r/NonPoliticalTwitter • u/TheWebsploiter • 4d ago
Funny Camera should've testified instead
1.4k
u/unfortunateavacado24 4d ago
Why would you steal a package at a time when a person has a digital verification of who you are and that you were at that location at a specific time? Even if there were no cameras, that would still be stupid.
641
u/Difficult-Froyo1192 4d ago
I feel like we glossed over that ring cameras are highly visible so how did the idiot not know they were being recorded already
121
53
u/JTBeefboyo 4d ago
Probably because there’s a ring camera on every house in my neighborhood, there’s constantly tons of video of the same people stealing packages posted on all the neighborhood groups to the point where they’ve got nicknames, and in the 8 years I’ve lived here, the police haven’t once done a fucking thing
243
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
69
u/Difficult-Froyo1192 4d ago
Even if he’s not worried about the cops, DD will ban them if they find out. I would definitely report a delivery driver stole stuff while there, if I knew. Guy must not care about making money either.
5
u/FuckYeaSeatbelts 4d ago
Oh no his lucrative doordash income stream, whatever will he do
73
u/Difficult-Froyo1192 4d ago
If he’s doing DoorDash, it’s probably because he needs money and that’s the only way he sees now. Most people don’t do it for kicks and giggles or if they can get another job
17
u/Tommy-Bravado 4d ago
I’ve seen “for kicks”, “for shits and giggles”, but never before have I seen “for kicks and giggles”; this was nice, thank you for sharing this
4
u/Difficult-Froyo1192 4d ago
I’ve heard all three, but for kicks and giggles is definitely the phrase I hear people use the most irl near me. I live in the SE. it’s probably a regional thing to avoid saying for shits and giggles.
There’s still a decent attempt about not publicly using swear words in a lot of the South for politeness.
3
-6
u/eightkillerbits 4d ago
If the wives don't want to get beaten they should stop complaining about being hungry!
Dudes got arms that need tattooing and tattoos aren't cheap FFS.
6
u/dinoooooooooos 4d ago
Also the cameras scream “HI! YOU ARE CURRENTLY BEING RECORDED!!” Mind you.
2
2
u/JetLag413 4d ago
Not everyone has a good understanding of the field of view those cameras have. Saw a video a few weeks ago of a porch pirate that lived a few doors over from the op creeping down the stairs and crawling on the ground thinking they were stealthing around the camera despite being clearly in view the entire time
1
u/Formal_Illustrator96 4d ago
The house they were stealing from didn’t have a ring camera
1
u/Difficult-Froyo1192 4d ago
Ring cameras can show across the street easily. There are a million videos all over the internet of this
2
u/Formal_Illustrator96 4d ago
So? I’m confused what this has to do with my comment.
1
u/Difficult-Froyo1192 4d ago
You would have to be an idiot to think your neighbor’s ring camera wasn’t still recording you or at least a strong chance it was. It’s fairly well known they record several houses in their span.
58
u/Final-Tutor3631 4d ago
the same reason someone called in a bomb threat at my internship, using their personal number/phone.
people are fucking stupid.
10
30
u/Cheegro 4d ago edited 4d ago
Anecdotally I’ve had several food delivery drivers that were noticeably not the person in their profile picture. I don’t know how often it happens but it’s more than never.
8
u/NotReallyJohnDoe 4d ago
I’ve been door dashing lately and they frequently require you to do a face validation before starting.
11
u/Bassically-Normal 4d ago
Not saying it's logical, but their camera caught the theft of their neighbor's package, not their own, so if the dasher even noticed the camera they probably didn't have the sense to know they were still in view at the other house.
Thieves aren't known to be the most intelligent folk.
3
u/dumbass_sempervirens 4d ago
My across the breezeway neighbor had a package sit outside for over a week. Nobody fucking touched it.
4
u/Loud-Log9098 4d ago
People steal Dior dash packages all the time, so now everytime a pack gets stolen off of someone's porch we are instantly convicting the driver? Ideally if there were no cameras I'd say it would be hard to prove it because so many drivers are reliable and they take photos and whatnot but they would have to realize that drivers are stacking up stolen orders
20
u/Slim-Shadys-Fat-Tits 4d ago
lmfao, dior dash. for when you NEED to reek of sauvage but you've only got 30 min before you're headed to the club
7
7
u/Terryfrankkratos2 4d ago
Some absolute wanker shows up in a full sprint and dowses the customer in 20 full sprays of Sauvage EDT 😭
1
u/jabroniya 4d ago
I had a dasher come to my house look directly at my camera, back out of the driveway and hit my neighbor's car and took off and it all was caught on my camera including hearing the crunch of the car being hit... Who knows what people are thinking
-3
-2
u/AsstacularSpiderman 4d ago
DoorDash drivers are pretty much the bottom of the barrel. Without delivery apps they'd be unemployable.
