So, according to the motion filed on the 1st of may, which is what I assume the tweet is referencing, I think there are two things of note.
1st: When cornered at the McDonald’s, the police questioned him about his name and requested his id, then proceeded to ask him a bunch of different questions regarding his identity, the validity of his id, wether he had lied about his name, and any travel to New York. They, at no point at the McDonald’s, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him, even after one officer told the others to read him his rights.
2nd: They moved his backpack to another table before informing him he was under investigation. They did not have a warrant to search his backpack, and given that it was far beyond his reach, and he was handcuffed when they began searching it, there was no reason to suspect anything in it would have been dangerous to the officers on sight. They found a computer chip in the bag while he was still inside, and did not “find” the loaded gun until he was outside and being driven to the precinct. After “finding” the gun, the officer searching the bag stated that they were searching it to make sure there “wasn’t a bomb or anything in here”. The motion I’m referencing suggests that this statement was a hasty attempt to justify the warrantless search post facto.
No one will ever convince me that the weapon they “found” wasn’t drenched in Central Park pond water.
deleted by creator
According to motion filed by the defense on the 1st of may to dismiss multiple items from evidence, including the bag search, the police reported finding the gun during the warrantless search of the bag at the McDonald’s, not just during the second search at the police station.
-
Miranda rights don’t need to be read until the person in question is under arrest.
-
If it was on his person at the time of his arrest, then they can search it without a warrant.
You don’t have to agree with the prosecution of Mangione but critiquing procedure a faux-legalistic perspective does nobody any good.
They, at no point at the McDonald’s, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him
So he wasn’t placed under arrest when they detained him? He wasn’t under arrest at any point while they were at the McDonald’s?
When is the specific point someone is under arrest? My understanding from people asking “am I under arrest or am I free to go” is the suspect is ‘under arrest’ as soon as they are no longer free to go.
Identity, where’d he been, his ID, don’t constitute “interrogation” for the purpose of Miranda rights.
That’s more or less true, but he didn’t ask, “Am I under arrest.”
And the goal post has been moved. We’ve gone from “he wasn’t technically under arrest” to “arrest and these specific questions are acceptable”. Weren’t you just complaining about a faux-legalistic perspective?
I don’t know what questions he was actually asked but don’t see the point in looking it up for the goal post to move again.
Also of note, you mentioned that they can search his bag without a warrant if it’s on his person when arrested. They searched his bag at McDonald’s. So he was arrested at the time.
I didn’t move the goalposts. You even responded to my specific response to what you said.
He was arrested when they searched the bag. Not when he was being questioned.
Your first comment:
Miranda rights don’t need to be read until the person in question is under arrest.
Implying he wasn’t under arrest at any point while he was in the McDonald’s because the complaint was no one read him his Miranda Rights.
You now:
He was arrested when they searched the bag
Okay, so going by your earlier comment that is when he should have been read his Miranda Rights.
Actually, hold up a second here:
He was arrested when they searched the bag. Not when he was being questioned.
So the moment the police do an illegal warrantless search of his bag, that is the exact moment it becomes legal because the definition of under arrest is “when police are doing something that would be illegal if you weren’t under arrest”?
That is incredibly fucking convient that he’s not “under arrest” while being questioned (because it would be illegal to question him if he was) but is then immediately “under arrest” when his belongs are searched (because it would be illegal to search them if he wasn’t).
If what you are saying is true, then that is incredibly fucked up because apparently in the American legal system suspects exist in a super position of “under arrest” and “not under arrest” at all times until the police take an action that would be illegal in one of those cases. Then the super position collapses into the one that makes their actions technically not illegal until the police are done with that action, and which point the super position reasserts itself.
This isn’t difficult.
He wasn’t under arrest from the first moment the police talked to him. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t at any subsequent point put under arrest.
I am referencing from the motion to dismiss or suppress evidence given by the defense on the 1st of may. If you don’t like how I have stated it, go read it your self and see what they’re saying on the matter, but they explicitly request that transcripts from the arrest at McDonalds to be dismissed on the grounds that he was not read his Miranda rights.
