I'd also be pretty outraged if a member of my family was misidentified, acquitted, and then murdered by a vigilante wrongly convinced they knew who the murderer was.

so finding the murder weapon in the home definitely means the suspect didn't do it. Right?

Requiring that police don't taint their investigations boils down to a mere "technicality" to you?

It is better that 1,000 guilty people go free than one innocent person be held. These "technicalities" are supposed to be one of the ways we protect against that, at the same time as they are intended to protect against people's rights being violated. This is why evidence must be presented that has been gathered by methods that prevent things like this from happening.

> luigi

So you're suggesting a family member murder the judge or some powerful individual whose wealth puts them above the law? That's a weird take.

not any more 'weird' than the majority of the community here supporting the murder of an innocent ceo.

Its very telling with the downvotes. You support an innocent person getting murdered and dont support the same thing happening to a murderer.

It's not a 'technicality.' The person got off because the police didn't do their job.

Nobody else calls not doing your job right a 'technicality.'

I ultimately support the exclusionary rule, but it seems entirely fair to call other people not doing their jobs a technicality. If there were an exclusionary rule in permitting or something, where I can be permanently denied a building permit because of misconduct by someone involved in processing the permit, I’d definitely call that a technicality.

People's fundamental rights and freedoms are not technicalities.

Who is "the person"? Did you see them murder your family member? Do you know for an absolute certainty they are the murderer? Or are you killing some random person that a sloppy, illegal (your technicality) police investigation happened to arrest?

What technicality?

Did you read the article? They found the murder weapon in the home and the person is getting off because of how the police found the weapon.

But what's the technicality? Not using fruit of the poisoned tree is a basic civil right, not a "technicality."

So what's the technicality?