Patriots' Hernandez questioned by police in homicide probe

[SB39]

The bolded portion is what matters, and is what makes my statement true. To have enough evidence to convict you, then at a bare minimum that means that they have enough evidence to claim probably cause. If they can't even do that, then they won't press charges in the first place, since they won't be able to convict you.

You said a prosecutor's job is to go after a guy, even if he knew they were innocent. You said "If they have enough evidence that they think they can get a conviction, then they will attempt to do that. That wouldn't change even if they knew that you were, in fact, innocent. "

Don't be mad at me for proving that statement is incorrect. An ethical prosecutor would never go after someone whom they believed was innocent.

 

[chumpchange]

I agree. There is absolutely nothing good about this.

Dang, this has been the WORST off-season.

 

[Yehoodi]

Yea. You mean like a politician would never lie? gotcha

contrary to what you see on TV and the movies, prosecutors are not all aholes and as the prior poster indicated are bound by ethics as cited above . . . whether you want to believe your own world is your choice . . .

 

[Dr Pain]

I am not going to suggest there's no corruption in the public sphere, I'm just correcting someone who said a prosector's job is to prosecute people, even if they knew the accused was innocent.

And call me crazy, but I don't think the members of the Massachusetts criminal justice system operating in North Attleboro right now are out to railroad Aaron Hernandez.

I am sure that Amiraults will be glad to know that. No one ever tried to keep them in prison after figuring out they were railroaded did they now.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Obstruction isn't the name of the crime possibly committed here, it's called accessory after the fact. Your hypothetical is probably a crime unless they are just hanging out to wait to be arrested. It would turn on whether the accessory knows a felony has been committed and whether he gives "assistance". In your hypo there is knowledge, so the only unclear element is "assistance," which can be slight. Giving shelter, alone, won't necessarily be AAF, but it would be for example if one of the felons were to say, "we are worried about going home, because they may find us there.". At that point, if you fail to kick them out or contact the authorities (unless under durress), you have committed a felony. A very serious one too, in terms of what MA law provides in terms of sentence.

If the police are executing a search warrant at Hernandez's house, I would think it very unlikely that he would not have some very serious legal troubles. If they are completing a search of the home incident to a lawful arrest (for which a warrant is not necessary for some parts of the house) that would be better than if they are executing a warrant.

As long as he had no part in killing the guy, whether that part be being there when the murder happened, helping to plan the murder, etc. Hopefully, he didn't even know about it. This seems like the most plausible outcome, since only a colossally stupid person would execute a premeditated murder using their own rental car.

Even if his acquaintances killed someone, told him about it, and he told them to stay at his place, then they were taken into custody from his place until the police arrived with a warrant, there's nothing wrong with that. If anything, it made the police's job easier since they had a pretty easy time finding the guys.

 

[DocHoliday]

Whether or not he killed anyone is besides the point.

Being associated with people who kill/get killed and loaning out rentals to friends reflects poorly on his choice of friends and his behavior toward them.

 

[Raven007]

Even if his acquaintances killed someone, told him about it, and he told them to stay at his place, then they were taken into custody from his place until the police arrived with a warrant, there's nothing wrong with that. If anything, it made the police's job easier since they had a pretty easy time finding the guys.

HUH W T ???

:jaw::jaw::jaw:

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I think we know nothing yet about Aaron's exposure here. All we know is that he didn't make life easier for the local gendarmes. That doesn't establish guilt. Come on.

It'll be interesting to see what the actual story is.

 

[serifyn]

An ethical prosecutor would never go after someone whom they believed was innocent.

You don't understand prosecution very well then. It can be difficult to get a conviction and conviction rates are like batting averages for these people. You won't make it very far as a prosecutor if you choose to let your personal opinion of innocence get in your way.

Hernandez might be in some serious trouble here, not because he murdered anyone (i'm assuming he didn't) but he might get in trouble for how much he knew prior to when the police came knocking.

These guys who tried to get away from Hernandez house look really guilty right now, if they are, it becomes a matter of how much Aaron knew; these guys are probably his friends and if he tried to hide them in his house, that might result in jail time and even more likely - a suspension from our overzealous commissioner.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You said a prosecutor's job is to go after a guy, even if he knew they were innocent. You said "If they have enough evidence that they think they can get a conviction, then they will attempt to do that. That wouldn't change even if they knew that you were, in fact, innocent. "

Don't be mad at me for proving that statement is incorrect. An ethical prosecutor would never go after someone whom they believed was innocent.

I'm not mad at you for 'proving that statement incorrect'. I'm not mad at you at all. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong. If they have enough evidence to convict you, then they have probable cause. Which means they will absolutely prosecute you, 100% of the time. You can choose to believe that or not, but either way it's a simple fact. See serifyn's post directly above this one if you need further explanation as to why.

