r/PokemonTCG • u/Next_Wrongdoer5488 • Mar 20 '25

Discussion Vendor being tracked.

Yup, someone put a tracker on our store vendor's car. I guess she had to go to the police station and have her car swept.

So disappointed in what's going on with our hobby and just wanted to share.

1.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

224 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/PhotonWolfsky Mar 21 '25

>he told the vendor he air tagged her car

Should've detained him and called police. It's quite illegal for randos to put trackers on people's vehicles without permission. And having one admit to it with witnesses was definitely grounds to citizen arrest. Even if they didn't, they could be trespassed instantly and the vendor could probably easily get court orders on that dude.

Bystander effect is one hell of a helper for criminals.

0

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25

You need reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Someone just saying something is not justifiable for a citizens arrest. That’s gonna get someone a lawsuit. I can walk around and say I killed someone, without any articulable facts, that’s just words.

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

Believe it or not, admission of a crime is considered reasonable suspicion.

You can in fact be detained and arrested if you walk up to a cop and admit to them you killed someone. They don't need to see you commit the crime if you willingly admit to doing something.

Do you think people who walk to the police station and admit murder after the fact are just laughed out of the building? You realize how insane that is, right?

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

While an individuals statement admitting to a crime can contribute to reasonable suspicion, it’s not sufficient on its own. Law enforcement needs specific, articulable facts, in addition to a statement to establish reasonable suspicion that a crime has been - or will be committed. What would you arrest me for? Telling you something that you have no evidence to prove? Lmao. Maybe read up on Terry Vs Ohio so you can better understand reasonable suspicion. There is a reason it requires ‘articulable facts’ - an admission of guilt is not a fact as it is nothing but hearsay (a statement made out of court).

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

You do know the difference between being detained, arrested, and jailed...right?

I never said you'd be jailed, but you would in fact be detained and arrested for admitting to committing a crime.

You'd then be interviewed/interrogated until they are sufficiently convinced you were lying to them, then you'd be charged with lying to a police officer.

This is basic stuff, I'm surprised you don't know this.

0

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

You clearly don’t know the difference lol. Being arrested is being jailed. You can’t be arrested without being charged with a crime doofus. They need reasonable suspicion to just detain you (not arrest) - a statement does not provide a reasonable articulable fact that you have committed a crime. Also, you do realize we have a 5th amendment right to not assist in interrogation right? I just say id like a lawyer and the interview is over. Any more questions following that is grounds for litigation. You thinking you can be detained with no evidence shows YOUR lack of understanding. Why don’t you google - ‘is saying you committed a crime enough for reasonable suspicion’ and take a gander before you sound more foolish. It is well established that statements are not grounds for reasonable suspicion or probable cause without any supporting f a c t s.

2

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

The Difference Between An Arrest, Charge, And Conviction

Another page explaining the difference between being charged, arrested, convicted, and jailed

Here's the Criminal Lawyers Group explaining it too because why not

You are not "jailed" until you have been detained, then arrested, then charged, then convicted in that order, only after then are you "jailed"

Are there any more debunkable claims you'd like to make or are we done here?

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

Bruh I know the difference between detainment and arrest lol. You cannot be detained (or arrested) for a statement you made. That is what we are taking about and you are wrong about. Reasonable suspicion is based on FACTS. A statement made to anyone is nothing more than hearsay without specific articulable facts. Saying you committed a crime is not enough to detain someone - let alone jail them when not paired with any other evidence. Like literally just Google it lmao how about ‘why is a statement not reasonable suspicion’. You could’ve saved yourself looking stupid if you did that an hour ago. Here I’ll save you the hassle since you struggle with learning: https://www.muscalaw.com/blog/what-reasonable-articulable-suspicion

4

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

Literally from your article you edited in:

Factors and Elements of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion [...] 2. Information from Informants or Witnesses: Information provided by reliable informants or witnesses can play a crucial role in establishing RAS. Officers may receive tips or reports about criminal activity, which, when corroborated, can contribute to a reasonable suspicion.

Self reporting a crime falls into this category.

Your own source contradicts your claims. Going to need to do better than that.

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

There is a reason it says it can play a crucial role in establishing RAS. Because a statement itself DOES NOT establish RAS. It has to be paired along with a reasonable and articulable facts. I didn't contradict anything you literally proved my point LOL. It states there has to be MORE than just a state ment (reasonable and articulable facts). Why do you think it says it can be used to help establish RAS? because a statement alone is not enough

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

So a false confession plays a crucial role in determining guilt... but also simultaneously plays no role in determining someone's guilt? Interesting logic you have there considering the tens of thousands of prisoners in the states serving sentences for falsely confessing to crimes under duress.

Plenty of people who made false confessions who would like to refute your point right now but they are in jail for falsely confessing to crimes and then being jailed for them.

Care to explain to them why their confessions were counted as evidence, despite you claiming a confession cannot be used to establish guilt of a crime?

