Actually, that is how it works. And if you don’t believe us, then take 10 minutes and do a brief web search and you will find the same information… In this situation the law matches common sense which says that most of the time you are allowed to erase things on your own phone and when it is a special case then you need to know it’s a special case for it to be a crime.
It is being used. The defense is moving to suppress evidence (his backpack and anything he said before he was locked up), and that’s what these days in court are all about.
The state is trying to tell a complicated story. They claim that he (a) wasn’t detained, (b) voluntarily gave them a fake ID because … nobody knows why, © he didn’t feel like he was being detained, and therefore (d) they arrested him for the fake ID, after which (e) they read him Miranda, and after that (f) they searched his bag as part of arresting him.
That lets them maximize the evidence against him. The problem for the prosecution is that probably the above is actually factually incorrect. It’s the judge’s job to determine exactly where the prosecution and cops are making shit up, which is why the hearings are happening right now. Later the judge will rule on what actually happened, and therefore what evidence can be admitted against him.
The proceedings right now are before the trial. No jury is watching this.
And doesn’t that just expose the underlying immorality even more? The elderly are told to spend down extra money. It’s common sense. You can’t take it with you. Plan as best you can, right?
Any housing provider or retirement center that can’t reasonably deal with the fact that some of their oldest residents might unexpectedly run out of cash, well, I have zero respect for them. Don’t open that kind of business if you aren’t ready for this kind of entirely predictable scenario. It’s just wrong.
You mean we have absolutely zero information in a situation where we’re responding to a post that literally gives us some information?
If you want to speculate about theoretical violent old women, I guess you can. But even then, let’s roll with it. So apparently you’re saying it’s possible that she’s violent and if so then it would be reasonable of them to throw her to the curb. So you think it’s okay if they throw her out to die, in that hypothetical. That’s your values. And I’m happy to say that I don’t mirror them.
You can play the centrist, but only if you throw away your morals. Even if she’s refusing to pay rent, it’s still simply appalling to throw her out. File a civil suit and collect the money in court or from her estate or something. After all, she’s 93. If you throw her out, she will probably die. It really is that simple… Or maybe you have different values. I hope not, but some people really are that cruel.
Is? It’s done already. But the bots got there years ago, so who really cares about now.
The article itself didn’t do a good job of explaining, but judges can punish the prosecution for false arrests. There are several issues.
The state claims he wasn’t detained, he voluntarily presented a fake ID, and then they arrested him for that. Later they held him for murder. That’s their claim… The defense is saying no, they detained him first (i.e., for murder), and he unwillingly gave them a fake ID and spoke to them.
One possible outcome: The judge sides with the prosecution that he wasn’t detained at first.
Another possible outcome: The judge sides with the defense and says that the prosecution needs to justify the initial detention, because the fake ID happened later. Then presumably the prosecution says that the cops were arresting him for murder. If they had probable cause or an arrest warrant, they could do that. So they’ll have to show evidence of that in court. If they can’t, then probably anything he said will be thrown out (no Miranda) and any evidence seized from his backpack will be inadmissible in any court case (unlawful search and seizure). Even if they can, then anything he said will still be thrown out (no Miranda).
There are some less likely outcomes as well, if somehow the defense could show that the pigs were acting with malice or something, but based on what we’ve seen so far, let’s suppose one of the above is what usually happens in situations like this. And usually the judge sides with the prosecutors.
Thanks for explaining. The article alone didn’t make it sound like the defense had a leg to stand on, but your wording shows that maybe they can get something here…
If he wasn’t detained, why was he blocked in, and why would he have given ID to the pigs? I think we would want to see body camera footage on this, and so would the judge, and depending on the details it’s quite possible that the fake ID charge and evidence could all be suppressed. Judges tend to be overly kind to the pigs, but not always.
And it doesn’t even matter if the pigs said or didn’t say “You’re detained.” If they asked him for ID but a reasonable person in his view would not have felt like they were free to leave, that was a detention, and the legal questions would need to be addressed.
That means there’s more money to be made by other more obscure countries, right?
I disagree. That would encourage more VPN companies to open up abroad. Two hundred countries and many don’t care what others think.
Right right, block the VPNs and destroy corporate infrastructure and WfH, and then everyone will just use more torrent clients or stream from international servers. It’s all good, my friend.
Organized? You mean like The Pirate Bay? We have had the tools for decades, my friend.
Haha not if you use a VPN or international websites or pirate that shit.
The war crimes don’t get pardons and have no statute of limitations.
Sorry, but you’re wrong here. Discussing the obvious implications (if CostCo wins, so does every other import company) is a natural thing to do in this location. If you don’t like it, don’t follow those threads.
That isn’t what most LLMs were designed for, though. It’s just one possible use case.
You think they haven’t started that?
I think your speculation is probably going to be fairly close to reality, but that makes their case very difficult to prove. If the FBI comes to my house and tells me that they’re investigating a crime and then I delete data, then probably I have broken the law. And I would have known it. So I would get convicted. But Border Patrol loves to go on fishing expeditions and search digital devices when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. And if that’s the case, then I don’t have any obligation to preserve the data. And it doesn’t even matter what Border Patrol claims later because the legal standard is going to be what I believed at the time that they tried to go on their fishing expedition.
I think we can safely conclude that there was no warrant because no one has reported there was a warrant and that is the kind of thing that they would have reported. And if they had one they would have seized the phone itself. So we can reasonably conclude that this is a situation where they told the guy, unlock your phone or we’re going to keep you locked up or we’re going to take your phone.