Foo wrote:
Again, there were drugs at a crime scene. You have her convicted of a crime. It doesn't work that way. They have charged her with manslaughter, but they may change it to murder if the evidence is there. The drugs were found during the same search that found the bullet casings. The search warrant was filed for the public just like other search warrants.
The victim doesn't get privacy when it comes to a crime, even if unrelated. It is so weird that you think it appropriate for police to cover up a crime.
what's weird is your insistence on twisting my stance into being about covering up a crime.
What would you call it when the police do not report a crime they have witnessed? And literally in your last post you questioned whether or not the weed was planted by police.
report the crime. it's just interesting to me, why it's relevant to this specific charge against her.
i asked the question to further your interest in finding out everything that could relate to the case in any way. i still think she was being honest about why she shot him, personally.
How are you gauging her honesty? Do you know her? Have you heard HER describe what happened? Why do you trust her but not the neighbor saying she was beating on the door screaming, "Let me in!"?
fair points all. if you hadn't jumped to calling the character of the victim into question initially, perhaps this discussion would look very different.
Foo wrote:Should they have searched for the bullet casings? For blood spatter to determine where the shooter and victim were standing?
Are you aware that if the police go out to a home for a domestic abuse and discover an illegal firearm or kiddie porn, they will confiscate and report it? Do you not think that is appropriate because they were there for something else?
yes. search for all of that.
show me where i said that they should leave the pot with his family? or leave it in his car, whatever you're trying to suggest.
You don't want it known, how are they supposed to account for it? Police bring contraband to the station and it gets accounted for. There are records of where it came from and how it is ultimately disposed of.
it's known. i want to understand what part possession plays in the case against her.
zombie wrote:if the drugs are relevant to her sentencing, then she must be dishonest somewhere.
did she know the victim in some way, before hand?
did she shoot him because of something she caught him doing upon entering the apartment?
is she covering for someone else who actually shot him, because her taking the fall wouldn't be as bad, as whoever may have actually shot him?
Well, she did admit shooting someone in their own home for no reason. Not sure why you would believe her to be a paragon of virtue and stop the investigation. She has not accepted guilt for any crime, she has merely acknowledged she killed him. There is a big legal difference, especially if they want to push for any sort of intent.
Drugs are relevant because they are contraband. Why is that difficult to understand? Do you think the weed should be delivered to his mom or something?
keep trying to twist my words or my position. it's kind of interesting as a tactic. more telling of your intent, than mine. *shrug*
he could have shot jfk and unless she is being dishonest about not knowing him beforehand, and just entering an apartment that she thought was her own, then even that wouldn't be relevant to the case against her.
How do you know what is relevant to the case against her? The prosecution has not even decided all the charges. You gather evidence and then make the case. You don't make a case and then go find evidence.
It is not like on TV where five people are handling a rape case and they are all doing everything like that is their only job. Teams are sent to gather ALL the evidence. Then after the case is reviewed with all the evidence, charges are brought and that process begins. She was charged with manslaughter so she could be detained and then tracked on bail. The dudes collecting evidence are not deciding what is relevant, because that is not their job and would be a disaster.
zombie wrote:if the drugs are relevant to her sentencing, then she must be dishonest somewhere.
did she know the victim in some way, before hand?
did she shoot him because of something she caught him doing upon entering the apartment?
is she covering for someone else who actually shot him, because her taking the fall wouldn't be as bad, as whoever may have actually shot him?
Well, she did admit shooting someone in their own home for no reason. Not sure why you would believe her to be a paragon of virtue and stop the investigation. She has not accepted guilt for any crime, she has merely acknowledged she killed him. There is a big legal difference, especially if they want to push for any sort of intent.
Drugs are relevant because they are contraband. Why is that difficult to understand? Do you think the weed should be delivered to his mom or something?
keep trying to twist my words or my position. it's kind of interesting as a tactic. more telling of your intent, than mine. *shrug*
he could have shot jfk and unless she is being dishonest about not knowing him beforehand, and just entering an apartment that she thought was her own, then even that wouldn't be relevant to the case against her.
How do you know what is relevant to the case against her? The prosecution has not even decided all the charges. You gather evidence and then make the case. You don't make a case and then go find evidence.
