Transcription (of iMessage exchange): “Hi, is this Paul?
Who is this
This is Erica from the dentist’s office. I got your number from your file
Pretty sure this violates Hippo but shoot your shot I guess
I’m not flirting with you. We have you on video stealing thousands of dollars of x-ray equipment”
That’s how it works actually - if you break the law while making the case, your case is invalid.
Sure, but the dental office has your phone number to be able to contact you for appointments, no law is broken in this fake internet screenshot.
lol do cops know this cuz that ain’t how it seems to be working
No, that’s not true at all. Police and prosecutors can’t (legally) break the law to make a case.
If a citizen breaks the law catching another citizen breaking the law there will probably be charges for both parties.
Erica from the dentist’s office didn’t “blow the case” by texting the thief.
Finally - and this is the most important bit that everyone seems to be missing - Erica didn’t commit a HIPAA violation. She used his phone number on file to text him, something my dentist’s office does to me as well. She didn’t share any personal information with a third party.
This is a gentle reminder that reading something in a meme does not make it factually true.
Thats why this needs to change.
If you commited murder and someone breaks the law to get you, you should still get convicted.
But the person breaking the law should have no immunity either and face the consequences of their actions. But if the person abused a position of power (police, politician, etc) they should face twice the punishment, one time for breaking the law and a second time for doing so in a trusted office.
That’s how you’ll end up in jail for no reason. If there’s no due process, anyone can Photoshop you in a crime scene for lulz. The law works as it should.
Yeah right. Thats why we have the situation we‘re in. Because the law works like it should.
Look at statistics of poc incarceration rates or other minorities as well as false convictions.
The law is always improvable as everything else is.
But to my original point, falsifying evidence does not mean you can convict someone based on that. It just means the person does not automatically go free, just that the person who did it goes away for a long time.
Please name examples if you think that there is a real benefit from letting someone go free for bad evidence except smart lawyers getting rich people off easily.
Some criminals tried to steal my mom’s flat through the court and a bit of corruption. That didn’t fly because she fought back, showed there was no due process and the national court put these fucks into jail, as well as punishing a corrupt judge.
If there were no laws regulating the process, she’d be homeless. So, go fuck yourself.
The first part was totally understandable and I am happy that your mom won that.
Your fault is that you assume that not having a “the house search where we found you’ve killed 20 people was illegal so have a good life” dismissal of evidence means we have no due process at all. This is called improvement of a running system.
And the last sentence is the reason I reported you. You sad person.
The only sad person here is you. Fuck off.