The motion isn’t likely to succeed.
-
ever read him his Miranda rights
I’ve got a Fox News talking point to recycle from the Boston Marathon bombing:
“That’s great! He doesn’t have those rights so we don’t have to worry about due process!”
Which is… not how that works.
Body cam footage had they potential to save the cops from these kinds of things. But they vilified it so strongly that it won’t save her now.
I’ve said from Day 1 that the entire arrest smelled like “accidentally” disabled body cams and planted evidence. The amount of shit they found him with was just too perfect to be real. This dude supposedly evaded a nationwide manhunt for an entire week, then got caught with the (easily disassembled) ghost gun and a hard copy of his manifesto?
You’re telling me this supposed criminal mastermind had an entire week to break apart and scatter his 3D printed gun, so it would never be traced back to him… And he didn’t? He chose to keep the entire thing in his backpack for cops to find?
And he had a manifesto in his bag ready to go, just in case he got caught? People who write manifestos do so because they expect to be caught, and want to make a statement. So why is this dude fleeing for an entire week before getting caught with his manifesto?
I’ll be honest, after seeing the public’s reaction, and weighing his options for a week, he may have simply decided that whether or not he could beat the rap then he’d be a hero in the history books forever. He could dine out on that for the rest of his life. Even in prison I bet he’d be well treated by the inmates, if not the guards.
There’s a decent chance he gets some of that sweet sweet jury nullification though. I mean he’s clearly a risk taker, maybe he decided to roll the dice. The cops being the dumbest shits possible about planting evidence will only help him in that regard.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s so impossible he deliberately got caught with his manifesto. It’s possible he destroyed the gun, then was willing to get caught and they planted evidence. Maybe they did it out of force of habit, or they were just so hyped on what big heroes they were being they couldn’t help themselves.
It always seemed odd to me that someone who could so calmly pull off the murder of the CEO in the manner it was done and just casually bike off would end up caught the way Luigi was.
Caught quick because the city has security cameras in every store? Feels plausible. Caught after a long search after deep investigation? Feels plausible.
Caught after just enough time for the public to start getting rowdy, but not enough to have tracked him down through an investigation? Caught with the supposed weapon on him? Just feels off.
If he avoided capture for the time that he did, he should have had some opportunities to ditch the gun.
Motive seems off too. As far as has been released publicly, he was never a customer of the insurance company.
Whole thing stinks.
caught as soon as he was snitched on by a boomer who told A MCDs employee, which also wierd.
If it’s found that he didn’t do it, will he get less popular because then he’s not based anymore?
I don’t think so, because then he’s an innocent person who was screwed over by the medical insurance industry, who then had his life derailed again in the name of “justice” for a dead insurance executive.
If doing some real heavy lifting here. Assume “if” he didn’t do it the same things would be happening right now as if he had.
It was more of a hypothetical.
It should be the default assumption, even before all of the police fuckery was brought to light. He’s innocent until proven guilty.
If he did do it is the hypothetical, since nothing has been proven and there’s more and more evidence that makes it look like a frame job. Don’t take the police account at face value ever, they routinely lie to cover for misconduct.
Enough people are thirsty for him that he can ride the notoriety and social cache for years, regardless. Of the people most into him, most don’t care that much for the judicial system regardless, so the court’s decision won’t matter that much.
His views are oddly right wing and I don’t think he’s the sort to lead a movement, so he’ll probably fade into obscurity in the general public.
Even without all the extra bullshit surrounding the case, and even back when I was a high school republican douchebag who hadn’t even voluntarily stayed home from church yet and still believed cops have our best interests in mind, I STILL would have said this sounds like complete bullshit and they planted evidence.
I knew he was innocent!
It will be a perfect litmus test of how corrupt modern media is when the case gets tossed out and suddenly all of the media will begin reporting “it wasn’t actually him to begin with” stories that were magically not present before…
This appears to be a cross-post of https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/43653811
