Erase Your Own Video, Get Arrested For Obstruction...

[angelatc]

And this is an elite mundane - a New England Patriot named Aaron Hernandez, who is apparently being investigated in the shooting death of his friend.

Apparently everything belongs to the state now:


Police sources told ABC News on Thursday that a major investigative tool – the security system at Hernandez's home (http://abcnews.go.com/US/patriots-star-aaron-hernandez-questioned-murder-sources-abc/story?id=19430625), which included video – had been intentionally destroyed. His cell phone was handed over to police "in pieces," and appeared to have been smashed.

Police also want to know why a team of house cleaners were hired on Monday to scrub Hernandez's mansion, the sources said.

Note - he hasn't been arrested yet, but a warrant has been issued.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/aaron-hernandez-arrest-warrant-issued-obstruction-ustice-charge/story?id=19453898

[ItsTime]

Obstruction is retro-active?

[angelatc]

Obstruction is retro-active?

And your security system is actually their investigative tool.

[newbitech]

Police also want to know why a team of house cleaners were hired on Monday to scrub Hernandez's mansion, the sources said.

Cause its more than a one person job?

[KEEF]

If they want the security footage, they should just ask the NSA. It wouldn't surprise me if they are tapped into those systems too.

[ClydeCoulter]

Is someone losing it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L6i5AwVAbs

[KEEF]

Is someone losing it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L6i5AwVAbs

That would have been so much cooler if Richard Dean Anderson was sporting the McGyver jacket and mullet...;)

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I thought you can't be a witness to yourself

[angelatc]

I thought you can't be a witness to yourself


That's what I would say, but I'm sure the SCOTUS of today would rule that you can't expect private video to be private. If I were him, I would do the same thing. Even of the police were eventually forced to throw out the video for some "improperly seized" loophole, it is highly unlikely that they wouldn't be allowed to claim inevitable discovery and use any evidence they gained from it anyway.

This is like not taking the breathalyzer, I think.

[Henry Rogue]

Not related to the essences of this thread, but wow, this Hernandez could possibly have been involved in three separate shootings of people in his life. Disturbing.

[CPUd]

If they were executing a search warrant and he destroyed it after knowing it was listed on the warrant, they may have a case against him.

[angelatc]

If they were executing a search warrant and he destroyed it after knowing it was listed on the warrant, they may have a case against him.

Agreed. But if they were executing a search warrant and they didn't bother to stop him from puttering around with the electronics while they were there, they're morons.

[Carson]

Almost as if he is following the leadership we have in place at the moment.

[squarepusher]

I don't see any reason to defend Aaron Hernandez?

[Anti Federalist]

That's what I would say, but I'm sure the SCOTUS of today would rule that you can't expect private video to be private. If I were him, I would do the same thing. Even of the police were eventually forced to throw out the video for some "improperly seized" loophole, it is highly unlikely that they wouldn't be allowed to claim inevitable discovery and use any evidence they gained from it anyway.

This is like not taking the breathalyzer, I think.

Implied consent.

Starts the day you were born.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't see any reason to defend Aaron Hernandez?

Who is defending Aaron Hernandez?

This is about calling out the police state yet again.

[angelatc]

I don't see any reason to defend Aaron Hernandez?


Sorry to hear that, because that's how we lose liberty.

[Contumacious]

And your security system is actually their investigative tool.

Yep.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were abolished a while back.

[fearthereaperx]

And this is an elite mundane - a New England Patriot named Aaron Hernandez, who is apparently being investigated in the shooting death of his friend.

Apparently everything belongs to the state now:



Note - he hasn't been arrested yet, but a warrant has been issued.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/aaron-hernandez-arrest-warrant-issued-obstruction-ustice-charge/story?id=19453898

It doesn't matter if he is arrested or not. If he is under investigation and destroys or tampers with evidence during that time than he is breaking the law.

[Contumacious]

It doesn't matter if he is arrested or not. If he is under investigation and destroys or tampers with evidence than he is breaking the law.

How do you know that the tapes are evidence and that he intentionally destroyed them after the fact?

[jonhowe]

I think the warrant is because 4 people got in a car, 3 got out, and the 4th was found dead.

[fearthereaperx]

How do you know that the tapes are evidence and that he intentionally destroyed them after the fact?

A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly:
•alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys
•any record, document, or tangible object
•with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceeding by the federal government.

(18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

This crime includes making false entries in records or doctoring documents, such as by “cooking the books” of a business to hide illegal activity or avoid taxes or other required payments.

Tampering with evidence also includes destroying or altering documents or things “in contemplation of” an investigation or other proceeding that may occur in the future.

[angelatc]

A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly:
•alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys
•any record, document, or tangible object
•with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceeding by the federal government.

(18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

This crime includes making false entries in records or doctoring documents, such as by “cooking the books” of a business to hide illegal activity or avoid taxes or other required payments.

Tampering with evidence also includes destroying or altering documents or things “in contemplation of” an investigation or other proceeding that may occur in the future.


Should be relatively hard to prove intent.


