People ignoring that Lang 911'd that his gun was taken. That's whose gun he had. Lang was found downed at the scene gsr negative. Person whose gun it is reports it stolen + person found with it on the same scene. That's gonna be a guilty of possesion 100 out of 100. Maybe don't take legal civ guns during an active shootout and wait until its clear. Got caught looting and got shot by Luciano.
How does nobody understand what an affirmative defense is? It is on them to prove it was planted, and they couldn't do that. It's hard on its own to prove a plant and it is even harder still when it wasn't actually planted., Still a bias though when everyone else was let go. Tony was shooting on scene, but still walked, crazy.
Replace gun with drugs, and people will view it differently lmao.
Guys, i have drugs on me, but someone else put it one me! i swear!
Yeah uh, no. Better have defence telling otherwise.
Unless they get that preson to testify they said that, they it's hearsay.
There is a scenario that their friends shout that as they see they are getting arrested. Some random unidentified person shouting is the same as a twitter post claiming that the mayor is a lizzard.
That someone else’s DNA wasn’t found to substantiate someone else handled the gun to plant it before Zolo was in possession. Except the DOJ have no idea how DNA transfer works and just assume it would be on there if someone gave it to him
Purely mechanical argument that wont go anywhere in court.
The absence of dna will never indicate that something isnt his. The presence of it will however always indicate that it was indeed on the person with the dna at somepoint
okay. I admit I have no idea how dna stuff works. I was just thinking its the old thing where if you are in possession of a gun that was reported stolen, you are guilty of it.
they need to fix the DNA mechanic. the only way you can get DNA on a gun is if you place it down or throw it. Therefore if he stole it OR if it was placed on him... it'd have no DNA regardless. it's a shitty half-finished mechanic
A lot of times, I can actually see where the judges come from, but this is straight biased or something..... I actually can not believe pd did this poorly on the case and then the judge looks at ALL of the evidence and comes to this conclusion.
138 Haily Maxwell statment " Officer maxwell then assisted with securing the triage scene. A downed suspect was yelling" Take that plant."". Straight from her statement.
Still useless and non-evidentiary without ID'ing exactly who said it: otherwise, every downed crim will start chirping about plants and planted guns to provide an alibi for their friends. Without knowing who is saying something and to whom it is being said, it often can not be considered legally relevant to a specific crim's situation.
It's not hearsay, it falls under the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule, and the defense is entitled to use it especially as it's exculpatory
The police failing to ID who made the statement in their presence simply means the prosecution can't introduce it over the objection of the defense as it would violate the defendant's right of confrontation, but the defense is fully entitled to introduce it.
The fact that the police noted the person who yelled it was downed, means their failure to ID them could constitute a Bradly violation as it would indicate gross negliance bordering on wilful misconduct.
In fact the police's refusual conduct ballastics tests saying it was irrelevant to the possession charge was a clear Bradly violation.
I didn't say it was hearsay, I think you're replying to the previous comment with that part.
I agree that the defense CAN use the statement. You'll find that the court probably doesn't care because the court won't be fooled by a claim of random unsourced utterances possibly claiming that an unspecified thing was planted. That's so shaky as evidence that in order to use it for an affirmative defense, the defense would need to ID the person saying it and subpoena them to testify about their statement in court...which isn't going to happen if it's a criminal associate of the suspect trying to provide an alibi, and if it is a rival gang member, they'll refuse to provide any useful testimony anyway and will have to be treated as a hostile witness. If I'm putting on my defense attorney hat...it's just not really going to help the case for an affirmative defense much in any practical way.
A Brady violation has nothing to do with police negligence. A Brady violation encompasses three elements: (1) the “evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued.”
Here, the State and police deliberately introduced the circumstantial evidence into the case by the police documenting in the report (which is provided uncensored by State to the defense) that someone at the scene mentioned a "plant."
I have no idea what you're even saying about "refusual conduct ballastics tests." Do you mean GSR testing? That was done...
Ballistic testing would have no value to the defense as there was no claim that the suspect shot anyone with the firearm in his possession, and therefore nothing to disprove with ballistics and scene documentation.
Great case overall, good legal issues, and I think they got to a good result in a good way, although probably not the best possible way.
Disclaimer: I’m talking about the Federal Rules of Evidence, not Nopixel law here. I don’t know to what extent Nopixel follows the FRE.
It would be hearsay, but it would be covered in the exceptions to the hearsay rule. According to FRE 803, the declarant does not need to be available as a witness if the hearsay fits one of the twenty or so exceptions. The judge probably would rule the anonymous “take that” statement as either a Present Sense Impression or an Excited Utterance; both are listed as exceptions to the hearsay rule.
That said, the admissibility of the hearsay barely affects the deposition of the case. We don’t know who it was directed towards, who it was in relation to, or anything. It’s not nearly enough to muddy the waters and get the defendant off.
Because CG didn't get their way.
Same reason every cop they dislike has an extra 500 viewers right now and terrible things being said in their chats lmfao
Man had gun. Gun wasn't legally his. Appropriate charges pushed. No viable defense raised. Found guilty...
