Reply #46: very easy answer [View All]

"Fact: The shooter admitted shooting the kid.
Fact: The kid was dead.
Fact: The police didn't arrest the shooter despite
having him right there to arrest.

Based upon those facts, what's the most likely inference that you can make?"


How about: the police are continuing to investigate and have not yet reached a conclusion?

Looks about right to me.


"Please give me a scenario where cops wouldn't arrest somebody
for murder if they had probable cause (dead body, shooter saying
"I shot him" to the police when questioned) to think that he had
committed murder and he was right there, with the gun in his hand.
You may need to break out your tin foil hat, first..."

How about I reach for my law degree and (lapsed) call to the bar, instead?

Saying "I shot him" to the police when questioned -- if the questioning was not preceded by the necessary caution -- would not provide the police with a shred of usable evidence. More investigation needed.

Saying "he banged on my door and tried to knock me over and said 'I'm going to kill you and your wife right now' and I thought he had a gun in his hand" might be a reason not to lay a charge ... but it might also be a lie that the cops don't believe for a minute, but have no ability as yet to prove false. More investigation needed.

It's pretty easy to understand, really.


"Except, of course, for the FACT that the cops didn't arrest
the shooter on the spot. Believe it or not, most cops DO arrest murder
suspects down here when they find them. That's part of their job."

Take a course in logic before you even attempt a law degree, 'k?

As I said, the fact that no arrest was made is not proof that no crime was committed. It really is that simple.

Facts exist independently of anyone's ability to prove them, or unwillingness to believe them, you see.

But maybe you believe that the fact that OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder is proof that he did not kill anyone ...

.