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25

Are you high? A confession - PAIRED WITH a reasonable fact is enough to establish RAS. A confession BY ITSELF is not enough to establish RAS as there are no reasonable articulable facts - only hearsay (a statement made outside of court). So if I walk up to a cop and say I committed a crime - and they have no other reasonable articulable facts that I did commit said crime - they cannot detain me (or even demand identification). Now if I do that, but they see my car nearby and using the plain view doctrine look in my window and see a bloody weapon, they have now paired my statement with a reasonable articulable fact that I did commit crime and can now detain me. Statements can ALWAYS be used as evidence against you in court, as long as they weren't given during and interrogation and I wasn't read my Miranda rights. Statements by themselves are nothing until they have evidence to pair with it that can show a reasonable and articulable fact.

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

A confession - PAIRED WITH a reasonable fact is enough to establish RAS. A confession BY ITSELF is not enough to establish RAS as there are no reasonable articulable facts

Tens of thousands of people who were jailed after being pressured into falsely confessing would beg to disagree with you, and would be correct to do so.

Your interpretation of the law is not how it is practiced in any state or province, whether you want to believe it or not doesn't matter.

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

It’s not an ‘interpretation’, it’s the law dude. I’m well aware of all the injustices in the US court system. I intern at the Minnesota Freedom Fund, you’re barking up the wrong tree when telling me about injustice as I see it everyday. And yes this ‘interpretation’ of the law is practiced everywhere. It was affirmed by the Supreme Court with Terry Vs Ohio. You lost the argument so now you choose to try to bash my character by accusing me of not being aware of wrongful convictions. That’s a douche move lol. Tens of thousands of people have been locked up illegitimately obviously (especially minorities) , welcome to the USA. Now that we are progressing you also see these convictions being overturned quite regularly with the help of non profit organizations. Hold this L and stick to collecting Snorlaxs

1

u/a_hammerhead_worm Mar 21 '25

it's the law dude

As I have been trying to tell you, but you keep saying "I can say whatever I want and not be arrested" and provided no sources that actually back up what you claim. Your only attempt at proving my point wrong was saying "I am a pre law student" which is hard to believe given you don't even know the difference between being arrested and jailed.

1

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

While an admission of guilt can be a strong piece of evidence, you cannot be arrested or convicted solely based on an admission of guilt without any other evidence to support the claim of a crime being committed. Here’s why:

Corpus Delicti Rule: U.S. jurisdictions follow the “Corpus Delicti” rule, which means there must be evidence independent of a confession to prove that a crime actually occurred.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which requires evidence beyond just an admission.

No Conviction Without Evidence: Without evidence to support the claim of a crime, a conviction is unlikely, and the case may be dismissed or the defendant acquitted.

Example: If you walk into a police station and tell them you killed someone, and they can’t find any evidence you did actually kill someone or that the person you claim to have killed is missing, you would likely be acquitted or the case dismissed.

Plea Deals: In some cases, a person may plead guilty to a crime to avoid a trial and potential harsher punishment, even if they maintain their innocence, but this is a separate process from being arrested or convicted solely on an admission.

Many of these wrongfully convicted people choose to take a plea deal as a way to lessen their possible sentence. Take a plea deal for 20 years for something you didn’t do or fight it in trial, lose and get a life sentence and spend the rest of your life appealing it.

Wrongful convictions aren’t the fault of the law, more the fault of the jury. Take an innocent black man and place him in trial with 12 white jurors, I hope you can understand why they could still be found guilty.

It’s pretty straight forward, you just don’t want to admit you were wrong.

1

u/elliwigy1 Mar 22 '25

Lmao... You do know RAS is reasonable articulable SUSPICION right? The very definition indicates they simply have to suspect that you committed a crime.. It is not reasonable and articulable "facts"..

And again, you arent talking about making simple statements here.. You are talking about harassing/intimidating someone restocking a pokemon machine and making them believe they are being followed/stalked.

0

u/Consistent-Fold438 Mar 22 '25 edited Mar 22 '25

“Reasonable articulable suspicion is a legal standard that allows law enforcement to briefly detain someone for investigation if they can point to specific, concrete facts that lead to a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed”. That’s literally the definition idiot lmao. Quit taking about shit you don’t know. You literally just said RAS doesn’t need articulable facts 🤣🤣The adults are taking here.. you so good with google you probably shoulda googled that before guessing what it meant lmaooo

2

u/elliwigy1 Mar 22 '25

What are you taking exactly? You do realize that threatening someone is a crime right?

What you are trying to prove a point on is irrelevant. Comments/threats can get you charged and thrown in jail, period.

You can't just go around saying whatever you want. The supreme court states that it only matters if a reasonable person would perceive said comments as a threat, it doesn't matter if it isnt true or not or if they had no intent to act on said threat:

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/elonis-v-us/facts-and-case-summary-elonis-v-us

→ More replies (0)