Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder, or something else, as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"
That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.I agree with the example. But disagree with the interpretation afterwards.
The bit in bold... that's why it doesn't mean "anything". It means that what the cops suspect is true, and therefore their claims are all that are needed (under oath, sure.) If he only said that something was in there that would hurt him, that would definitely be ambiguous. My point is that I believe by authorizing the cops' beliefs that he voluntarily removed the ambiguity (once the cops state what it is that they know to be there.)
It's ambiguous to us until the cops state what it is, but once they do, it's not ambiguous anymore.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in [Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute
In a silly example...
"I did it your honor, I murdered him."
"Okay son, but I can't accept your guilt until you are under oath."
"Oh, I won't admit to it under oath."
"Then I'm afraid you are free to go."
We should work with this example, though a bit different.
Cop: We know you killed Jo
defendant: We both know I did it.this is basically what happened,
Cop: You are here because we believe there is CP on your computer
defendant: "we both know what's on there"that's an admission - because the cop told him first what they thought was on the computer. Of course, what we don't know is the actual conversation before the admission part - I'm assuming hasn't been released.
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.
You know that? You have the transcripts of the conversation from when they arrested him until his admission? They never mentioned CP once? Well - if that's the case, then you are right, he admitted to something, something the cops know, but that seems really weird to admit that "we both know what's there " if they didn't tell him what they thought was there... why would he think they though it was CP? maybe they thought it was dick punch pictures.. and what's wrong with that?
Do you know I'm wrong? Do you have the transcripts? The original topic was about him handing the passwords over. Sure it looks reaaaalllyyyy bad because of the context of the entire thing, but I still don't see an admission. I do not think the computer could be used as evidence here because nobody actually saw what was on it.
Sure none of that actually matters, because when it comes up and the jury hears it, it will stick with them. Regardless of if the defense can have the computer evidence dismissed.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Without the defendant providing the password to their computer, can the DoJ and Police charge the defendant with additional counts of CP.
If the defendant was compelled to provide the password to their computer, they would be providing evidence in their own conviction. Which a defendant cannot be forced to do.
If the defendant slipped up, and let the password out or computer unlocked, it's all fair game, but not just because the police are to dumb to figure it out themselves or to crack the encryption.
yeah, he didn't slip up and give the password, instead he slipped up and admitted guilt, while being interrogated.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
Edit After Fork: This is in response to the news article:
Suspect canât be compelled to reveal â64-characterâ password, court rules
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution bars people from being forced to turn over personal passwords to police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week.In a 4-3 ruling, justices from Pennsylvaniaâs highest court overturned a lower-court order that required the suspect in a child-pornography case to turn over a 64-character password to his computer. The lower-court ruling had held that the compelled disclosure didnât violate the defendantâs Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he made to police during questioning.
âItâs 64 characters and why would I give that to you,â Joseph J. Davis of Pennsylvaniaâs Luzerne County told investigators in response to their request for his password. âWe both know whatâs on there. Itâs only going to hurt me. No fucking way Iâm going to give it to you.â
Scott's response here tells us that Scott believes the password bit is unneeded. That the admission through comment is all they need to convict the defendant...
so the conversation should be only about the admission, and nothing about the password thing.
Except that each instance of CP, is it's own charge. So the police and DoJ need to be able to tally the number of instances to charge the person with.
Valid. Although maybe the cops know of lots of cases.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
Edit After Fork: This is in response to the news article:
Suspect canât be compelled to reveal â64-characterâ password, court rules
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution bars people from being forced to turn over personal passwords to police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week.In a 4-3 ruling, justices from Pennsylvaniaâs highest court overturned a lower-court order that required the suspect in a child-pornography case to turn over a 64-character password to his computer. The lower-court ruling had held that the compelled disclosure didnât violate the defendantâs Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he made to police during questioning.
âItâs 64 characters and why would I give that to you,â Joseph J. Davis of Pennsylvaniaâs Luzerne County told investigators in response to their request for his password. âWe both know whatâs on there. Itâs only going to hurt me. No fucking way Iâm going to give it to you.â
Scott's response here tells us that Scott believes the password bit is unneeded. That the admission through comment is all they need to convict the defendant...
so the conversation should be only about the admission, and nothing about the password thing.
Except that each instance of CP, is it's own charge. So the police and DoJ need to be able to tally the number of instances to charge the person with.
That is a red herring - of course it's true, and makes for a longer sentence, but he's admitted to at least one. Nothing else really matters. As scott said - in some places, that admission would be the end of - go directly to jail for one count of CP. if they are going for distribution or something, that could be entirely differnt, though, if they accoused him of that too.. his admission would cover that as well, and he can now get jail time for two counts - 1) CP and 2) distro of CP...
Sure they won't be able to get him on 100+ counts.. meh
But that's the argument being made here. The police want to potentially charge a person with additional crimes, and without the defendants willing participation can they not do that.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
I do not think the computer could be used as evidence here because nobody actually saw what was on it.
