Idaho Killings

[Bobcat1]

Anyone else follwing this story?  It's crazy to me! 

[baddog]

5 hours ago, Bobcat1 said:

Anyone else follwing this story?  It's crazy to me! 

My thoughts…..it’s a serial killer. If they were targeted, a person of interest would have surfaced, more than the people standing around the food truck. I lay no blame, but it is curious that some had defensive wounds, telling me they had to have screamed, and people in the same house heard nothing. Can’t come up with anything more as the police have absolutely no clues.

[Bobcat1]

15 hours ago, baddog said:

My thoughts…..it’s a serial killer. If they were targeted, a person of interest would have surfaced, more than the people standing around the food truck. I lay no blame, but it is curious that some had defensive wounds, telling me they had to have screamed, and people in the same house heard nothing. Can’t come up with anything more as the police have absolutely no clues.

That's what I don't understand - even if they were blackout drunk, you'd think they'd hear someone screaming for their life. 

[baddog]

24 minutes ago, Bobcat1 said:

That's what I don't understand - even if they were blackout drunk, you'd think they'd hear someone screaming for their life. 

I’m sure we are not the first to wonder about this, nor to wonder why they weren’t attacked also. It’s what mysteries are made of. I am hoping police have info they are not divulging. That’s a distinct possibility in cases like this. I also wonder just how many bedrooms were in this house. Surely some bunked together. 

[tvc184]

On 12/1/2022 at 3:37 PM, baddog said:

My thoughts…..it’s a serial killer. If they were targeted, a person of interest would have surfaced, more than the people standing around the food truck. I lay no blame, but it is curious that some had defensive wounds, telling me they had to have screamed, and people in the same house heard nothing. Can’t come up with anything more as the police have absolutely no clues.

The police have released no clues to protect the investigation. 

[baddog]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

The police have released no clues to protect the investigation. 

Yes, which was my thoughts in my second post. 

[tvc184]

A police officer who I worked with was at a public information/community relations school in Houston. I think it was mostly for the police but maybe other spokespersons could attend. It is a school to learn to put out news releases, conduct press conferences, etc.

As one of his lessons (basically homework) for the next day he was given a set of facts known to him about a crime scene and he was supposed to write a press release. It may have been like, police called to a report of shots fired. They found a man shot 3 times with a 9mm and blah blah blah…. Lots of details.

So as part of his homework, he called me. I wrote a basic press release and sent it him. I left out most of the details of what the police knew. The reason is that the law on statements by a suspect (basically a confession), requires certain rules, most of which is being able to corroborate (I think the wording is establish guilt) the statement. You can’t do that with information that was released to the public. Details such as caliber of a weapon, number if times shot or stabbed, which room, etc. cannot be used. Everybody knows those answers if you out it on the 6 o'clock news.

So the next day in class the instructor (of all things, a news reporter) chose my friend’s release to read to the class on what NOT to do. It was read anonymously so as not to single a person out. The reason that it was wrong in the instructor‘s opinion, was because he did not have nearly enough details that were known to the officer writing the press release. My friend later told me that he spoke up in class and identified himself as the author. He the cited the law on statements and why it was unwise (but not illegal) for the police to release certain information until a warrant is obtained (then it is public anyway).

He said the instructor put that press release on the table and went to the next one. The instructor didn’t even make a commitment….😂

It isn’t against the law to release most information to the public (except such as the name of a juvenile suspect) but it isn’t always wise either.

I guarantee in this case they have clues but aren’t going to release them at this point. 

[JSnipes]

On 12/3/2022 at 11:18 AM, tvc184 said:

A police officer who I worked with was at a public information/community relations school in Houston. I think it was mostly for the police but maybe other spokespersons could attend. It is a school to learn to put out news releases, conduct press conferences, etc.

As one of his lessons (basically homework) for the next day he was given a set of facts known to him about a crime scene and he was supposed to write a press release. It may have been like, police called to a report of shots fired. They found a man shot 3 times with a 9mm and blah blah blah…. Lots of details.

So as part of his homework, he called me. I wrote a basic press release and sent it him. I left out most of the details of what the police knew. The reason is that the law on statements by a suspect (basically a confession), requires certain rules, most of which is being able to corroborate (I think the wording is establish guilt) the statement. You can’t do that with information that was released to the public. Details such as caliber of a weapon, number if times shot or stabbed, which room, etc. cannot be used. Everybody knows those answers if you out it on the 6 o'clock news.

So the next day in class the instructor (of all things, a news reporter) chose my friend’s release to read to the class on what NOT to do. It was read anonymously so as not to single a person out. The reason that it was wrong in the instructor‘s opinion, was because he did not have nearly enough details that were known to the officer writing the press release. My friend later told me that he spoke up in class and identified himself as the author. He the cited the law on statements and why it was unwise (but not illegal) for the police to release certain information until a warrant is obtained (then it is public anyway).

He said the instructor put that press release on the table and went to the next one. The instructor didn’t even make a commitment….😂

It isn’t against the law to release most information to the public (except such as the name of a juvenile suspect) but it isn’t always wise either.

I guarantee in this case they have clues but aren’t going to release them at this point. 

One statement I read from a FBI agent said, "people aren't necessarily going to scream when they are fighting for their lives. This isn't a tv show or movie." I found that interesting. I had never considered that if you are battling for your life screaming for help might not automatically happen. If someone was awaken from their sleep while being attacked, would you agree with this? 

[tvc184]

9 hours ago, JSnipes said:

One statement I read from a FBI agent said, "people aren't necessarily going to scream when they are fighting for their lives. This isn't a tv show or movie." I found that interesting. I had never considered that if you are battling for your life screaming for help might not automatically happen. If someone was awaken from their sleep while being attacked, would you agree with this? 

I have fought for my life including having a gun to the side of my head during the fight. I never made a sound that I know of. I was too busy to think how to get out of a really bad situation. When you start screaming it is probably over for you because you have now given up and screaming is all that is left. Basically you have gone into pure panic mode (which absolutely exists) and that may be your only response left. 

We have probably all seen crazy or horrific videos of shooting, stabbing,  car crashes, etc. and it sometimes amazes me that there are a few people who will just stand and scream or maybe run and scream.  I think for possibly a majority of people, screaming isn’t what they will do but everyone responds differently. I agree that a lack of screaming is not an automatic piece of evidence that there is some sort of coverup or bogus alibi from others on scene. That can’t be discounted however. Either scenario is possible.

Let’s play everybody’s favorite game, what if. What if the victims didn’t scream? What if they did but (and remembering intoxication may have been involved): 

1.  All bedroom doors (including the persons not killed) were shut, knocking out about 90% of the sound.

2. The perpetrator(s) shut the victim’s door, then put his/her hand over the victim’s mouth.

3. The perpetrator used a pillow.

4. The people not killed were truly that intoxicated. I have seen people so intoxicated that they had a cigarette in their hand and it had burned them and they did not wake up. 

5. The people not killed had the television on while in an intoxicated state.

6. The people not killed had ear buds in listening to music.

7. And so on.

After reading hundreds, if not thousands of threads about crimes or suspicious circumstances, I am usually in wonder on how people are drawing their conclusions or (usually) assumptions. Most times there is nothing in a news article to back up their stance.  They might be 100% correct however there is nothing known publicly that shows the claim or assumption. Even more interesting is how a complete assumption by one person will be repeated by another and then become “fact”. It is at times accompanied by, “Well I read…..”.

Yes you did. You read an opinion by a person that had no clue but then justified it by saying you read it. Then your statement gets repeated….

 In this forum over the years I have seen conclusions on big news incidents locally. I will go back try to read about the incident from different news media outlets.  Many times I can’t find a single bit of information backing up a claim.

 I have gone off on a tangent but I agree with the FBI agent (as an example, I am assuming you read jt ), not screaming (or I will add, not hearing any) doesn’t prove anything. 

[tvc184]

I will toss in, just because the police have said the roommates or others in the home are not suspected of the crime, don’t be so sure that the police have eliminated them. Maybe… but a public statement of an unsolved crime isn’t always the final outcome. 

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I will toss in, just because the police have said the roommates or others in the home are not suspected of the crime, don’t be so sure that the police have eliminated them. Maybe… but a public statement of an unsolved crime isn’t always the final outcome. 

