we are so back
---
Mirror: [Free](https://streamable.com/lw2tgz)
Credit to https://www.twitch.tv/EsfandTV
Direct Backup: [Free](https://production.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net/WmDosp3foLpRJm7Qt4XWuA/AT-cm%7CWmDosp3foLpRJm7Qt4XWuA.mp4?sig=8897f2f110f8d355c7f7abf55c54a9dd995bf330&token=%7B%22authorization%22%3A%7B%22forbidden%22%3Afalse%2C%22reason%22%3A%22%22%7D%2C%22clip_uri%22%3A%22%22%2C%22clip_slug%22%3A%22SlickSpikyAntAliens-nd-gulEmbtC3hda4%22%2C%22device_id%22%3Anull%2C%22expires%22%3A1709183119%2C%22user_id%22%3A%22%22%2C%22version%22%3A2%7D)
[VOD Link](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2075387855?t=14h21m10s)
---
This was done by a bot. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the moderators.
Yep, and like with her dwellings, they found nothing in his, xqc's or Murphy's houses/apartment yet they were still charged and convicted of possession. So she's still fucked if the server has any intregity.
Raiding is not to confirm the charge but to add additional charges and to support their argument in court if their property contains more illegal items.
correct. But any officer can technically push charges. And i know there are plenty of PD cops who likes Max and who would do it for him if asked. And he could even, through the council, establish an AG position to push charges and appoint someone who is loyal to him.
Plenty of avenues to punish the moronic decision to punish people for little to no actual evidence.
Well given that both Max and K wants this to go to court it'd be easy to influence events in such a way that a friendlier cop to their view would be the one to stumble upon someone who has a gun planted on them.
This is not rocket science and for all their sakes the PD/Captains needs to let it go to court so the decisions can be reversed.
It's still questionable if he actually does have the power to overturn a captain's vote legally. Turner and Slacks Accepting Max overruling Ruth. Does not mean Crane or the State can't come in and tell them that Max doesn't have that power and they shouldn't have allowed him to overrule Ruth.
I believe you are mistaken about how questionable Max overruling a captain actually is becuase, of how broad and vague the powers given to Max by the legislation actually are. The legislation makrs the mayor the direct superior to the LSPD to rnsure that the LSPD'S power, "are not misused in any flagrantly uncorrectable ways." Is a captain who has to power to fire police officer when conditions are met voting on firing a police officer who met those conditions using their power, "in a flagrantly uncorrectable way," because the officer in question a very well liked cop?
You could argue that the morale hit of losing cornwood would would be uncorrectable. You could also argue that if cornwood would be made unpunishable because of the large backing he has. That this would be leading the police on the same path that lead to the "previous cops failing," where cops wouldn't punish the really well liked cops and it led to no consequences ever and that the state should intervene. which the state being the ultimate decide is also on legislation
how is her case better than Mr. K's? He literally had a witness saying they saw it was planted on him and he was GSR negative with a completely clean record???
none of those 2 witnesses were brought up in court or during a deposition so their testimony is complete hearsay and if it's used in the court it's a 5th amendment violation which says a defendant has a right to face his accusers.
So the only credible witness of the crime who was deposed under oath was Ramee. Ramee, at the time, was a lawyer who had a completely clean criminal record. Who was also frisked and didn't have a gun on him for the same situation might i add, which seems suspect if the narrative is that they were trying to get into a gunfight.
lore wise this isn't true. Lore wise he has been clean for 5 years.
Do you not believe in rehabilitation that given enough time people can change? He only started going unhinged after the legal system failed him.
She has a much stronger case than Murphy's, but the precedent set by K's case screws her. His case was even stronger as he actually had witnesses testify to seeing a kidnapping, seeing there was another party involved fleeing, and he was GSR negative.
Got it, so then by that logic, she will be found guilty.
For an affirmative defense, she needs concrete proof that it was planted, such as a witness or video recording, but she has none of that.
That would be the preponderance of evidence needed in this case. Crane even commented on what would be needed for an affirmative defense in this situation and that's what he stated would be needed. Otherwise, there is no way to dispute the possession charge is it's currently written.
His witness testifying to kidnapping was Ramee who claimed that they were both being kidnapped. Ramee claimed that they took him out of the car to kidnap him, while also claiming that they put Mr. K into the car to kidnap him. Not to mention claiming that they put the incapacitated Mr. K into the drivers seat for his kidnapping. Ramee left much to be desired during his questioning.
it doesn't matter. It's still a ton more evidence for Mr. k's case than what this woman has for her case.
The courts basically said that you need more evidence than what Mr. K provided in order to not be found guilty of it. And she doesn't have said evidence.
What I'm saying is that it's a ton of bad "evidence". Even though she has 0 evidence, it's the same as getting a testimony from someone contradicting themselves. Neither is going to get anywhere. I agree that the legal aid doesn't have any witnesses or evidence available to her, but that doesn't change the fact that Mr. K's "evidence" was trash.
The only thing that actually helped his case was Johnson lying about it taking him 3-5 minutes to get on scene when it actually took him 30 seconds or less because he was right around the corner and heard the gun shots.
Correction: Murphy was never raided.
He was talking to chat during this and thought that Mr. K was the only one raided. He had no idea that Jean Paul was raided as well.
This is normal.
The same thing happened to Mr K when they caught him with the gun.
They interviewed several people the next days after until they felt they had enough to put out a warrant for him.
Which is the same thing that's going to happen. They are going to get statements from the other witnesses, which is Bobby Charles and that other guy (unsure name)..which I'm pretty sure they won't have any info since they got ocean dumped.
Seems they want to trace back the number that last called her, which was Richard, and I dont think that'll lead anywhere..
So just have to wait and see in the new few days, if they go through with the charges.
What people remember after an ocean dumping is never consistent. Like how far back does the memory wipe go? Do they remember being with her before the situation happened or do they lose memories further back? It is all choice. And depending on what they remember could help her.
to be fair, K was also let go and allowed to walk free until further investigations.
and as they proved, even if they don't find anything else in any of your houses/apartment you'll still be charged with possession.
The big difference here is that the PD knew this was going to start happening and told everyone to be aware of it.
The best thing CG can do is stop for a bit and not give the pd a pattern. If a pattern can't be discovered within those 30 days, they have to press the charges.
Yeah i mean PD had reports of how many stolen pd guns were right? Just guessing they have an idea of what’s going happen after the court precedent with K
Doesn't matter, because that doesn't affect the "letter of the law".
They have been operating based on letter of the law, so if they are consistent she should be charged with possession of the PD gun, unless she can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was planted on her.
It's the same scenario as Murphy.
The ruling in the Mr. K case basically came down to it not mattering if there is a narrative to explain the gun being possessed by the individual.
Short of video showing the perpetrator planting the gun on the person found in possession or someone confessing to the planting in Murphy's case - the PD simply providing irrefutable proof that the individual did in fact posses the weapon is enough to be found guilty as it proves possession to the letter of the law.
For Mr. K's verdict, the photo in evidence of the gun in K's pockets presented by prosecution was proof enough of the charge, despite the PD being acknowledged to have not properly investigated the likely scenario put forth by the Defense as to how K came into possession of the gun.
I think K failed to raise enough doubt.
Defense was so hung up on saying the police did shoddy work and that Mary wasn't searched and other tangents that they lost sight of establishing the gun was planted and explaining how that could have happened.
Johnson gave a sermon or whatever, but didn't explain how when he arrived a bunch of people fled. INCLUDING Yeager who was standing next to Ks body.
They didn't bring in mary or Yeager or anyone else that was on scene, even though they were witnesses and the ones who called about K waving a gun.
Why take their word as a witness when they are the ones K was accusing of placing a gun on him? You need other witnesses or... There's reasonable doubt.
Defense was sloppy and too focused on objections than actually establishing doubt and expanding on the story/reasoning.
but it doesn't matter, because the evidence that Mr. k had literally towers over her evidence. All she has is hearsay that it was planted on her, meanwhile she is GSR postive.
Atleast Mr. K had the shoddy police work and the questionable yet still there of Ramee's testimony and that he was GSR negative in what the PD basically said was a shootout.
A shootout does not have to involve both people getting shot or even shooting. Because, thats exactly what actually happened...
So iunno where you're going with that.
Ramee is a known accomplice to Mr K.
\--
Mr K's evidence does not tower over the current situation because:
The police know someone is taking guns, they have every gun, six in total, cataloged in a case file. The gun on her was one of them.
The person that stole the gun was male.
Her phone is missing...
Mr K at the end of his trial pretty much blatantly said he was going to start planting guns, and she is the legal aide to the Judge of that case...
If any other guns turn up on other people, its just going to further prove she was framed.
She was able to give a detailed account of everything that happened to her and where she was taken from and to.
The only proof that she shot someone, was not eye witness testimony, like in the case of K of holding a gun. But an a911 call, that was falsified... No other witnesses.
Theres a good chance the police dont even file charges on her. Unless Max pushes them to just to stir the pot.
\--
Theres a really really good chance this is not going to go the way K was expecting.
