The best thing about the male protagonist is not to change the gun, but to use the principle of the "fruit of the poisonous tree". Because the policeman had a special relationship with the victim and suspect, he should not participate in the investigation and evidence collection of the case. The evidence he obtained cannot be used to determine the defendant's disadvantage in law. So as long as the male policeman comes in to deal with it, it doesn’t matter whether he brings a gun, or whether to change the gun—the gun, bullets and confession he gets will be ignored by the judge.
The actor's purpose is not to kill someone and then relinquish blame. More importantly, his purpose was to ruin the policeman.
In this movie, the only part of the protagonist's miscalculations is the last paragraph and the explanation. This is his carelessness and overconfidence. If there is no such dialogue (no doubt being monitored, and the hero also knows that it is very likely to be monitored), what if the heroine takes out the bullet after her death? It is still based on the principle of the "fruit of a poisonous tree". It cannot be determined that he fired, and it cannot be determined that it is a crime for him to stop the ventilator. But with this conversation, everything has changed. His act of turning off the ventilator was to kill people-this is legal evidence (monitoring recording)
View more about Fracture reviews
