|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:20 AM
|
So some guy and his friends were in a hotel room, and one of his friends was sleeping.
And then the guy goes to sleep next to him.
The guy wakes up in the morning and realizes that he is now alone in the room, the other guy is gone.
But then he notices the other guy's wallet on the table next to him. He opens it up and sees cash, credit cards and receipts.
He thinks "What the hell, why would someone leave their money behind" so he pockets the wallet and leaves.
Two days later he receives a phone call from a police officer saying he has been charged with theft.
Then the guy says "wait a minute, you know who I am right?" And the cop replies "yes sir". Then the guy says "Well, why are you charging me? I didn't do anything wrong!" And the cop replies "well sir, those receipts that you found in your wallet show that you did go to my friend's house last night"
He doesn't get it, I don't get it, how can they say he went somewhere if there were no witnesses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:28 AM
|
So... They got the hotel cam feed?
Or else this whole story is a lie.
And if they have the hotel feed, then they'd be able to see everything that happened...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:29 AM
|
I guess they could, but I don't see how they'd get any proof that it was him unless he was wearing some distinctive clothing or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:30 AM
|
The police could have a photo of him.
The hotel would know what he looks like.
Unless the hotel staff saw it all live, on cam, they wouldn't be able to tell who it was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:34 AM
|
I guess you're right. But still, it doesn't seem fair. How can they accuse him of going somewhere even though there are no witnesses? Unless they have video footage of him there, they should just accuse him of taking the wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:39 AM
|
Well, yeah.
I mean, there's no law that states you have to prove someone is guilty.
The court is based off circumstantial evidence, not just "proof".
They can charge him because he has the wallet, and the receipts show him going to his friend's house.
That's good enough for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:40 AM
|
Yeah I know. The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that they think he went somewhere just because of those receipts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:42 AM
|
What else could they do?
The guy could have walked up to the house and asked for money...
There was a lot of money in the wallet, so the guy would need an excuse why the friend had that much money on hand.
Or maybe the guy asked if he could borrow some cash... Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
| 07 Aug 2013 02:44 AM
|
But then again, he might have had $1000 just laying around. Maybe they don't know what it's like having a lot of money to spend.
I'm just going to let it go, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report
Abuse
|
|
|
|
|