Comment on Diabolical
vateso5074@lemmy.world 1 day agoIdeally. But you just confessed to it through your note anyways, and if there are existing damages, that could be enough to make a reasonable case against you. They have more evidence than you have not-evidence, if that makes sense.
If you didn’t get the video footage yourself, they have no obligation to reveal any part of it that would indicate your innocence. They’d show footage of you leaving the note, they’d show images of damage, and a judge or jury would side with them.
they have no obligation to reveal any part of it that would indicate your innocence
So you just don’t understand how the legal system works at all, amigo. What you described is completely false. One of the first phases of any court case is discovery, where the opposing party supplies the evidence that they have to support their case. Not including this type of evidence during discovery could get an attorney disbarred and a court case thrown out entirely.
To expand on that, the prosecution wouldn’t have an obligation to reveal that evidence to the jury, but they would have an obligation to provide it to the court and/or defense during discovery. And, you know, that seems like something the defense would both use and request if it were missing.
Stores don’t typically keep security feeds for that long, though, is the point I was trying to make. There might be nothing to get during discovery other than the snippet provided to the person who initially requested it as evidence.
And which bit of damage did you confess to? They have no evidence of what you confessed to doing.
If they had an existing ding on their car from smacking into a guard rail or opening their door into a post.
The malicious angle is they see an opportunity to blame someone else for their own fuckup and extract money from it. Or the stupidity angle is people honestly forget but will suddenly have the synapses in their brain cross to associate existing damages with this confession they just received.
And how do you prove that ding is the one the note leaver caused?
They confessed. Unless there’s verifiable evidence that the damage was pre-existing, there is a case to be made.
In the US at least, this is in civil court, so there’s no “beyond reasonable doubt” expectation when making a judgment. Person A claims someone damaged their car, presents evidence of damage, a confession, and a visual connection to the confession and Person B.
What if they removed the word “hit” from the note.
So it just said “I accidentally your car”
Then you’re not really admitting to anything.
Would also probably frustrate the guy even more.
Just go super ambiguous
“Sorry about your car. Call me.”
“Sorry about that, please call me! I have the thing that fell out”
FenrirIII@lemmy.world 1 day ago
After reading your posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that you know absolutely nothing about the law or how a case would be tried.
Please do not listen to this person on any legal matters.
ttyybb@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Or anyone else that your arnt paying to be your lawer, even if they are a lawyer.
vateso5074@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think you might not know how litigious Americans are, and how little evidence is really required to bring in a civil trial to present to judges who just couldn’t care less.
It doesn’t take much to make a case against someone in an unfair system.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
So they use the video as evidence of the person placing the note. The same video the defence will view to show that their client did not hit the car.