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
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days 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.

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

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days 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.