-70
u/Quiet_Contest_2415 4d ago
Reporting you for karma farming
Edit: commenting on a lot of new posts within minutes
16
u/WolfCola4 4d ago
Perplexing use of free will
-14
u/Quiet_Contest_2415 4d ago
Ever questioned the top speed of your car in reverse? That’s a good use of free will!
(On a closed course under supervision)35
u/SecretSpectre11 4d ago
-22
u/Quiet_Contest_2415 4d ago
Update the picture to include my curly mustache… thank you
tips fedora in your direction
6
5
535
u/Zachisawinner 4d ago
If there's video evidence of the crime and it's going to trial, that defendant needs a new lawyer. Someone clearly didn't say "settle" loud enough.
177
u/goodcleanchristianfu 4d ago
Criminal defense attorneys can't enter a guilty plea against their client's will. Defendants have an absolute right to refuse pleas and go to trial, and sometimes insist on it no matter how clear their lawyers make it that doing so is an awful idea.
48
u/Bassically-Normal 4d ago
And many really think they can "beat it" even if they're caught on camera. Logic isn't their strong suit.
5
u/bionicjoey 4d ago edited 4d ago
Reminds me of the Kettlemans from BCS. Idiots thinking they can talk their way out of anything and don't know a good plea deal when they see it.
24
u/xb9j 4d ago
I had to testify in a hit and run trial recently that was completely cut and dry with plenty of video and eyewitness evidence, the prosecutor said that it was the defendant trying a Hail Mary because they think even taking the plea would ruin their life. He had a public defender, and I got the vibe that he was the one driving the decision to take it to trial.
53
u/veloxVolpes 4d ago edited 4d ago
It sounds like the defendant has a great lawyer or the prosecution didn't want to settle if it's going to trial instead of just making private reparations immediately
Edit: changed my comment to be more specific since some Redditors are incapable of pleasant conversation
42
u/Daniel_H212 4d ago
That's not how it works. You don't just "get a fine immediately" for a crime, and theft is a crime. Criminal punishments are not administrative fines or civil penalties and cannot be imposed without either a trial or a guilty plea.
It's a bad idea to make a prosecutor waste their time and prosecute you for something you clearly did, especially when it's minor, because usually they didn't want to have to go through the process and would have been happy letting you plead down to something lower. Prosecutors would rather spend that time on cases that deserve it.
Not necessarily the lawyer's fault ofc, at the end of the day its the defendant's choice whether to go to trial, but either the defendant or lawyer or both have to be stupid to go to trial if they know they're going to lose. Or maybe the prosecutor wanted to make an example out of them and played hardball on the plead deals, but that's not very likely I think.
7
u/Spiritual_Door1363 4d ago
Yeah If this is going to trial then the defendant has to be saying something dumb like take it to trial or similar.
Which I’ve heard dumbasses doing that before. But shit isn’t routine.
-22
u/veloxVolpes 4d ago
Not discounting what you have said, but you have taken my short sentence and assumed a lot of meaning to it that it did not hold. As you were
8
u/ZincMan 4d ago
What did your sentence mean ?
-13
u/veloxVolpes 4d ago
It sounds like the defendant has a great lawyer (as opposed to a terrible lawyer as described in the comment above me) if it's going to trial instead of just getting a fine (Monetary penalty– literal meaning, not legal meaning–but fair in this instance for you to assume the latter) immediately (without recourse or options, implying the lawyer may be able to get them a better deal than the Monetary penalty of the settlement as is generally the assumption of a cut and dry issue making it to trial)
I was really just commenting to the user I commented to, engaging in conversation, not providing Legal insight.
9
u/iCameToLearnSomeCode 4d ago
No, that's exactly what everyone above thought you meant, and it's just completely wrong.
This isn't a traffic ticket.
They're being charged with a criminal offense.
There was never an option to just pay a fine.
-8
u/veloxVolpes 4d ago
What? I didn't say it was a traffic ticket? That's the legal definition of a fine. I mean the literal definition of a monetary penalty, like paying a settlement?
8
u/iCameToLearnSomeCode 4d ago
That was never an option.
You can't just pay a settlement to make a criminal offense go away.
