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:
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.
-
-
Interesting read. I am from the UK, so it totally doesn't actually matter - but I would agree with Scott here.
If the police say: "We think there is child porn on your laptop, please give us the password."
Then the person being interviewed says: "You know whats on there."
... regardless of password, or whatever else, you now know what is on there. They hung themselves.
If they said "No.", sure - no issue. But they didn't.
Guilty!
-
It reminds me of the movie "Law Abiding Citizen".
The suspect would "confess" to all kind of things but if you actually listened to what he said it wasn't a confession at all.
Not that a movie is real life but still.