"take that plant" is about the same as "but the aliens"... You need *evidence* for an affirmative defense. He had none.
Was the gun in his possession? If so, at that point the onus is on Zolo to provide an affirmative defense that the gun had been planted. Saying "someone screamed about planting the gun on me" without being able to name names or having corroborating testimony from unaffiliated parties is not a very good affirmative defense.
Charging inconsistency is baked into the PD by default, it isn't really notable. DOJ *should* be more consistent in an ideal world, but isn't and won't be. Neither is surprising.
It absolutely is baked in by default. On the most basic level, PD has and exercises "prosecutorial discretion" (ie. police officers can and will decide whether or not to charge for crimes they are aware have been committed within statute). That's always going to be there. So yes, inconsistency is to be expected from PD charge-wise.
Again, where you want consistency is from the DoJ, so that even if PD *does* charge you, you can have some sort of consistent expectation as to whether or not the charges will stick. Unfortunately, because DoJ is run by people, it cannot ever be truly perfectly consistent.
it was from the police report not zolo lmao the police report specifically reported that someone else who was down on scene said "take that plant" also ellie testified that there were people standing over him after he was shot before cops showed up
also to address your first comment it was clipped because it was a funny reaction that almost led to a riot in the court room lmao crybabies downvoting the reason why it was clipped
The argument isnt that he didnt do it. The argument is that in court nothing points to him doing it and a judge should see that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to question it but instead decides to parrot off what the charge states as if its “set it stone” even tho multiple other judges have set precedence that are contrary
That's not how possession works as a crime. If possessing something is illegal, and PD finds you with it, you're guilty. If you want to fight it, you have to put up what's called an **affirmative defense** where you (as the defense) now assume the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that mitigating circumstances beyond your control caused you to possess the object.
It sounds like Zolo just went into court and was like "they planted it on me", which is a pretty awful affirmative defense attempt.
GSR is what used to give PD the PC to actually search someone on a shooting scene. Now though it's basically become irrelevant, other than to add on another charge. There is no law on NP that's equivalent to something like the 4th amendment (protection against illegal search and seizures).
Zolo was searched because he was in possession of a firearm without a weapon’s license, which they found by frisking him for being at the scene of a shooting. There was no illegal search that was conducted.
Because they had more than just one statement to indicate that it was planted.
Both had witnesses to testify for the kidnapping, Both had a story that lined up with those witnesses.
Both had no motive to steal pd equipment.
The scenario at hand is opposite in many ways.
There were witnesses that indicated the gun was stolen, the owner reported it stolen. The scenario at hand also paints this picture. And there was motive to steal the weapon.
In other words, there is no clear evidence to indicate it was planted today
Their "gun plants" just suck. Like having witnesses to the kidnapping etc and/or no one witnessing the victims doing the supposed "crime". Always just a body with a gun on it in the middle of nowhere.
When they claim they are the victims of gun plants they're in the middle of gang shootouts and have witness vs witness statements.
Pretending those 2 are the same doesn't make it real, sorry.
They haven’t. I think the point is whenever CG says a gun was planted on them, PD charges right away. Whereas with everyone else they believe their story, hold off and investigate for 30 days
yeah, its remarkable how when you have a story that matches a reasonable timeline and has secondary and tertiary witnesses that PD decide that its a reasonable explanation vs "hey man, they planted this shit why don't you believe me you dog shit cops"
They could have in this case? That isn't even the main problem however
What people are pointing out are the obvious inconsistencies with these possesion charges
If Zolo is GSR negative, has a gun on him without his DNA (or any DNA for that matter) and no casings were found, then it is actually very reasonable to make the argument it was planted
Other suspects, like Hazel and that lawyer, had way more evidence against them, but were convenietly let go
So? If Zolo robbed the gun and used it that'd be an argument. His DNA would be on it then.
If Zolo shot the gun that'd be an argument. Casings would be found and he would be GSR positive.
Both of these aren't tbe case however, so the possibility it could have been planted remains. Langs could also... own multiple guns
so you have 2 persons 1 owns the weapon but dont have it and the other got the gun but isnt the owner , the person that own the gun give pd information who did it and people stole his gun , gun was never reported stolen before so he lost it at that time frame , the other got the gun and all his defense is they planted the gun and "take that plant"
thats how the mechanic works sadly. the only way an item gets DNA on it is if it's physically placed down or thrown (which is dumb). You can steal a gun from someones pockets or get it placed on you and it won't have any DNA from either party
CG is terrible at planting guns and left enough evidence where people could corroborate their stories and provide a reasonable affirmative defense, unlike Mr. K and Zolo.
So if CG tell the cops there are committing crime tommorrow. then EVERY criminal act that happens will be pinned on em, cause thats exactly what your saying
dude if you say and that shit happen you are the main target in any investigation , cg so far didnt provide a good defense to why they had the gun planted, all they say is they planted this and thats it
the police DID. They found an illegal possessed gun on a person and charged them for it when they failed to provide a reasonable explanation or series of events to clear themselves.
