This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its Terms of Service and Privacy Policies
, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at firstname.lastname@example.org. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
…now this? This is more like it.
It’s not uncommon to send one cop (or undercover) in first to elicit an incriminating statement, before the cavalry arrives. Most often before a search warrant, but not limited to that by any means.
I did not know that. Still, this is a known criminal, who was just involved in an armed robbery where someone died, and they’ve got more than enough to nail him without a statement. I don’t know why they would take the risk, unless they just wanted him to stop the car and thought a herd of cops would make him run for it.
This is not a known criminal; this is a suspect; his identity has not yet been proven, and there were surely hundreds of people across the country waiting for a friend to come out of some bank yesterday. Even the car isn’t definite; they have not yet matched the plates with the VIN.
It seems likely that multiple criminal acts occurred at the bank in question yesterday, which would have been committed, by definition, by criminals, but it is the duty of the court to (flip a coin to) determine if a suspect is the same person, and by how much each person is culpable for the acts.
…except this whole thing was a sting operation designed to round up a bunch of known fugitives. so they know he’s a criminal. And they clearly know who it is when they pull him over.
No, they suspect. What if the person who committed the alleged crime had one or more identical twins?
In fact, that might be an interesting complication for Nathan to discuss, for one or more people involved to have identical twins.
Knew, suspected, had a hunch, it all boils down to the same thing – they had very good reason to believe this guy was dangerous. Yes, they might have been mistaken, but you can sort that out after he’s in custody. I really don’t think they should have played around with him (aside from it making a better story, but, eh).
And if you’ve got an evil twin, better get used to felony stops and false arrests.
The officer got Ledway to admit being at the scene of the crime, that will help at trial. Btw I like his “Getaway” license plate on the first car.
How did the police officers driving all of those cars know when to show up?
Law of Narrative Causality, or a corollary thereof.
I’ll take that bet on nothing being on the drive. It was a good presumptive question though.
Let me guess, the gas station attendant won’t be charged because he gave the officers information on what car he swapped with? Or did the officers just decide to look up the cars registered to him with the DMV?
I’d be surprised if he wasn’t charged. But the prosecutor may offer him a decent plea bargain if he did turn state’s evidence (or the officers may have just looked up that info themselves, it’s true.) There’s a wide range of options between “Throw the book at him” and “Don’t charge him at all”.
Well here’s something interesting, unless during the swap they both had their titles with them and signed them over at the same time they swapped keys, and then the gas station guy filed the newly changed titles. then i believe officially the cars still belong to their original owners.
So the super fancy car the gas station guy has would still be registered to the bad guy, and would be a great way to link it back to him.
Is nobody else going to mention the fact we’re finally seeing the dead baby, not just the stroller?? Not to mention the grieving mother??? :,( :,(
And also… were was the mother all this time??? Who the heck leaves their baby in a stroller on the sidewalk in front of a bank with no supervision??? That’s negligent!! And now she’ll feel guilty that her baby died… :,(
Hey, not cool. The shot was fired as Bahr was retreating, went through the window and hit the stroller. We see Bahr heading out of the building in that shot, moving toward the getaway car. The stroller has already been thrown down, and the mother has the dead baby in her arms. She was obviously right next to it, and to already have the baby out her reaction was pretty swift.
It happened right in front of her eyes. She’s going to need therapy, alright, but negligence isn’t really an issue.