I mean he was arrested based on low-quality security camera pictures that barely, if at all, looked like him. And the evidence seemed too obvious unless he intended to be arrested. The officers who arrested him also said something like “I saw him and just knew it was him”, which does not inspire confidence. There’s a not insignificant chance the evidence they did “find” on him was planted.
The public does not know the evidence against him, yet. The prosecution has that under lock and key. We only know the relatively small handful of photos that surfaced in the media, and we don’t even know if the prosecution will use those.
Watching carefully here, and I have my own personal opinion and hope for the trial outcome will be, but let’s not hyperbolically jump to “we know what the evidence is” (or isn’t)
I hope Luigi gets the jury nullification and walks free. But let’s not pretend that he’s falsly accused or was illegally detained/arrested.
The police can completely detain someone based only on a passing resemblance to a grainy security cam image of a suspect. They can detain someone off even a vague description or sketch. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain someone, and that is a very low bar.
In order to arrest, they need the higher standard of probable cause. They have to have some sort of evidence that leads them to believe that you have, are, or were about to commit a crime, or observe you in said commission of a crime. I don’t have all the details from the arrest, but it sounds like he was identified visually, yes, but also that he provided them the same fake id which was also used to check into the hostel in Manhattan where the security cam footage came from. That is enough to connect him to the crime and gain probable cause for the arrest. Actually, even independent of the shooting, providing false identification to the police during there investigation is itself an arrestable crime in Pennsylvania, too.
And even if you think that the evidence that was on his person at the McDonald’s in Pittsburgh was wholly or partially planted, it is not the only evidence they have. For example, they have a water bottle and protein bar wrapper found near the shooting that the shooter left behind. Both have Luigi’s fingerprints on them.
Luigi did it. That much seems apparent. Now whether that makes him “guilty”… that’s another question.
I mean most convictions (I’d hope) are based on evidence that makes sense. I guess what I’m saying is: If we discount the possibility of intentional martyrdom, then it doesn’t make sense that someone would walk around with that much incriminating evidence right after committing a crime that would get the whole nation hot on their tail. Not saying he definitively didn’t do it, but I won’t discount the possibility of the contents of his bag being planted.
What makes you say that?
I mean he was arrested based on low-quality security camera pictures that barely, if at all, looked like him. And the evidence seemed too obvious unless he intended to be arrested. The officers who arrested him also said something like “I saw him and just knew it was him”, which does not inspire confidence. There’s a not insignificant chance the evidence they did “find” on him was planted.
The public does not know the evidence against him, yet. The prosecution has that under lock and key. We only know the relatively small handful of photos that surfaced in the media, and we don’t even know if the prosecution will use those.
Watching carefully here, and I have my own personal opinion and hope for the trial outcome will be, but let’s not hyperbolically jump to “we know what the evidence is” (or isn’t)
I hope Luigi gets the jury nullification and walks free. But let’s not pretend that he’s falsly accused or was illegally detained/arrested.
The police can completely detain someone based only on a passing resemblance to a grainy security cam image of a suspect. They can detain someone off even a vague description or sketch. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain someone, and that is a very low bar.
In order to arrest, they need the higher standard of probable cause. They have to have some sort of evidence that leads them to believe that you have, are, or were about to commit a crime, or observe you in said commission of a crime. I don’t have all the details from the arrest, but it sounds like he was identified visually, yes, but also that he provided them the same fake id which was also used to check into the hostel in Manhattan where the security cam footage came from. That is enough to connect him to the crime and gain probable cause for the arrest. Actually, even independent of the shooting, providing false identification to the police during there investigation is itself an arrestable crime in Pennsylvania, too.
And even if you think that the evidence that was on his person at the McDonald’s in Pittsburgh was wholly or partially planted, it is not the only evidence they have. For example, they have a water bottle and protein bar wrapper found near the shooting that the shooter left behind. Both have Luigi’s fingerprints on them.
Luigi did it. That much seems apparent. Now whether that makes him “guilty”… that’s another question.
To be clear, we have no idea what evidence they have, except for what has been sworn to under oath. And that evidence may or may not be reliable.
Don’t assume any press release contained any facts.
By those standards, most convictions are based on evidence that’s “flimsy as fuck”.
I mean most convictions (I’d hope) are based on evidence that makes sense. I guess what I’m saying is: If we discount the possibility of intentional martyrdom, then it doesn’t make sense that someone would walk around with that much incriminating evidence right after committing a crime that would get the whole nation hot on their tail. Not saying he definitively didn’t do it, but I won’t discount the possibility of the contents of his bag being planted.
They really are.
It’s kind of scary.