I was under the impression cops prefer people not carry a phone with them so they can't document cop crimes...
Clearly the correct action is to own one and simply not use it
The perfect catch-22. Carrying a smartphone? It will be seized, searched and used against you. Not carrying a smartphone? This fact itself is used as evidence against you. This is something straight outta NKVD playbook, Beria would be proud.
Good ol’ damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
In short, his argument in court is that the lack of evidence is evidence of criminal intent.
"How can you prove he was going to break the law?"
"Your honor he owned a cheap cell phone, doesn't that sound like he was using a burner"
"Lmao fair enough. After all what possible use is there for a burner phone besides criminal activity, and what possible use is there for a cheap, prepaid cell phone except as a burner"
No, more than likely that just makes you poor
Potato potahto
Yeah true
Anyone else get confused by the apparent contradiction between the title and the short description?
Here's a excerpt from the article that accurately describes the AG's (ridiculous) stance:
[...]according to Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, having a basic phone, or a phone with no data on it, or no phone at all in the year 2024, is evidence of criminal intent.
So the criminally insane are judges in the US. How original.
Another good reason to stay away from the US in general and Georgia in particular.
I hope this judge allowed the Asst AG to make a laughable ass of himself to later publicly shame him. But it’s the US and the South, so who knows?
I was under the impression cops prefer people not carry a phone with them so they can't document cop crimes...
Clearly the correct action is to own one and simply not use it
The perfect catch-22. Carrying a smartphone? It will be seized, searched and used against you. Not carrying a smartphone? This fact itself is used as evidence against you. This is something straight outta NKVD playbook, Beria would be proud.
Good ol’ damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
In short, his argument in court is that the lack of evidence is evidence of criminal intent.
"How can you prove he was going to break the law?"
"Your honor he owned a cheap cell phone, doesn't that sound like he was using a burner"
"Lmao fair enough. After all what possible use is there for a burner phone besides criminal activity, and what possible use is there for a cheap, prepaid cell phone except as a burner"
No, more than likely that just makes you poor
Potato potahto
Yeah true
Anyone else get confused by the apparent contradiction between the title and the short description?
Here's a excerpt from the article that accurately describes the AG's (ridiculous) stance:
So the criminally insane are judges in the US. How original.
Another good reason to stay away from the US in general and Georgia in particular.
I hope this judge allowed the Asst AG to make a laughable ass of himself to later publicly shame him. But it’s the US and the South, so who knows?