4 ms·

True, although if you read the article, they found the murder weapon in the suspect's home. The (correct) problem is the warrant issued to allow them to search

True, although if you read the article, they found the murder weapon in the suspect's home. The (correct) problem is the warrant issued to allow them to search the home was not issued legally.

pjc50 2y ago
If you read really carefully, they mention a gun found in the suspect's home. The article does not provide other evidence that would link the gun or the suspect with the victim. There might be such evidence, but it's not mentioned.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Running ballistics, DNA, etc. all that shit is SOP because it produces fairly good evidince for court. "we found a gun of matching caliber" = "we ran ballistics and it didn't match" You gotta look for what they're not telling you. Edit: I'm assuming the bullet stayed in the guy and they recovered it here.
  - sumeno 2y ago
    Even when it is run some of these things like ballistics are a lot fuzzier science than they would have you believe and the "experts" can make a report say whatever they (or the police) want
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      Oh absolutely. It's all borderline pseudo science depending on who you ask. But the fact that you're not even hearing about it speaks volumes. Evidince is just like charges. They throw everything, even the most flimsy and dishonest garbage, at the wall if there's even the slightest chance of it sticking because every bit of it that the defense has to get removed costs them resources. If they're not throwing it (like when they announce manslaughter charges for something the news portrayed as murder) it's because that particular piece has less than zero chance of sticking.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I got it from here: > The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
There's a reason that chain-of-evidence/provenance/fruit of the poison tree stuff is a big deal. The defense attorney should be commended, and the cops need to be more careful. It totally sucks that a murderer goes free, but the reason that we need to be careful about this stuff, is because the authorities would use the exact same methodology to grab shoplifters or dine-and-dashers, and it's highly likely that there would be false positives, there. The thing about the police, that people don't seem to realize, is that they have the power to completely destroy your life on a whim. If a cop has a bad day, you could end up homeless and alone, in a few months; regardless of whether or not you actually get convicted. That's not even counting, if they draw their gun. That's not hyperbole. I have actually seen it happen.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I agree - as I say, I think the problem is correct.
- bende511 2y ago
  what sucks here is we don't even know if a murderer went free, because the cops didn't do their jobs and prove this guy was the murderer. it's not letting a guy free on a technicality, it's making sure the cops do their jobs correctly. it's protecting our rights. sorry, we do know a murderer went free. we just don't know if this guy was the murderer who went free, or an innocent man who's name was dragged through the mud cause a cop was lazy
ttyprintk 2y ago
I think they say “a” handgun without hinting that the ballistics match.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
  Ballistics. The bore of a gun is changed by every projectile that goes through it.

True, although if you read the article, they found the murder weapon in the suspect's home. The (correct) problem is the warrant issued to allow them to search the home was not issued legally.

pjc50 2y ago

If you read really carefully, they mention a gun found in the suspect's home. The article does not provide other evidence that would link the gun or the suspect with the victim. There might be such evidence, but it's not mentioned.

potato3732842 2y ago
Running ballistics, DNA, etc. all that shit is SOP because it produces fairly good evidince for court. "we found a gun of matching caliber" = "we ran ballistics and it didn't match" You gotta look for what they're not telling you. Edit: I'm assuming the bullet stayed in the guy and they recovered it here.
- sumeno 2y ago
  Even when it is run some of these things like ballistics are a lot fuzzier science than they would have you believe and the "experts" can make a report say whatever they (or the police) want
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Oh absolutely. It's all borderline pseudo science depending on who you ask. But the fact that you're not even hearing about it speaks volumes. Evidince is just like charges. They throw everything, even the most flimsy and dishonest garbage, at the wall if there's even the slightest chance of it sticking because every bit of it that the defense has to get removed costs them resources. If they're not throwing it (like when they announce manslaughter charges for something the news portrayed as murder) it's because that particular piece has less than zero chance of sticking.
robertlagrant 2y ago
I got it from here: > The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect’s home

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

There's a reason that chain-of-evidence/provenance/fruit of the poison tree stuff is a big deal. The defense attorney should be commended, and the cops need to be more careful. It totally sucks that a murderer goes free, but the reason that we need to be careful about this stuff, is because the authorities would use the exact same methodology to grab shoplifters or dine-and-dashers, and it's highly likely that there would be false positives, there. The thing about the police, that people don't seem to realize, is that they have the power to completely destroy your life on a whim. If a cop has a bad day, you could end up homeless and alone, in a few months; regardless of whether or not you actually get convicted. That's not even counting, if they draw their gun. That's not hyperbole. I have actually seen it happen.

robertlagrant 2y ago
I agree - as I say, I think the problem is correct.
bende511 2y ago
what sucks here is we don't even know if a murderer went free, because the cops didn't do their jobs and prove this guy was the murderer. it's not letting a guy free on a technicality, it's making sure the cops do their jobs correctly. it's protecting our rights. sorry, we do know a murderer went free. we just don't know if this guy was the murderer who went free, or an innocent man who's name was dragged through the mud cause a cop was lazy

ttyprintk 2y ago

I think they say “a” handgun without hinting that the ballistics match.

TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
Ballistics. The bore of a gun is changed by every projectile that goes through it.