LaQuinta Motel, Arizona Shooting hotel

[Renegade]

When evidence is excluded, it's not called tampering. It's like redacting words/phrases/sentences from a document. Removal/replacement of the dust cover is no different than that. :meh:

Thank you for your sane response focusing on the word choice.

I agree the evidence was excluded and the gun was .....

 

[ZX9RCAM]

But, I bet it made the defense very happy.

 

[Vaquero]

If it took three shots, or more, how the hell was it a "perfect kill"?
OP?

 

[sharkey]

Everybody seems to be assuming the message on the dust cover is meant for a person in front of the rifle, but that person wouldn't be able to read, much less read the message.

I offer a different explanation. The message "You're Fucked" is intended to be read by the person standing to the right of the shooter where it would be plainly visible and easily read.

For that reason, the dust cover has no bearing on the officers attitude towards suspects and this is why it was dismissed as evidence.

Ha, definitely a possibility. I offered that it was really meant for the person pulling the trigger cuz as we all can see, he got f'ked.

 

[sharkey]

Right so the gun was tampered with so the jury would not see what it really looked like. As I already pointed out, if you do not like tamper, go with alter, modify, change, remove, cover, whatever.

Like I said, you agree with me 99.9%, but you are bent on finding that .1% to argue with. In this case, it seems you do not like my use of the word "tamper", which has a lot of valid definitions.

The bottom line is the jury did not see the rifle as it was used in the shooting, nor were they told what changes were made. Agree "yes" or disagree "no" with the that sentence?

You keep saying I agree with you and I don't. I told I you I misread your post initially. The judge did not "tamper" with the evidence, period. Nor did he alter, channge, remove, evidence. He did not allow the prosecution to introduce prejudicial material not relevant to the case. It is pretty freaking simple.

To answer your question, I don't know that the jury saw the rifle or not. How does actually seeing an AR15 matter in determining justification for the shooting anyway? I'm guessing they saw the video so yeah they saw the rifle. There was never a question to which officer did the shooting and what rifle he used.

You gonna answer my question?

 

[Charlie Primero]

I don’t agree with most of cultural degeneracy but I also don’t pretend being upset about it will somehow stop it.

I find it difficult to believe that you are unfamiliar with, or do not understand the concept of Normalization because you are old enough to remember when men dressing up like women would be frowned upon by society instead of celebrated.

 

[deemus]

The argument was over who the words were intended for.


Damn.

Before the shooting: "anyone who messes with me is effed."


After the shooting: "I am so effed."

 

[Renegade]

Nor did he alter, channge, remove, evidence. ...
To answer your question, I don't know that the jury saw the rifle or not.

If you do not know if the jury saw the rifle or not, then it is not possible for you to know if the rifle was altered, changed, removed, etc.

 

[Renegade]

How does actually seeing an AR15 matter in determining justification for the shooting anyway?

A cop arguing whether it matters if the jury sees the murder weapon in a murder trial? Are you serious?

Your incredible bias is at play here - It was not a review board determining if the shooting was justified or not. It was a Murder Trial.

 

[sharkey]

Duh it was a murder trial. Since I don’t know, why don’t you tell me what the jury saw of the weapon used in the shooting? Not gonna answer my other questions huh? A renegade not in favor of tattoos? Go figure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sharkey]

I find it difficult to believe that you are unfamiliar with, or do not understand the concept of Normalization because you are old enough to remember when men dressing up like women would be frowned upon by society instead of celebrated.
]

So we’ve gone from discussing a OIS and down the rabbit hole to the normalization of profane speech? A hoot you must be at Christmas parties. Just curious, what do you do when you hear profane speech in public? I drive a CEO around now and all the executives cuss. Good thing you don’t have my job.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk