Submitted 6 days ago by SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com to [deleted]
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/8948c914-4de4-4b7b-8ffa-a5fe633a2bbe.webp
From the last time I saw this, what I understood was, the lawyer isn’t asking the witness if there’s a possibility the person in question was alive, the lawyer is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question was not only undeniably dead, but also impossible for the person to be alive.
Source: my memory from a random comment on the internet, pay it forward
This exchange never happened. There is no person in question. It’s a joke.
Yeah that makes sense. I used to work in a position where I had to testify in court about the results of independent findings the court requested. There were often lines of questioning that were about establishing details. The questions seemed silly, but it wasn’t about the specific pieces of information it was about establishing that “Thing A” was absolutely true (or false) as of a specific point on a timeline. I never had any fun exchanges like this though lol.
Funny and technically perjury.
Would it really be (serious question, as I dont know a whole lot about legal matters)? My limited understanding was that perjury is lying under oath, and sarcasm, while it does involve saying untrue statements, isnt considered lying in everyday speech because what it actually communicates is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words. Since laws deal with humans and not computers, my assumption would be that it probably works in such a way as to depend on what message a person is actually communicating rather than the precise syntax by which they communicate it?
Sarcasm does not fly in court. Everything you say can and will be used against you. You do not have to be the defendant for that to apply.
Sarcasm is pretty much by definition lying to insult someone or something.
Best case scenario the judge holds you in contempt of court. Worst case you go to prison for perjury.
Sarcasm and humor rarely work in your favor in a court setting, it’s true. That was a pretty inane line of questioning, however.
He’s an expert witness who’s probably old and sick of answering questions like this because even if they’re (idiotically) technically necessary, they sound incredibly stupid.
Then the atheist professor dropped the chalk and, to the surprise of that haughty demon, it did not break…
5th degree burn!
This is fucked😭😭😭
RagingHungryPanda@lemm.ee 6 days ago
For those who don’t know, this is a decades old joke.
PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk 6 days ago
Is that a picture of a tweet of a printout of a MS Notepad file that was probably cut and pasted from a forwarded email, newsgroup post, or web page?
my head hurts
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Next time you see it it’ll be a 1-minute mp4 with a loop of some crap music that means a specific vibe to 15 year olds.
I don’t know how much more bandwidth inefficient we can make it after that.
sznowicki@lemmy.world 6 days ago
We need bash.org have come back
Dasus@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Oh that’s unlocked some memories. Wow what a flashback.
TehWorld@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Seriously, older than the internet.