But someone did, he did. We aren't talking about what the cops saw, the cops are only in the position of telling us what he says he saw. The computer isn't the evidence, the criminal himself is, is what we are asserting.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder, or something else, as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"
That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.I agree with the example. But disagree with the interpretation afterwards.
The bit in bold... that's why it doesn't mean "anything". It means that what the cops suspect is true, and therefore their claims are all that are needed (under oath, sure.) If he only said that something was in there that would hurt him, that would definitely be ambiguous. My point is that I believe by authorizing the cops' beliefs that he voluntarily removed the ambiguity (once the cops state what it is that they know to be there.)
It's ambiguous to us until the cops state what it is, but once they do, it's not ambiguous anymore.
A validation that a crime has occurred, doesn't require you to comply and submit evidence against your case though.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Without the defendant providing the password to their computer, can the DoJ and Police charge the defendant with additional counts of CP.
If the defendant was compelled to provide the password to their computer, they would be providing evidence in their own conviction. Which a defendant cannot be forced to do.
If the defendant slipped up, and let the password out or computer unlocked, it's all fair game, but not just because the police are to dumb to figure it out themselves or to crack the encryption.
yeah, he didn't slip up and give the password, instead he slipped up and admitted guilt, while being interrogated.
Exactly, that's how I read it and think that it plays out. Once you admit guilt, all the other stuff stops mattering because "evidence" isn't needed.
Now Dustin is right, if we are talking about finding more evidence of more crimes, sure that would be grand to have access to determine what more the cops haven't figured out yet. But for the crime in question, it seems to be covered.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in [Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute
In a silly example...
"I did it your honor, I murdered him."
"Okay son, but I can't accept your guilt until you are under oath."
"Oh, I won't admit to it under oath."
"Then I'm afraid you are free to go."
We should work with this example, though a bit different.
Cop: We know you killed Jo
defendant: We both know I did it.this is basically what happened,
Cop: You are here because we believe there is CP on your computer
defendant: "we both know what's on there"that's an admission - because the cop told him first what they thought was on the computer. Of course, what we don't know is the actual conversation before the admission part - I'm assuming hasn't been released.
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.
You know that? You have the transcripts of the conversation from when they arrested him until his admission? They never mentioned CP once? Well - if that's the case, then you are right, he admitted to something, something the cops know, but that seems really weird to admit that "we both know what's there " if they didn't tell him what they thought was there... why would he think they though it was CP? maybe they thought it was dick punch pictures.. and what's wrong with that?
Do you know I'm wrong? Do you have the transcripts? The original topic was about him handing the passwords over. Sure it looks reaaaalllyyyy bad because of the context of the entire thing, but I still don't see an admission. I do not think the computer could be used as evidence here because nobody actually saw what was on it.
Sure none of that actually matters, because when it comes up and the jury hears it, it will stick with them. Regardless of if the defense can have the computer evidence dismissed.
The actual computer isn't relevant - this is what Scott is saying.
No, I don't have the transcript of the interrogation, but come on - do you really believe that they didn't mention CP to the defendant before the defendant made that statement of guilt?
And once he made the statement, the computer becomes 100% irrelevant. They no longer need access to convict on at least one count of CP. period. because he admitted it.
Again, I'll walk this back (and I'm positive Scott will too) IF, IF the transcript shows that the cops never mentioned CP on the laptop before the defendant made that statement.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder, or something else, as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"
That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.I agree with the example. But disagree with the interpretation afterwards.
The bit in bold... that's why it doesn't mean "anything". It means that what the cops suspect is true, and therefore their claims are all that are needed (under oath, sure.) If he only said that something was in there that would hurt him, that would definitely be ambiguous. My point is that I believe by authorizing the cops' beliefs that he voluntarily removed the ambiguity (once the cops state what it is that they know to be there.)
It's ambiguous to us until the cops state what it is, but once they do, it's not ambiguous anymore.
A validation that a crime has occurred, doesn't require you to comply and submit evidence against your case though.
Doesn't require. You keep using that word, but he already volunteered, for at least the crimes that they were suspicious of.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
The actual computer isn't relevant - this is what Scott is saying.
He is now saying, now that he's been proven clearly wrong.
This entire conversation spawned from the fact that scott believes that if you admit to a crime that you need to give up any and all evidence of said crime (and possible other crimes to the police because they ask nicely).
FFS, happy thanks giving.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
No, I don't have the transcript of the interrogation, but come on - do you really believe that they didn't mention CP to the defendant before the defendant made that statement of guilt?
I did mention in my "why it wouldn't be ambiguous" checklist that I was basing that on the assumption that they did, in fact, make it clear that he was arrested for suspicious of CP. If he said it casually outside of that context, then clearly it would be a different matter.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
Edit After Fork: This is in response to the news article:
Suspect canât be compelled to reveal â64-characterâ password, court rules
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution bars people from being forced to turn over personal passwords to police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week.In a 4-3 ruling, justices from Pennsylvaniaâs highest court overturned a lower-court order that required the suspect in a child-pornography case to turn over a 64-character password to his computer. The lower-court ruling had held that the compelled disclosure didnât violate the defendantâs Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he made to police during questioning.