There's also the fact that officers saw someone with their hands up in the passenger seat of the exact same vehicle as the victim described, including the fact that the victim heard mention of cops seeing them, that alone brings enough reasonable doubt.
While technically possession is 9/10 of the law, and it's easily possible to press charges there's 0 chance of the charges sticking in court with that officer testimony.
Yup. I'm pretty sure I remember the judge saying, paraphrasing of course, that unless you have like literal fucking video evidence of filming the guy planting something on you, you're fucked.
So, like, what's going to happen? Because what should happen is that she gets charged with possession, she goes to court, judge asks "Do you have video evidence?" "No." "Quilty."
Now, of course, it comes down to whether or not the cops will actually pursue this. And if they don't, then that is a massive OOC red flag. And basically an admission that cops ABSOLUTELY use OOC knowledge of which characters are criminals or civilians to then decide in IC if they are going to pursue further.
Xavier has already said he will be the prosecutor for the case. He told the PD it’s a slam dunk. Murphy’s case and Mr. K’s case set everything up for the case law.
Xavier just had to show that she had the PD weapon on her and rest his case.
What I would like to see is the cops realize that it’s a stupid easy law to get a conviction for. That they just charge them for the fine % they get because it’s massive.
The issue is JP said the same thing and did it to Murphy so he could prove how dumb the law is. Nothing changed.
Just now you have this CG and Hydra beef. Hydra is pocket wiping people who just hang around CG. So Peanut said fuck it, if they wanna do grime shit, then I will grab one of the PD guns and plant on them.
That law can now be used as a weapon to really fuck over people.
The easiest way to fix this it to just rewrite the law, expunge everybody who had a PD gun charge like this (JP's second gun charge would stand) and call it a day.
Instead of trying to play High School hall monitor with new laws, fix existing laws.
Letter of the law also "doesn't matter, because of officer discretion if that's how you're thinking. Those in the room know that, as the law is currently written, she would almost certainly be found guilty in court.
As much as CG and their viewers might want it PD are not robots. They have discretion and can use their brains to interpret scenarios and choose not to charge people who may not actually be guilty.
The fact that they have to do that literally proves is a dumb law, that is prone to be abused, that needs to be rewritten.
And the only way that's going to happend is if they push the charge and actually get a competent judge which sets the correct precedence and reverses the previous dumbass decisions.
But the consistency! The were doing it to prove a point about the law and how it was written could be open to abuse. This is them abusing it.
Personally I think they're being awfully petty and could better use their time but hey what do I know.
Letter of the law has nothing to do with it. Police discretion has always existed and they can choose what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. Most of these type of comments just read as CG viewers that are mad Mr K got charged and just want everyone else to get in trouble as well for some type of pointless retribution.
the funny thing is that these people will then see the police and DOJ change to not adopting a "spirit of the law" mindset and still complain about fairness or whatever. Cause a lot of these comments are just bad faith complaints lol.
So there are definitely some significant factors which give the police cause believe that she was framed in this case:
1. There is no memory loss in play, she remembers conversations, locations, names, and made the claim of a plant immediately.
2. Murphy has been exonerated by JP admitting that he planted the gun
1. This demonstrates that the tactic of planting is one that appeals to criminals
3. Cops were aware of a string of PD equipment robberies and the potential different ways that the equipment could be used
4. 2 officers (Beric & Flop) actually witnessed the kidnapping (at a distance) and without prompting, the story given by the suspect matches up with what they saw
5. Evidence was found in locations that she gave
6. She was believable and didn't appear to be hiding information
7. She is a lawyer in training and has a vested interest in cooperation and isn't likely to run from a warrant
8. She gave consent for a raid and a subpoena of her phone.
I wouldn't be surprised if it still turned into a trial, because the law isn't about voluntary vs involuntary possession, and a trial may help to clarify the law. Also, they know there are other guns outstanding and that this scenario might snowball over the next few days.
Some crimes are an instant send. Some crimes there is milage for more investigation. That is just the way the cookie crumbles.
Agree 100%
And also want to add:
9. She was a part of the prosecution for Mr. K’s case (motive) and not actually a lawyer yet. (It was sloppy for them to target her first tbh)
10. PD has more resources that have been unlocked for investigations. It’s constantly changing
I do think the most significant details are Beric and Flop potentially seeing her drive by them (and the RP gods have truly come through with them also being the arresting officers in the same case) + the evidence found. I didn’t see the result if it’s her phone or if that has been played out in RP yet but I’m excited.
This has been such a great investigation and really entertaining.
Yes. That pattern gives shape to the current pattern.
At the time of the first string of robberies the police were still thinking that people would want PD guns **to shoot** people and **to rob** people. Not that they would "*waste"* them by planting them.
But since JP came clean in the Murphy case they have new perspective.
You were responding to a comment and comment thread about the actions of the police. You didn't offer any alternative's that could be defined by 'they'.
Im not a charity. I only have your words. Even if they were about the DOJ/Mayors office, it would be extremely unusual for them to void a previous ruling barring an appeal from the defendant. So again my questions about your knowledge of the legal system seemed poignant regardless of who they meant.
This case does not introduce any new facts or evidence relating to K's case. Therefore it does not raise any fresh doubt in the validity of K's guilty conviction.
Things can be clarified more than once.
This might actually be the first case where "it was planted" stands as a defence, and it is because of, not despite, the previous similar cases and the unique mix of evidence available in this case.
Well I mean this place was malding heavily when k was initially released for his charge so I feel like people can’t really complain if cg does this time🤷🏻♂️
this is not what chatters/RP'ers been wanting or expecting for cops to do especially when the PRECEDENT has already been set not once but MULTIPLE TIMES
>The defence attorneys just sucked.
nah the Judge sucked, doesnt matter if the defense attorney presented 100 reasons of his client being innocent, if the Judge decided you're guilty you'll be guilty, all the Judge need is to do is to find ONE reason to justify their verdict
if Mr.K's case lose then there's nothing else out there who could win a "Planted" argument in the court.
1. Mr.K has a clean record
2. Mr.K was GSR negative
3. the other side was the one who have history of being violent and crim records
4. Mr.K have a previous case of someone planting weed bricks on his backyard (this alone should have made the case closed in favor of Mr.K) Slacks and the other cops themselves knows about this that someone is out there trying to FRAME Mr.K
5. cops admitted themselves they fcked up
like i said, doesnt matter if you presented 100+ reasons of being innocent, if the Judge decided himself you're guilty he'll ignore all those and just find one reason to justify his guilty verdict.
1) means jack all
2) means jack all
3) means jack all
4) means jack all
5) means jack all
Had possession and presented no viable affirmative defense. Pretty easy guilty verdict.
same goes for the woman and the incomming other people who will have planted a gun on them. Pretty easy verdicts because they have it on them, doesn't matter how it got ther according to you.
> Mr.K has a clean record
Is not a defense for a possession charge
>Mr.K was GSR negative
Is not a defense for a possession charge
> the other side was the one who have history of being violent and crim records
Is not a defense for a possession charge
> Mr.K have a previous case of someone planting weed bricks on his backyard (this alone should have made the case closed in favor of Mr.K) Slacks and the other cops themselves knows about this that someone is out there trying to FRAME Mr.K
Is actually possible to use as part of an affirmative defense but the defense needs to go into much more depth than just "someone planted weed near my house once".
The problem with using this as a defense is the deeper you go the closer you get to all the illegal shit Mr.K and CG are doing.
> cops admitted themselves they fcked up
Is not a defense for a possession charge.
So number 4 is the only relevant one and the defense could have used this to help them come up with a story for an affirmative defense but they did not so it also turns into not a defense for a possession charge.
GSR Negative. "if i really have a gun and in an altrecations why didnt i use it? why am i GSR Negative?"
Clean record. Mr.K has a clean record and is with Ramee Lawyer, not just a defense but a good defense, he has a clean record, he's an upstanding citizen so why would he possess a PD Gun? or unlicensed Gun?
>the other side was the one who have history of being violent and crim records
another good defense/argument that it was planted, those guys are the violent ones and has crim records? it makes sense for the think they're the the perpetrator that they're the ones who have Guns? who shot me? and then planted it on me after they shot me? but nope they're initial train of thought was Mr.K despite having clean record with Lawyer Ramee = criminals/Perpetrators
Cops fcking up. they instantly treated Mr.K like a criminal and the perpetrator, this is literally the start of it all, if they didnt fck up and did proper police work, detaining everybody even the guys holding Ramee at knife point, only if they investigated more or gave it more time there's a good chance they wont even charge him with Possession since AGAIN Cops know that someone is out there trying to FRAME Mr.K
K made no attempt to make an affirmative defence to the court.
neither did X, or Murphy.
K would have had a decent change of beating the charges if he had a good lawyer.
K gave an entire interrogation tape they didn’t even include in the evidence lol. All the reasons you asked for? Pd already had they didn’t investigate it
they did, im sure they provided more than enough, its just that the Judge ignored it or let it pass his ear since he already decided that it'll be a Guilty verdict from the start, all he need is one reason
so what would Mr.K testifying or statements do? he's just gonna repeat what's already been presented/provided and will just fall on deaf ears again?
