Young couple goes on van tour of US, boy comes back with van - no girl (3 Viewers)

[not2rich]

Yeah, that's far less morbid that the metrics I was thinking of. Probably equally as predictive.

Uh, so what metrics were you thinking of?

 

[Madmarsha]

You may be joking, but Utah can be as desolate as it is beautiful. You can definitely get away from people if you want - far, far away. There's a reason Aaron Ralston had to cut his own arm off to avoid dying before anyone would be able to find and rescue him.

When leaving Bryce Canyon and kept driving north, we didn't see another car for hours.

 

[superchuck500]

Uh, so what metrics were you thinking of?

This interview is over.

 

[zatsnzapps]

This interview is over.

Soooo...out of curiosity. Does a lawyer answer with "lawyer" or does one nut up and handle it him/herself?

 

[superchuck500]

Soooo...out of curiosity. Does a lawyer answer with "lawyer" or does one nut up and handle it him/herself?

You mean like if law enforcement attempts to interview you, do you just say "lawyer" for each answer - or handle it yourself?

You say "lawyer." The attorney needs to be a third-party to be most effective. So it's foolish or hubris to try to do it yourself, but I'm sure many lawyers are foolish and/or hubris.

 

[zatsnzapps]

You mean like if law enforcement attempts to interview you, do you just say "lawyer" for each answer - or handle it yourself?

You say "lawyer." The attorney needs to be a third-party to be most effective. So it's foolish or hubris to try to do it yourself, but I'm sure many lawyers are foolish and/or hubris.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I kinda figured that was the case, but didn't want to assume.

 

[not2rich]

You mean like if law enforcement attempts to interview you, do you just say "lawyer" for each answer - or handle it yourself?

You say "lawyer." The attorney needs to be a third-party to be most effective. So it's foolish or hubris to try to do it yourself, but I'm sure many lawyers are foolish and/or hubris.

For sure. If nothing else, you need to both terminate and separate yourself from being the subject of the interrogation process and get objective, competent counsel who specializes in criminal defense law.

 

[sonicboom]

So, Gabby's parents call police, because her daughter is missing. Police spot Gabby's car, but no Gabby. They take the vehicle and don't question Brain, because he has a lawyer?!?!

I don't know, but this doesn't seem right. Never been in this situation, it just doesn't seem right. Couldn't they at least hold him without bail, until things shake out. They take the car, but don't take their number one suspect? Now they are back tracking and search the home, other vehicles, so they can find Brian?!?! So, they have to follow the book, so they don't get sued?

Sorry, for an unlearned perspective, this seems whack.

 

[superchuck500]

So, Gabby's parents call police, because her daughter is missing. Police spot Gabby's car, but no Gabby. They take the vehicle and don't question Brain, because he has a lawyer?!?!

I don't know, but this doesn't seem right. Never been in this situation, it just doesn't seem right. Couldn't they at least hold him without bail, until things shake out. They take the car, but don't take their number one suspect? Now they are back tracking and search the home, other vehicles, so they can find Brian?!?! So, they have to follow the book, so they don't get sued?

Sorry, for an unlearned perspective, this seems whack.

Probable cause is a real thing, it flows directly from the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. You can't seize a person without it. If the person refuses to participate you have to arrest him - and if has a lawyer to insulate him from those kinds of tactics they have limited utility. They can't just go arrest and hold him while they put the screws to him - the lawyer will act promptly and not only is he released but the court is P'Oed off that you're making arrests without probable cause.

The rest of it though could be shoddy police work, I don't know. If the person is free there's always limits of surveillance, but there's also often negligence so who knows.

 

[Dago]

Yeah, that's far less morbid that the metrics I was thinking of. Probably equally as predictive.

Uh, so what metrics were you thinking of?

This interview is over.

Adult Content Within

 

[Madmarsha]

I don't know, but this doesn't seem right. Never been in this situation, it just doesn't seem right. Couldn't they at least hold him without bail, until things shake out. They take the car, but don't take their number one suspect? Now they are back tracking and search the home, other vehicles, so they can find Brian?!?! So, they have to follow the book, so they don't get sued?

They have to follow the "book" because ... the "book" is the Constitution.

 

[sonicboom]

Probable cause is a real thing, it flows directly from the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. You can't seize a person without it. If the person refuses to participate you have to arrest him - and if has a lawyer to insulate him from those kinds of tactics they have limited utility. They can't just go arrest and hold him while they put the screws to him - the lawyer will act promptly and not only is he released but the court is P'Oed off that you're making arrests without probable cause.

The rest of it though could be shoddy police work, I don't know. If the person is free there's always limits of surveillance, but there's also often negligence so who knows.

If your finance is missing and your the last person that she was with, and you have her car. You don't let her family know what's up, and two people are dead, but you already have a lawyer. Some judge can't find probably cause in this scenario?

Thanks for your insight by the way.

 

[superchuck500]

If your finance is missing and your the last person that she was with, and you have her car. You don't let her family know what's up, and two people are dead, but you already have a lawyer. Some judge can't find probably cause in this scenario?

Thanks for your insight by the way.

Is the car registered to her? I hadn't seen that.

Otherwise I don't think there's probable cause for a crime in that description

 

[sonicboom]

They have to follow the "book" because ... the "book" is the Constitution.

The document that says, we have the right to assemble?

Is the car registered to her? I hadn't seen that.

It is. It was on the police report when they got pulled over.

Not to mention who let's their daughter move in with a guy who lives with his parents to get married? Isn't a prerequisite for a man to have a job and place to live, before one thinks about getting married?

 

[superchuck500]

The document that says, we have the right to assemble?




It is. It was on the police report when they got pulled over.

Not to mention who let's their daughter move in with a guy who lives with his parents to get married? Isn't a prerequisite for a man to have a job and place to live, before one thinks about getting married?

I don't really know the refinements of probable cause law in Florida courts and I don't do criminal law so I really don't know. Seems like it being her car is a greater avenue than it not being. But could they charge him with theft? It hasn't been reported stolen by its owner. They can certainly get a warrant to examine the car, that's much easier to get.

That's why often in these cases, the first charge is something tangential or procedural - they want to get custody of the person where they have greater leverage. But until then, if he's refusing and has a lawyer before they get to approach him, it's challenging. Usually a charge of some sort comes but this is still all just a few days old with respect to her parent's report of a missing person to law enforcement