It is not like on TV where five people are handling a rape case and they are all doing everything like that is their only job. Teams are sent to gather ALL the evidence. Then after the case is reviewed with all the evidence, charges are brought and that process begins. She was charged with manslaughter so she could be detained and then tracked on bail. The dudes collecting evidence are not deciding what is relevant, because that is not their job and would be a disaster.
if it's relevant for anything but looking deeper into her version of events, i don't like it. but it's not up to me, nor should it be.
Foo wrote:Should they have searched for the bullet casings? For blood spatter to determine where the shooter and victim were standing?
Are you aware that if the police go out to a home for a domestic abuse and discover an illegal firearm or kiddie porn, they will confiscate and report it? Do you not think that is appropriate because they were there for something else?
yes. search for all of that.
show me where i said that they should leave the pot with his family? or leave it in his car, whatever you're trying to suggest.
You don't want it known, how are they supposed to account for it? Police bring contraband to the station and it gets accounted for. There are records of where it came from and how it is ultimately disposed of.
it's known. i want to understand what part possession plays in the case against her.
who has said it plays any part of it? It was contraband at a crime scene discovered during a search.
Just so you know, if someone is suspected of robbing a liquor store and the police get a search warrant to search a car for the gun, and they find kiddie porn or weed, they must address it. They may choose to not prosecute for those things, but you don't get to keep them.
Not a single word has been uttered from those handling the case to indicate his illegal drug activity would impact the case against her. It is ENTIRELY being speculated upon by those with an agenda.
zombie wrote:if the drugs are relevant to her sentencing, then she must be dishonest somewhere.
did she know the victim in some way, before hand?
did she shoot him because of something she caught him doing upon entering the apartment?
is she covering for someone else who actually shot him, because her taking the fall wouldn't be as bad, as whoever may have actually shot him?
Well, she did admit shooting someone in their own home for no reason. Not sure why you would believe her to be a paragon of virtue and stop the investigation. She has not accepted guilt for any crime, she has merely acknowledged she killed him. There is a big legal difference, especially if they want to push for any sort of intent.
Drugs are relevant because they are contraband. Why is that difficult to understand? Do you think the weed should be delivered to his mom or something?
keep trying to twist my words or my position. it's kind of interesting as a tactic. more telling of your intent, than mine. *shrug*
he could have shot jfk and unless she is being dishonest about not knowing him beforehand, and just entering an apartment that she thought was her own, then even that wouldn't be relevant to the case against her.
How do you know what is relevant to the case against her? The prosecution has not even decided all the charges. You gather evidence and then make the case. You don't make a case and then go find evidence.
It is not like on TV where five people are handling a rape case and they are all doing everything like that is their only job. Teams are sent to gather ALL the evidence. Then after the case is reviewed with all the evidence, charges are brought and that process begins. She was charged with manslaughter so she could be detained and then tracked on bail. The dudes collecting evidence are not deciding what is relevant, because that is not their job and would be a disaster.
if it's relevant for anything but looking deeper into her version of events, i don't like it. but it's not up to me, nor should it be.
What don't you like about police investigators doing their job?
Foo wrote:Should they have searched for the bullet casings? For blood spatter to determine where the shooter and victim were standing?
Are you aware that if the police go out to a home for a domestic abuse and discover an illegal firearm or kiddie porn, they will confiscate and report it? Do you not think that is appropriate because they were there for something else?
yes. search for all of that.
show me where i said that they should leave the pot with his family? or leave it in his car, whatever you're trying to suggest.
You don't want it known, how are they supposed to account for it? Police bring contraband to the station and it gets accounted for. There are records of where it came from and how it is ultimately disposed of.
it's known. i want to understand what part possession plays in the case against her.
who has said it plays any part of it? It was contraband at a crime scene discovered during a search.
Just so you know, if someone is suspected of robbing a liquor store and the police get a search warrant to search a car for the gun, and they find kiddie porn or weed, they must address it. They may choose to not prosecute for those things, but you don't get to keep them.
Not a single word has been uttered from those handling the case to indicate his illegal drug activity would impact the case against her. It is ENTIRELY being speculated upon by those with an agenda.
our arguing in circles is getting sloppier and sloppier. they should not let the family keep the weed, nor have i ever suggested that. (did i say it clearly enough this time?) we both have "agenda" or neither of us do.