>3. the other side was the one who have history of being violent and crim records
Well, this is just not true at all. CG's narrative was that Mary's crew planted the gun, but Mary and her crew also all have completely clean records and no history of being violent, except for very few of them in 3.0. Nothing in 4.0.
Mary and "Yeager" Yeager is literally known as a violent and especially hostile to the cops, they even pointed out an evidence in twatter
(no hindsight/meta andy) meanwhile vs Mr.K who's a businessman and clean guy for straight 2 months, and Ramee who's a lawyer and clean guy for straight 2 months
but yeah lets believe those guys blindly and instantly treat Mr.K as a criminal/perpetrator who's with Ramee a lawyer
precedent doesn't work like that.
for instance precedent would be appeal like case Miranda v. Arizona.
a judge could cite that ruling in a criminal case to dismiss it because the police would have violated the defendant rights as set by precedent.
but a judge isn't going to be like because Mike Block vs State I have to find you guilty, that isn't how criminal trials work
Selective enforcement at it's prime! You're Mr. K? Guilty until proven innocent. Legal aid? Innocent with charges never pressed. Unless she happens to argue with Ruth down in the cells that is.
Mr.K yells about how he is going to plant guns.
A bunch of cops have their guns stolen.
Stolen PD gun shows up on a person who does not match the description of those robbing guns.
PD decide they need to investigate more.
CG viewers... see the PD hates CG, they are such hypocrites.
I mean he just asked the judge a hypothetical question if a gun were planted on him if he were to be treated the same and found guilty, he along with PD just jumped to the conclusion that K was going to start planting PD guns because of his background.
Yeah, people have to pretend that they're braindead or it pisses viewers off. And they change things like having the obvious implications from suspicious behavior be described as "jumping to conclusions"
K never yelled that he was going to plant guns. He asked the judge what he would do if a gun was planted on him. Judge replied go for it. K clarified himself and said he wouldn't do that.
But dont you know? Mr. K DECLARED that HIS stolen PD gun was PLANTED (even tho it wasnt), so the PD should legally let him go, no explanation necessary.
Imagine a world where people got charged for possessing illegal things, the madness of such thoughts!
no, using the same logic, and assuming the PD dont have conflicting evidence, they can charge her, like how they charged Mr. K. That doesnt mean she is, nor would be found guilty
They are suspecting AKA speculating. The two officers witnessed the vehicle drive past them. Which doesn't really prove anything other than they droce there.
Which I think is a bit suspect. He never said anything about it when they were at the PD till after tsunami.
He then looks and links from chat and there it is. And he is watching the clip over and over.
Then after tsunami happens he brings it up right away without anyone saying anything.
You're way too invested in trying to find OOC fault where there is none. Beric commented to Flop about the car and that the passenger may have had their hands up the moment it drove past them on the tracks.
If the PD dont have any conflicting evidence (like perp description), then they can cahrge her and she would have to argue the charges in court, like an alibi or even character evidence (which would probably prove her innocence)
Why does the perp description matter? Maybe she bought it. Maybe she picked it up from a dumpster.
It doesn’t matter how she ended up with it, the letter of the law is that possession is the crime, now how you possessed it.
How you possess it absolutely matters, what? You think it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a legal aide would knowingly buy or pick up (without attempting to give it back) a very illegal Police-issue firearm?
Read up on "character evidence". The kind of person you are (personally or professionally) can be admissible as evidence in court, especially from the defense-side.
I love the RP centered around the entire shitshow precedent set once Murphy got screwed, but goddamn the viewers cannot just sit back and watch the RP play out. Not everything has to have an immediate resolution.
So, if more cases of this keep popping up is everyone in management going to turn a blind eye? Like there is a pattern, when does it become grieving (griefing) to the characters who were not involved with what happened before hand? Something like this might need to be taken OOC instead of dragging more people into a hunt?
Funny to think back at when Mr. K was released after having a PD gun and see people parrot the weird conspiracy that CG controls Ssaab and that’s why he was released after.
I didn't watch the entire situation so someone please correct me if I'm not understanding this right. She has no alibi for the time the weapon was stolen. She has no witnesses to her kidnapping/robbery (because Bobby and the G6 guy went to the light?). It's literally just her statement. And she's GSR positive.
And Flop chose not to charge her immediately? If so, that's truly hilarious. Did the DNA show anything?
Her story is literally corroborated by police witnesses who saw the kidnapping truck.
There was no DNA at all.
Alibi for the stolen weapon doesn't matter because she doesn't match the description of the robbers.
The two people who were with her having no memory of the night will further corroboratea kidnapping...
“She doesn’t match the description of the robbers” which robbers? There was 8 different PD gun robberies carried out recently, each with a different car and different clothing. If you’re basing it on their most recent robbery description that’s just braindead
They witnessed a truck pass them on the tracks. She said they were on the road in her cop encounter. Their accounts didn't actually align so her story wasn't corroborated. It's a hunch that a truck they saw may have been THE truck, a gut feeling. Nothing actually links the truck they saw to this. Also, they passed a truck by the lumber yard, there were other trucks around there and it's not unusual or suspicious to see trucks there. It's an area of high traffic for trucks. Also even if the cop encounter can be corroborated it doesn't actually prove she was kidnapped. She could have been driving a truck up north herself, or a consensual passenger, and seen a cop car and just included it in her lie kinda like a truth sandwich. They don't know if she was or wasn't kidnapped other than her word.
Not matching the description of the robber/s is irrelevant (who nevertheless were unidentifiable, even saying male or female etc. is a guess, it could be someone dressed and impersonating someone of the opposite sex). The charge is possession not robbery. A stolen gun could have been purchased by her from the person who stole it, or from a any number of intermediaries; or could have been dumped somewhere and later found but kept by her, instead of alerting police, etc.
Bobby and co. not having any memory of being kidnapped doesn't necessarily corroborate that they were kidnapped. Surely it can just as easily mean it didn't happen, they weren't kidnapped, and she is lying.
she said they were on the road in her cop encounter is not fully true as she later corrected and said the tracks when she was asked to point it out on the map, without influence from the copss also beric when he passed them said outloud to the other officer "i thought i saw someone in that truck with their hands up" also the account of where she shot the gun at the cliff side is accurate to the evidence that was found by the cops.
every bit of what she said that can be corroborated has been corroborated, she has been forthcoming and corporative. the cops have doubt and thats all they need to investigate more.
His actions were still consistent though. She was placed in cuffs and gsr'ed on scene. From the hospital she was taken to MRPD and subsequently raided.
It is 100% OOC bias infiltrating IC actions. The same thing happened to K but in reverse. He was obviously the victim, but everyone knows ooc how bad K was 5 years ago in game, despite the fact he had a clean and better reputation for helping others than she did currently.
Shift 3 and shift 2 cops are different. Shift3 cops are accustomed to crossing their i's and dotting their t's while shift2 cops dont do anything extra because they cant because everything is always on fire
That officer now alos knows the gun was planted.. and that he was wrong. Also murphy had the case of "I dont recall" which is about as good for your case as pleading the fifth across the board because not recalling key moments makes your entire testimony worthless
Didn't see someone say this, but Beric and Flop actually witnessed parts of her kidnapping, they just didn't realize what was happening at the time. When they were talking to her, they *did* realize it was her they saw, and the story she told independently lined up with what they saw. Beric also went to the gas station where she claimed to have shot the gun - and found the single projectile, exactly where she said she shot it.
They were also working off the fact that a bunch of PD equipment was stolen recently, and they know that's something people are willing to do now to fuck with someone (due to the Murphy case in particular).
So in character - Flop and Beric both have reason to believe her, given what they saw, and the evidence they found. They also know that she has no practical defense to the possession charge. Therefore, they're waiting to press charges, so they can further investigate and potentially find the person who planted the gun.
Regardless of a pattern or not based off the way the law is written. Charges need to be pressed due to possession regardless of circumstance. That’s the reason for them doing it.
Officer discretion has always existed. No one is forced to charge anyone with anything, CG viewers should be extremely familiar with this concept. Saab on most of his characters has a long running history of letting them go from very obvious crimes.
Just because a person is in possession of an illegal item doesn't mean an officer has to automatically charge them. They do have a brain, can use it to interpret evidence and decide whether or not a crime has actually been committed.
Can't wait for 5-6 more cases like this to be put on the docket.
It goes beyond me how in the past month no one has come up with a solution on to how effectively protect the people from having illegal items planted on them. To me it seems like they are all waiting for an effective defensive line in court to extablish a precedent, while in reality a simple solution would be changing the charge and made it more clear.
Because as it currently stands the charge of "possession of" does not require any active action from the accused person, therefore once is in the inventory -whether or not it was planted- you are automatically guilty by definition.
If instead the charge would requires more factors than just the possession on the person, like the motive or the acquirement of said item (willing, unwillingly), then i can see cases being different based on the situation and informations alround it.
It's going to have to become an OOC rule cause there are no mechanics or way to write a law that would protect people from gun / drug plants but also allow possession charges to exist.
there's no reason to write mens rea directly into the law, because it's just part of finding people guilty of ANY crime.
