“Look, if I turn in the giant hawk guy, he’ll snatch me up and eat me, okay?”
In fact, a lot of animals eat snakes…
A cat would eat one, for example.
Baaah what a cute!
Well, whaddaya know. “Whatever cop” is actually quite effective.
I’m no lawyer, but I think it’s called “plain view”, Natrix.
Still pretty sure it’d be inadmissible though.
Why would it be? They don’t need a warrant because it was essentially turned in to them. It’s the police/FBI/whoever who need warrants for search and seizure, not random citizens.
But they’re not allowed to use evidence obtained illegally…
Well I guess a card isn’t illegal, but what Steffi did might have been.
Even so, I don’t think the download itself was illegal. I mean, they didn’t break in, they were let in. There was a fight, but I don’t think that makes it illegal.
Well, either way, I think it could be worked around.
I don’t know what current law says, but in the U.S., in ordinary criminal cases, evidence of a defendant’s guilt gathered through vigilante hacking efforts has been admitted in court at least once – because the hacker was not directly employed (read: paid) by the government for such efforts. As far as I know, however, this only establishes the precedent that a judge can individually rule this sort of evidence admissible on a case-by-case basis.
So, there’s no guarantee the evidence will hold up in court if a judge doesn’t particularly like illegal actions taken to gather evidence of more illegal actions – but I don’t see why they wouldn’t like it, personally.
A possible defense against this would be that the evidence is suspected of being manufactured by the “hacker” to frame the defendant, but if you’re dealing with an informed judge, you’d probably have to establish some facts confirming (or at least strongly supporting) your suspicion to get it thrown out.
I’m not sure that actually physically going in and downloading data straight from someone’s computer constitutes hacking (close enough, probably?), but any evidence gathered is still the result of vigilante action, and so it’s likely presenting the judge with similar reasoning to what was used in the case I mentioned could be used to get the evidence admitted in court.
I’m a lawyer who does criminal defense, and it’s true that no warrant is necessary. BUT the card itself is not admissible in evidence because it’s hearsay. “Hearsay” is (very roughly) a statement, whether oral or in writing, made out of court.
I didn’t see your post earlier, for some reason.
Anyway, this is a really complicated issue, now that I think about it. On the one hand, there’s the hearsay issue, so it probably would have been better had they removed the hard drive from his PC and taken it with them, instead of copying the data, right?
But then again there’s that case I mentioned, which was back in 2004 in an appeals court hearing. Has anything gone on the books more recently that would contradict that decision, that you know of?
I’m pretty sure that’s what those cards are. Hard drives.
This is aimed at your last post but I can’t reply to that -_-
This is just a pointer that “hacker” just refers to someone who likes to play with code.
if they do something illegal or try to get unauthorized access to someone else’s computer then they are “cracker” not a “hacker”.
I don’t understand. With a weak understanding of law and order here, isn’t most evidence written or oral statements made out of court?
Contracts and the like (I do catch glimpses of People’s Court occasionally) are all made out of court and are written statements saying “I will give you this in exchange for that under these terms”.
Is there some difference?
Well, first, you should know that there are two basic types of cases: there’s Criminal cases and Civil cases, and comparing Civil law to Criminal law is apples to oranges, for the most part. On the most basic level, this is because on the one hand, normal people have the right to have a judge resolve disputes between one another that don’t involve the commission of actual crimes; and on the other, because the state needs some way of handling problems with real, actual criminals (which it would appear Natrix is). Obviously the laws for handling each type of situation need to be different, and they are.
If you’ll read on, this should kind of explain a little why question of whether it’s admissible as evidence is even an issue.
