3 ms·
I think it's important to realize that what constitutes a lie in a legal framework under oath is often completely different than several of the myriad definitio
by deveac 13y ago
I think it's important to realize that what constitutes a lie in a legal framework under oath is often completely different than several of the myriad definitions of lies found in popular culture as well as lies that are civilly actionable in conjunction with sales transactions.
The closest fit from your link (only listed lie I saw that pertained to legal proceedings):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Perjury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Perjury
doesn't speak of omission, but rather only material representations that are verifiably false.
If you're seeing something that I'm not, let me know.
- 16s 13y agoWhether you fully misrepresent the story (tell a complete lie) or omit a portion of the story (tell a partial lie), they are both still lying. A partial lie is not more noble than a complete one.
- deveac 13y agoI guess the point that I'm trying to make is that this does not appear to be the case based upon the source you cited.
- 300bps 13y agoWhether you fully misrepresent the story (tell a complete lie) or omit a portion of the story (tell a partial lie), they are both still lying. This is completely and utterly wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission
- pseingatl 13y agoLet's say a DEA agent is testifying and I ask him, "why did you stop the truck?" If he gives me a bunch of malarkey about a unreadable tag or a broken tail light instead of telling me about the NSA intercept, he has committed perjury. Pure and simple.
- sgustard 13y agoI take "the whole truth" clause of the oath taken by witnesses to disallow omitting relevant facts.