Tampering with evidence also includes destroying or altering documents or things “in contemplation of” an investigation or other proceeding that may occur in the future.

So everything belongs to the state. That was my point.

[angelatc]

I think the warrant is because 4 people got in a car, 3 got out, and the 4th was found dead.


Maybe Yahoo should correct their headline, because it says "Arrest Warrant Prepared on Obstruction of Justice Charge"

[angelatc]

Too many people too close not to crack:


State Police searched the Hernandez home that he shares with his girlfriend Shayanna Jenkins, the mother of his infant daughter, with a warrant several times. Hernandez was seen going inside the house Wednesday with his mother and has not emerged since.

Jenkins' sister, Shanea Jenkins, was dating Lloyd [the victim], who played for the semi-pro football team Boston Bandits, several law enforcement sources told ABC News.

[Contumacious]

A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly:
•alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys
•any record, document, or tangible object
•with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceeding by the federal government.

(18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

This crime includes making false entries in records or doctoring documents, such as by “cooking the books” of a business to hide illegal activity or avoid taxes or other required payments.

Tampering with evidence also includes destroying or altering documents or things “in contemplation of” an investigation or other proceeding that may occur in the future.

That's a federal statute.

The video equipment was his and the 5th Amendment states


No person ...... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ........

What's the evidence that he intended to interfere?

How do know that at the time the video recorder was destroyed that he was contemplating obstructing an investigation?

.

[squarepusher]

That's a federal statute.

The video equipment was his and the 5th Amendment states


No person ...... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ........

What's the evidence that he intended to interfere?

How do know that at the time the video recorder was destroyed that he was contemplating obstructing an investigation?

.

So destruction of evidence is only a crime if the evidence doesn't incriminate you, otherwise its 5th amendment rights exercise? that doesn't make too much sense, so if a gun I murder someone has my finger prints on it, I can destroy it since it incriminates me?

[LibForestPaul]

A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly:
•alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys
•any record, document, or tangible object
•with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceeding by the federal government.

(18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

This crime includes making false entries in records or doctoring documents, such as by “cooking the books” of a business to hide illegal activity or avoid taxes or other required payments.

Tampering with evidence also includes destroying or altering documents or things “in contemplation of” an investigation or other proceeding that may occur in the future.

define evidence. Is his cat evidence, his toothbrush, toilet paper, hair brush, tile floor, window of garage, book case, dictionary.
The warrant is what makes a piece of private property evidence, no?

[Contumacious]

So destruction of evidence is only a crime if the evidence doesn't incriminate you, otherwise its 5th amendment rights exercise? that doesn't make too much sense, so if a gun I murder someone has my finger prints on it, I can destroy it since it incriminates me?

HUH?

So what are you going to do if you are the perp?

Plead not guilty and then provide the evidence that you are.....?

[DamianTV]

Doesnt matter. Supreme Court basically just ruled that people do NOT have a Right to not Self Incriminate. What do you think you do every time you file your Taxes?

[Contumacious]

Doesnt matter. Supreme Court basically just ruled that people do NOT have a Right to not Self Incriminate. What do you think you do every time you file your Taxes?

That is NOT what they said.

They stated that if the police detains you, and you are free to leave at anytime , but you decide to stay and answer questions then the answers, demeanor and refusal to answer some questions will be held against you.

On the other hand if they detain you and YOU ARE NOT FREE TO GO, then Miranda applies.

.

.

[tmg19103]

A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly:
•alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys
•any record, document, or tangible object
•with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceeding by the federal government.

(18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

This crime includes making false entries in records or doctoring documents, such as by “cooking the books” of a business to hide illegal activity or avoid taxes or other required payments.

Tampering with evidence also includes destroying or altering documents or things “in contemplation of” an investigation or other proceeding that may occur in the future.

So if I burn my remaining weed (without inhaling) I can be charged with obstruction because my paranoid, high mind contemplated the police might be outside my door. Guess I should just turn myself in for possession and obstruction.

I don't buy the pre-crime aspect. Sure, if a warrant has been issued and the police tell you about it and you call your girlfriend to flush the weed, I can see obstruction.

The "contemplation" of an investigation is overly borad. They are investigating us all the time anyway all the time - like as I type these words.

[Contumacious]

So if I burn my remaining weed (without inhaling) I can be charged with obstruction because my paranoid, high mind contemplated the police might be outside my door. Guess I should just turn myself in for possession and obstruction.

I don't buy the pre-crime aspect. Sure, if a warrant has been issued and the police tell you about it and you call your girlfriend to flush the weed, I can see obstruction.
.

It'd be obstruction ONLY if she testifies against you.

[tmg19103]

It'd be obstruction ONLY if she testifies against you.

No. it's still pre-crime and B.S. obstruction under the law.

They can *convict* you if she testifies against you, but if she does not you have still committed a crime that i see as a violation of rights.

[Contumacious]

No. it's still pre-crime and B.S. obstruction under the law.

They can *convict* you if she testifies against you, but if she does not you have still committed a crime that i see as a violation of rights.

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

.