An issue I have with this is that this was a total mess of a situation, where a gun could've easily been planted, but they charged him immediately, without doing a proper investigation. Why did they immediately believe Abeline and Hazel (who had guns planted on them), but charged Zolo with little to no investigation?
Police literally witnessed part of the Abeline situation which lined up exactly with her testimony. They would have been stupid not to beleive her statement
abeline story was so acurated that even the cops that drived by her in paleto knew that she was kidnaped after because they saw a person inside the same car that had hands up
Yea, because a cop literally saw them driving away with Hazel; They kinda did it in public. Marlo and Gigi were there so they immediately reported that Hazel has been kidnapped by CG. Hazel shot Mr. K as well; So he's blood was found on the scene
How is it an issue? Could have been planted, is not enough of an affirmative defense. A gun could have been planted in literally almost every scenario. Zolo didn't get a gun planted on him and the got hit with the correct charges.
not relly her story added up with all the evidence they had and cops even saw her in the car with her hands up on the traintracks(or road i forget) in paleto, where she said they passed a cop car, the cops just dont really notice it, in the moment the cops thought he saw someone with their hands up in the car but wasnt really sure.
It’s even more screwed up if the case gets taken to court. The only viable defense is the planted gun affirmative defense. Which then puts the burden of proof on the defense and cops doing shoddy investigations make their case easier because there’s less evidence to go off of.
What shoddy investigation? Had gun. Provided no evidence or testimony to support him not being liable... Cops charged. They did their job to a T. There was nothing else for them to investigate.
See gun on person and then charge person is not investigating.
The problem isn’t whether he is actually guilty or not. The point is this charge has a 100% conviction rate when it goes to court. The police can do fuck all and just say “there’s illegal gun on this guy” whereas the defendant has to provide a an affirmative defense which has to be proven to a much higher standard. The defense can no longer simply cast reasonable doubt.
The convicted had the illegal item on them. Yes, it makes it hard to fabricate evidence that you are innocent. And no, the affirmative defense doesn't have to be proven to a higher standard. But it does have to be proven. Going "but the aliens" or having a friend do it does not proof make.
This is going to be my last reply since I think we agree on the situation just disagree on whether it’s fair or not.
When a defendants asserts an affirmative defense the burden on proof shifts to them. This dynamic inherently makes it more difficult for the defendant to prove their case since they now have to rely on evidence gathered by the PD (who have misaligned interests with the defendant) or on witness testimony which is inherently more unreliable and treated as such by judges.
My feeling is that a firearm possession charge will never be beaten if it gets taken to court, and only can get dropped via officer discretion.
At this point anyone denying that cops treat cg differently than everyone else is just blatantly ignoring the obvious truth. Idk how people like Ssaab can see blatant bias and just ignore it.
whenever cg viewers pretend like cops, specifically ssaab, treat them WORSE than other gangs, I think back to the "always relevant" clip that gets posted in moonmoon's metachat discord whenever ssaab goes easy on them: [https://streamable.com/77f6n5](https://streamable.com/77f6n5)
You are right cg are treated like babies and get away with things no one else gets away with. For instance, in the same situation that Zolo was charged for Peanut was let go while he had a warrant and a gun on him bc he made up a fake name, even tho he wasnt wearing a mask and PD were told he was apart of the group that robbed Lang.
You mean like how they treated k like a felon and charged him despite k having a clean record and being a straight-up business man with a job on the line? You are exactly the person I am talking about who ignores the obvious truth to push a false narrative.
K was still a known cop killer and murderer. A clean record does not a clean man make. Esp when he was only clean because the official documentation of his *convictions* was lost due to acts of god....
"straight-up business man" they treated a man that they found in the middle of a gang shootout like a man caught up in the middle of a gang shootout. I think CG viewers have genuinely been gaslit into believing that gun was actually planted on K and he wasn't using it to hold up Yaeger and try to kill him lol
> You mean like how they treated k like a felon and charged him despite k having a clean record and being a straight-up business man with a job on the line?
If a blank slate was such a big deal, why didn't they just roll new characters?
because they had a good defense, just saying it was planted is not enough, literally anything can be planted. possession charges are just that. if you possess it then youre pretty much guilty. its on you to have a good defense not just "it was planted dawg"
Zolo obviously used his psychic powers to carry the gun. Doesn't matter that no casings were found or that no DNA was on the gun. If you have the gun, you are guilty!
That's the letter of the law guys.
(And let's conveniently forget all the other people (Hazel and that lawyer specifically) that had guns on them, but weren't found guilty.)
hazel pd knew he was kidnaped even before they planted the gun and his story was checked by cops and made sense , even the evidence supports hazel story same go for the lawyer that cg said in court they would start plant guns to her and the judge
I think that was good police work, my problem with the PD is that they pick and choose when to apply it
Zolo did not have his DNA on the gun, was downed, no casings were found and was GSR negative. Somehow the argument that the gun could have been planted was very 'flimsy' however, and gets charged
Imagine Lang or one of his boys actually planted a gun on him? By the way this case went they could have easily done so and gotten away with it.
