3 ms·

Evidence of what? Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of. Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence. The no

Evidence of what? Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of. Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence. The normal threshold to accuse is a "reasonable, articulable suspicion." This does not meet that criteria.

gruez 2mo ago
Well that's the thing with destroying evidence. If you destroyed it, it becomes harder (or impossible) to prove you did the crime. That's why it's not uncommon for people to be only charged with stuff like "obstruction of justice" rather than the actual crime they allegedly did.
- tosti 2mo ago
  But you can't assume someone committed a crime.
  - mingus88 2mo ago
    In this case, the authorities are claiming they were looking for CSAM. So wiping the phone hindered a valid investigation. They can say anything they want. They hold all the power. This will never change until enough people take matters into their own hands, as the system has been compromised.
    - Capricorn2481 2mo ago
      They think a well known protester who was savvy enough to wipe their phone was crossing the border with CSAM on their phone? Do people buy this shit?
  - rootusrootus 2mo ago
    The evidence on your phone may be against someone else, not you. Still evidence.
- bot403 2mo ago
  And what if he was erasing a steamy affair with a border patrol agent? That's not illegal, but releasing knowledge of it could be damaging to all parties for no reason.
- markhahn 2mo ago
  if the only evidence of a crime is on your phone, what kind of crime is it? we should always be asking: is this the only way you can prove the accusation? just because it would make LEO life easier - that's not justification for violating the constitution. an consider what this case teaches us: clean up your devices before you cross a border. how does that even help the goal of law enforcement?
tempodox 2mo ago
> Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence. In theory. In practice, this is a hopelessly outdated supposition.
15155 2mo ago
Destroying evidence or items believed to be evidence is a crime in itself, regardless of whether or not the original "evidence" or lack thereof pertains to a crime.
refurb 2mo ago
> Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of. This is 100% untrue. You can be guilty of destroying evidence that includes no criminal activity whatsoever.

gruez 2mo ago

Well that's the thing with destroying evidence. If you destroyed it, it becomes harder (or impossible) to prove you did the crime. That's why it's not uncommon for people to be only charged with stuff like "obstruction of justice" rather than the actual crime they allegedly did.

tosti 2mo ago
But you can't assume someone committed a crime.
- mingus88 2mo ago
  In this case, the authorities are claiming they were looking for CSAM. So wiping the phone hindered a valid investigation. They can say anything they want. They hold all the power. This will never change until enough people take matters into their own hands, as the system has been compromised.
  - Capricorn2481 2mo ago
    They think a well known protester who was savvy enough to wipe their phone was crossing the border with CSAM on their phone? Do people buy this shit?
- rootusrootus 2mo ago
  The evidence on your phone may be against someone else, not you. Still evidence.
bot403 2mo ago
And what if he was erasing a steamy affair with a border patrol agent? That's not illegal, but releasing knowledge of it could be damaging to all parties for no reason.
markhahn 2mo ago
if the only evidence of a crime is on your phone, what kind of crime is it? we should always be asking: is this the only way you can prove the accusation? just because it would make LEO life easier - that's not justification for violating the constitution. an consider what this case teaches us: clean up your devices before you cross a border. how does that even help the goal of law enforcement?

tempodox 2mo ago

> Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence. In theory. In practice, this is a hopelessly outdated supposition.

15155 2mo ago

Destroying evidence or items believed to be evidence is a crime in itself, regardless of whether or not the original "evidence" or lack thereof pertains to a crime.

refurb 2mo ago

> Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of. This is 100% untrue. You can be guilty of destroying evidence that includes no criminal activity whatsoever.