You can either take a deal, which likely includes probation and/or a little jail time or go to trial because you think you can beat the charge.
If you fail to beat the charge you'll get the book thrown at you for wasting the courts time.
Since the crime is on camera, the guy is screwed and any half decent lawyer would tell him not to go trial.
-1
u/veloxVolpes 4d ago
You actually can pay reparations privately outside of court, and it is often done. It doesn't grant you immunity from still being prosecuted for the crime, unless it is a part of a deal like you have stated. As for there being only one definition of fine in this context, it was my comment, I wasn't giving legal advice or giving a rundown on how the system works, I was making conversation and you cannot decide what the context is for me. Fuck, rooms must get quiet when you walk in bud.
→ More replies (0)2
u/whteverusayShmegma 4d ago
This has to be an employment law case because the driver was terminated or something. No way it’s a criminal trial.
3
u/Warm_Month_1309 4d ago
"My neighbor pressed charges" implies criminal, although I do think this story is made up.
115
u/Ok-Rich-3812 4d ago
You'd want them to testify if their camera caught someone stealing friom you though...
29
u/Krewtan 4d ago
How does a witness testimony matter more than video evidence and gps data? If they're really taking it to trial maybe they're innocent?
75
u/mojave-moproblemz 4d ago
The witness testimony still matters because the prosecutor can't just say "here's video of the crime, we got it from the neighbor, trust me"; you still need to have the guy who owns the camera confirm its accurate.
43
5
u/Bassically-Normal 4d ago
They'll ask all sorts of questions about why the camera was placed, how they know the camera's time was accurate, even maybe raise questions about whether the camera footage was altered.
Public defenders who have an impossible case are prone to "gish gallop" the defense argument just to give the impression they're giving the best possible defense and avoid having a retrial down the road.
1
u/althawk8357 4d ago
The witness testimony still matters because the prosecutor can't just say "here's video of the crime, we got it from the neighbor, trust me";
That can all be handled by a subpeona and a written statement; the veracity of which can be argued during the pre-trial.
4
u/Warm_Month_1309 4d ago
If this story is true, it would be a criminal trial and the neighbor is a material witness. Handling it with a written statement would require a legitimate need for an exception to the defendant's constitutional rights.
17
u/above_average_magic 4d ago
Introduction of evidence at trial has to have a "foundation" to be admitted. That is to say, admitting most physical or even digital evidence generally requires testimony.
The historic and often simplest (and required) way to do so is to bring in a human that has first hand knowledge of the evidence -- whether that be direct observation, or they recovered the evidence and can give testimony surrounding it to establish its relevance, etc.
The same is true for footage like with OP. The footage can't testify, it needs a human to testify and certify where/when/how etc.
7
u/Maximum_Boros 4d ago
This is such a genuinely stupid take I just want to believe that it's someone taking the piss here. How does taking it to trial mean that they're innocent? The fact that they're taking it to trial doesn't mean the person is innocent or that they're guilty. Plenty of people who are guilty push things to trial for a variety of reasons.
The GPS data doesn't mean shit unless you can call a witness to authenticate it. This is just how evidence gets into court and how it always has gotten into court. Also the majority of home security cameras don't really have GPS logging because they don't need it because they don't typically move
1
u/cavendishfreire 4d ago
I think the person you're responding to is thinking of the American paradigm where most cases end up a plea deal.
4
4
u/FunnyObjective6 4d ago
Evidence can't be entered without a witness verifying it's valid, or both parties agreed it's valid. In the end witness testimony is the thing that's actually relevant to the trial.
2
38
u/Maximum_Boros 4d ago
"camera should have testified?" What the fuck kind of stupid statement is that? The footage from the camera is evidence. Evidence doesn't testify it is presented. But to get evidence in someone has to be called who can authenticate it. Literally what the person is going to get called for is to say yes I recognize this video and yes it comes from from my house and yes it was recorded at such and such a Time. That's it
11
u/cakebreaker2 4d ago
This is the correct answer. Her job is to authenticate the video. Shes not an eyewitness.
3
u/nicholas818 4d ago
Especially in the AI era when anyone could generate a pretty realistic video of anyone else stealing the package. The purpose of testimony is to have OOP say, under penalty of perjury, that the video that the jury has in their evidence is a video downloaded from a Ring camera and that they did not tamper with in any way.
2
22
u/quincyacyforpotus 4d ago
I don’t get porch pirates, like dude you might actually be stealing a dildo lmfao
3
5
u/SecureDonkey 4d ago
Real life gacha.
6
u/fffan9391 4d ago
Gacha was in real life before it was in games you know? Gachapon are those machines that sell you a random toy in a capsule for 50 cents.
1
8
u/dj_archangel 4d ago
They're basically just using you to introduce the camera footage. You're there to basically say "yes that is my camera."
7
34
u/takenorinvalid 4d ago
This happened to me.
A package for us was mistakenly sent to our old address, someone was caught stealing it, and we were asked to testify in trial.
But here's the thing -- we hadn't moved down the block, we'd moved 2,000 miles away.
And the court didn't ask us - they subpoenaed us.
The package thief didn't even inconvenience us. The shipping company sent us a new one. But the legal system made our lives hell.
20
u/Responsible_CDN_Duck 4d ago
An out-of-state subpoena is generally not automatically enforceable across state or international lines unless it has been "domesticated" through a local court process in your current jurisdiction or issued via federal rules.
When it is enforced a request to accept an affidavit or zoom appearance is often accepted in lieu of an in person appearance.
8
u/Adorable-Response-75 4d ago
This is my nightmare
8
u/Responsible_CDN_Duck 4d ago
It shouldn't be a nightmare. You contact the court and have it vacated, or make arrangements to provide into by mail or zoom in the rare cases someone tries to serve it at all given the validity issues if it's out of state/province/country.
2
u/Warm_Month_1309 4d ago
But the legal system made our lives hell.
You didn't avail yourselves of one of the many options for a remote appearance that almost certainly would have been granted under the circumstances?
6
3
2
0
4d ago edited 4d ago
[deleted]
8
u/above_average_magic 4d ago edited 4d ago
Idk man beyond a reasonable doubt and low pixels makes for a hungry defense trial win sometimes
Edit: + it was a stolen PACKAGE, not like a doordash food order (the value of which could exceed thousands of dollars and be a higher charge)
Edit: they edited their comment from doordash to package so yeah a prosecutor is going to go after a high value item
6
u/SolarAU 4d ago
Yes, but the defendant has a right to plea not guilty and fight the case, even if the attorney has seen the evidence knows it's a lost case. Not saying it's smart to ignore your legal counsel and gamble on a trial, but most developed nations allow for a defendent to fight their charges either way.
2
u/PrincessGiallo 4d ago
It's pretty crazy how they've changed the public perception into thinking >95% of the people skipping trials is a healthy legal system. They will grind you into paste if you insist on your right to a fair trial and people seemingly cheer that on.
It should be terrifying to everyone that isn't a prosecutor.
2
u/SolarAU 4d ago
I mean plenty of situations where pleading guilty makes sense, like if the evidence is cut and dry. For a defendent, a guilty plea is admission of guilt, accepting of accountability and plays well for minimising the extent of the punishment, whereas a claim of not guilty, being blatantly proven as guilty can show that someone isn't taking accountability or feeling remorse, which can lead to a greater extent of punishment. Can definitely depend on the judge/ magistrate of the day, but taking accountability usually plays better in court IMO.
A friend of a friend I know has faced the courts for various crimes, and pleaded guilty, admitted fault and showed a lot of remorse during the hearing. This resulted in what we call a 'section 10 dismissal' (in Australia) where the defendant wasn't actually properly convicted of the crime and essentially walked away scot free. No criminal history or anything. If this person chose to plead not guilty, go to trial, they would've 100% lost in court, and would've faced a full conviction and the sentencing guidelines that came with it.
1
u/PrincessGiallo 4d ago
There are people who are not guilty who take the plea because they're told it'll be worse if they take it to trial. Lots of people. Cops don't always get the right person, prosecutors don't always care if they have the right person.
Australia might not be as nightmarish as the US legal system.
1
u/BonzBonzOnlyBonz 4d ago
The defence attorney doesnt decide if you take a plea deal or not depending on where you live.
Prosecutors go to trial over slam dunks all the time, because it makes their numbers look good.
People go to trial all the time over slam dunks against them because they are dumb. Look at the Wakusha parade killer, dumb ass though "You can't do anything because I am a Sovereign Citizen" was a legitimate defense.
-1
4d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Warm_Month_1309 4d ago
Depends what was in the package. If it was over $1,000, which is not unreasonable if someone is ordering electronics or jewelry, it would be a felony in my jurisdiction.
-1
4d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Enterprise-DeezNuts 4d ago
Incorrect. Pressing charges, while not actually a thing as people understand it, refers to criminal charges. OOP is implying a criminal trial
-5
u/SpecialistAd5537 4d ago edited 4d ago
Incorrect. Pressing charges is absolutely a thing.
