242
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
242 points (92.9% liked)
Technology
70847 readers
5629 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Factually, they illegally searched his bag without a warrant at the mcdonald's, repacked the bag, put the bag in a police vehicle and drove to the police station without bodycam, and then turned bodycam back on to search the bag again and instantly "find" the ghost gun in his bag, which, without a serial number, is conveniently impossible to prove it was not planted.
https://www.wtaj.com/news/local-news/new-photos-show-luigi-mangiones-arrest-defense-argues-for-evidence-to-be-suppressed/
Funny that they never deny the gun was his, just that the search was unconstitutional.
Almost like the lawyer thinks "they didn't follow procedure" is an easier legal argument than "the police dept is trying to frame my client".
The gun isn’t the only evidence. All they’re doing is drawing attention to the fact that it was his gun by not denying it was his and trying to get it excluded from evidence. Even if they win this argument and get the gun excluded, they’ve basically confirmed that the gun was his in doing so.
Is that a fact? Are you sure? Will you recant if it comes out that the police did, in fact, plant it?
Nitpick the lawyer's phrasing all you like; it won't actually change any of the facts of the case, whatever they may be. Myself, I'm not going to jump to "why bother having a trial? The police arrested him; he's clearly guilty as sin" based on a Lemmy comment!
Did you just take those 2 words completely out of the context in which they were written? You sure did! I said:
I'm saying that they're essentially confirming that the gun is his by this action. Learn to read.
Neither am I, nor am I saying anyone else should.
There's no reason to deny invalid evidence
It does if you want people to believe the gun wasn’t yours. The gun isn’t the only evidence, and not denying it’s yours but trying to get it excluded from evidence confirms that it was yours and you’re trying to hide it. It screams guilty.
Good thing that's not how evidence or the justice system works 😝
Your username is ironic lol
That’s how peoples opinions work, and no matter what any judge says, people can’t just forget and disregard that they know the gun was his just because a judge tells them that they are not supposed to know it was his.
My username is randomly generated, but also not ironic in this situation. Freedom has nothing to do with this.
Good try lol