My thoughts (more what ifs) on it not being the roommates: it would be almost impossible to violently stab four people, some of whom fought back, using a slippery, blood-covered knife and not sustain at least superficial cuts and scratches. On top of that, it would be almost impossible to not track blood back through the house into your designated area where you then are pretending to not know anything about what happened. Without a doubt the police looked at the roommates closely and immediately, and it doesn’t appear they found evidence of their involvement.  Any obvious evidence would’ve likely led to an arrest by now.  

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, bullets13 said:

My thoughts (more what ifs) on it not being the roommates: it would be almost impossible to violently stab four people, some of whom fought back, using a slippery, blood-covered knife and not sustain at least superficial cuts and scratches. On top of that, it would be almost impossible to not track blood back through the house into your designated area where you then are pretending to not know anything about what happened. Without a doubt the police looked at the roommates closely and immediately, and it doesn’t appear they found evidence of their involvement.  Any obvious evidence would’ve likely led to an arrest by now.  

If the had probable cause they likely would have made an arrest. Extreme suspicion, currently checking out alibis and other investigations would almost certainly not been made public.

 I am not suggesting that they are involved and they probably aren’t. I just think that if they are even suspicious of them, we aren’t going to know about it yet.

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

If the had probable cause they likely would have made an arrest. Extreme suspicion, currently checking out alibis and other investigations would almost certainly not been made public.

 I am not suggesting that they are involved and they probably aren’t. I just think that if they are even suspicious of them, we aren’t going to know about it yet.

What is the requirement to be referred to as a “person of interest”?

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

What is the requirement to be referred to as a “person of interest”?

That is a news media term that kind of originated with the Olympic bomber suspect Richard Jewell who was a security officer there. Itv has no real bearing in law enforcement. He reported the suspicions package at the Atlanta Olympics.

 The police (I think FBI but not sure) made a statement about a “suspect” (I think was the wording) and someone (some police agency) identified him.

Well….. it turns out that he was a hero and tried to clear the area but was blasted in the media as the suspect in the bombing. The media and parts of the investigation made Jewell out to be a wanna be police officer who planted the device and then reported it to look like a hero. It turned out that he was the good guy but now having his reputation potentially ruined. He did later become a police officer.

I had never heard the term person of interest before then and now only hear that.

To police talking to each other, I haven’t heard anything other than suspect or possibly actor (in the Penal Code, actor means suspect).

A person of interest, most of the time unnamed, is a term to let the public know that the police are suspicious about a person. It is likely used to prevent lawsuits and false accusations or defamation.

Therefore there is no requirement. If the media asks if the police have any leads, they might say they are looking at a person of interest.

 Legally there is no such thing that I have ever heard of. The legal standards are reasonable suspicion (detain), probable cause  (force a search or arrest) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (convict).  

[baddog]

55 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

That is a news media term that kind of originated with the Olympic bomber suspect Richard Jewell who was a security officer there. Itv has no real bearing in law enforcement. He reported the suspicions package at the Atlanta Olympics.

 The police (I think FBI but not sure) made a statement about a “suspect” (I think was the wording) and someone (some police agency) identified him.

Well….. it turns out that he was a hero and tried to clear the area but was blasted in the media as the suspect in the bombing. The media and parts of the investigation made Jewell out to be a wanna be police officer who planted the device and then reported it to look like a hero. It turned out that he was the good guy but now having his reputation potentially ruined. He did later become a police officer.

I had never heard the term person of interest before then and now only hear that.

To police talking to each other, I haven’t heard anything other than suspect or possibly actor (in the Penal Code, actor means suspect).

A person of interest, most of the time unnamed, is a term to let the public know that the police are suspicious about a person. It is likely used to prevent lawsuits and false accusations or defamation.

Therefore there is no requirement. If the media asks if the police have any leads, they might say they are looking at a person of interest.

 Legally there is no such thing that I have ever heard of. The legal standards are reasonable suspicion (detain), probable cause  (force a search or arrest) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (convict).  

Thanks. 

[JSnipes]

16 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I have fought for my life including having a gun to the side of my head during the fight. I never made a sound that I know of. I was too busy to think how to get out of a really bad situation. When you start screaming it is probably over for you because you have now given up and screaming is all that is left. Basically you have gone into pure panic mode (which absolutely exists) and that may be your only response left. 

