Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
they suspect based on the statement of someone they've already charged with a similar crime and are attempting to charge with additional, similar crimes.
Nope, That's not the case. If you think this, you've missed the point of the discussion.
They don't think, they know in a legal sense because the person in question has admitted to it. That's it. Over and done, the whole thing. Passwords, eye witness, all pointless background noise.
He told the cops that what they thought was on there was, in fact, there. What more is needed to prosecute?
"Sir, we need to go in your house to see if there is evidence of a murder."
"You don't need to come in, we both know that I murdered the guy."
You don't need to see the body or find the weapon, he admitted to the crime.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Saying "we both know what is on there" is word for word what he said, and that's all I'm using. The rest is just red herrings.
"We both know there is an operating system, a file system, random data of go pound sand I'm not going to willfully give you evidence to charge me with more possible crimes based on what's may be on my computer."
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
To look for WHAT? An article doesn't change how courts work. I have no idea what you think will be found in there, but this is basic "how a court works."
The main evidence in most courts is witnesses. And no witness is as strong as the defendant admitting to the suspected crime. Now if he admitted to a crime no one expects and is unlikely, they will often question if he is just crazy. But once he admits to one that there is a previous suspicion that he did, that's all you need in any court.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Saying "we both know what is on there" is word for word what he said, and that's all I'm using. The rest is just red herrings.
"We both know there is an operating system, a file system, random data of go pound sand I'm not going to willfully give you evidence to charge me with more possible crimes based on what's may be on my computer."
That's fine, but he didn't say that, so that you had to change what was said so dramatically to come up with a way for it not to be what I said shows that you see the problem.
He didn't deny that those things are on there, but he didn't limit what they knew to that. So your example isn't related.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
To look for WHAT? An article doesn't change how courts work.
And the courts in this case have said that the defendant can't be compelled to incriminate themselves by providing a password.
What the hell are you even arguing here. You clearly aren't seeing the conversation.
-
This isn't difficult, at all. He admitted to them knowing what was on there. Additionally he admitted that what they knew was on there would hurt him. The second point is superfluous, but really strongly validates what he already admitted to.
That's it. The whole point.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
To look for WHAT? An article doesn't change how courts work.
And the courts in this case have said that the defendant can't be compelled to incriminate themselves by providing a password.
What the hell are you even arguing here. You clearly aren't seeing the conversation.
I started the conversation. I started the point that asking for the password was unnecessary because he had already admitted to the crime.
YOU then argued with that point. WHy you keep bringing up that the password cannot be forced, when my point was that the password isn't even needed and I have clearly stated repeatedly that I'm discussing absolutely nothing related to if the password can be forced out of him or not, I can't explain.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
This isn't difficult, at all. He admitted to them knowing what was on there. Additionally he admitted that what they knew was on there would hurt him. The second point is superfluous, but really strongly validates what he already admitted to.
That's it. The whole point.
Okay "I know God is real and he lives on the far side of the sun, and I have proof on my encrypted computer"
Make me show you proof of that statement. Go ahead.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
here is my original response.
I don't see how it is confusing.
"They [cops / courts] shouldn't need it [password]"
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
This isn't difficult, at all. He admitted to them knowing what was on there. Additionally he admitted that what they knew was on there would hurt him. The second point is superfluous, but really strongly validates what he already admitted to.
That's it. The whole point.
Okay "I know God is real and he lives on the far side of the sun, and I have proof on my encrypted computer"
Make me show you proof of that statement. Go ahead.
You think that that is an admission to a suspected crime? Please explain.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
To look for WHAT? An article doesn't change how courts work.
And the courts in this case have said that the defendant can't be compelled to incriminate themselves by providing a password.
What the hell are you even arguing here. You clearly aren't seeing the conversation.
I started the conversation. I started the point that asking for the password was unnecessary because he had already admitted to the crime.
YOU then argued with that point. WHy you keep bringing up that the password cannot be forced, when my point was that the password isn't even needed and I have clearly stated repeatedly that I'm discussing absolutely nothing related to if the password can be forced out of him or not, I can't explain.
The password is NEEDED, so the police can charge him with additional crimes. At this point he is suspected of having at least 1 child porn instance, along with a potential billions of other cases of it on his computer.
You're clearly missing the fucking point.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
here is my original response.
I don't see how it is confusing.