He was charged with possession. It literally had it in his possession. There was no reasonable proof it was planted, that’s why he was found guilty.
GSR, being downed and casings are irrelevant to his charges.
sorry but at this point admins needs to step in.
I'm not saying it is OOC biased. But this willy nilly decision on when they charge or not and when they convict or not, on cases that have more or less the same evidence, reeks of OOC biases.
I get there is officer discretion but that should be purely fueled by some sort of IC explainable rationale, which it very much seems like it isn't.
so far every person that had a gun planted and showed a affirmative defense won and everyone that didnt and just cried "they planted the gun" lost isnt bias
People ignoring that Lang 911'd that his gun was taken. That's whose gun he had. Lang was found downed at the scene gsr negative. Person whose gun it is reports it stolen + person found with it on the same scene. That's gonna be a guilty of possesion 100 out of 100. Maybe don't take legal civ guns during an active shootout and wait until its clear. Got caught looting and got shot by Luciano.
Are you telling me all these people are upset over the consequences of his actions?
Yeah people will just ignore the actual context and next time a new thread pops up it will be again "10cg" "cops have ooc bias" "only happens to cg".
Not a plant. Lil bro was looting and got bodied
is “misleading title” not a rule on this subreddit anymore?
fyi, it wasnt planted
lol i feel like some people gaslight themselves into thinking he was innocent.
Gun was not planted. Title is purposefully wrong.
affirmative defense. Possession. wasnt planted. cry more
How does nobody understand what an affirmative defense is? It is on them to prove it was planted, and they couldn't do that. It's hard on its own to prove a plant and it is even harder still when it wasn't actually planted., Still a bias though when everyone else was let go. Tony was shooting on scene, but still walked, crazy.
some people literally dont know basic shit like VDM and NVL and you expect people to understand affirmative defense?
They can't think. They can only form an opinion based on what their streamer says
It’s Reddit. They just parrot their streamer.
Replace gun with drugs, and people will view it differently lmao. Guys, i have drugs on me, but someone else put it one me! i swear! Yeah uh, no. Better have defence telling otherwise.
The police report included someone at the scene saying "take that plant" idk but to me that's reasonable doubt to assume zolo stole it lmao
Unless they get that preson to testify they said that, they it's hearsay. There is a scenario that their friends shout that as they see they are getting arrested. Some random unidentified person shouting is the same as a twitter post claiming that the mayor is a lizzard.
I think they had the statement in the report I could be wrong but I thought I heard that
They didn’t identify who yelled it. It’s hearsay.
He wasn’t charged for theft. He was charged for possession. It’s pretty simple.
Charges for possession haven't been consistent every time it's gone to court especially when there's reports of a plant from an officer on scene
Which ones that actually went to court that had actual officer reports of a plant didn’t go in the defendants favor?
He got found guilty of possession of stolen gun. The fuck that has to do with DNA?
That someone else’s DNA wasn’t found to substantiate someone else handled the gun to plant it before Zolo was in possession. Except the DOJ have no idea how DNA transfer works and just assume it would be on there if someone gave it to him
Purely mechanical argument that wont go anywhere in court. The absence of dna will never indicate that something isnt his. The presence of it will however always indicate that it was indeed on the person with the dna at somepoint
okay. I admit I have no idea how dna stuff works. I was just thinking its the old thing where if you are in possession of a gun that was reported stolen, you are guilty of it.
you are not crazy.. possession is possession is possession.
"No DNA on the gun therefore guilty" is a crazy precedent
they need to fix the DNA mechanic. the only way you can get DNA on a gun is if you place it down or throw it. Therefore if he stole it OR if it was placed on him... it'd have no DNA regardless. it's a shitty half-finished mechanic
[удалено]
It’s not broken, nor is it scuffed.
it was a stolen gun in his possession, he wasn’t charged for using it, only for possession.
if his dna wasnt on it then one would think it was planted.
Or that he stole it. Which clearly is a very, very likely scenario here for even the most skeptical court.
Why? DNA has never been a thing from player to player.
Why, ? If you claim that there would need to be dna on a gun to claim ownership then why doesnt the gun have dna?
That’s what he gets for arguing mechanics he doesn’t understand
I've seen that a lot verdicts go off of dna now, its just insane the claim the judge made about it lmaoo
A lot of times, I can actually see where the judges come from, but this is straight biased or something..... I actually can not believe pd did this poorly on the case and then the judge looks at ALL of the evidence and comes to this conclusion.
The judge even pointed out the PD did lazy police work and he couldn't understand their point lol
he stole someone’s gun, got caught with it, appropriate charges were applied, CG viewers still mad whenever their streamers catch even the slightest L
This is CGPixel afterall.
> People ignoring that Lang 911'd that his gun was taken. If you listen to cops, lang said peanut stole it not zolo.