We have probably all seen crazy or horrific videos of shooting, stabbing,  car crashes, etc. and it sometimes amazes me that there are a few people who will just stand and scream or maybe run and scream.  I think for possibly a majority of people, screaming isn’t what they will do but everyone responds differently. I agree that a lack of screaming is not an automatic piece of evidence that there is some sort of coverup or bogus alibi from others on scene. That can’t be discounted however. Either scenario is possible.

Let’s play everybody’s favorite game, what if. What if the victims didn’t scream? What if they did but (and remembering intoxication may have been involved): 

1.  All bedroom doors (including the persons not killed) were shut, knocking out about 90% of the sound.

2. The perpetrator(s) shut the victim’s door, then put his/her hand over the victim’s mouth.

3. The perpetrator used a pillow.

4. The people not killed were truly that intoxicated. I have seen people so intoxicated that they had a cigarette in their hand and it had burned them and they did not wake up. 

5. The people not killed had the television on while in an intoxicated state.

6. The people not killed had ear buds in listening to music.

7. And so on.

After reading hundreds, if not thousands of threads about crimes or suspicious circumstances, I am usually in wonder on how people are drawing their conclusions or (usually) assumptions. Most times there is nothing in a news article to back up their stance.  They might be 100% correct however there is nothing known publicly that shows the claim or assumption. Even more interesting is how a complete assumption by one person will be repeated by another and then become “fact”. It is at times accompanied by, “Well I read…..”.

Yes you did. You read an opinion by a person that had no clue but then justified it by saying you read it. Then your statement gets repeated….

 In this forum over the years I have seen conclusions on big news incidents locally. I will go back try to read about the incident from different news media outlets.  Many times I can’t find a single bit of information backing up a claim.

 I have gone off on a tangent but I agree with the FBI agent (as an example, I am assuming you read jt ), not screaming (or I will add, not hearing any) doesn’t prove anything. 

Haha...yes it was an article I read on FoxNews about the FBI agent. I do not normally watch the news or read anything online, but I'm really curious in this case.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, JSnipes said:

Haha...yes it was an article I read on FoxNews about the FBI agent. I do not normally watch the news or read anything online, but I'm really curious in this case.

This old saying applies:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because you don’t see it, hear it or are not aware of it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen.

I was working an apartment security off duty job a few years ago with a partner. It was late at night like about 10pm. We heard a gunshot that sounded like it was a few blocks south of where we were. About a minute later a call was dispatched after a person called 911 hearing the gunshot. It is a fairly routine call usually with no information other than it was somewhere within 10 blocks. About 99% of the time it results in the officer not finding anything. There isn’t really anything to go on other than, “I heard shots a good way off north of here”. 

Within a couple of minutes an officer was reporting that people in the area said that they heard no shots. So that means it was a fake call, right? No evidence, case closed. Like usual, nothing was found. 

On hearing an officer say that it might be a fake call, my partner and I reported on the radio that we heard the shot. Officers continued searching the area came upon the guy who fired the shot. Oops!

He was outside looking around when officers found him. The man had caught somebody trying to break in his car and had fired a warning shot. The police now had a description and actually caught the guy who is breaking into the car.

So citizens didn’t hear it therefore it didn’t happen. Officers didn’t find anything so it didn’t happen.  What “didn’t happen” turned out to be a real crime with a shot being fired and a suspect apprehended.

So why didn’t “witnesses” who were closer than me not hear a shot that I heard? I have no clue.  Wind direction? Structures between us? They were playing loud music? Talking loud and not paying attention? We will never know but it happened.

Had my partner and I not heard it, causing officers to keep searching, it would have gone down as another likely fake call. The person calling 911 could be accused committing a crime by calling in a false report.

Because of circumstances it turned out completely different. The fake call turned out to be real. 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

How many comments have we seen in all forums including this one where people draw conclusions based on reports in the media and other forum members posting, “I heard”. That is why I often throw into my comment, IF this happened or if the news reports are correct or if the witnesses didn’t make a mistake…… The shots fired call is an example of a completely false conclusion by witnesses and police officers also.  We can understand why the conclusions were made… they just turned out to be wrong.    

[thetragichippy]

On 12/6/2022 at 3:12 PM, tvc184 said:

 had fired a warning shot.

