4 ms·
I don't think you understand the situation in this case. The person very clearly knew his phone was believed to have evidence of a crime. He then destroyed the
by ImJamal 1mo ago
I don't think you understand the situation in this case. The person very clearly knew his phone was believed to have evidence of a crime. He then destroyed the evidence on the phone. This is one of the most clear cases of destruction of evidence there is. The only hope he has is to use the fact that he was denied his lawyer.
Now to show you are moving the goal posts, go back to one of your previous posts and read "Had a crime been charged when the search was undertaken?" and another one "how are you supposed to know when your own property is evidence and when it's not, when you've committed no crime?"
You clearly were trying to make a claim that a crime needs to be charged to be destruction of evidence.
You are guilty of committing a crime regardless if you are found guilty. If I murder somebody and I am not found guilty in a court would you say I am not guilty of committing the crime of murder?
I'm not going to address anything else since it is a complete waste of time discussing this with you.
- rdiddly 1mo agoA crime not having been committed, one of the chief ways you would find out that something is "evidence" is by someone charging you with a crime, as I said, and notice that I do not claim that's the ONLY way to find out. But "finding out" i.e. knowing, is required, for the crime of destruction of evidence to be on the table, as you said. This part of the point doesn't apply to the Tunick case, as I said. RE being colloquially guilty of a crime, "Obviously we can talk about such a condition in everyday conversation," as I said. It's fine if you want to disengage; I've certainly had much more stimulating discussions, where it actually went somewhere, like a dance.