• 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.

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

            We’re going around in circles here. There’s no way you can know that. There’s no way the court can know that. Because it’s gone.

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

              You NEED to know that before pressing charges. You CANNOT just break into people’s stuff on a whim. What the fuck.

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

                We’re not taking about breaking into people’s stuff, we’re talking about destruction of evidence. The phone was collected as evidence. Then its contents were destroyed.

                • Shayeta@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  The time at which the phone was wiped the phone did not meet the legal requirements to be considered evidence. Therefore wiping the phone at that time does not constitute as destruction of evidence. You are conflating the legal definition of “evidence” with the layman’s definition of “evidence”.

                  • matlag@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    I think both your points are compatible.

                    He’s saying you can’t destroy evidence.

                    You’re saying they were no evidence because the charges were made up with nothing to back the suspicion. The system was abused.
                    He’s telling you that’s for a court to determine, you can’t just claim it.

                    I’m no expert here. Just trying to understand myself.

    • 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.