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? 🤔

  • 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.