HorrorMovieFans.com

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: I lean towards allowing all the information to be found. Just one bit tying them together changes everything. The question is really of punishment at this point.

yeah, punishment should depend on what she did. not on how the man lived his life, unless she's lying about why she shot him.

I am not sure why you are so hung up on the weed. It is just a fact. Are you gonna make a big fuss protecting the wacky weed if it is found in the cop's system?

that would be a different story. if the man had actually been an intruder in her home, and weed was found in his car, it would also be a different story. so no, i'm not "protecting the weed".

Headhunter wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:The cops in Prague are pretty damn polite, friendly and mostly unoccupied.

It's a real shock to the system when you first interact with one. Just regular people doing a job. The sad thing is the Czechs tend to really disrespect them. I have seen people yelling at cops on the street and have been told by students that it's a regular occurrence for people to talk shit to them when they get pulled over. These people don't have a clue how good they have it sometimes. Especially the young people here who didn't live through or can't remember what it was like under Soviet rule, they have no perspective.

That's literally how it is in America. lol.

Nah, cops are assholes there.

Generalization is never a good thing and I've never delt with Prague police but I have had dealings with plenty of douche European police and they have machine guns but like everywhere the vast majority are awesome people. A little respect and courtesy go along way

Machine guns that they don't fire.

Foo wrote: Right, but again, you don't know everything, so you gather ALL the facts. You don't begin with a notion and then try to confirm it. You do an investigation, gather facts, and come to a conclusion.

You are jumping to the conclusion that illegal drugs found at a crime scene are not relevant. That is the job of the jury, not the job of investigators to hide facts.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Right, but again, you don't know everything, so you gather ALL the facts. You don't begin with a notion and then try to confirm it. You do an investigation, gather facts, and come to a conclusion.

You are jumping to the conclusion that illegal drugs found at a crime scene are not relevant. That is the job of the jury, not the job of investigators to hide facts.

if she knew him at all, then absolutely drugs at the scene could be relevant, to why she shot him. but that means she's being dishonest. i've been saying that all along, in one way or another.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Right, but again, you don't know everything, so you gather ALL the facts. You don't begin with a notion and then try to confirm it. You do an investigation, gather facts, and come to a conclusion.

You are jumping to the conclusion that illegal drugs found at a crime scene are not relevant. That is the job of the jury, not the job of investigators to hide facts.

if she knew him at all, then absolutely drugs at the scene could be relevant, to why she shot him. but that means she's being dishonest. i've been saying that all along, in one way or another.

Ok, so why hide the fact that there were drugs at the scene?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Right, but again, you don't know everything, so you gather ALL the facts. You don't begin with a notion and then try to confirm it. You do an investigation, gather facts, and come to a conclusion.

You are jumping to the conclusion that illegal drugs found at a crime scene are not relevant. That is the job of the jury, not the job of investigators to hide facts.

if she knew him at all, then absolutely drugs at the scene could be relevant, to why she shot him. but that means she's being dishonest. i've been saying that all along, in one way or another.

Ok, so why hide the fact that there were drugs at the scene?

why leak it to the press?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Right, but again, you don't know everything, so you gather ALL the facts. You don't begin with a notion and then try to confirm it. You do an investigation, gather facts, and come to a conclusion.

You are jumping to the conclusion that illegal drugs found at a crime scene are not relevant. That is the job of the jury, not the job of investigators to hide facts.

if she knew him at all, then absolutely drugs at the scene could be relevant, to why she shot him. but that means she's being dishonest. i've been saying that all along, in one way or another.

Ok, so why hide the fact that there were drugs at the scene?

why leak it to the press?

Was it leaked? Or was it revealed as a matter of public interest?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: Right, but again, you don't know everything, so you gather ALL the facts. You don't begin with a notion and then try to confirm it. You do an investigation, gather facts, and come to a conclusion.

You are jumping to the conclusion that illegal drugs found at a crime scene are not relevant. That is the job of the jury, not the job of investigators to hide facts.

if she knew him at all, then absolutely drugs at the scene could be relevant, to why she shot him. but that means she's being dishonest. i've been saying that all along, in one way or another.

Ok, so why hide the fact that there were drugs at the scene?

why leak it to the press?

Was it leaked? Or was it revealed as a matter of public interest?

i guess we don't know for sure. also don't know if they found the pot, or it was planted there. there are a lot of questions to ask. but it seems that the pot was found to draw his character into question. rather than looking deeper at her story and why would possession be relevant at all, if she's being honest with her version of events.

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.

zombie wrote:

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.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

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.

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?

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?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

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.

Foo wrote:

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?

zombie wrote:

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.