

 

How could he easily have avoided once Martin was threatening him with serious bodily harm and death as he was assaulting him? Martin could have avoided his own death by not assaulting someone that night. All else is a moot point.

 

Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck after he called the cops, even after he misinterpreted what he thought were instructions by an NEO to charge off into the darkeness, after someone he suspected of being possibly dangerous, without any idea if he was observing from a safe distance.

 

No he "shouldn't have" his actions no only were perfectly reasonsable but perfectly legal. His getting out of his truck is about as responsible for Martins death as Martin going to the store or staring at Zimmerman and walking towards the truck.

Martin brought about his own death when he committed without cause a felony assault. But lets explore, if you walk past my house looking suspicious to me and I call the cops and they ask me which way you went and I walk out to the street to see which way you turn and you come back and assault me your position is I have no right to defend myself and that if you get killed in the process it is my fault. What total nonsense. What right do you have to commit an assault on me?

 

It's perfectly legal to walk through south Chicago with $10,000 cash in your hand at midnight, but not reasonable.

The cops were on their way, and would have prevented any burgalries Martin could have committed, it is unreasonable to go from a lighted street, into a darkened area to look for addresses, when you have no idea if you're following a potentially dangerous burgalry suspect at a safe distance. It's even more unreasonable behavior if you aren't able to defend yourself without the use of deadly force.

Martin should have stayed in his truck. The burglaries would have been prevented, and nobody would have died that night.

Who started the assault was never proven.

 

Seriously? So because nothing was reported, thats your proof? My friend just lost her 17 and 18 year old daughters in a freak car accident in their neighborhood. Whether or not it makes sense, it was Gods will. It was Gods will that Trayvon is not here anymore. To sit and pretend that Trayvon is blameless is also pretty not steeped into any kind of reality.

 

OK and so what, Zimmerman wasn't walking down a south side of Chicago, where I worked for 3 years, with $10,000 cash. HIS actions THAT night were perfectly reasonable and inline with the request he had been receiving from the NSN dispatcher. The incident was over at that point. What was NOT reasonable was Martin returning and assaulting Zimmerman and THAT is what got him killed. Just as was proven in court.

Martin shouldn't have been hanging around the backs of apartments, he shouldn't have been acting suspicious, he shouldn't have tried to intimidate Zimmerman when Zimmerman was sitting in his truck. Martin shouldn't returned back to the T seeking out Zimmerman. Martin should have just gone inside the apartment and called the police or his father if he thought he was in danger. But all of that is moot to the one singular point MARTIN SHOULDN'T HAVE ASSAULTED ZIMMERMAN AND THREATEN HIM WITH SERIOUS BODILY HARM OR DEATH.

By the preponderance of the evidence based it clearly was. And it doesn't even matter who started it, once Martin threatened Zimmerman with serious bodily harm Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with whatever force necessary to stop him.

And let's explore not dodge

If you walk past my house looking suspicious to me and I call the cops and they ask me which way you went and I walk out to the street to see which way you turn and you come back and assault me your position is I have no right to defend myself and that if you get killed in the process it is my fault. What total nonsense. Yes or no do I have a right to use whatever force necessary to stop you? If my wife sees it and grabs a gun and comes out and yells for you to stop and you don't can she use deadly force to stop you? Yes or no? What right do you have to commit an assault on me?

 

Martin wasn't blameless, and I didn't say that. Martin should have run all the way home, and that was his fatal mistake.

Sorry about your freind's daughters

 

Thank you.

 

By the way...your sig says you miss Don Glock. He is still with us right?...just gone to another site?...I've been meaning to ask

 

I never know where the cool kids are, lol.

 

[video=youtube;medJs2MD-5w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=medJs2MD-5w&feature=player_embedded[/video]