Patriots' Hernandez questioned by police in homicide probe

[supafly]

All gunshot wounds are investigated by the police. The only way that this wouldn't already be under investigation is if he didn't go to the hospital. Which is unlikely, considering that he apparently lost an eye. If he isn't already being investigation in connection to the shooting, then this whole thing is almost certainly BS. If the evidence was at all compelling that Hernandez shot the guy in the face, then the police would almost certainly have pursued charges against him.

It was reported that the victim clammed up immediately, which explains everything you need to know about "why" there wasn't a formal case or investigation.

If my buddy accidently shoots me in the face and he's a multi millioniare who is going to take care of everything (or so he says), I'm not going out of my way to rat him out or tell the cops who is was or how it went down; especially if we're supposedly friends and we drove off in the same car together.

The bottom line is that there wasn't an investigation because the victim wasn't cooperating into one, leaving the cops no choice.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Harassment isn't covered by the first amendment, so that's a terrible example.

The example Demo gave isn't harassment, so it's a fine example.

But how about this -- on the bulletin board at work post a signed, nice, calm, letter about how competitors X and Y pay better salaries, are better places to work, and attach their current job listings.

After you're fired, try suing your ex-employer for firing you for exercising your first amendment rights and tell us how it goes.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Hernandez won't be suspended for demanding that police have a warrant to search his house. That's ridiculous.

If he's found to be linked to the crime in any meaningful way, however, that's a whole other story. Of course, at that point, whatever suspension he got would likely be the least of his concerns.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The thoughts of a possible passing offense consisting of NO Gronkowski,No Welker and No Hernandez to start the season is frightening...at least we already knew Welker was gone but.....

I don't know if i ever remember in all my years watching the NFL if a team went into its next season missing its starting 2 TEs,its starting WR and its Long ball threat (even though Lloyd came up short of a true threat) from less than a year ago unless it was a team in total rebuild or an expansion franchise of course.

Lets hope Hernandez is not a missing piece in September

 

[primetime]

The example Demo gave isn't harassment, so it's a fine example.

But how about this -- on the bulletin board at work post a signed, nice, calm, letter about how competitors X and Y pay better salaries, are better places to work, and attach their current job listings.

After you're fired, try suing your ex-employer for firing you for exercising your first amendment rights and tell us how it goes.

Fair enough, I concede the point.

 

[Joker]

Fair enough, I concede the point.

WHAT??????????????????????????????????

Concede nothing!!!! This is the internet!!!!

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Aaron Hernandez has associates engaged in "gang activity" | nePatriotsLife.com - New England Patriots Fan Site, Blog, T-shirts

Well that's not the same as when you said :

According to "people close to Hernandez" there were concerns that he had recently become involved again with the gang which had been involved with before going to Florida.

Not trying to be a jerk but when you said "he had recenetly become involved again with the gang" that suggests that it was something he desired. A choice. The actual quote said he was having trouble with them and seeking to distance himself.

Since when did "recently become involved again" and "seeking to distance himself" have even remotely the same meaning ?

 

[belichick010405]

Official Website of the New England Patriots | Media Center - Audio - Patriots.com Radio

Tomorrow should be an interesting day on PFW in Progress....

 

[serifyn]

Its not hard to make that jump, given the circumstances, this isn't a court of law, i shouldn't have to ask a judge in order to introduce individual pieces of evidence.

Its not like i said Hernandez is gang banging in Attleborough slinging heroine and shooting up blocks. i said he was associated with the gang again, at least that is what his teammates (former and current) have said.

Trying to distance himself implies they are around, its not like he showed up to his house one day and the entire gang was sitting on the porch, he probably invited former gang members (friends) into his life.

According to "people close to Hernandez" there were concerns that he had recently become involved again with the gang which had been involved with before going to Florida.

The 'people' being teammates, and 'involved' being 'once again associated with'.

If you are looking for an exact quote you won't get it, this is how i heard it on the radio.

 

[Rob0729]

according to my cat, Xandor...this is a precursor to a full blown interplanetary invasion by aliens....

Xandor is wrong. Inevitable nuptials between Amanda Bynes and Charlie Sheen is that precursor. Hopefully, the aliens will kill the newly born Anti-Christ in Kim Kardashian's baby.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

Well that's not the same as when you said :



Not trying to be a jerk but when you said "he had recenetly become involved again with the gang" that suggests that it was something he desired. A choice. The actual quote said he was having trouble with them and seeking to distance himself.

Since when did "recently become involved again" and "seeking to distance himself" have even remotely the same meaning ?

How exactly does "getting recently involved again" cause one to murder a non-Bristol, CT non-gang banger who is dating the sister of the girlfriend?