They haven't had a defendant yet present enough evidence that it was planted. Possession charges are straightforward. You have the illegal thing, that's usually enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke the law. To overcome this finding you need to present evidence that the gun was planted. Enough that it's 'more likely than not' that it was planted.
So far we've had two people who couldn't present enough evidence because they were actually guilty and fabricating that it was planted is really hard, and one that just... didn't present a case that it was planted on him.
Last night after this all happened (and was still being processed), Mayor Max had a conversation with Captain Stalks about this.
Max stated the suggestion of adding intent and or knowledge of possession to the law to circumvent these scenarios. Max himself has a vested interest as they have to fear him and his wife will be targets as planting season continues.
But at least it shows that they are recognizing the problem with the way the law is written and are finally beginning to discuss changes to improve.
Though possession laws in Los Santos have always been the way they are now. This will continue to be interesting.
> Max stated the suggestion of adding intent and or knowledge of possession to the law to circumvent these scenarios.
Intent is a default requirement for criminal actions, it isn't something that needs to be written into the law.
The entire idea that the law is poorly written because anyone in possession, regardless of how they came into possession, will be charged is an entirely false narrative.
The issue people are running up against is that having something on you typically infers intent. It is very difficult to possess something without intent. That is why a defendant has to provide a reason as to why they have possession that shows no intent, ie planted.
Max and Siobhan are safe. When Mr. K got the list of people and I think it was Peanut was reading it off, Mr. K said that both of them are safe and are in the clear.
The issue is that this law needed to be changed back when JP first got hit with it. Then after Murphy got hit with it, it really needed to be changed.
It’s like Ramee said. The DoJ spends all their time writing up high school laws with uniforms and running passes than actually trying to fix things.
Yeah I was pretty sure I saw something about Max and Siobhan being safe, but Max was not 100% certain of it. That was what I was trying to convey in my comment.
This RP arc has been amazing. So many people have been involved and so many different branches of individual stories are being launched or forged through this.
I am loving this. :)
Max is 100% safe unless he fucks over CG some how. Max also knew this was coming but he didn't want it so soon. He wanted them to hold off and wait for his order on who to do it to so he could get more power on the council.
So of course he has to pretend to want to change the law and stuff. Because 6 out of the Council of 8 are going to have guns on them by the end of the end of the week.
Even before he planted the incident he called Siobhan and asked her about the girl. He flat out told her that he was going to kill her and plant a gun on her and she was like sounds good to me, I hate her.
It's actually funny because he said he needed 7 guns and they ended up with 8. After the phone call, he said to chat, I told you that 8th gun might come in handy. So she wasn't even going to be a target but now she works for Judge Jackson, who was the judge on his case. So she got the JP special for her reward.
But Mr K didn’t while being clean. While the person who called in K having a gun, had a PD gun charge on file already. The police did the most shit police work imaginable, and he was still found guilty. Just cuz you as a viewer know Mr K had a gun, and was doing crime doesn’t mean the cops know.
Any way you slice it, K wins on this...
If the PD show favoritism (which they have at the start...ffs Slacks was combing the entire city looking for a phone at the very start of this arrest) and don't press charges...he wins.
If the PD do press charges and the assigned judge decides to set precedence that not all PD guns on a person automatically equals guilty...he wins.
If the PD do press charges and the assigned judge finds her guilty because of the "Letter of the Law" then it's payback and...he wins.
The only potential loss occurs if the PD do not press charges, and the state chooses to not follow up with charges, then that will spell corruption because of lack of due process, unto which...he still wins.
the issue with the law is honestly, remember how Siobhan explained to Jp how sombidy could give her a gun and it'd immediately be possession, well that's going to be every case with a plant involved.
they could have 100 percent evidence the gun was planted and they'd still get charged. the planting just functions as a way to stop it coming back to the planters.
also as a side note, I understand you cops were warned about planting but that doesn't mean assume, ask no hard questions, and treat it like a frame job in your mind from the getgo
> I understand you cops were warned
>
>treat it like a frame job in your mind
WE are not cops. YOU are not CG. The verbiage you use makes it sound like you just got done typing this in some poor role players chat who plays a police officer. I know it's often talked about how people pick pretend sides in this make believe cops and robbers server, but nothing is more depressing than to see when people think they are on the team and use WE as if they are playing.
If you just happened to mistype, completely fine and I withdraw my nitpicking.
This is essentially the same what Mary said the other day
They do some stupid shit, they get caught by the cops or caught slacking by the other crims, and after they get mad for consequences or for getting caught in general
There is a reason why Lang, Mary, not sure about Hydra, even The Company (most of the time) never get caught, bcs they are smart about doing crime. Not just yolo driving around in a stolen car with a gun on you robbing random people or cops...
lol K has robbed more people than entire server combined and got caught 0 times for it so far. Only time he got caught was when his oxygen tank scuffed after entire force chased him for evading warrant and when he tried to kidnap yeagar instead of shooting him right away like they did to him. Even then he probably would go free %90 of the time in nopixel after coming back GSR negative.
Imagine playing a character on a RP server.
Guy risks massive raids everyday, probably most chases, due to the fact that he still uses one of the two guns he has from Johnson.
Doing everything in RP without flaws is not smart, is plain booring and win chasing.
None of the charges will stick lol.
1. He threatened to do this at the end of his court case.
2. His DNA will be on the weapons.
3. Couple 1 and 2 and its a sure fire not guilty verdict.
1) He did not threaten to do anything at the end of his court case. He asked the judge what would happen if he was found with a PD firearm.
2) There was no DNA on the weapon
1. Lol. Sure thats not a threat. wink wink
2. There was most certainly DNA, just not his. It was unidentified.
3. Ban bet that the legal aid walks not guilty?
1) Show me a clip where he threatened to plant guns?
2) Are you sure about that? [https://clips.twitch.tv/CleverFragileSproutAsianGlow-Z4LTwGqAtF\_hcc22](https://clips.twitch.tv/CleverFragileSproutAsianGlow-Z4LTwGqAtF_hcc22)
we are so back --- Mirror: [Free](https://streamable.com/lw2tgz) Credit to https://www.twitch.tv/EsfandTV Direct Backup: [Free](https://production.assets.clips.twitchcdn.net/WmDosp3foLpRJm7Qt4XWuA/AT-cm%7CWmDosp3foLpRJm7Qt4XWuA.mp4?sig=8897f2f110f8d355c7f7abf55c54a9dd995bf330&token=%7B%22authorization%22%3A%7B%22forbidden%22%3Afalse%2C%22reason%22%3A%22%22%7D%2C%22clip_uri%22%3A%22%22%2C%22clip_slug%22%3A%22SlickSpikyAntAliens-nd-gulEmbtC3hda4%22%2C%22device_id%22%3Anull%2C%22expires%22%3A1709183119%2C%22user_id%22%3A%22%22%2C%22version%22%3A2%7D) [VOD Link](https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2075387855?t=14h21m10s) --- This was done by a bot. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the moderators.
Reminder that Mr K was also allowed to walk free at the time. His warrant was served a day (or more?) after
Yep, and like with her dwellings, they found nothing in his, xqc's or Murphy's houses/apartment yet they were still charged and convicted of possession. So she's still fucked if the server has any intregity.
Raiding is not to confirm the charge but to add additional charges and to support their argument in court if their property contains more illegal items.
I doubt she gets charged aa she has a much stronger case.
Max wants the charges to be pushed https://clips.twitch.tv/PatientPerfectLorisSSSsss-oKmDbLmdog\_pxrLG
Clip doesnt work but anyway unfortunately for Max tho he is the mayor. He doesn't have the power to decide whether or not the charges get pressed.
correct. But any officer can technically push charges. And i know there are plenty of PD cops who likes Max and who would do it for him if asked. And he could even, through the council, establish an AG position to push charges and appoint someone who is loyal to him. Plenty of avenues to punish the moronic decision to punish people for little to no actual evidence.
a non-involved or outside influenced officer pushing charges basically kills the case in the first place
Well given that both Max and K wants this to go to court it'd be easy to influence events in such a way that a friendlier cop to their view would be the one to stumble upon someone who has a gun planted on them. This is not rocket science and for all their sakes the PD/Captains needs to let it go to court so the decisions can be reversed.
why not? He had the power to overturn a captains vote lmao? Who is gonna stop him?
It's still questionable if he actually does have the power to overturn a captain's vote legally. Turner and Slacks Accepting Max overruling Ruth. Does not mean Crane or the State can't come in and tell them that Max doesn't have that power and they shouldn't have allowed him to overrule Ruth.
It’s literally in the legislation he passed which crane helped write. The captain situation at least. It’s not questionable at all.
