3 ms·

Destroyed evidence of what?

• gruez 3mo ago
  Destroyed materials that might be relevant to an investigation that you know exists.
  • morkalork 3mo ago
    Hmmmm sounds like the government can launch endless bs investigations, wait for their target to throw something (anything, a piece of paper, whatever) in the trash then charge them with destruction of evidence. A infinite guilty-change glitch if you will.
    • gruez 3mo ago
      That's what judges are for, so cute hacks like "putting everyone in the US under "investigation" won't work. That said, if I was under investigation, you bet your ass I'd be extra diligent in ensuring I'm not accidentally shredding any documents.
    • nearbuy 3mo ago
      What you're describing is malicious prosecution or abuse of process. It's illegal and it would destroy the prosecution's case. Not only that, but the victim could sue for damages.
      • tantalor 3mo ago
        Sort of like deliberately targeting somebody for his alleged association with the movement against Cop City?
        • nearbuy 3mo ago
          Yes, much like that. If he hadn't destroyed evidence, he could have argued it was malicious prosecution.
• grey413 3mo ago
  To quote the article: suspected terrorism activities because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City Complete horseshit on many levels, but presumably a legally valid investigation.
  • fluidcruft 3mo ago
    Seems like they could have had a warrant in that case.