 

[SB39]

I think we know nothing yet about Aaron's exposure here. All we know is that he didn't make life easier for the local gendarmes.

If by "gendarmes" you mean HC of the NEP then I agree.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Whether or not he killed anyone is besides the point.

Being associated with people who kill/get killed and loaning out rentals to friends reflects poorly on his choice of friends and his behavior toward them.

I agree that it's not a good sign, but I dunno if the fact that he may be charged with a felony is 'beside the point" compared to that.

 

[BradyFTW!]

HUH W T ???

:jaw::jaw::jaw:

Your fanbase deifies a guy who actually did obstruct justice, in the literal legal sense (and probably a lot more). Not sure where you have a leg to stand on here.

 

[Yehoodi]

Almost never? There's nothing you can possibly say to a cop that will make your life better in any way, only worse.

I wouldn't even answer a "nice weather we're having" from a cop, nothing good can come from it.

yah but I am sure you be all smiles and apologies the next time you get pulled over by a cop for a traffic violation . . . contrary to the "real" criminal lawyers and pretenda lawyers here on this thread . . . none of them, I repeat none of them would be given the "you talking to me" Taxi Driver speech if they get pulled over at 130 AM by a cop on 128 after perhaps having a beer or two earlier in the evening . . .

believe me for all of the bravado here in this thread about telling the cops to talk to the hand will go away at 130 AM on the shoulder of Route 128 with the blue lights flashing . . .

no you don't want to grab a cob by the hand and lead them to your stash of drugs, but a little common courtesy and answer a few simple questions and making justifiable denials can not hurt your situation . . .

The police are your first line of defense and if pissed them off them might get frisky and push harder and find something that they might not have found had you just answer a few questions and kept the cops happy . . .

 

[BadMoFo]

Whether or not he killed anyone is besides the point.

Being associated with people who kill/get killed and loaning out rentals to friends reflects poorly on his choice of friends and his behavior toward them.

Gotta agree. After he signed his big contract and had his child, he talked about being this changed person, growing up. Then he signed a lucrative endorsement deal and started being for noticeable in his charity work. Now this, was all that a front. Hope not.

Also, wondering if there's any connection to this killing and that lawsuit Hernandez was apparently part of.

 

[SB39]

You don't understand prosecution very well then. It can be difficult to get a conviction and conviction rates are like batting averages for these people. You won't make it very far as a prosecutor if you choose to let your personal opinion of innocence get in your way.

I am talking about ethical prosecutors. All you people who have watched way too many movies can have it your way, but I find it impossible to believe that the Bristol district attorney's office has some sort of nefarious intent here.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

You guys are debating a silly issue. No prosecutor ever knows a person is innocent. But, for the record, if he or she did, the prosecutor would never seek a conviction in that case for a simple reason. Whatever the basis for the prosecutor's knowledge of innocence would have to be disclosed to the defense.

If you have information that exculpates an accused, you must give it to the accused, and if that information is nough for a prosecutor to "know" the accused is innocent, then (1) there is no PC as a matter of definition, and (2) whatever caused the prosecutor to know of the defendant's innocence would cause the judge to know it too, and she would dismiss the case.

Y'all always say you hate lawyers. Why you always gotta try to talk like us?

 

[SB39]

I'm not mad at you for 'proving that statement incorrect'. I'm not mad at you at all. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong. If they have enough evidence to convict you, then they have probable cause. Which means they will absolutely prosecute you, 100% of the time. You can choose to believe that or not, but either way it's a simple fact. See serifyn's post directly above this one if you need further explanation as to why.

You can keep saying it, but you're still 100% wrong. An ethical prosecutor would not prosecute a person they knew was innocent. Now sure, if the prosecutor was corrupt like that Duke lacrosse guy, that's one thing, but I'm talking about the job and duties of prosecutors, which you are clearly not familiar with.

 

[SB39]

believe me for all of the bravado here in this thread about telling the cops to talk to the hand will go away at 130 AM on the shoulder of Route 128 with the blue lights flashing . . .

This statement is the truest thing written in this thread. Everyone who says it never benefits you to talk to the police are totally clueless. Every situation is different so blanket statements are stupid. In many situations, being cooperative can get you out of a lot of trouble.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

contrary to what you see on TV and the movies, prosecutors are not all aholes and as the prior poster indicated are bound by ethics as cited above . . . whether you want to believe your own world is your choice . . .

My point is, you don't take a chance. you don't know what kind person your dealing with. (oh yea, I forgot, there are no bad cops). We are not talking about prosecutors. We are talking Police officers. "Not cooperating" could be him saying, "I want my lawyer present". His lawyers might have even told him to do so in a sticky situation. These are young men falling into millions of dollars at a very high profile. When in doubt, button your lip