âItâs 64 characters and why would I give that to you,â Joseph J. Davis of Pennsylvaniaâs Luzerne County told investigators in response to their request for his password. âWe both know whatâs on there. Itâs only going to hurt me. No fucking way Iâm going to give it to you.â
Scott's response here tells us that Scott believes the password bit is unneeded. That the admission through comment is all they need to convict the defendant...
so the conversation should be only about the admission, and nothing about the password thing.
Except that each instance of CP, is it's own charge. So the police and DoJ need to be able to tally the number of instances to charge the person with.
That is a red herring - of course it's true, and makes for a longer sentence, but he's admitted to at least one. Nothing else really matters. As scott said - in some places, that admission would be the end of - go directly to jail for one count of CP. if they are going for distribution or something, that could be entirely differnt, though, if they accoused him of that too.. his admission would cover that as well, and he can now get jail time for two counts - 1) CP and 2) distro of CP...
Sure they won't be able to get him on 100+ counts.. meh
But that's the argument being made here. The police want to potentially charge a person with additional crimes, and without the defendants willing participation can they not do that.
that's fine - that's additional charges - that's it's own matter, not one that THIS discussion is about... this discussion is about the fact that the defendant admitted his guilt to at least one count of CP on the laptop (pending the transcripts showing that the cops said - we know there's CP on there - or some such shit).
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
He is now saying, now that he's been proven clearly wrong.
No, it's what I said since the OP. Go back and actually read the discussion. You've not even discussed by topic yet.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder, or something else, as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"
That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.I agree with the example. But disagree with the interpretation afterwards.
The bit in bold... that's why it doesn't mean "anything". It means that what the cops suspect is true, and therefore their claims are all that are needed (under oath, sure.) If he only said that something was in there that would hurt him, that would definitely be ambiguous. My point is that I believe by authorizing the cops' beliefs that he voluntarily removed the ambiguity (once the cops state what it is that they know to be there.)
It's ambiguous to us until the cops state what it is, but once they do, it's not ambiguous anymore.
A validation that a crime has occurred, doesn't require you to comply and submit evidence against your case though.
Doesn't require. You keep using that word, but he already volunteered, for at least the crimes that they were suspicious of.
He volunteered the bit about "it wouldn't be good for me" he doesn't need to volunteer his password so the cops can make an easy case.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This entire conversation spawned from the fact that scott believes that if you admit to a crime that you need to give up any and all evidence of said crime (and possible other crimes to the police because they ask nicely).
Um... right. Find any post like that please. Any, in any conversation, anywhere by me. You keep stating this known false thing, and acting like people can't read the thread and see that I never said that, and no one ever responded to me saying that. Or anyone saying that other than me, either.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
The actual computer isn't relevant - this is what Scott is saying.
He is now saying, now that he's been proven clearly wrong.
This entire conversation spawned from the fact that scott believes that if you admit to a crime that you need to give up any and all evidence of said crime (and possible other crimes to the police because they ask nicely).
FFS, happy thanks giving.
Scott never said that.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder, or something else, as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"
That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.I agree with the example. But disagree with the interpretation afterwards.
The bit in bold... that's why it doesn't mean "anything". It means that what the cops suspect is true, and therefore their claims are all that are needed (under oath, sure.) If he only said that something was in there that would hurt him, that would definitely be ambiguous. My point is that I believe by authorizing the cops' beliefs that he voluntarily removed the ambiguity (once the cops state what it is that they know to be there.)
It's ambiguous to us until the cops state what it is, but once they do, it's not ambiguous anymore.
A validation that a crime has occurred, doesn't require you to comply and submit evidence against your case though.
Doesn't require. You keep using that word, but he already volunteered, for at least the crimes that they were suspicious of.
He volunteered the bit about "it wouldn't be good for me" he doesn't need to volunteer his password so the cops can make an easy case.
But no case needed, he's already admitted to it. Cases only matter when someone claims to be innocent. You've missed the entire point in every response. You aren't just not on the same page, you are reading a different book.
The rest of us are all discussing the same thing. We might have different opinions on how the situation will play out, but we are on the same topic. Every post you make is like you are answering a conversation on Reddit and don't realize where your posts are going.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Again, I'll walk this back (and I'm positive Scott will too) IF, IF the transcript shows that the cops never mentioned CP on the laptop before the defendant made that statement.
Right, we don't have all of the "evidence" here, but we have to make certain assumptions. We assume that the context is clear, we assume there wasn't duress, we assume that the cops are really cops and not breaking the law, we assume that the news article is accurate, etc. We aren't in a position to actually convict the guy, but the implication of the article seems to be that the cops can based on reasonable assumptions.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
The rest of us are all discussing the same thing. We might have different opinions on how the situation will play out, but we are on the same topic. Every post you make is like you are answering a conversation on Reddit and don't realize where your posts are going.
Right, for the play out thing - the judge might say - you know I'm not going to accept that statement as a straight out admission of guilt, therefore we're having a trial, and the jury can hear this statement - and they can decide what he meant by it.