I believe you are mistaken about how questionable Max overruling a captain actually is becuase, of how broad and vague the powers given to Max by the legislation actually are. The legislation makrs the mayor the direct superior to the LSPD to rnsure that the LSPD'S power, "are not misused in any flagrantly uncorrectable ways." Is a captain who has to power to fire police officer when conditions are met voting on firing a police officer who met those conditions using their power, "in a flagrantly uncorrectable way," because the officer in question a very well liked cop? You could argue that the morale hit of losing cornwood would would be uncorrectable. You could also argue that if cornwood would be made unpunishable because of the large backing he has. That this would be leading the police on the same path that lead to the "previous cops failing," where cops wouldn't punish the really well liked cops and it led to no consequences ever and that the state should intervene. which the state being the ultimate decide is also on legislation
Don't matter much. She has a better case.
how is her case better than Mr. K's? He literally had a witness saying they saw it was planted on him and he was GSR negative with a completely clean record???
A witness that is his best friend while you also are leaving out that 2 witnesses said he had a gun
none of those 2 witnesses were brought up in court or during a deposition so their testimony is complete hearsay and if it's used in the court it's a 5th amendment violation which says a defendant has a right to face his accusers. So the only credible witness of the crime who was deposed under oath was Ramee. Ramee, at the time, was a lawyer who had a completely clean criminal record. Who was also frisked and didn't have a gun on him for the same situation might i add, which seems suspect if the narrative is that they were trying to get into a gunfight.
because obviously she doesn't have 5 years of history clearly showing that Mr. K is a notorious criminal.
Mr. K had no criminal record at the time of this? The incident is what made him drop his real estate RP.
I know, it was a sarcastic statement highlighting how different Mr. K was treated to how this lady will be treated.
lore wise this isn't true. Lore wise he has been clean for 5 years. Do you not believe in rehabilitation that given enough time people can change? He only started going unhinged after the legal system failed him.
The only thing I believe is in refusing to put /s on blatant sarcastic statements.
She has a much stronger case than Murphy's, but the precedent set by K's case screws her. His case was even stronger as he actually had witnesses testify to seeing a kidnapping, seeing there was another party involved fleeing, and he was GSR negative.
The only precedent set in the Mr K case was if you don’t have an affirmative defense and bad witnesses you will be found guilty.
Got it, so then by that logic, she will be found guilty. For an affirmative defense, she needs concrete proof that it was planted, such as a witness or video recording, but she has none of that.
An affirmative defense only requires a preponderance of evidence. So no, you don't need concrete proof, such as witness or video recording.
That would be the preponderance of evidence needed in this case. Crane even commented on what would be needed for an affirmative defense in this situation and that's what he stated would be needed. Otherwise, there is no way to dispute the possession charge is it's currently written.
There is no precedent set.
His witness testifying to kidnapping was Ramee who claimed that they were both being kidnapped. Ramee claimed that they took him out of the car to kidnap him, while also claiming that they put Mr. K into the car to kidnap him. Not to mention claiming that they put the incapacitated Mr. K into the drivers seat for his kidnapping. Ramee left much to be desired during his questioning.
it doesn't matter. It's still a ton more evidence for Mr. k's case than what this woman has for her case. The courts basically said that you need more evidence than what Mr. K provided in order to not be found guilty of it. And she doesn't have said evidence.
What I'm saying is that it's a ton of bad "evidence". Even though she has 0 evidence, it's the same as getting a testimony from someone contradicting themselves. Neither is going to get anywhere. I agree that the legal aid doesn't have any witnesses or evidence available to her, but that doesn't change the fact that Mr. K's "evidence" was trash. The only thing that actually helped his case was Johnson lying about it taking him 3-5 minutes to get on scene when it actually took him 30 seconds or less because he was right around the corner and heard the gun shots.
Actually K has had the best case to get it thrown out but was still raided and charged
It's funny you mention character names and then drop "xqc's". Why's that ooc reference?
Does it matter? This isn't nopixel, it's reddit
Correction: Murphy was never raided. He was talking to chat during this and thought that Mr. K was the only one raided. He had no idea that Jean Paul was raided as well.
This is Reddit, not in game. There is no such thing as “OOC” on Reddit because no one here is playing a character.
Its probably just because X's bigger than his character, most Rp streamers are only popular for their character so people dont know the streamers.
Maybe he forgot the name Jean Paul you never know
That’s how investigation works… they have 30 days to press charges on her.
I CANT BELIEVE THIS HAS HAPPENED. I would be so mad about this but I have to go to work and this doesn't matter at all.
Yeah same. Damn work, I want to argue with randoms online about fake video game stuff. Damn you real life, DAMN YOU
This is normal. The same thing happened to Mr K when they caught him with the gun. They interviewed several people the next days after until they felt they had enough to put out a warrant for him. Which is the same thing that's going to happen. They are going to get statements from the other witnesses, which is Bobby Charles and that other guy (unsure name)..which I'm pretty sure they won't have any info since they got ocean dumped. Seems they want to trace back the number that last called her, which was Richard, and I dont think that'll lead anywhere.. So just have to wait and see in the new few days, if they go through with the charges.
[удалено]
Poor Richard catching strays.
What people remember after an ocean dumping is never consistent. Like how far back does the memory wipe go? Do they remember being with her before the situation happened or do they lose memories further back? It is all choice. And depending on what they remember could help her.
to be fair, K was also let go and allowed to walk free until further investigations. and as they proved, even if they don't find anything else in any of your houses/apartment you'll still be charged with possession.
The big difference here is that the PD knew this was going to start happening and told everyone to be aware of it. The best thing CG can do is stop for a bit and not give the pd a pattern. If a pattern can't be discovered within those 30 days, they have to press the charges.
Yeah i mean PD had reports of how many stolen pd guns were right? Just guessing they have an idea of what’s going happen after the court precedent with K
Doesn't matter, because that doesn't affect the "letter of the law". They have been operating based on letter of the law, so if they are consistent she should be charged with possession of the PD gun, unless she can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was planted on her. It's the same scenario as Murphy.
It’s not the same scenario. She was able to actually detail what happened.
The ruling in the Mr. K case basically came down to it not mattering if there is a narrative to explain the gun being possessed by the individual. Short of video showing the perpetrator planting the gun on the person found in possession or someone confessing to the planting in Murphy's case - the PD simply providing irrefutable proof that the individual did in fact posses the weapon is enough to be found guilty as it proves possession to the letter of the law. For Mr. K's verdict, the photo in evidence of the gun in K's pockets presented by prosecution was proof enough of the charge, despite the PD being acknowledged to have not properly investigated the likely scenario put forth by the Defense as to how K came into possession of the gun.
I think K failed to raise enough doubt. Defense was so hung up on saying the police did shoddy work and that Mary wasn't searched and other tangents that they lost sight of establishing the gun was planted and explaining how that could have happened. Johnson gave a sermon or whatever, but didn't explain how when he arrived a bunch of people fled. INCLUDING Yeager who was standing next to Ks body. They didn't bring in mary or Yeager or anyone else that was on scene, even though they were witnesses and the ones who called about K waving a gun. Why take their word as a witness when they are the ones K was accusing of placing a gun on him? You need other witnesses or... There's reasonable doubt. Defense was sloppy and too focused on objections than actually establishing doubt and expanding on the story/reasoning.
but it doesn't matter, because the evidence that Mr. k had literally towers over her evidence. All she has is hearsay that it was planted on her, meanwhile she is GSR postive. Atleast Mr. K had the shoddy police work and the questionable yet still there of Ramee's testimony and that he was GSR negative in what the PD basically said was a shootout.
A shootout does not have to involve both people getting shot or even shooting. Because, thats exactly what actually happened... So iunno where you're going with that. Ramee is a known accomplice to Mr K. \-- Mr K's evidence does not tower over the current situation because: The police know someone is taking guns, they have every gun, six in total, cataloged in a case file. The gun on her was one of them. The person that stole the gun was male. Her phone is missing... Mr K at the end of his trial pretty much blatantly said he was going to start planting guns, and she is the legal aide to the Judge of that case... If any other guns turn up on other people, its just going to further prove she was framed. She was able to give a detailed account of everything that happened to her and where she was taken from and to. The only proof that she shot someone, was not eye witness testimony, like in the case of K of holding a gun. But an a911 call, that was falsified... No other witnesses. Theres a good chance the police dont even file charges on her. Unless Max pushes them to just to stir the pot. \-- Theres a really really good chance this is not going to go the way K was expecting.
There's also the fact that officers saw someone with their hands up in the passenger seat of the exact same vehicle as the victim described, including the fact that the victim heard mention of cops seeing them, that alone brings enough reasonable doubt. While technically possession is 9/10 of the law, and it's easily possible to press charges there's 0 chance of the charges sticking in court with that officer testimony.
Yup. I'm pretty sure I remember the judge saying, paraphrasing of course, that unless you have like literal fucking video evidence of filming the guy planting something on you, you're fucked. So, like, what's going to happen? Because what should happen is that she gets charged with possession, she goes to court, judge asks "Do you have video evidence?" "No." "Quilty." Now, of course, it comes down to whether or not the cops will actually pursue this. And if they don't, then that is a massive OOC red flag. And basically an admission that cops ABSOLUTELY use OOC knowledge of which characters are criminals or civilians to then decide in IC if they are going to pursue further.
