• Shayeta@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    For evidence to possibly exist, you need to be charged with a crime first. Evidence exists within context of a charge. No charge - no evidence.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      LOL what!? So you’re saying law enforcement has never obtained evidence without first charging someone with a crime!?

      E: if you’re downvoting this, you are a moron. You cannot charge someone with a crime without any evidence. The evidence comes first.

      • Shayeta@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m saying you cant “destroy evidence” if you haven’t been charged with anything since at that point it isn’t considered evidence.

        • artyom@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          This is just complete insanity. You live in a fictional universe. That’s not how any of this works.

          • Shayeta@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            “Ah yes, that piece of paper you wrote something on a week ago and threw away that we have no idea what was on it? That is actually now evidence, and since you disposed of it you are now being charged with destruction of evidence.”

            The way things are going it might actually become that way. And then you’ll see true insanity.

            • artyom@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              But it wasn’t a week ago. He was actively being investigated for a crime at the time.

              • Shayeta@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 days ago

                You have a right to not incriminate yourself. Being investigated for a crime implies probable cause, which this instance lacks unless I’m misreading the article.

              • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 days ago

                No he wasn’t. He was being harassed because he protested cops previously. They had nothing on him. They still have nothing on him.