Read the responses to the scenario. You can select points from different individuals but should write a single post in response to your own first post for easy reference. (For number 1 please respon

Read the responses  to the scenario. You can select points from different individuals but should write a single post in response to your own first post for easy reference. 

(For number 1 please respond to Giselle Cornelio-Larios response post which I have provided the link so you can see her post) 

https://www.mediafire.com/file/8mwkl4xdxw0yd82/Screenshot+2024-05-04+at+6.59.31 PM.png/file

1. Based on their responses, how would you change YOUR responses to the scenario?  In other words, what 2-3 points were made by other students (please name them) that you consider to be different from what you already wrote but would add to your own arguments?  What do you consider the strengths of these points to be? Respond to Giselle Cornelio-Larios.

( For number 2 please respond to Ernesto Sanchez response post  which I have provide link so you can see his post)

https://www.mediafire.com/file/yrk7o23pi8bcxlx/Screenshot+2024-05-04+at+6.59.59 PM.png/file

2. Select the one point made by a fellow student that you disagree with, find problematic or otherwise requiring more support the most.  Who made the point and why do you find it problematic? Respond to Ernesto Sanchez. 

This is my response the link below (just incase you might need it)

https://www.mediafire.com/file/706ymrwc956vfsu/Screenshot+2024-05-04+at+7.07.41 PM.png/file

And this is just the Scenario (incase you might need it)

Tim and a friend had been drinking at a bar. When they left around 1:15 AM, they encountered two men Tim recognized as regular customers at the liquor store where he worked. He invited the men to come back to his house with his friend to smoke marijuana. Once there, one of the men held a gun to Tim's head and demanded Tim give him his money, which he did; the two men immediately left.

A neighbor called police a few minutes later to report a burglary, describing the men as African American and one wearing a large hooded flannel shirt. Tim, meanwhile, left with his friend to search for the men and ended up stopping a police officer who happened to be responding to the burglary call. Another officer also responding to the call saw two men walking near Tim's residence; he couldn't tell their race, but one had a large hooded flannel shirt. When the officer turned his car to face the men, they ran between two house.

Using a canine unit, they located Tyrone, an African American male who was not wearing a flannel shirt. Tyrone told police he'd had an argument with his girlfriend and ran when he saw the patrol car because he feared she had called the police. Arrested and searched, no weapons or money were found on him. Tyrone was placed in a patrol car and driven to Tim's residence to give Tim the opportunity to identify him as one of the suspects (this is what is called a "showup"). The overhead light in the car was left on. "Some guy was found running around nearby," the officer who went to Tim's home told Tim. "Will you come take a look at him?" Tim agreed and, when asked if Tyrone was one of the men, Tim said, "I'm 97% certain." He indicated this was due to Tyrone's size and hairstyle.

Both Tim and Tyrone were taken to the police station. Tim then observed Tyrone, seated alone in a room, through a two-way mirror. Again, Tim identified Tyrone as the man who robbed him.  Not long after, Tim was shown Tyrone's mug shot and Tim identified him for a third time.

Tyrone was convicted of armed robbery and appealed his conviction, claiming the first showup was unnecessarily suggestive because he sat alone in the patrol car, Tim was intoxicated, and the police had made certain comments to Tim about Tyrone. 

Showups, in which only a single suspect is shown to a witness, have been ruled to be a lawful police practice, even if they are suggestive of guilt due to the isolation of the suspect.  This is why Tyrone claims the actions were "unnecessarily" suggestive, going beyond the inevitable but acceptable suggestiveness the courts have acknowledged.