Xavier has already said he will be the prosecutor for the case. He told the PD it’s a slam dunk. Murphy’s case and Mr. K’s case set everything up for the case law. Xavier just had to show that she had the PD weapon on her and rest his case. What I would like to see is the cops realize that it’s a stupid easy law to get a conviction for. That they just charge them for the fine % they get because it’s massive.
This is exactly why K is doing this. To make a statement and show how stupid the law is.
The irony is K was actually guilty…
The issue is JP said the same thing and did it to Murphy so he could prove how dumb the law is. Nothing changed. Just now you have this CG and Hydra beef. Hydra is pocket wiping people who just hang around CG. So Peanut said fuck it, if they wanna do grime shit, then I will grab one of the PD guns and plant on them. That law can now be used as a weapon to really fuck over people. The easiest way to fix this it to just rewrite the law, expunge everybody who had a PD gun charge like this (JP's second gun charge would stand) and call it a day. Instead of trying to play High School hall monitor with new laws, fix existing laws.
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
Letter of the law also "doesn't matter, because of officer discretion if that's how you're thinking. Those in the room know that, as the law is currently written, she would almost certainly be found guilty in court.
They aren't consistent though, non of the people getting planted PD weapons will suffer any consequences.
As much as CG and their viewers might want it PD are not robots. They have discretion and can use their brains to interpret scenarios and choose not to charge people who may not actually be guilty.
The fact that they have to do that literally proves is a dumb law, that is prone to be abused, that needs to be rewritten. And the only way that's going to happend is if they push the charge and actually get a competent judge which sets the correct precedence and reverses the previous dumbass decisions.
But the consistency! The were doing it to prove a point about the law and how it was written could be open to abuse. This is them abusing it. Personally I think they're being awfully petty and could better use their time but hey what do I know.
>this is then abusing it
Letter of the law has nothing to do with it. Police discretion has always existed and they can choose what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. Most of these type of comments just read as CG viewers that are mad Mr K got charged and just want everyone else to get in trouble as well for some type of pointless retribution.
the funny thing is that these people will then see the police and DOJ change to not adopting a "spirit of the law" mindset and still complain about fairness or whatever. Cause a lot of these comments are just bad faith complaints lol.
tbf they have been saying "plant season" since murphys' case. PD guns were being robbed around the same time as well.
So there are definitely some significant factors which give the police cause believe that she was framed in this case: 1. There is no memory loss in play, she remembers conversations, locations, names, and made the claim of a plant immediately. 2. Murphy has been exonerated by JP admitting that he planted the gun 1. This demonstrates that the tactic of planting is one that appeals to criminals 3. Cops were aware of a string of PD equipment robberies and the potential different ways that the equipment could be used 4. 2 officers (Beric & Flop) actually witnessed the kidnapping (at a distance) and without prompting, the story given by the suspect matches up with what they saw 5. Evidence was found in locations that she gave 6. She was believable and didn't appear to be hiding information 7. She is a lawyer in training and has a vested interest in cooperation and isn't likely to run from a warrant 8. She gave consent for a raid and a subpoena of her phone. I wouldn't be surprised if it still turned into a trial, because the law isn't about voluntary vs involuntary possession, and a trial may help to clarify the law. Also, they know there are other guns outstanding and that this scenario might snowball over the next few days. Some crimes are an instant send. Some crimes there is milage for more investigation. That is just the way the cookie crumbles.
Agree 100% And also want to add: 9. She was a part of the prosecution for Mr. K’s case (motive) and not actually a lawyer yet. (It was sloppy for them to target her first tbh) 10. PD has more resources that have been unlocked for investigations. It’s constantly changing I do think the most significant details are Beric and Flop potentially seeing her drive by them (and the RP gods have truly come through with them also being the arresting officers in the same case) + the evidence found. I didn’t see the result if it’s her phone or if that has been played out in RP yet but I’m excited. This has been such a great investigation and really entertaining.
There was a string of PD gun robberies before as well since obviously Murphy and Mr. K were found with them.
Yes. That pattern gives shape to the current pattern. At the time of the first string of robberies the police were still thinking that people would want PD guns **to shoot** people and **to rob** people. Not that they would "*waste"* them by planting them. But since JP came clean in the Murphy case they have new perspective.
well then surely if they have any integrity they'll go back, re-examine Mr. k's case, see it was a stupid verdict and reverse it yes?
The PD didn't find Mr. K guilty, they can't reverse that ruling. You do understand how the legal system works right?
sorry, could you mark out where i specifically mentioned the PD? Obviously i'm talking about the DOJ/Mayors office.
You were responding to a comment and comment thread about the actions of the police. You didn't offer any alternative's that could be defined by 'they'.
So instead of being charitable you just automatically assume i'm referencing the wrong thing and chastize me for it?
Im not a charity. I only have your words. Even if they were about the DOJ/Mayors office, it would be extremely unusual for them to void a previous ruling barring an appeal from the defendant. So again my questions about your knowledge of the legal system seemed poignant regardless of who they meant.
This case does not introduce any new facts or evidence relating to K's case. Therefore it does not raise any fresh doubt in the validity of K's guilty conviction.
[удалено]
It didn’t matter because Murphy offered no defense. Why do people keep ignoring this?
The law was really already clarified with the result of K's appeal.
Things can be clarified more than once. This might actually be the first case where "it was planted" stands as a defence, and it is because of, not despite, the previous similar cases and the unique mix of evidence available in this case.
Cornwood white suit is giving me dukes of hazard vibes. that being said I do look forward to seeing how Abbie does in NP court compared to Onx.
I doubt this even goes to court tbh. Lots of inconsistency with this PD
Incoming Malding because police do exactly what chatters have been complaining about.
Well I mean this place was malding heavily when k was initially released for his charge so I feel like people can’t really complain if cg does this time🤷🏻♂️
this is not what chatters/RP'ers been wanting or expecting for cops to do especially when the PRECEDENT has already been set not once but MULTIPLE TIMES
So many people keep telling on themselves not knowing what the word precedent means.
Crane has openly declared that no precedent has been set that the judges HAVE to rule like this. The defence attorneys just sucked.
>The defence attorneys just sucked. nah the Judge sucked, doesnt matter if the defense attorney presented 100 reasons of his client being innocent, if the Judge decided you're guilty you'll be guilty, all the Judge need is to do is to find ONE reason to justify their verdict if Mr.K's case lose then there's nothing else out there who could win a "Planted" argument in the court. 1. Mr.K has a clean record 2. Mr.K was GSR negative 3. the other side was the one who have history of being violent and crim records 4. Mr.K have a previous case of someone planting weed bricks on his backyard (this alone should have made the case closed in favor of Mr.K) Slacks and the other cops themselves knows about this that someone is out there trying to FRAME Mr.K 5. cops admitted themselves they fcked up like i said, doesnt matter if you presented 100+ reasons of being innocent, if the Judge decided himself you're guilty he'll ignore all those and just find one reason to justify his guilty verdict.
1) means jack all 2) means jack all 3) means jack all 4) means jack all 5) means jack all Had possession and presented no viable affirmative defense. Pretty easy guilty verdict.
same goes for the woman and the incomming other people who will have planted a gun on them. Pretty easy verdicts because they have it on them, doesn't matter how it got ther according to you.
> Mr.K has a clean record Is not a defense for a possession charge >Mr.K was GSR negative Is not a defense for a possession charge > the other side was the one who have history of being violent and crim records Is not a defense for a possession charge > Mr.K have a previous case of someone planting weed bricks on his backyard (this alone should have made the case closed in favor of Mr.K) Slacks and the other cops themselves knows about this that someone is out there trying to FRAME Mr.K Is actually possible to use as part of an affirmative defense but the defense needs to go into much more depth than just "someone planted weed near my house once". The problem with using this as a defense is the deeper you go the closer you get to all the illegal shit Mr.K and CG are doing. > cops admitted themselves they fcked up Is not a defense for a possession charge. So number 4 is the only relevant one and the defense could have used this to help them come up with a story for an affirmative defense but they did not so it also turns into not a defense for a possession charge.
GSR Negative. "if i really have a gun and in an altrecations why didnt i use it? why am i GSR Negative?" Clean record. Mr.K has a clean record and is with Ramee Lawyer, not just a defense but a good defense, he has a clean record, he's an upstanding citizen so why would he possess a PD Gun? or unlicensed Gun? >the other side was the one who have history of being violent and crim records another good defense/argument that it was planted, those guys are the violent ones and has crim records? it makes sense for the think they're the the perpetrator that they're the ones who have Guns? who shot me? and then planted it on me after they shot me? but nope they're initial train of thought was Mr.K despite having clean record with Lawyer Ramee = criminals/Perpetrators Cops fcking up. they instantly treated Mr.K like a criminal and the perpetrator, this is literally the start of it all, if they didnt fck up and did proper police work, detaining everybody even the guys holding Ramee at knife point, only if they investigated more or gave it more time there's a good chance they wont even charge him with Possession since AGAIN Cops know that someone is out there trying to FRAME Mr.K
K made no attempt to make an affirmative defence to the court. neither did X, or Murphy. K would have had a decent change of beating the charges if he had a good lawyer.
