Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Destroying evidence and arson are both generally graded as felonies
I think the point the OP was making was this...assume someone came to your house and you shot them point blank. Problem is that your security footage picked up the crime. Days later you get wind that the police want to review your surveillance footage so you destroy any trace.
The gist is you'd rather face a sentence for destruction of evidence than murder.
I think the point the OP was making was this...assume someone came to your house and you shot them point blank. Problem is that your security footage picked up the crime. Days later you get wind that the police want to review your surveillance footage so you destroy any trace.
The gist is you'd rather face a sentence for destruction of evidence than murder.
If I'm reading the question correctly...
I think you're reading it correctly, and the OP has raised a valid point. In many instances, like your example, it would actually be advantageous to destroy evidence and risk an obstruction charge rather than allow that evidence to be used against you.
I think the point the OP was making was this...assume someone came to your house and you shot them point blank. Problem is that your security footage picked up the crime. Days later you get wind that the police want to review your surveillance footage so you destroy any trace.
The gist is you'd rather face a sentence for destruction of evidence than murder.
If I'm reading the question correctly...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhitp
I think you're reading it correctly, and the OP has raised a valid point. In many instances, like your example, it would actually be advantageous to destroy evidence and risk an obstruction charge rather than allow that evidence to be used against you.
You are both precisely right. And I'm wondering how lawyers or police or people in general deal with this. There are situations where you just know someone did something, but you need the proof. And if they destroy the evidence, that seems like proof in itself to me, but the could feign an accident or whatever. Tough situation to deal with.
You are both precisely right. And I'm wondering how lawyers or police or people in general deal with this. There are situations where you just know someone did something, but you need the proof. And if they destroy the evidence, that seems like proof in itself to me, but the could feign an accident or whatever. Tough situation to deal with.
It depends on whether the destroyer had reason to know the evidence would be valuable to an investigation. If a reasonable person would have or should have known that, the destruction of evidence would likely be looked at as strong evidence of guilt.
It depends on whether the destroyer had reason to know the evidence would be valuable to an investigation. If a reasonable person would have or should have known that, the destruction of evidence would likely be looked at as strong evidence of guilt.
As long as you destroy all your old security tapes, you can say this was your regular routine. You only keep them for a few weeks then tape over them. And you only tape over them so many times before you destroy them due to declining quality. So this was destroyed because that's what you always do.
As long as you destroy all your old security tapes, you can say this was your regular routine. You only keep them for a few weeks then tape over them. And you only tape over them so many times before you destroy them due to declining quality. So this was destroyed because that's what you always do.
And that would work, if it can't be shown that you had reason to think that law enforcement or civil court would want to see that. If you erased a murder tape, aint nobody gonna believe you didn't know.
And that would work, if it can't be shown that you had reason to think that law enforcement or civil court would want to see that. If you erased a murder tape, aint nobody gonna believe you didn't know.
"I don't watch the tapes unless I noticed something happened on my property. I didn't notice anything broken or missing or anything unusual, and that tape was worn, so I went ahead and destroyed it on schedule."
Now that wouldn't work if they found a body within view of your camera the next day, but since you know you have a camera, you'd be stupid to leave any visible evidence that would attract attention. Make sure the body is hidden well enough that the police don't find it. They won't start their missing persons investigation for the obligatory 72 hours (I think it is). And hopefully they don't get around to finding the body or interviewing you for a few weeks.
[quote=LeeHoLee;57696880]"I don't watch the tapes unless I noticed something happened on my property. I didn't notice anything broken or missing or anything unusual, and that tape was worn, so I went ahead and destroyed it on schedule."
Again, if the person would have or should have had reason to know....playing stupid will not work if the person would have or should have had reason to know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