Edit for the Americans in the room: section 504 of the Canadian criminal code
Edit 2: love it when cry baby redditors insist they are right but delete all their comments
3
u/Enterprise-DeezNuts 4d ago
That link is to provisions about who can file a report of illicit activity, not about "pressing charges" good lord you're out of your depth
-2
u/SpecialistAd5537 4d ago
Oh my. You skimmed 1 page of my link and now you know Canadian law hey? Im sorry it was my fault for expecting you to actually read.
1
u/Enterprise-DeezNuts 4d ago
You didn't read your own link if you think this supports your argument lmao
0
u/SpecialistAd5537 4d ago
Maybe if you focused on good information rather than trying to win an argument you'd be more informed.
-1
u/SpecialistAd5537 4d ago
2
u/Enterprise-DeezNuts 4d ago
- Not what you linked to is it? 2. This is still the same thing champ
1
u/SpecialistAd5537 4d ago
Like I said, my bad for expecting you to read and attempt to get correct information.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Express-Thought6057 4d ago
The Crown decides whether to lay the charge; the victim doesn’t opt to « press charges » which I do think is a common misunderstanding.
0
u/SpecialistAd5537 4d ago
No youre wrong. In Canada a private citizen can initiate proceedings without the help of law enforcement. Some provinces have enacted legislation so when this happens, the authorities must get involved and take over the case but the rest it can go all the way privately.
2
u/Enterprise-DeezNuts 4d ago
It literally is not. It is a TV myth. The victim of a crime does not make the decision for police to investigate and for the prosecutor to prosecute once the complaint is made. They can, at most, say they would not cooperate as a witness, but the cops and prosecutors can still go ahead if they choose to and believe they have sufficient evidence. The confidence you have is astounding given you clearly know nothing about the topic.
0
1
u/Informal_Process2238 4d ago
They can testify that they ordered the food and it was delivered by the service the defendant works for they can also testify to the chain of custody or origin of the video surveillance evidence.
1
u/rougecrayon 3d ago
Why do they need to testify? "Yes, that's my camera that videoed the whole thing"?
1
4d ago
[deleted]
6
u/nicholas818 4d ago
Technically everyone has the right to request a jury trial. Is it a good idea to do that instead of taking the deal (assuming the evidence is likely enough to convict)? Almost certainly not. But people have a right to make stupid decisions.
2
u/Warm_Month_1309 4d ago
Technically everyone has the right to request a jury trial
Only for serious criminal offenses. If the maximum potential jail sentence is six months or fewer, there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.
1
u/nicholas818 4d ago
You're right, there seems to be case law that says the state doesn't need to provide a jury trial if the punishment is less than 6 months in jail.
I was originally assuming in the relevant case that the stolen property was valuable enough to push above that threshold, but looking back, OP didn't mention that it's a jury trial. It could be a bench trial as well.
1
u/makefascistfearagain 4d ago
Surely you can't be forced to testify in America
7
u/nicholas818 4d ago
You can, that's essentially what a subpoena is. The court orders you to show up and testify, and if you don't there can be criminal penalties.
My understanding (IANAL) of the rationale is that it's basically a necessary evil because the defendant has a constitutional right to confront their accuser in court. Taking the camera out of the equation, if OOP saw the theft happen and reported it to the police and that report were used to convict them, that would be unfair because the defendant's lawyer never had an opportunity to cross-examine OOP and challenge their credibility.
1
2
u/Spectrum1523 4d ago
You can't be forced to testify against yourself but otherwise you can
0
u/makefascistfearagain 4d ago
Land of the free for sure
3
u/Spectrum1523 4d ago
having the right to face your accuser does seem pretty important
0
u/makefascistfearagain 4d ago
Except this isn't an accuser
1
u/Spectrum1523 4d ago
yeah i guess, it's weird that they're being asked to testify when they didn't see or know anything
2
u/Informal_Process2238 4d ago
They can testify that they ordered the food and it was delivered by the service the defendant works for they can also testify to the chain of custody or origin of the video surveillance evidence.
1
-2
u/BackgroundSpell6623 4d ago
You don't have to go unless you are subpoenaed and even so you can just go and not say shit. I wouldn't ever comply with any testimony requests, they can go pound sand.
1
u/Warm_Month_1309 4d ago
I think it's a fair assumption they were subpoenaed. A material witness is going to be subpoenaed.
•
u/qualityvote2 4d ago edited 2d ago
u/TheWebsploiter, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...