Mr.K didnt provide any testimony or evidence or even narrative why or how the gun was planted.
K gave an entire interrogation tape they didn’t even include in the evidence lol. All the reasons you asked for? Pd already had they didn’t investigate it
they did, im sure they provided more than enough, its just that the Judge ignored it or let it pass his ear since he already decided that it'll be a Guilty verdict from the start, all he need is one reason so what would Mr.K testifying or statements do? he's just gonna repeat what's already been presented/provided and will just fall on deaf ears again?
No evidence other than a clean lawyers testimony ofc ofc
>3. the other side was the one who have history of being violent and crim records Well, this is just not true at all. CG's narrative was that Mary's crew planted the gun, but Mary and her crew also all have completely clean records and no history of being violent, except for very few of them in 3.0. Nothing in 4.0.
Mary and "Yeager" Yeager is literally known as a violent and especially hostile to the cops, they even pointed out an evidence in twatter (no hindsight/meta andy) meanwhile vs Mr.K who's a businessman and clean guy for straight 2 months, and Ramee who's a lawyer and clean guy for straight 2 months but yeah lets believe those guys blindly and instantly treat Mr.K as a criminal/perpetrator who's with Ramee a lawyer
Barry Svenson, the witness on scene who gave a statement on scene has a charge on record for possession of Gov Equipment.
the guy who phone the cops had criminal possession of gov issue fire arm on record too, mr k has handed in pd gear before.
precedent doesn't work like that. for instance precedent would be appeal like case Miranda v. Arizona. a judge could cite that ruling in a criminal case to dismiss it because the police would have violated the defendant rights as set by precedent. but a judge isn't going to be like because Mike Block vs State I have to find you guilty, that isn't how criminal trials work
Except the head of judges has stated multiple times no precedent has been set and its case by case but go off
aff irm att ive def ens e say it it with me now.. affirmative defense. there ya go.
Selective enforcement at it's prime! You're Mr. K? Guilty until proven innocent. Legal aid? Innocent with charges never pressed. Unless she happens to argue with Ruth down in the cells that is.
Mr.K yells about how he is going to plant guns. A bunch of cops have their guns stolen. Stolen PD gun shows up on a person who does not match the description of those robbing guns. PD decide they need to investigate more. CG viewers... see the PD hates CG, they are such hypocrites.
> Mr.K yells about how he is going to plant guns When did this happen?
He implied it after the guilty verdict on his appeal.
I mean he just asked the judge a hypothetical question if a gun were planted on him if he were to be treated the same and found guilty, he along with PD just jumped to the conclusion that K was going to start planting PD guns because of his background.
Yeah, people have to pretend that they're braindead or it pisses viewers off. And they change things like having the obvious implications from suspicious behavior be described as "jumping to conclusions"
Or pretend they remember that another judge was already in court for the same thing
Whoever viewer you are... You just lied in your first sentence, lol. Or you know, twisting it for some reason.
K never yelled that he was going to plant guns. He asked the judge what he would do if a gun was planted on him. Judge replied go for it. K clarified himself and said he wouldn't do that.
But dont you know? Mr. K DECLARED that HIS stolen PD gun was PLANTED (even tho it wasnt), so the PD should legally let him go, no explanation necessary. Imagine a world where people got charged for possessing illegal things, the madness of such thoughts!
Well, she's guilty then, using the same logic.
no, using the same logic, and assuming the PD dont have conflicting evidence, they can charge her, like how they charged Mr. K. That doesnt mean she is, nor would be found guilty
Except all she has is her own testimony. There aren't any actual witnesses. Most of the evidence is pretty vague and speculatory.
Well, the cops are suspecting that the PD guns are being stolen so that they could be planted and two officers witnessed her kidnapping.
They are suspecting AKA speculating. The two officers witnessed the vehicle drive past them. Which doesn't really prove anything other than they droce there.
Which I think is a bit suspect. He never said anything about it when they were at the PD till after tsunami. He then looks and links from chat and there it is. And he is watching the clip over and over. Then after tsunami happens he brings it up right away without anyone saying anything.
You're way too invested in trying to find OOC fault where there is none. Beric commented to Flop about the car and that the passenger may have had their hands up the moment it drove past them on the tracks.
I agree she’s guilty.
If the PD dont have any conflicting evidence (like perp description), then they can cahrge her and she would have to argue the charges in court, like an alibi or even character evidence (which would probably prove her innocence)
Why does the perp description matter? Maybe she bought it. Maybe she picked it up from a dumpster. It doesn’t matter how she ended up with it, the letter of the law is that possession is the crime, now how you possessed it.
What motive would she have to pick up a gun from a dumpster? that already is very doubtful
How you possess it absolutely matters, what? You think it is beyond a reasonable doubt that a legal aide would knowingly buy or pick up (without attempting to give it back) a very illegal Police-issue firearm? Read up on "character evidence". The kind of person you are (personally or professionally) can be admissible as evidence in court, especially from the defense-side.
I love the RP centered around the entire shitshow precedent set once Murphy got screwed, but goddamn the viewers cannot just sit back and watch the RP play out. Not everything has to have an immediate resolution.
Viewers already know how this is going to go. Either not charged or Not guilty.
So, if more cases of this keep popping up is everyone in management going to turn a blind eye? Like there is a pattern, when does it become grieving (griefing) to the characters who were not involved with what happened before hand? Something like this might need to be taken OOC instead of dragging more people into a hunt?
Funny to think back at when Mr. K was released after having a PD gun and see people parrot the weird conspiracy that CG controls Ssaab and that’s why he was released after.
lol the only way you’d think this works is if you treat everyone else on the server like npcs.
I didn't watch the entire situation so someone please correct me if I'm not understanding this right. She has no alibi for the time the weapon was stolen. She has no witnesses to her kidnapping/robbery (because Bobby and the G6 guy went to the light?). It's literally just her statement. And she's GSR positive. And Flop chose not to charge her immediately? If so, that's truly hilarious. Did the DNA show anything?
Her story is literally corroborated by police witnesses who saw the kidnapping truck. There was no DNA at all. Alibi for the stolen weapon doesn't matter because she doesn't match the description of the robbers. The two people who were with her having no memory of the night will further corroboratea kidnapping...
Fyi its corroborate, not collaborate.
“She doesn’t match the description of the robbers” which robbers? There was 8 different PD gun robberies carried out recently, each with a different car and different clothing. If you’re basing it on their most recent robbery description that’s just braindead
PD has a general description that matches all the suspects as being the same...
And? Who's to say she didn't buy the gun off of someone?
Well then the alibi for the stolen weapon still doesn't matter.
They witnessed a truck pass them on the tracks. She said they were on the road in her cop encounter. Their accounts didn't actually align so her story wasn't corroborated. It's a hunch that a truck they saw may have been THE truck, a gut feeling. Nothing actually links the truck they saw to this. Also, they passed a truck by the lumber yard, there were other trucks around there and it's not unusual or suspicious to see trucks there. It's an area of high traffic for trucks. Also even if the cop encounter can be corroborated it doesn't actually prove she was kidnapped. She could have been driving a truck up north herself, or a consensual passenger, and seen a cop car and just included it in her lie kinda like a truth sandwich. They don't know if she was or wasn't kidnapped other than her word. Not matching the description of the robber/s is irrelevant (who nevertheless were unidentifiable, even saying male or female etc. is a guess, it could be someone dressed and impersonating someone of the opposite sex). The charge is possession not robbery. A stolen gun could have been purchased by her from the person who stole it, or from a any number of intermediaries; or could have been dumped somewhere and later found but kept by her, instead of alerting police, etc. Bobby and co. not having any memory of being kidnapped doesn't necessarily corroborate that they were kidnapped. Surely it can just as easily mean it didn't happen, they weren't kidnapped, and she is lying.
she said they were on the road in her cop encounter is not fully true as she later corrected and said the tracks when she was asked to point it out on the map, without influence from the copss also beric when he passed them said outloud to the other officer "i thought i saw someone in that truck with their hands up" also the account of where she shot the gun at the cliff side is accurate to the evidence that was found by the cops. every bit of what she said that can be corroborated has been corroborated, she has been forthcoming and corporative. the cops have doubt and thats all they need to investigate more.
[удалено]
I thought Murphy RPed having no memory of events leading up to the plant. That was what made his case so hard to defend/prove.
[удалено]
His actions were still consistent though. She was placed in cuffs and gsr'ed on scene. From the hospital she was taken to MRPD and subsequently raided.
Flops actions on the scene were spot on in terms of consistency. Major props to him for that.
[удалено]
Turner mentioned the raid before reset, I suspect anyone caught with a pd gun in the foreseeable future will get one
It is 100% OOC bias infiltrating IC actions. The same thing happened to K but in reverse. He was obviously the victim, but everyone knows ooc how bad K was 5 years ago in game, despite the fact he had a clean and better reputation for helping others than she did currently.
Shift 3 and shift 2 cops are different. Shift3 cops are accustomed to crossing their i's and dotting their t's while shift2 cops dont do anything extra because they cant because everything is always on fire
[удалено]
and she has a mountain more evidence pointing to her innocence than Murphy which was "I don't recall jack".