If anything, this would sound like payback or revenge from the Bristol, CT gangbangers.

A dead Bristol gang banger would be much more concerning.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I wonder if this makes drafting Colt Lyerla next year more likely.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Its not hard to make that jump, given the circumstances, this isn't a court of law, i shouldn't have to ask a judge in order to introduce individual pieces of evidence.

That's fine, post whatever you feel like as fact. It's all good.

:bricks:

 

[serifyn]

Good .

 

[SB39]

Harassment isn't covered by the first amendment, so that's a terrible example.

Just because you have the Constitutional right to do something doesn't mean you can't suffer consequences at work for exercising those rights.

You have the Constitutional right to organize a Klan rally in your basement tomorrow night if you'd like, but there are an awful lot of companies that would fire you in a heartbeat if they found out that's how you spent your free time. And they would be allowed to do so.

 

[SB39]

You said Hernandez could be suspended for 'not cooperating with police.' Unless he was hindering a police investigation, such a suspension would lose in any appeals court (like Vilma) and probably result in a civil suit brought against the NFL.

I'm saying Goodell could suspend him for whatever reason he wants. And you keep mentioning Vilma over and over because that's really you only example of a suspension getting overturned. So if I'm Hernandez, I don't want to put my faith in the NFLPA, which has about 1 success in about 100 tries.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

The search is over. Lasted little more than 2.5 hrs.

Investigators left with a cardboard box as evidence, but the million dollar question will obviously be what is in there

Brad Pitt asks the question we all want to know.

(NSFW language)

Regards,
Chris

 

[SB39]

So am I the only one who think Belichick looks pretty darn smart for stealing that Tight End from the Giants last year? he went from "we don't need him" to the #1 TE on the team

Paging Mr Ballard, Mr. Jake Ballard.... please report to the offensive huddle....

 

[Yehoodi]

Interesting. Like I said, I am just asking for the sake of trying to understand. I would think that under the scenario you described the person answering the door would have to know that the individuals had committed a crime? No? I mean if my friends over my house and a cop come up to the door and asks do you know such and such but doesn't say anything about why they are asking the questions (and correct me if I am wrong but I wouldn't think they would announce that the person is an actual suspect as opposed to something like a person of interest) then it would be perfectly fine to answer that you don't want to talk to them about the person and politely close the door. Is that correct?

yes you are correct . . . the DA needs show that the accessory after the fact (AAF) has knowledge that a crime was committed and that he has the specific intent to help the felon avoid the law . . . so if AH did not have knowledge that his roommates committed a crime, one element is missing from the crime and no matter how many other elements are present in the Commonwealth's case, the defendant is entitled to a required finding of not guilty . . .

I was just addressing evidence that could come in to support the second element of the crime . . . we do not need direct evidence of the intent to harbor but may show other evidence which can show an inference that the defendant had the specific intent to harbor a felon . . . and if the other elements are proven in the commonwealth's case, it can admit into evidence the nonresponsive conduct as showing a inference that he intended to help the felon avoid the cops . . .

 

[tombonneau]

Given some of the "Never talk to the cops" discussion on this board yesterday, this story update on former director John McTiernan really is shaping up to be the poster child of why you never say anything to the cops/feds.

Exclusive: The Tragic Imprisonment Of John McTiernan, Hollywood Icon

Guy's looking at a year in prison for lying to the FBI and has been nearly bankrupted on legal fees regarding a lawsuit surrounding a notorious Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano.

And all because of one little phone call ...

On the evening of Feb. 13, 2006, while McTiernan was eating dinner, a man identifying himself as an FBI agent called the director’s home in Dayton, Wyoming. McTiernan attempted to cooperate, answering a question about divorce lawyer attorney Dennis Wasser, who’d regularly retained Pellicano’s services. The voice on the phone then asked if he’d hired Pellicano while remaking Rollerball. As his former attorney, Olivier Diaz, described the call: “‘So, Mr. McTiernan, you deny hiring Pellicano for Charles Roven.’ John said yep, hung up the phone, and forgot about the call. Two weeks later he was arrested for lying to an FBI agent. The government later asserted that Mr. McTiernan was not completely truthful in this telephone conversation and charged him with a federal felony.” McTiernan had also recently returned from Thailand and was jet-lagged and taking medication.

(UPDATE: McTiernan’s current legal counsel, Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr, disputes the former attorney Diaz’s account, citing the FBI’s 302, a summary of the bureau’s phone call with McTiernan: “During the call on February 13, 2006, McTiernan was asked if that was the only time he hired Pellicano, and McTiernan said it was and ended the call. In fact, Roven’s name never even came up during the phone call with the FBI.”)