|
Post by mommy0608 on Dec 22, 2006 10:18:09 GMT -5
I would object to the state telling me I have to have surgery I do not want or need. THe fact that there is a bullet there prove he got shot nothing more. Its not proof of a crime at this point. I was wondering what other proof that they have against the guy. I'm guessing if they get a warrant they have to have "probable cause". Which IMO would mean that they have some other evidence against him.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 22, 2006 10:21:13 GMT -5
I would object to the state telling me I have to have surgery I do not want or need. THe fact that there is a bullet there prove he got shot nothing more. Its not proof of a crime at this point. I was wondering what other proof that they have against the guy. I'm guessing if they get a warrant they have to have "probable cause". Which IMO would mean that they have some other evidence against him. From the story they do have other evidence, mostly testimony of others who were there committing the crime. Like Chevy said, it sounds as if they have enough evidence to charge the guy without the bullet.
|
|
|
Post by mommy0608 on Dec 22, 2006 10:25:07 GMT -5
People have lived for years with bullets in them, with no ill effects. You're right! A friend's mother was shot in the neck 35 years ago by her ex husband. The bullet is still there and has been all of these years. If it were removed, she would die. She has had no ill effects.
|
|
|
Post by mommy0608 on Dec 22, 2006 10:29:26 GMT -5
What good will it do to get a warrant, have the bullet removed, prove he was involved, drag the victim and his family through years of legal "crap", get a conviction, and have it thrown out because the Supreme Court says it was illegal seizure? You won't be able to retry him with the same evidence. If they have nothing more than this "bullet" then it will all be for nothing anyway. IMO
|
|
|
Post by mommy0608 on Dec 22, 2006 10:31:19 GMT -5
From the story they do have other evidence, mostly testimony of others who were there committing the crime. Like Chevy said, it sounds as if they have enough evidence to charge the guy without the bullet. If they have enough evidence.....why do they need the bullet any way? That is what I don't understand. I would think if they force him to have it removed, they are taking a huge chance that any conviction they might get would be thrown out later on a techinicality.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Meaner on Dec 22, 2006 10:32:40 GMT -5
I can understand the kid's right to deny surgery, but on the other hand, by his own free will, he had already gone to a doctor about the bullet. It wasn't until he learned that it may be used against him that he decided to leave it where it was. Plus, this isn't a life-threatening surgery. Sure, there's some risk from anesthesia, but there's probably an even greater statistical risk in just having to drive the public streets and show up in court. If the police can convince a judge and get a search warrant, I think the surgery ought to be allowed. Distress to the person being searched has never been much of a consideration in these matters. The police can pretty much destroy your home in search of evidence and it's just considered "part of the job". The part I find funny about this article was the comment by the used car dealer. The article said he was a competitive shooter and he "couldn't believe he missed his target at that range". I want to tell him, "Dude! You didn't miss! It looks like you hit him right between the eyes!"
|
|
|
Post by Sauerkraut on Dec 22, 2006 11:19:23 GMT -5
Let's get that criminal off the street.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 22, 2006 11:21:33 GMT -5
Let's get that criminal off the street. He is off the street.
|
|
|
Post by Sauerkraut on Dec 22, 2006 11:38:18 GMT -5
Let's get that criminal off the street. He is off the street. Let's keep him there then.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 22, 2006 11:39:09 GMT -5
Let's keep him there then. They aren't planning on releasing him. They generally don't when they are scheduled to go to trial ya know.
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Dec 22, 2006 13:47:05 GMT -5
so other wise you are in favor of criminal rights, He's not a 'criminal' until PROVEN guilty in a court of law.
|
|
|
Post by vox on Dec 22, 2006 14:14:55 GMT -5
I just wonder if the car dealer would have gotten better penetration with a .45acp instead of the 9mm Luger round? (Just yanking GOM's chain. ;D )
|
|
|
Post by CSU - Carolina Sniper on Dec 22, 2006 15:00:18 GMT -5
I just wonder if the car dealer would have gotten better penetration with a .45acp instead of the 9mm Luger round? (Just yanking GOM's chain. ;D ) guy didn't use the right rounds for the job. there are some places a hollow point isn't good for. and the forhead is one of them. i know a guy that in his 9mm he has alternating bullets, one fmj, the a hollow point then another fmj and so forth, says that way he has nothing to worry about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2006 19:00:51 GMT -5
I just wonder if the car dealer would have gotten better penetration with a .45acp instead of the 9mm Luger round? (Just yanking GOM's chain. ;D ) Good point vox. If it had been a .45 ACP we wouldn't be discussing this problem.
|
|