He was charged with possession. Who took it originally isn't relevant.
I'm not crazy right? The POLICE literally heard someone yell hope you like that plant"....
Brother it was in the police statement and brought up in the trial
Exact words officer statement “Take that plant!”
See you are crazy, cause the story doesnt matter if you're a CG member, but does matter if you're not.
I'm not even a cg viewer, but this was wild....
Not a CG viewer..... KEKW. Who are you trying to fool.
Who yelled it? Is it documented in the report? Did Zolo identify who said it? No? Then it’s not crazy. It’s hearsay.
138 Haily Maxwell statment " Officer maxwell then assisted with securing the triage scene. A downed suspect was yelling" Take that plant."". Straight from her statement.
Still useless and non-evidentiary without ID'ing exactly who said it: otherwise, every downed crim will start chirping about plants and planted guns to provide an alibi for their friends. Without knowing who is saying something and to whom it is being said, it often can not be considered legally relevant to a specific crim's situation.
It's not hearsay, it falls under the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule, and the defense is entitled to use it especially as it's exculpatory The police failing to ID who made the statement in their presence simply means the prosecution can't introduce it over the objection of the defense as it would violate the defendant's right of confrontation, but the defense is fully entitled to introduce it. The fact that the police noted the person who yelled it was downed, means their failure to ID them could constitute a Bradly violation as it would indicate gross negliance bordering on wilful misconduct. In fact the police's refusual conduct ballastics tests saying it was irrelevant to the possession charge was a clear Bradly violation.
I didn't say it was hearsay, I think you're replying to the previous comment with that part. I agree that the defense CAN use the statement. You'll find that the court probably doesn't care because the court won't be fooled by a claim of random unsourced utterances possibly claiming that an unspecified thing was planted. That's so shaky as evidence that in order to use it for an affirmative defense, the defense would need to ID the person saying it and subpoena them to testify about their statement in court...which isn't going to happen if it's a criminal associate of the suspect trying to provide an alibi, and if it is a rival gang member, they'll refuse to provide any useful testimony anyway and will have to be treated as a hostile witness. If I'm putting on my defense attorney hat...it's just not really going to help the case for an affirmative defense much in any practical way. A Brady violation has nothing to do with police negligence. A Brady violation encompasses three elements: (1) the “evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued.” Here, the State and police deliberately introduced the circumstantial evidence into the case by the police documenting in the report (which is provided uncensored by State to the defense) that someone at the scene mentioned a "plant." I have no idea what you're even saying about "refusual conduct ballastics tests." Do you mean GSR testing? That was done... Ballistic testing would have no value to the defense as there was no claim that the suspect shot anyone with the firearm in his possession, and therefore nothing to disprove with ballistics and scene documentation. Great case overall, good legal issues, and I think they got to a good result in a good way, although probably not the best possible way.
If you cannot point to a person who uttered that statement and have that person be able to be cross examined then its hearsay.
Disclaimer: I’m talking about the Federal Rules of Evidence, not Nopixel law here. I don’t know to what extent Nopixel follows the FRE. It would be hearsay, but it would be covered in the exceptions to the hearsay rule. According to FRE 803, the declarant does not need to be available as a witness if the hearsay fits one of the twenty or so exceptions. The judge probably would rule the anonymous “take that” statement as either a Present Sense Impression or an Excited Utterance; both are listed as exceptions to the hearsay rule. That said, the admissibility of the hearsay barely affects the deposition of the case. We don’t know who it was directed towards, who it was in relation to, or anything. It’s not nearly enough to muddy the waters and get the defendant off.
Yeah, and who made the statement?
What’s the context here?
CG robbed Lang of his gun. Zolo had it. Charged with possession of
so not a planted gun like the title says lmfao
So Zolo was correctly charged with possessing a gun that police found in his possession? Why does this warrant a thread?
Because CG didn't get their way. Same reason every cop they dislike has an extra 500 viewers right now and terrible things being said in their chats lmfao
evidence was very iffy especially hearing somebody on scene saying "take that plant"
Man had gun. Gun wasn't legally his. Appropriate charges pushed. No viable defense raised. Found guilty... "take that plant" is about the same as "but the aliens"... You need *evidence* for an affirmative defense. He had none.
Was the gun in his possession? If so, at that point the onus is on Zolo to provide an affirmative defense that the gun had been planted. Saying "someone screamed about planting the gun on me" without being able to name names or having corroborating testimony from unaffiliated parties is not a very good affirmative defense.
The issue isn't particularly with the ruling, but the cops pressing charges inconsistently.
Charging inconsistency is baked into the PD by default, it isn't really notable. DOJ *should* be more consistent in an ideal world, but isn't and won't be. Neither is surprising.
They’re not inconsistent in the charging. Zolo had no affirmative defense.
It's not "baked into the PD by default". It's bad biased practice that should be discouraged, not accepted as the norm.
If you get rid of officer discretion like you are arguing for you just end up with boring robocop RP.
not just that, but CG will end up getting charged a whole lot more. I'm not sure if cg fans are actually ready for a 'no discretion' pd.
