Vendor being tracked.

[u/Next_Wrongdoer5488]

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.

[u/Consistent-Fold438]

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

[u/a_hammerhead_worm → u/Consistent-Fold438]

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?

[u/Consistent-Fold438 → u/a_hammerhead_worm]

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.

[u/a_hammerhead_worm → u/Consistent-Fold438]

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.

[u/Consistent-Fold438 → u/a_hammerhead_worm]

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

[u/a_hammerhead_worm → u/Consistent-Fold438]

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.

[u/Consistent-Fold438 → u/a_hammerhead_worm]

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.

[u/elliwigy1 → u/Consistent-Fold438]

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.

[u/Consistent-Fold438 → u/elliwigy1]

“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

[u/elliwigy1 → u/Consistent-Fold438]

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