5 ms·

Couldn't he just show the police his exact bike route for that day? It would show him passing the house only momentarily. That's probably more than enough for t

by jb775 7y ago

Couldn't he just show the police his exact bike route for that day? It would show him passing the house only momentarily. That's probably more than enough for them to eliminate his as a suspect, especially considering they have access to Google's metadata for cross-reference.

quadrifoliate 7y ago
That's not the point. What if he stopped to have a drink of water like 10 minutes from there? Innocent people who happened to be in the vicinity should not have to explain their every moment on some day months in the past because the police don't want to spend time doing more detailed investigations and interviewing potential eyewitnesses.
HarryHirsch 7y ago
You are presumed innocent. In civics class you learn that the prosecution has to prove your guilt (that's bullshit, of course, because you'll be offered a plea deal and have the choice between a copping a plea and finding yourself before a crooked jury that would convict a ham sandwich), but even so, why would you talk to the police and offer them ammunition that can be twisted into a story against you?
- cat199 7y ago
  > You are presumed innocent. This is once your case makes it to court. Police/Prosecutors are looking to find/prosecute the culprit, and will assume guilt where they think it makes sense - the court then confirms/denies if this assumed guilt was correct in a trial.
cesarb 7y ago
> It would show him passing the house only momentarily. Passing the house momentarily (three times within an hour, according to the article) could mean he was checking out the house as a potential target. That's probably more than enough to mark him as a suspect. Were he the culprit, he could have then turned off the phone, or hid it within some distant bushes making it look like he stopped to rest, while actually doing the burglary.
sedachv 7y ago
Trying to "explain" things to the police is a very bad idea: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-talk-police-20160826-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-talk-...
- LeoTinnitus 7y ago
  Talking to cops is like being questioned by your parents as a kid. They assume the worst and don't care if they're wrong.
- JensRex 7y ago
  There's also this classic talk, about why talking to the police is a terrible idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

by jb775 7y ago

quadrifoliate 7y ago

That's not the point. What if he stopped to have a drink of water like 10 minutes from there? Innocent people who happened to be in the vicinity should not have to explain their every moment on some day months in the past because the police don't want to spend time doing more detailed investigations and interviewing potential eyewitnesses.

HarryHirsch 7y ago

You are presumed innocent. In civics class you learn that the prosecution has to prove your guilt (that's bullshit, of course, because you'll be offered a plea deal and have the choice between a copping a plea and finding yourself before a crooked jury that would convict a ham sandwich), but even so, why would you talk to the police and offer them ammunition that can be twisted into a story against you?

cat199 7y ago
> You are presumed innocent. This is once your case makes it to court. Police/Prosecutors are looking to find/prosecute the culprit, and will assume guilt where they think it makes sense - the court then confirms/denies if this assumed guilt was correct in a trial.

cesarb 7y ago

> It would show him passing the house only momentarily. Passing the house momentarily (three times within an hour, according to the article) could mean he was checking out the house as a potential target. That's probably more than enough to mark him as a suspect. Were he the culprit, he could have then turned off the phone, or hid it within some distant bushes making it look like he stopped to rest, while actually doing the burglary.

sedachv 7y ago

Trying to "explain" things to the police is a very bad idea: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-talk-police-20160826-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-talk-...

LeoTinnitus 7y ago
Talking to cops is like being questioned by your parents as a kid. They assume the worst and don't care if they're wrong.
JensRex 7y ago
There's also this classic talk, about why talking to the police is a terrible idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE