LogFAQs > #976179127

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, Database 12 ( 11.2023-? ), Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Indian student killed in US after cops run over her, officer seen laughing
Kloe_Rinz 09/19/23 6:34:26 PM #58:	LoZguy709 posted... The only thing I'm taking issue with isn't even relevant to the case at hand. Kloe_Rinz was basically using this as an example of what we should assume happens when cops don't have their cameras on when they should have them on. I don't think it's quite the same as destroying evidence after the fact, because again, there can be intervening causes. Tampering with evidence also doesn't result in an automatic guilty plea for most defendants (at least not procedurally), but it can be brought as its own separate charge. My main point is that it them turning off the camera be treated as highly important evidence, but it's not a definitive way to prove guilt. It is a way to prove guilt because the theres no reason they need to turn off the camera other than them being guilty <cite>Kloe_Rinz posted [p:976179127] in Indian stu... [t:80571088]...</cite> <quote>LoZguy709 posted... </cite><quote>The only thing I'm taking issue with isn't even relevant to the case at hand. Kloe_Rinz was basically using this as an example of what we should assume happens when cops don't have their cameras on when they should have them on.I don't think it's quite the same as destroying evidence after the fact, because again, there can be intervening causes. Tampering with evidence also doesn't result in an automatic guilty plea for most defendants (at least not procedurally), but it can be brought as its own separate charge.My main point is that it them turning off the camera be treated as highly important evidence, but it's not a definitive way to prove guilt.</quote>It is a way to prove guilt because the theres no reason they need to turn off the camera other than them being guilty </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1