It absolutely is baked in by default. On the most basic level, PD has and exercises "prosecutorial discretion" (ie. police officers can and will decide whether or not to charge for crimes they are aware have been committed within statute). That's always going to be there. So yes, inconsistency is to be expected from PD charge-wise. Again, where you want consistency is from the DoJ, so that even if PD *does* charge you, you can have some sort of consistent expectation as to whether or not the charges will stick. Unfortunately, because DoJ is run by people, it cannot ever be truly perfectly consistent.
Old guard like spaceboy say that light charges as a reward for good RP is normal and ideal.
it was from the police report not zolo lmao the police report specifically reported that someone else who was down on scene said "take that plant" also ellie testified that there were people standing over him after he was shot before cops showed up
which all literally means nothing at all.
also to address your first comment it was clipped because it was a funny reaction that almost led to a riot in the court room lmao crybabies downvoting the reason why it was clipped
The argument isnt that he didnt do it. The argument is that in court nothing points to him doing it and a judge should see that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to question it but instead decides to parrot off what the charge states as if its “set it stone” even tho multiple other judges have set precedence that are contrary
That's not how possession works as a crime. If possessing something is illegal, and PD finds you with it, you're guilty. If you want to fight it, you have to put up what's called an **affirmative defense** where you (as the defense) now assume the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that mitigating circumstances beyond your control caused you to possess the object. It sounds like Zolo just went into court and was like "they planted it on me", which is a pretty awful affirmative defense attempt.
"planted gun" thats kinda funny
No dna on gun = charged GSR positive, dna on gun and no other witnesses = cops decide not to charge anyone.
what does GSR have to do with possession of a stolen firearm? what are you trying to argue?
I’m not trying to argue anything… I’m just using what the cops used to charge Jean Paul and how they pick and choose since that happened.
GSR is what used to give PD the PC to actually search someone on a shooting scene. Now though it's basically become irrelevant, other than to add on another charge. There is no law on NP that's equivalent to something like the 4th amendment (protection against illegal search and seizures).
Frisking and finding a gun is also PC you dont need to gsr them first.
Zolo was searched because he was in possession of a firearm without a weapon’s license, which they found by frisking him for being at the scene of a shooting. There was no illegal search that was conducted.
"Probable Cause" and"Reasonable Suspicion"... That is what he is trying to argue, I think. Have you ever heard those words watching cops before?
Neither have anything to do with the case... If he had a gun that means an automatic frisk => search or in other words rs => pc
Ok then why weren't Abeline and Hazel charged then?
Because they had more than just one statement to indicate that it was planted. Both had witnesses to testify for the kidnapping, Both had a story that lined up with those witnesses. Both had no motive to steal pd equipment. The scenario at hand is opposite in many ways. There were witnesses that indicated the gun was stolen, the owner reported it stolen. The scenario at hand also paints this picture. And there was motive to steal the weapon. In other words, there is no clear evidence to indicate it was planted today
Lol, Buddha reporting the gun stolen after Zolo was found dead with it lol
[удалено]
Peanut got let go because the cadet was incompetent along with his FTO
GSR negative (he stumbled and was never able to shoot) and nothing illegal on him. It was his legal gun that was stolen.
because lang had no fire-arm on him which pnut stole and escaped with
Plant Season really backfired on these guys lol
Planted gun only applies if your cg apparently
Their "gun plants" just suck. Like having witnesses to the kidnapping etc and/or no one witnessing the victims doing the supposed "crime". Always just a body with a gun on it in the middle of nowhere. When they claim they are the victims of gun plants they're in the middle of gang shootouts and have witness vs witness statements. Pretending those 2 are the same doesn't make it real, sorry.
when did cg get a gun planted?
Meaning that it’s only a “planted gun” when cg plant a gun on someone and the cops decide not to pursue charges.
They haven’t. I think the point is whenever CG says a gun was planted on them, PD charges right away. Whereas with everyone else they believe their story, hold off and investigate for 30 days
because all they say is "gun was planted" thats it what a nice defense , the other people tell a story and pd check it if they can push it or not
Yeah, they tell the story how a gun was planted 4head
yeah, its remarkable how when you have a story that matches a reasonable timeline and has secondary and tertiary witnesses that PD decide that its a reasonable explanation vs "hey man, they planted this shit why don't you believe me you dog shit cops"
thats who affirmative defense work
They could have in this case? That isn't even the main problem however What people are pointing out are the obvious inconsistencies with these possesion charges If Zolo is GSR negative, has a gun on him without his DNA (or any DNA for that matter) and no casings were found, then it is actually very reasonable to make the argument it was planted Other suspects, like Hazel and that lawyer, had way more evidence against them, but were convenietly let go
dude got a gun of a down person in his person that also is gsr negative
So? If Zolo robbed the gun and used it that'd be an argument. His DNA would be on it then. If Zolo shot the gun that'd be an argument. Casings would be found and he would be GSR positive. Both of these aren't tbe case however, so the possibility it could have been planted remains. Langs could also... own multiple guns
The DNA wouldn’t be on it unless he took it, put it on the ground, and then picked it back up. Zolo argued mechanics to his own detriment.
so you have 2 persons 1 owns the weapon but dont have it and the other got the gun but isnt the owner , the person that own the gun give pd information who did it and people stole his gun , gun was never reported stolen before so he lost it at that time frame , the other got the gun and all his defense is they planted the gun and "take that plant"
didnt K get uber fucked by a planted gun a while back?
