For those who don’t know, this is a decades old joke.
Seriously, older than the internet.
We need bash.org have come back
Oh that’s unlocked some memories. Wow what a flashback.
yeah back when the internet was good and idiots hadnt congregated on it yet.
Every group has its idiots, but I will admit it felt like a higher class of idiot.
From the last time I saw this, what I understood was, the lawyer isn’t asking the witness if there’s a possibility the person in question was alive, the lawyer is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question was not only undeniably dead, but also impossible for the person to be alive.
Source: my memory from a random comment on the internet, pay it forward
This exchange never happened. There is no person in question. It’s a joke.
Yeah that makes sense. I used to work in a position where I had to testify in court regularly about the results of independent findings the court requested. There were often lines of questioning that were about establishing details. The questions seemed silly, but it wasn’t about the specific pieces of information it was about establishing that “Thing A” was absolutely true (or false) as of a specific point on a timeline. I never had any fun exchanges like this though lol.
Funny and technically perjury.
Would it really be (serious question, as I dont know a whole lot about legal matters)? My limited understanding was that perjury is lying under oath, and sarcasm, while it does involve saying untrue statements, isnt considered lying in everyday speech because what it actually communicates is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words. Since laws deal with humans and not computers, my assumption would be that it probably works in such a way as to depend on what message a person is actually communicating rather than the precise syntax by which they communicate it?
Sarcasm does not fly in court. Everything you say can and will be used against you. You do not have to be the defendant for that to apply. I sat through a lot of civil cases. Most of the people who lost, lost because they were being sarcastic. Sometimes, their LAWYER would take up this attitude, but judges are people, and they DO NOT like attitude. I was specifically a witness and sat through a lot of cases. This hit home for me.
Most of the people who lost, lost because they were being sarcastic.
What a complete and utter rubbish.
That was my experience. You also have to remember I I was in civil court.
You made a general statement that MOST of people lost their cases just because they were sarcastic. This is utter tosh.
Judges may not like sarcasm, no argument here. But to say that most people lost due to sarcasm is a complete nonsense.
That is what I said, yes. I had to sit through everyone else’s cases. If they were rude, they lost. Most of them that lost were rude.
Edit: I am giving you my anecdotal experience that was across 30+ cases. It was a lot. That’s why I’m fairly confident in my assertion. If you want to give me stats, I’ll listen. Otherwise, you just seem combative. I even remember several example cases I could give you.
There should be a counterpart to “copaganda” for legal shows and media that depict the court as a pristine, high-stakes, yet ultimately fair process. It’s intriguing to witness people’s initial confrontations with corruption in this context—I understand their defensiveness, as the introduction of cognitive dissonance can be super uncomfortable.
On another note, it’s disheartening to consider how what you experienced likely contributes to the disproportionate legal contempt faced by POC compared to white individuals. Perceptions of rudeness vary widely across cultures, which can definitely influence systemic racism in the legal system.
Yup, let’s double down on your nonsense and your lack of understanding correlation and causation 🙄
Sarcasm is pretty much by definition lying to insult someone or something.
Best case scenario the judge holds you in contempt of court. Worst case you go to prison for perjury.
Sarcasm and humor rarely work in your favor in a court setting, it’s true. That was a pretty inane line of questioning, however.
He’s an expert who’s probably old and sick of answering questions like this because even if they’re (idiotically) technically necessary, they sound incredibly stupid.
Then the atheist professor dropped the chalk and, to the surprise of that haughty demon, it did not break…
5th degree burn!
This is fucked😭😭😭
deleted by creator