Foo wrote:Should they have searched for the bullet casings? For blood spatter to determine where the shooter and victim were standing?
Are you aware that if the police go out to a home for a domestic abuse and discover an illegal firearm or kiddie porn, they will confiscate and report it? Do you not think that is appropriate because they were there for something else?
yes. search for all of that.
show me where i said that they should leave the pot with his family? or leave it in his car, whatever you're trying to suggest.
You don't want it known, how are they supposed to account for it? Police bring contraband to the station and it gets accounted for. There are records of where it came from and how it is ultimately disposed of.
it's known. i want to understand what part possession plays in the case against her.
who has said it plays any part of it? It was contraband at a crime scene discovered during a search.
Just so you know, if someone is suspected of robbing a liquor store and the police get a search warrant to search a car for the gun, and they find kiddie porn or weed, they must address it. They may choose to not prosecute for those things, but you don't get to keep them.
Not a single word has been uttered from those handling the case to indicate his illegal drug activity would impact the case against her. It is ENTIRELY being speculated upon by those with an agenda.
our arguing in circles is getting sloppier and sloppier. they should not let the family keep the weed, nor have i ever suggested that. (did i say it clearly enough this time?) we both have "agenda" or neither of us do.
My agenda is making sure justice is served. Making sure that the woman is charged and convicted of the appropriate crime. Making sure the police, who work for us, enforce the laws on the books.
What is your agenda? Seems to be awfully hung up on the guy's marijuana. To me, it means shit because he is dead. They collect it and if it becomes an issue as more facts are revealed or the woman changes her story, then you address it at that point.
my agenda is the same as yours. i want justice. you seem to think his character is important toward that justice, in this specific case. and i don't so much, based on the little i know at this point. that's all.
Foo wrote:
Again, there were drugs at a crime scene. You have her convicted of a crime. It doesn't work that way. They have charged her with manslaughter, but they may change it to murder if the evidence is there. The drugs were found during the same search that found the bullet casings. The search warrant was filed for the public just like other search warrants.
The victim doesn't get privacy when it comes to a crime, even if unrelated. It is so weird that you think it appropriate for police to cover up a crime.
what's weird is your insistence on twisting my stance into being about covering up a crime.
What would you call it when the police do not report a crime they have witnessed? And literally in your last post you questioned whether or not the weed was planted by police.
report the crime. it's just interesting to me, why it's relevant to this specific charge against her.
i asked the question to further your interest in finding out everything that could relate to the case in any way. i still think she was being honest about why she shot him, personally.
How are you gauging her honesty? Do you know her? Have you heard HER describe what happened? Why do you trust her but not the neighbor saying she was beating on the door screaming, "Let me in!"?
fair points all. if you hadn't jumped to calling the character of the victim into question initially, perhaps this discussion would look very different.
Possession of illegal drugs. He was responsible for his character being called into question. Sucks he is dead. He did not deserve it. He did possess illegal drugs though, which does speak to his character.
zombie wrote:my agenda is the same as yours. i want justice. you seem to think his character is important toward that justice, in this specific case. and i don't so much, based on the little i know at this point. that's all.
Nope, his character has nothing to do with his death. At best, he was recklessly killed. At worst, he was executed. His drug crime did not warrant any more than a fine and some counseling.
Foo wrote:
Possession of illegal drugs. He was responsible for his character being called into question. Sucks he is dead. He did not deserve it. He did possess illegal drugs though, which does speak to his character.
that does speak to his character. if his character turns out to be relevant to this case, then i was wrong. i shouldn't have just given the benefit of the doubt to the word of a cop. but we'll have to wait and see how this turns out.
"A police affidavit shows that after the shooting, investigators began looking for drug paraphernalia, weapons, and other forms of incriminating evidence — a move that has been heavily criticized by the public for being irrelevant to the investigation into his killing. " <-- a particularly good article indeed.
i hope that we find out what actually happened. i want to know, as much as you do. you've said that there may be dispute about her knowing him prior to the shooting. this article makes no mention of that though. can you give a link to that at all?
showa58taro wrote:There’s no justification so the rest is noise. I’m happy for investigators to investigate but it’s ultimatelybitrekevant to the cold murder
no justification, but could be worse than manslaughter. that should be the point of the investigation.