Is that legal in Texas?

[tvc184]

20 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Is that legal in Texas?

The law doesn’t address it. I know that use of force experts advise against it.

Since the law doesn’t address warning shots, other laws have to be applied. Firing a firearm on public property is a crime (I think up to 6 months in jail) and that includes the right of way/utility access in front of a house. Cities probably have ordinances against discharging firearms in the city limits and I think state law prohibits discharging a firearm in the city limits automatically if the city has a population of more than 100,000 such as Beaumont. Firing in the direction of a person, vehicle or building is a felony but that is overcome by self defense laws… assuming the self defense was lawful at the time.

A DA might not prosecute or the police may not arrest and forward the case but a person is rolling the dice. Of course if you are outside of a city limits and on your own property, discharging a weapon usually isn’t a crime anyway. In such a case unless you are actually firing at the person, in which case you would have to justify it, merely shooting a gun in most situations isn’t likely a crime. 

In reference to shooting in a city limits with less than a 100,000 population a city ordinance is usually only a class C misdemeanor or basically a traffic citation.

A person might get away with a warning shot but it potentially has legal consequences. 

[thetragichippy]

Thanks TVC….those things are interesting….a warning shot might save a life…..but may out you in jail…..like brandishing a weapon.

[tvc184]

40 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Thanks TVC….those things are interesting….a warning shot might save a life…..but may out you in jail…..like brandishing a weapon.

You might find this interesting on brandishing a weapon (although brandishing is not a legal term in Texas) in self defense instead of firing a warning shot. This is from the Texas Penal Code chapter on self-defense.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.  
The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

I read this as, if you are in a possible deadly force situation and you display a weapon, you are allowed to make a threat to use the weapon if needed. L

As it says, if the purpose is to create the apprehension that will shoot if necessary, it is lawful. I am not making a legal suggestion but I always have looked at that section under self defense. I have so many times heard the claim that a handgun license instructor has made a statement like, if you feel the need to draw a weapon, you had better use it or you are in trouble. I have never heard that but I have seen it stated numerous times.

If an instructor ever made, such a statement, that would be like saying, it is okay if you draw your handgun and kill a guy in lawful self defense but it’s a crime if you draw your handgun and refused to kill him unless necessary.

HUH??

Let’s see, a guy pulls a knife on me and demands my money which is an aggravated robbery. I act like I’m reaching for my wallet but pull my handgun and shoot and kill him and it is completely legal. But if I do the exact same thing and quickly back away and point my handgun and say something like drop the knife, etc.. I command a felony Aggravated Assault by making a threat while displaying a deadly weapon?

Uhhhhh……. No.

I think that is the exact situation this law on self-defense is referencing. There are several reasons to lawfully use deadly force in Texas. If you were in a situation that allows for that deadly force to be lawfully used, drawing a weapon and threatening to use the lawful deadly force is not a crime.

So while firing a warning shot is not specifically lawful and “could potentially  carry a legal liability, displaying a weapon and threatening to use lawful deadly force does not appear to  be a crime under this section.

As that section starts out…..  

The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter.

So is brandishing a weapon with a threat to use it a crime if the force is justified?

Not in my opinion.  Remember that in Chapter 9 on self defense, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had no reasonable  belief of self defense.  

[tvc184]

Or the short version, I can find no place that the law allows for a warning shot but can find that if force is lawful, the threat of force is lawful, and that includes displaying a weapon.

[Bobcat1]

Still no real updates on this case.  I went down a rabbit hole on these Facebook groups and WOW there are some reallllllll crazy stories on there. 

[tvc184]

45 minutes ago, Bobcat1 said:

Still no real updates on this case.  I went down a rabbit hole on these Facebook groups and WOW there are some reallllllll crazy stories on there. 

Where speculation becomes fact…..

Say it once and it’s a guess or rumor.

Repeat it and it becomes ironclad proof. 

[SmashMouth]

I hate that some people were killed. Past that, I could give two 💩’s about the specific case. The only interesting thing I’ve encountered regarding this incident is TVC’s commentary. Maybe Gabby Petito or Jonbenet Ramsey are somehow linked to this. More Nancy Grace, let’s slow down to look at the wreck bs imo.