this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
649 points (100.0% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
17582 readers
154 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's circumstantial
Also, the conviction starter pack backpack is likely tainted and or planted.
We don't if has a alibi as of now
Finally, the state has to prove that he actually did the job.
Planted or otherwise the evidence against him is overwhelming.
You drinking too much koolaid that government was selling on fake news.
Since when people around here started trusting police and government lol
So to clarify your stance is that
A) The supposed evidence against him doesn't exist, its fake news
and also
B) The evidence was clearly planted
There is no evidence that he was the person who shot the parasite.
Defense is challenging back pack because police didn't follow the protocol. If they didn't follow the protocol then there is no way to know if items in back were there when back was seized.