"They [cops / courts] shouldn't need it [password]"
They need the password to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were additional crimes against children committed. Otherwise it's just a statement made during interrogation and the police don't have actual proof to bring charges up.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
To know is to have empirical evidence of it,
Not in court it is not. Ever.
So your theory is based on a false assumption.
Read the article.
To look for WHAT? An article doesn't change how courts work.
And the courts in this case have said that the defendant can't be compelled to incriminate themselves by providing a password.
What the hell are you even arguing here. You clearly aren't seeing the conversation.
I started the conversation. I started the point that asking for the password was unnecessary because he had already admitted to the crime.
YOU then argued with that point. WHy you keep bringing up that the password cannot be forced, when my point was that the password isn't even needed and I have clearly stated repeatedly that I'm discussing absolutely nothing related to if the password can be forced out of him or not, I can't explain.
The password is NEEDED, so the police can charge him with additional crimes. At this point he is suspected of having at least 1 child porn instance, along with a potential billions of other cases of it on his computer.
You're clearly missing the fucking point.
If you believe that I had missed the point, why didn't you point that out after the first post? That's not reasonable that you responded totally crazy, and then after all this time completely change your theory and think that I missed the point.
Would it be handy to have the password, sure. Could there be more crimes hidden? Sure. In an ideal world,would he have just given them the password even without them asking? Sure. But child porn is already a "put them away for life" crime. Unless he has evidence of capital murder on there, he's not likely to have anything worse to be thrown at him. The important part is that the suspected crime, which is already essentially the worst one, is already something he's admitted to.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
They need the password to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were additional crimes against children committed.
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
They need the password to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were additional crimes against children committed.
No, they do not. That's not how admission of guilt works. You only need to that when trying to prove someone guilty who claims that they are not. If you just admit your guilt, it doesn't even go to court except to get the sentencing.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Otherwise it's just a statement made during interrogation and the police don't have actual proof to bring charges up.
Admission during interrogation is admission. Interrogation counts, that's why they warn you that what you say will be used against you in court.
Even duress rarely matters with admissions to cops.
-
Cop: "I suspect you to be under the influence of driving while intoxicated, have you had anything to drink?"
Driver: "I want a lawyer and won't be answering any questions without one"
Cop: "Okay, we'll be administering a breathalyzer and blood draw to keep he evidence"
Driver: Can do nothing to stop that, as otherwise evidence of a crime has been committed will be "erased".
The driver never needs to admit to anything, and cannot be compelled to provide evidence in suspected other crimes - period.
-
Had he simply denied them the password, this would be a totally different thing. Had he said he wasn't going to risk something on there being interrpeted as a crime. Had he said he wasn't going to self incriminate. All of those things would mean nothing.
But he made an admission way, way, way different. He said that the evidence that they knew was there truly was there. That statement to an officer in an interrogation is similar to giving up power of attorney.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Cop: "I suspect you to be under the influence of driving while intoxicated, have you had anything to drink?"
Driver: "I want a lawyer and won't be answering any questions without one"
Cop: "Okay, we'll be administering a breathalyzer and blood draw to keep he evidence"
Driver: Can do nothing to stop that, as otherwise evidence of a crime has been committed will be "erased".
The driver never needs to admit to anything, and cannot be compelled to provide evidence in suspected other crimes - period.
Again, unrelated to the discussion. There is no doubt that the guy didn't have to admit anything. That's not being discussed, we all know that to be true. You keep repeating that as if anyone, anywhere has disagreed (or even talked about it.)
The point is that he did admit. Voluntarily. Without being asked.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
they suspect based on the statement of someone they've already charged with a similar crime and are attempting to charge with additional, similar crimes.
Nope, That's not the case. If you think this, you've missed the point of the discussion.
They don't think, they know in a legal sense because the person in question has admitted to it. That's it. Over and done, the whole thing. Passwords, eye witness, all pointless background noise.
He told the cops that what they thought was on there was, in fact, there. What more is needed to prosecute?
"Sir, we need to go in your house to see if there is evidence of a murder."
"You don't need to come in, we both know that I murdered the guy."
You don't need to see the body or find the weapon, he admitted to the crime.
This is completely different because this person explicitly admitted to murder. If the police knocked on his door and said "we need to come in and search your house", "We both know what's in there" certainly isn't an admission of any wrongdoing. Maybe when he said it would hurt him, he had pics of himself in cosplay and he was super embarrassed?
Anything the police claimed they knew but didn't actually witness first hand would certainly, 100%, be hearsay.