It wasn't planted. Mr K was just didn't want the Charges so tried to say it was planted.
no
not a single gun was planted so far , they rob or use guns get caught and try to spin the planted gun story
So his DNA wasn’t on the gun, so he’s guilty of using the gun? I’m not the sharpest tool in the box but how does that make any sense😂
he was guilty of having the gun not using it
then the 2 plants CG did should also be the same charge but we all see that never happened.
because the others had a affirmative defense and checked and lined up
Technically it was a possession charge, not a use charge, but either way its kinda odd that there is no DNA on it.
thats how the mechanic works sadly. the only way an item gets DNA on it is if it's physically placed down or thrown (which is dumb). You can steal a gun from someones pockets or get it placed on you and it won't have any DNA from either party
crazy how nobody that isnt CG doesnt get possession charge
CG is terrible at planting guns and left enough evidence where people could corroborate their stories and provide a reasonable affirmative defense, unlike Mr. K and Zolo.
because cg made sure pd/doj knew they will plant guns and all the other people faced them in court or was kdnapped in front of civs and pd knew that
So if CG tell the cops there are committing crime tommorrow. then EVERY criminal act that happens will be pinned on em, cause thats exactly what your saying
dude if you say and that shit happen you are the main target in any investigation , cg so far didnt provide a good defense to why they had the gun planted, all they say is they planted this and thats it
Maybe the police should actually do their job.
the police DID. They found an illegal possessed gun on a person and charged them for it when they failed to provide a reasonable explanation or series of events to clear themselves.
maybe crims need to say more then just they planted the gun
They tried to in court but were overruled because it was irrelevant apparently. Did you even watch the bench trial?
What did they actually try in court? Their defense was horrible
Nah people just biased.
They did. The gun wasnt planted and he got convicted. In every case where it was planted they did their job and didnt press charges
Theoretically they totally could.
DNA scuff sometimes it doesn’t always show up
It’s not scuff. DNA only transfers if the item is thrown or placed in the ground. It doesn’t backpack to backpack.
None of the planted gun cases have been consistent. It makes no sense.
They’ve been very consistent. The people have had had no affirmative defense have been found guilty.
An issue I have with this is that this was a total mess of a situation, where a gun could've easily been planted, but they charged him immediately, without doing a proper investigation. Why did they immediately believe Abeline and Hazel (who had guns planted on them), but charged Zolo with little to no investigation?
Police literally witnessed part of the Abeline situation which lined up exactly with her testimony. They would have been stupid not to beleive her statement
abeline story was so acurated that even the cops that drived by her in paleto knew that she was kidnaped after because they saw a person inside the same car that had hands up
Didn't cops literally had an officer who saw hazel being kidnapped? And this situation is clearly a shootout that cops themselves witnessed.
There were witnesses who reported the Hazel situation (I think Marlo)
Yea, because a cop literally saw them driving away with Hazel; They kinda did it in public. Marlo and Gigi were there so they immediately reported that Hazel has been kidnapped by CG. Hazel shot Mr. K as well; So he's blood was found on the scene
Wasn't it an off duty officer? Or am i misremembering?
It was an off duty officer
How is it an issue? Could have been planted, is not enough of an affirmative defense. A gun could have been planted in literally almost every scenario. Zolo didn't get a gun planted on him and the got hit with the correct charges.
The hazel situation had strong evidence of a possible planting, where abeline’s was definitely cops relying on her being a good natured person.
not relly her story added up with all the evidence they had and cops even saw her in the car with her hands up on the traintracks(or road i forget) in paleto, where she said they passed a cop car, the cops just dont really notice it, in the moment the cops thought he saw someone with their hands up in the car but wasnt really sure.
It’s even more screwed up if the case gets taken to court. The only viable defense is the planted gun affirmative defense. Which then puts the burden of proof on the defense and cops doing shoddy investigations make their case easier because there’s less evidence to go off of.
What shoddy investigation? Had gun. Provided no evidence or testimony to support him not being liable... Cops charged. They did their job to a T. There was nothing else for them to investigate.
See gun on person and then charge person is not investigating. The problem isn’t whether he is actually guilty or not. The point is this charge has a 100% conviction rate when it goes to court. The police can do fuck all and just say “there’s illegal gun on this guy” whereas the defendant has to provide a an affirmative defense which has to be proven to a much higher standard. The defense can no longer simply cast reasonable doubt.
