This is cool. Guy gets his private life spread all over the news because a cop walked into his house and shot him to death.
Proving it’s possible to ■■■■ on the dead.
1 Like
My sentiments exactly. We didn’t need to know this.
That is actually relevant. It doesn’t clear her by any means, but I hope you can see why it’s relevant.
The facts are the facts, covering any of them up jeopardizes the case against her.
This is true in every shooting investigation.
Why would you want the police to violate the law or do anything to jeopardize the case against her?
Sorry, but I don’t see how reporting he had pot in his house is relevant to the shooting. Not at all. How does investigating and reporting on his personal life do anything, besides perhaps smearing the victim?
He was no angel either, I guess.
As has been repeatedly and carefully explained to you hiding it jeopardizes the prosecutions case by creating debut about all of the evidence the police provide to the prosecution.
It’s also been repeatedly and careful explained to you that it’s a matter of public record and that they can only keep confidential details out of the public sphere and only until discovery barring a gag order by a judge.
Obviously not.
None of that however helps her case unless they hide it.
She entered his apartment unlawfully and all her actions which followed where unlawful.
Assuming it was his. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for her home to be searched as well. I’m quite sure when someone has been accused of a serious crime the police search that person’s home as well, looking for possible evidence they can link to the crime.
They’re gonna put him on trial. They’re gonna smear his character. It’s already happening. And folks here are supporting it.
3 Likes
Someone under the influence is always relevant to a case. Which is what I was replying to. The fact pot was found in the house does not have to be shouted from the roof tops, I agree, but it can’t be concealed either. At some point that information has to be produced.
State the probable cause for such a search.
None of the facts about his life aid her case. Hiding the facts however can jeopardize the case against her.
The only question here was whether she is guilty of Murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide and even if he was stoned out of his gourd it wouldn’t change the charges, or whether or not she was acting lawfully.
From the moment she entered his apartment every action she took was unlawful. No facts about him can change that.
She is right that in many cases they do a complete search of the perps house. But this isn’t a mass shooter and completely different case. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they did get a warrant to search her house. Not sure what they’d be looking for, and that’s probably why they won’t.
Yeah, it’s not the job of the investigators to hide evidence. That would be ridiculous. It’s not their call. You just risk screwing up the prosecution.
As I already said. In cases where the defendant is found in possession of illegal firearms or drugs, stolen property etc the probable cause is clear.
In this case it’s not. No one has been able to state the probable cause in this case that would have to be presented to a judge to obtain a warrant.
That’s why I totally object to making this public. And although it probably was his, there is a small chance it wasn’t. But even if he was a regular user, still has nothing to do with what happened.
Drugs maybe for one thing? Evidence that she knew the victim? Seems they would also get a warrant to search her phone.
The DA indicated the charges may be increased to murder. However, that involves proving intent. There is no evidence that we know of that the victim and shooter knew each other. That doesn’t mean for sure that they didn’t,
1 Like
They don’t have to hide it. But they don’t have to make everything public either.
