Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: okie01

I’d have a beef with a search warrant of the phones too. I think they would need to show that the phones have evidence of a crime, or were used in the commission of a crime, and BTW what crime do they think happened anyway, etc.

That said, I’ll bet a day’s pay that we eventually see a picture of one of the “youths” with a big smile on his face poking a stick between the bars, or somesuch.


6 posted on 01/05/2008 12:52:00 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: jiggyboy

The evidence of a crime is the slingshots these two had with them. What the h*ll do you need with slingshots at a zoo? I think they were tormenting this animal.


9 posted on 01/05/2008 12:55:35 PM PST by attiladhun2 (Islam is a despotism so vile that it would warm the heart of Orwell's Big Brother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: jiggyboy
"...BTW what crime do they think happened anyway...


I would guess manslaughter is a possibility.

If they created the situation in which a reasonable person could assume someone could be hurt or die, then that is a crime.

A search warrant would be reasonable.

16 posted on 01/05/2008 1:08:57 PM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: jiggyboy
I think a reasonably competent District Attorney could make a case for manslaughter, if it could be shown this animal was taunted/ or if there were a failure on the part of the zoo employees(?).

(1) Against the Zoo director if 'reasonable care and standards' weren't met?

(2) Against the lads themselves?

(3) The snack bar employees who denied them shelter?

If there are any witness statements showing these lads were 'taunting' the beast, then there would be the 'probable cause' needed for a warrant to be issued.

The mere fact the lads haven't offered an explanation to the investigators is building block to help reach the level of suspicion needed to have 'probable cause'.

The bottom line is there is a young man who died as a result of ...?

The People of the State, thru their elected DA have an interest to know how this death came about.

(I offer this gingerly as I know there a whole bunch of attorneys on this panel, but that's the way I see it)

23 posted on 01/05/2008 1:17:24 PM PST by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: jiggyboy
...and BTW what crime do they think happened anyway, etc.

If the boys contributed to the situation, it would be akin to a vehicular manslaughter charge, would it not? Their actions directly resulted in the death of another -- whether voluntary or involuntary.

24 posted on 01/05/2008 1:19:18 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: jiggyboy
I’d have a beef with a search warrant of the phones too.

If they sue the Zoo, the Zoo can ask for them in discovery. If they don't produce the pictures for the defense, the defense can say they show anything they want to, and the jury will be instructed to take it as fact.

In Civil litigation there is no such thing as the fifth amendment. If they refuse to answer any question, the jury also takes it as fact whatever the defendant claims.

If they erase or destroy the pictures, it is the same as refusing discovery. They will be in a world of hurt.

26 posted on 01/05/2008 1:23:57 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson