3 ms·

This is non-sequitur. "Investigating crimes" entails knowledge that a crime has actually occurred, and deliberately seeking information specifically related to

by zahlman 3mo ago

This is non-sequitur. "Investigating crimes" entails knowledge that a crime has actually occurred, and deliberately seeking information specifically related to that crime; "fishing for circumstantial evidence" does not.

DANmode 3mo ago
You would hope.
- zahlman 3mo ago
  There's no "hope" involved here. I'm talking about what the words actually mean.
  - DANmode 3mo ago
    Why not consider how they’re actually used in practice by law enforcement? Pretty big part of the conversation.
    - zahlman 2mo ago
      Because the entire point of my comment was to point out a logical fallacy, not to argue the matter at hand.
rileymat2 3mo ago
Being located in an area of a crime is circumstantial evidence. Any info on what drivers license plates drove by a camera is absolutely circumstantial evidence to a crime in the area that is known to have occurred, almost definitionally.
- rileymat2 3mo ago
  Step one get a list of people in the area. Step two look at drivers license photos for the person that most closely matches the description. Step three take the person that most looked like the described person and ask a witness with a poor memory if that was the person. Step four convict.