That’s not evidence that he wasn’t legitimately in the house, it’s lack of evidence that he was legitimately in the house.
The point of the investigation is to collect evidence, and the first sources they tapped came up dry.
Semantic distinction, and not AFAICT of much importance.
Sort of - the request for ID didn’t come up dry, it came up with a contradiction of Currie’s claim that he lived there. Evidence that you live somewhere is evidence that you don’t live anywhere else.
But “investigation” is what the police were doing. They wanted Currie to sit down to maintain control of the situation while they investigated whether or not he was legitimately in the house. He refused, so they tried to cuff him, and he resisted, so they pepper sprayed him.
Regards,
Shodan
No, they are both pieces of evidence that he doesn’t live there, and they are evidence strong enough to lead a reasonable person to conclude he might not live there. So, the police were not only entirely justified in doing what they did, but would have been justified in arresting him had contradictory evidence not arrived, in the form of a foster-parent.
Yes, it sucks for him, but that doesn’t justify his making it worse. We don’t expect the police to only act when they’re certain that crime is happening, but when they reasonably believe it is. Report of break-in, open door, and failure to ID as resident add up to a reasonable chance he’s not supposed to be there.
I thought you said they already had evidence that he was not legitimately in the house. Did that “evidence” in any way reduce the need for further investigation? No, it did not.
At best, these facts failed to contradict the neighbor’s suspicions. Nothing about the facts suggest that this boy was not legitimately a resident or guest in the home, the facts are entirely silent on that point.
What the police were hoping for, and didn’t get, was immediate factual refutation of the neighbor’s claim, an ID with the correct address, or pictures with the boy in them.
And they failed miserably in getting that to happen until they escalated to pepper spray and handcuffs. They most likely did not need to escalate to such measures, if they’d used some common sense.
The report of the neighbor that he did not live there, and the address on his ID, are both pieces of evidence that he was not legitimately in the house. As mentioned, this is a semantic quibble with no relevance, because this -
is quite true.
But look at it from an SDMB point of view. If someone claims X, and then when asked for a cite produces documentation that says Y, this is not taken as a mere absence of evidence for X.
“Obama was born in Kenya.”
“Cite?”
“Here is his birth certificate.”
“That says he was born in Hawaii.”
Would you say that this was “lack of evidence” that he was born in Kenya? Same with the ID.
Regards,
Shodan
No, you are just an idiot.
Regards,
Shodan
Sick burn
He was not asked for a cite, his ID was taken during the pat down. He did not point to the pictures on the wall as proof that he lived there, it was simply noted by the police.
He was not asked, at any time prior to the spraying, to prove that he lived there. I don’t fault the cops for that, because they were trying to clear the home, and he didn’t give them time to complete that task. The cops looked at sources of information that were immediately available to them, and did not find anything to prove he lived there.
The lack of immediately available exculpatory information is not evidence of wrongdoing.
The fact that the neighbor reported him as a stranger, and the fact that his ID contradicted his assertion that he lived there, is evidence.
This is irrelevant to the example. Do you believe that documentation that says someone is born somewhere, or lives somewhere, is merely a lack of positive evidence that the person in question lives or was born somewhere else?
Regards,
Shodan
And I still reject your offer. Thanks for thinking about me, though.
Every single person who has ever moved has had a license that did not match their current address, for a period of time. All it says is that this is the address provided by the person when the license was issued. It does not, in any way, prove residence, or lack thereof.
Birth certificates don’t get updated.
In terms of relevance, data provided by someone after being asked to prove something is very different than data simply collected while that someone is in the area.
Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence?
I mildly disagree. Presumably the cop would have been a lot more sympathetic if the ID showed the current address, and looking at the address was a smart move.
However, you’re correct that it’s very minor evidence of not living at a particular place, easily explained.
And more importantly, there’s a very easy way to check on this.
INSTEAD OF: “Why does your address list somewhere else?”
SAY: “What’s your address?”
A robber is going to have a much harder time rattling off the street address of the house they’re in than a resident will, especially if you also ask for the zip code. It’s a better investigative question, AND it avoids escalation; suggesting the person is a lying burglar doesn’t do much to investigate, AND it escalates.
Here you are quite straightforwardly wrong. The reason they require you to update the identifying information on your ID is because it is intended to be proof of ID. That’s why we call it that.
If the cops ask you to prove your residence, and you show them your ID with your current address on it, they don’t then respond “this isn’t proof of residence”. They ask questions if it indicates that you live somewhere else.
In terms of whether it confirms or contradicts what you say? No, it isn’t.
First the cops looked at his ID and then they asked him where he lived, and compared what he said to the address on his ID. This is no different in terms of what it proves or disproves than asking him where he lives and then looking at the address on his ID to compare it with what he said.
These semantic quibbles are entertaining, but pointless. He said one thing and his ID said something else. Therefore the cops made him sit down and stop screaming and threatening while they figured out if he was telling the truth or not.
Regards,
Shodan
You with the face,
just out of curiosity, did the The lying whore thread teach you any lessons? If yes, what specific lessons? If not, why not?