I mean, we know they can be used as evidence against you, but what if I was actually just chilling and watching Youtube videos at home? Can my spying piece of shit phone ironically save me? 🤔

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Wrong, that’s the opposite of how reasonable doubt works. It is the prosecutor’s job to prove beyond doubt that the defendent is guilty of the charges. The defendent does not need to prove they are innocent.

    If the prosecutor can’t prove that the defendent is lying about the alibi, then they’ve failed at their job.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.

      • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        it seems too flimsy

        Okay, then the cops will have no problem proving you were elsewhere at the time, if its a lie. Until they’ve proved it and convinced a jury of that, you’re 100% innocent.

        Seriously, it’s not your concern as a defendent to prove your innocence. If they can’t prove you’re lying about such a flimsy alibi, then what kind of case could they possibly have against you anyway?

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”

          Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.

    • Professorozone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Are you sure? Sounds like how it used to be, you know, before people were taken off the streets by masked men.

      • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        The commenter is still completely wrong, then. In that case there is no due process and you’re just guilty because people with guns say so.