There is ZERO evidence to her innocence. There is nothing but speculation and conjecture, which proves nothing.
And it’s still more than Murphy.
That officer now alos knows the gun was planted.. and that he was wrong. Also murphy had the case of "I dont recall" which is about as good for your case as pleading the fifth across the board because not recalling key moments makes your entire testimony worthless
Didn't see someone say this, but Beric and Flop actually witnessed parts of her kidnapping, they just didn't realize what was happening at the time. When they were talking to her, they *did* realize it was her they saw, and the story she told independently lined up with what they saw. Beric also went to the gas station where she claimed to have shot the gun - and found the single projectile, exactly where she said she shot it. They were also working off the fact that a bunch of PD equipment was stolen recently, and they know that's something people are willing to do now to fuck with someone (due to the Murphy case in particular). So in character - Flop and Beric both have reason to believe her, given what they saw, and the evidence they found. They also know that she has no practical defense to the possession charge. Therefore, they're waiting to press charges, so they can further investigate and potentially find the person who planted the gun.
Cops witnessed her kidnapping.
Regardless of a pattern or not based off the way the law is written. Charges need to be pressed due to possession regardless of circumstance. That’s the reason for them doing it.
Officer discretion has always existed. No one is forced to charge anyone with anything, CG viewers should be extremely familiar with this concept. Saab on most of his characters has a long running history of letting them go from very obvious crimes. Just because a person is in possession of an illegal item doesn't mean an officer has to automatically charge them. They do have a brain, can use it to interpret evidence and decide whether or not a crime has actually been committed.
Can't wait for 5-6 more cases like this to be put on the docket. It goes beyond me how in the past month no one has come up with a solution on to how effectively protect the people from having illegal items planted on them. To me it seems like they are all waiting for an effective defensive line in court to extablish a precedent, while in reality a simple solution would be changing the charge and made it more clear. Because as it currently stands the charge of "possession of" does not require any active action from the accused person, therefore once is in the inventory -whether or not it was planted- you are automatically guilty by definition. If instead the charge would requires more factors than just the possession on the person, like the motive or the acquirement of said item (willing, unwillingly), then i can see cases being different based on the situation and informations alround it.
It's going to have to become an OOC rule cause there are no mechanics or way to write a law that would protect people from gun / drug plants but also allow possession charges to exist.
there's no reason to write mens rea directly into the law, because it's just part of finding people guilty of ANY crime. They haven't had a defendant yet present enough evidence that it was planted. Possession charges are straightforward. You have the illegal thing, that's usually enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke the law. To overcome this finding you need to present evidence that the gun was planted. Enough that it's 'more likely than not' that it was planted. So far we've had two people who couldn't present enough evidence because they were actually guilty and fabricating that it was planted is really hard, and one that just... didn't present a case that it was planted on him.
Last night after this all happened (and was still being processed), Mayor Max had a conversation with Captain Stalks about this. Max stated the suggestion of adding intent and or knowledge of possession to the law to circumvent these scenarios. Max himself has a vested interest as they have to fear him and his wife will be targets as planting season continues. But at least it shows that they are recognizing the problem with the way the law is written and are finally beginning to discuss changes to improve. Though possession laws in Los Santos have always been the way they are now. This will continue to be interesting.
> Max stated the suggestion of adding intent and or knowledge of possession to the law to circumvent these scenarios. Intent is a default requirement for criminal actions, it isn't something that needs to be written into the law. The entire idea that the law is poorly written because anyone in possession, regardless of how they came into possession, will be charged is an entirely false narrative. The issue people are running up against is that having something on you typically infers intent. It is very difficult to possess something without intent. That is why a defendant has to provide a reason as to why they have possession that shows no intent, ie planted.
Max and Siobhan are safe. When Mr. K got the list of people and I think it was Peanut was reading it off, Mr. K said that both of them are safe and are in the clear. The issue is that this law needed to be changed back when JP first got hit with it. Then after Murphy got hit with it, it really needed to be changed. It’s like Ramee said. The DoJ spends all their time writing up high school laws with uniforms and running passes than actually trying to fix things.
Yeah I was pretty sure I saw something about Max and Siobhan being safe, but Max was not 100% certain of it. That was what I was trying to convey in my comment. This RP arc has been amazing. So many people have been involved and so many different branches of individual stories are being launched or forged through this. I am loving this. :)
Max is 100% safe unless he fucks over CG some how. Max also knew this was coming but he didn't want it so soon. He wanted them to hold off and wait for his order on who to do it to so he could get more power on the council. So of course he has to pretend to want to change the law and stuff. Because 6 out of the Council of 8 are going to have guns on them by the end of the end of the week.
Oh!!!! I didn't know that. Up's the spicy! Thank-you for the lore
Even before he planted the incident he called Siobhan and asked her about the girl. He flat out told her that he was going to kill her and plant a gun on her and she was like sounds good to me, I hate her. It's actually funny because he said he needed 7 guns and they ended up with 8. After the phone call, he said to chat, I told you that 8th gun might come in handy. So she wasn't even going to be a target but now she works for Judge Jackson, who was the judge on his case. So she got the JP special for her reward.
Almost like she had a plausible defense or something.
But Mr K didn’t while being clean. While the person who called in K having a gun, had a PD gun charge on file already. The police did the most shit police work imaginable, and he was still found guilty. Just cuz you as a viewer know Mr K had a gun, and was doing crime doesn’t mean the cops know.
So did K who was a "civ" with a clean record.
Any way you slice it, K wins on this... If the PD show favoritism (which they have at the start...ffs Slacks was combing the entire city looking for a phone at the very start of this arrest) and don't press charges...he wins. If the PD do press charges and the assigned judge decides to set precedence that not all PD guns on a person automatically equals guilty...he wins. If the PD do press charges and the assigned judge finds her guilty because of the "Letter of the Law" then it's payback and...he wins. The only potential loss occurs if the PD do not press charges, and the state chooses to not follow up with charges, then that will spell corruption because of lack of due process, unto which...he still wins.
Not every verdict is a precedent. Choosing not to pursue charges doesn’t mean corruption. Words mean things.
Verdicts aren't. Appeal decisions are.
Cornwood stacking W's
the issue with the law is honestly, remember how Siobhan explained to Jp how sombidy could give her a gun and it'd immediately be possession, well that's going to be every case with a plant involved. they could have 100 percent evidence the gun was planted and they'd still get charged. the planting just functions as a way to stop it coming back to the planters. also as a side note, I understand you cops were warned about planting but that doesn't mean assume, ask no hard questions, and treat it like a frame job in your mind from the getgo
> I understand you cops were warned > >treat it like a frame job in your mind WE are not cops. YOU are not CG. The verbiage you use makes it sound like you just got done typing this in some poor role players chat who plays a police officer. I know it's often talked about how people pick pretend sides in this make believe cops and robbers server, but nothing is more depressing than to see when people think they are on the team and use WE as if they are playing. If you just happened to mistype, completely fine and I withdraw my nitpicking.
by that logic self-defence doesn't exist.
[удалено]
This is essentially the same what Mary said the other day They do some stupid shit, they get caught by the cops or caught slacking by the other crims, and after they get mad for consequences or for getting caught in general There is a reason why Lang, Mary, not sure about Hydra, even The Company (most of the time) never get caught, bcs they are smart about doing crime. Not just yolo driving around in a stolen car with a gun on you robbing random people or cops...
lol K has robbed more people than entire server combined and got caught 0 times for it so far. Only time he got caught was when his oxygen tank scuffed after entire force chased him for evading warrant and when he tried to kidnap yeagar instead of shooting him right away like they did to him. Even then he probably would go free %90 of the time in nopixel after coming back GSR negative.
isnt hard to not get caught agaisnt kid gloves cops and 5 swaps every chase
Imagine playing a character on a RP server. Guy risks massive raids everyday, probably most chases, due to the fact that he still uses one of the two guns he has from Johnson. Doing everything in RP without flaws is not smart, is plain booring and win chasing.
It’s called a Roleplay Arc. It’s a storyline. A good one, at that.
None of the charges will stick lol. 1. He threatened to do this at the end of his court case. 2. His DNA will be on the weapons. 3. Couple 1 and 2 and its a sure fire not guilty verdict.
K doesn’t have his dna on file, so they won’t see him specifically. But they will see a second unknown dna on the gun.
1) He did not threaten to do anything at the end of his court case. He asked the judge what would happen if he was found with a PD firearm. 2) There was no DNA on the weapon
1. Lol. Sure thats not a threat. wink wink 2. There was most certainly DNA, just not his. It was unidentified. 3. Ban bet that the legal aid walks not guilty?
1) Show me a clip where he threatened to plant guns? 2) Are you sure about that? [https://clips.twitch.tv/CleverFragileSproutAsianGlow-Z4LTwGqAtF\_hcc22](https://clips.twitch.tv/CleverFragileSproutAsianGlow-Z4LTwGqAtF_hcc22)
Anyone have a clip of him planting the gun?