Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is an excerpt from a conversation I had a few days ago. I was wondering that if anything actually happened to the guy in question, and law enforcement start harassing me about it, they'd see this conversation and think's probable cause to gain a search warrant. Also, do you think a Jury could misinterpret the conversation and make into "evidence"
Me: He is a parasite. He only came here to financially benefit from others' work.
Friend: Do you think he'll become a problem?
Me: I don't know. People like having arms and being able to walk.
Here is an excerpt from a conversation I had a few days ago. I was wondering that if anything actually happened to the guy in question, and law enforcement start harassing me about it, they'd see this conversation and think's probable cause to gain a search warrant. Also, do you think a Jury could misinterpret the conversation and make into "evidence"
Me: He is a parasite. He only came here to financially benefit from others' work.
Friend: Do you think he'll become a problem?
Me: I don't know. People like having arms and being able to walk.
You made a threat....you take your chances. Next time, keep your mouth shut if you don't like someone and let their work (or lack thereof) be how people view them.
Here is an excerpt from a conversation I had a few days ago. I was wondering that if anything actually happened to the guy in question, and law enforcement start harassing me about it, they'd see this conversation and think's probable cause to gain a search warrant. Also, do you think a Jury could misinterpret the conversation and make into "evidence"
Me: He is a parasite. He only came here to financially benefit from others' work.
Friend: Do you think he'll become a problem?
Me: I don't know. People like having arms and being able to walk.
A search warrant for what?
Anything in a jury trial can be "evidence" --- conversations, telephone records, employment records, etc.
Why would you say what you said???? And why would your friend respond like that? And then your response???? Sounds like a threat. If anything happens to this guy, you and your friend will be interviewed as potential suspects.
unless it was recorded, it is hearsay,,,you can always deny .... (watched plenty of law and order)
This illustrates a common misunderstanding. The Law and Order shows often get legal issues right, but they frequently oversimplify them or provide an inaccurate impression of how things really happen in court.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of that statement. If the statement is offered for some other purpose it is not hearsay.
In this case, the OP's statements were, "He is a parasite. He only came here to financially benefit from others' work." and "People like having arms and being able to walk."
If these statements were offered in evidence, presumably at a trial where the OP is charged with some physical assault on the other person, they would be offered not to prove that people like having arms and being able to walk, or even that the person they are talking about was a parasite who only came to financially benefit from the work of others, but that that is what the speaker thought of the person, and that the speaker was possibly considering breaking the guy's arms and legs. In other words, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to reveal the speaker's state of mind.
Statements like these would be admissible for that purpose. They are not hearsay.
The question raised in the OP sounds very strange, because it would only be relevant to anything if the person they were talking about came down with some injury after the conversation. It would be a remarkable coincidence if two people were talking about what a shame it might be for a person they didn't like to suffer broken arms and legs and that person shortly thereafter did suffer broken arms and legs. Hence, Zentropa's question.
This illustrates a common misunderstanding. The Law and Order shows often get legal issues right, but they frequently oversimplify them or provide an inaccurate impression of how things really happen in court.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of that statement. If the statement is offered for some other purpose it is not hearsay.
In this case, the OP's statements were, "He is a parasite. He only came here to financially benefit from others' work." and "People like having arms and being able to walk."
If these statements were offered in evidence, presumably at a trial where the OP is charged with some physical assault on the other person, they would be offered not to prove that people like having arms and being able to walk, or even that the person they are talking about was a parasite who only came to financially benefit from the work of others, but that that is what the speaker thought of the person, and that the speaker was possibly considering breaking the guy's arms and legs. In other words, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to reveal the speaker's state of mind.
Statements like these would be admissible for that purpose. They are not hearsay.
The question raised in the OP sounds very strange, because it would only be relevant to anything if the person they were talking about came down with some injury after the conversation. It would be a remarkable coincidence if two people were talking about what a shame it might be for a person they didn't like to suffer broken arms and legs and that person shortly thereafter did suffer broken arms and legs. Hence, Zentropa's question.
The statement is a euphemism for "I will break his arms and legs," but also a very literal declaration about what people like (having arms and being able to walk). I tend to agree that it is easily offered not for the truth, but for the speaker's intent/state of mind. For fun, there are more routes to getting the statement in:
The easy route is that this is non-hearsay because it is a party admission, which makes it non-hearsay.
It is also, a statement against interest (showing evidence of conspiracy to commit assault) if the speaker is unavailable to take the stand (likely by assertion of 5th Amendment rights).
Anything in a jury trial can be "evidence" --- conversations, telephone records, employment records, etc.
Why would you say what you said???? And why would your friend respond like that? And then your response???? Sounds like a threat. If anything happens to this guy, you and your friend will be interviewed as potential suspects.
A search warrant for documents, files and communications from both personal residences and office space.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