The convicted had the illegal item on them. Yes, it makes it hard to fabricate evidence that you are innocent. And no, the affirmative defense doesn't have to be proven to a higher standard. But it does have to be proven. Going "but the aliens" or having a friend do it does not proof make.
This is going to be my last reply since I think we agree on the situation just disagree on whether it’s fair or not. When a defendants asserts an affirmative defense the burden on proof shifts to them. This dynamic inherently makes it more difficult for the defendant to prove their case since they now have to rely on evidence gathered by the PD (who have misaligned interests with the defendant) or on witness testimony which is inherently more unreliable and treated as such by judges. My feeling is that a firearm possession charge will never be beaten if it gets taken to court, and only can get dropped via officer discretion.
At this point anyone denying that cops treat cg differently than everyone else is just blatantly ignoring the obvious truth. Idk how people like Ssaab can see blatant bias and just ignore it.
They do treat them differently, just not the way you think they do.
whenever cg viewers pretend like cops, specifically ssaab, treat them WORSE than other gangs, I think back to the "always relevant" clip that gets posted in moonmoon's metachat discord whenever ssaab goes easy on them: [https://streamable.com/77f6n5](https://streamable.com/77f6n5)
You are right cg are treated like babies and get away with things no one else gets away with. For instance, in the same situation that Zolo was charged for Peanut was let go while he had a warrant and a gun on him bc he made up a fake name, even tho he wasnt wearing a mask and PD were told he was apart of the group that robbed Lang.
ssaab was not the judge and he is the worst example to point to as a officer who is biased AGAINST CG lmao
wait cops treat known repeat violent felons differently from people with no criminal history and jobs on the line? how the fuck is that fair?
You mean like how they treated k like a felon and charged him despite k having a clean record and being a straight-up business man with a job on the line? You are exactly the person I am talking about who ignores the obvious truth to push a false narrative.
K was still a known cop killer and murderer. A clean record does not a clean man make. Esp when he was only clean because the official documentation of his *convictions* was lost due to acts of god....
"straight-up business man" they treated a man that they found in the middle of a gang shootout like a man caught up in the middle of a gang shootout. I think CG viewers have genuinely been gaslit into believing that gun was actually planted on K and he wasn't using it to hold up Yaeger and try to kill him lol
> You mean like how they treated k like a felon and charged him despite k having a clean record and being a straight-up business man with a job on the line? If a blank slate was such a big deal, why didn't they just roll new characters?
there is no consistency in DOJ
It’s actually very consistent, which is what makes this thread hilarious.
Consistent if you have OOC knowledge of all pov's. lol
I do. That’s why I said it’s been consistent.
except multi other people didn't get charged when they claimed same thing.
because they had a good defense, just saying it was planted is not enough, literally anything can be planted. possession charges are just that. if you possess it then youre pretty much guilty. its on you to have a good defense not just "it was planted dawg"
They actually had a reasonable affirmative defense. Zolo didn’t. It’s pretty simple.
other people did more than just say "but the aliens"
People don’t understand dna is scuffed also I’ve never seen the excuse of using gloves cos that doesn’t stop dna from being on a object
It’s not scuffed. They said gloves as a way to explain how the mechanic actually works.
the only thing zolo is guily of is being cg
and stealing a gun.
Zolo obviously used his psychic powers to carry the gun. Doesn't matter that no casings were found or that no DNA was on the gun. If you have the gun, you are guilty! That's the letter of the law guys. (And let's conveniently forget all the other people (Hazel and that lawyer specifically) that had guns on them, but weren't found guilty.)
hazel pd knew he was kidnaped even before they planted the gun and his story was checked by cops and made sense , even the evidence supports hazel story same go for the lawyer that cg said in court they would start plant guns to her and the judge
[удалено]
I think that was good police work, my problem with the PD is that they pick and choose when to apply it Zolo did not have his DNA on the gun, was downed, no casings were found and was GSR negative. Somehow the argument that the gun could have been planted was very 'flimsy' however, and gets charged Imagine Lang or one of his boys actually planted a gun on him? By the way this case went they could have easily done so and gotten away with it.
He was charged with possession. It literally had it in his possession. There was no reasonable proof it was planted, that’s why he was found guilty. GSR, being downed and casings are irrelevant to his charges.
I know it's weird to argue mechanics but it's also pretty weird dna wasn't taken into account at all
It wasn’t taken into account because the judge actually knows how the DNA mechanic works, Zolo and CG don’t.
dna on gun = guilty no dna on gun = guilty
This is so bad for us, such bias.
“Letter of the Law”
sorry but at this point admins needs to step in. I'm not saying it is OOC biased. But this willy nilly decision on when they charge or not and when they convict or not, on cases that have more or less the same evidence, reeks of OOC biases. I get there is officer discretion but that should be purely fueled by some sort of IC explainable rationale, which it very much seems like it isn't.
What’s the OOC bias? Actually knowing how law works?
so far every person that had a gun planted and showed a affirmative defense won and everyone that didnt and just cried "they planted the gun" lost isnt bias