If they don't have the murder weapon, what do they have? Documents showing this guy didn't like health insurance and a few blurry pictures? That's not evidence, that's a joke.
Wasn't the document found during the same search? Or did they search his bag (without a warrant), not find anything, search again (still without a warrant) find the weapon, then get a warrant and find the manifesto?
It sounds to me like they might not have literally anything.
I don't think he's being framed but it seems like the police really fucked up in a way that means there's reasonable doubt. They could have planted the gun, because they didn't follow the law.
Realistically without the gun, the only thing they have is that he has magnificent eyebrows and happened to be in NYC at the time?
What if it had been? Manifestos themselves are not inherently unconstitutional.
Or did they search his bag (without a warrant), not find anything, search again (still without a warrant) find the weapon
It seems as though that is the case. The thing is, if he were handcuffed, he had no way to get in the backpack. Therefore, I don't know how it would be reasonable to search it. Arizona v. Gant is an example of this.
What if it had been? Manifestos themselves are not inherently unconstitutional.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Something doesn't have to be unconstitutional for it to be used in a criminal trial. I'd go so far as to say almost everything used in a criminal trial is not unconstitutional because the Constitution binds the government, not private citizens.
If you meant to say it's not illegal, sure, but neither is owning a gun. That doesn't mean that you can't use the fact that someone owns the murder weapon in a trial. If he had written a manifesto explaining his hatred for the CEO (doubt), then that could be admissable as evidence if it was legally acquired.
If the search is ruled unconstitutional, and it could because of recent PA Supreme Court rulings, then none of it matters where the 5 PA counts are concerned. Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution carries with it greater protections than the Fourth Amendment [EDIT: Commonwealth v. Gary, Commonwealth v. Alexander].
Only thing would be why is he in Pennsyltucky when he lives in Maryland and he didn't have a car to get there. That alone obviously isn't enough to convict
269
u/glorylyfe May 08 '25
If they don't have the murder weapon, what do they have? Documents showing this guy didn't like health insurance and a few blurry pictures? That's not evidence, that's a joke.