Civil law deals with non-criminal issues – usually, there’s a plaintiff (roughly translates to “complainer”), and a defendant accused of wronging the plaintiff in some way not considered under law to be a crime. The idea with Civil cases is, if someone violates the terms of a contract, the other party can get “justice” (usually in the form of cash). So, on TV shows like the ones you have been watching, I’d assume that the cases are all/mostly Civil ones. In which, contracts and other documents formed outside of court (like bank statements, ledgers, etc.) are the bread-and-butter evidence for smoothing the legal process; they are used to determine what was agreed upon by both parties and whether agreements were fulfilled or not. Because they’re so important in Civil law, there are a number of means of verifying the authenticity of these documents, such as watermarks, notarization (e.g., having a legally-licensed witness testify on paper that the agreement is valid and binding), and so on. Even then, in order to be considered valid, contracts can’t include terms that would cause either party to violate Civil law (like a contract to sell a person to another person for slavery, for example).
Criminal law deals with a defendant, where the defendant is accused of a Crime, and the prosecutor (guy who’s out to prove a crime was committed) is an attorney employed by the state/federal government. There is a strict process of evaluating what should and shouldn’t be allowed as evidence in these cases, and judges are given some degree of authority to determine this themselves, especially when there’s no known legal precedent (such as a ruling in a past case allowing or disallowing some new type of evidence, or a law on the books that does the same thing). Testimony (an in-court verbal statement) is allowed, either in the form of expert opinions (to educate the judge and jury about a complex subject), or a verifiable statement of what someone personally witnessed. Similar standards apply to verifying Evidence, and digital records are notoriously difficult to verify because of the nature of digital data – so it’s questionable whether Steffi’s card can be used as evidence in court.
Basically, since the police in this strip have a suspected criminal in their custody, he’d be tried in a Criminal case, and the standards for what’s allowed into evidence in these cases are stricter than in Civil cases. I hope that explained it sufficiently.
Er, now that I think about it, when I said this: “The idea with Civil cases is, if someone violates the terms of a contract, the other party can get “justice” (usually in the form of cash),” that was actually referring to a single type of Civil case. In truth, there are three different types of Civil cases, and that is only one of them, so I sort of misspoke.
Just ignore that sentence please
I see. I don’t see a reason why evidence should be excused in such a manner, but that’s just my opinion. It does make sense, though, thank you.
Well you gotta remember that this is in “the future.” It’s not a huge leap to assume that two other things exist:
Some form of file-verification that that ensures files cannot be modified (or any modifications would show to some basic tests), and some form of digital signature that only Natrix could apply. Both of these things exist in some form now, although probably not in court-admissible levels. But with the world becoming more and more digital they will likely be created in not too long.
That would establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the data showing criminal offense a.) is real, and b.) is really from Natrix. Should be enough to get into court.
I would say the big point here is that the legality of the evidence is unimportant if the suspect thinks it can be used against him and starts admitting crimes as well as pointing fingers
Actually because he is a wanted person and the evidence was on him when he was detained by the police the evidence is fully admissible by law.
What does this matter? It’s a comic, plot will drive it not the possibility of certain laws in the future xD
Reasonable doubt was placed that it will be admissible, and so us as the readers shouldn’t debate this seeing as this is a work of fiction set in the future, it’s up to the artist to decide.
Mr. Reed pointing earlyer and this trail of comments.
we ace attorny now.
I think it’s totally legit. xD
Depends on the Judge, the lawyers involved, and their relationship with the judge.
Are other people seeing this entry on the homepage? I only found it by clicking the “Track 15″ link. The homepage and “Last” link from other pages show me page 314.
nope. I only knew it was here because it showed up in my RSS feed.
Bit annoying when the other side cheats as well, eh Natrix?
Nononononono~ Natrix~ When you declare your not saying anything until your attorney arrives you really shouldnt actually say anything until he arrives. XD don’t add a besides XD
While the card might genuinely be inadmissable, theres nothing to say that they can’t lie to him and claim they could take him down with it unless he confessed to everything XD
Yup, that’s called ‘legal bluffage’, you’ll be surprised how often it works
Oh wow, is that really the name for it?
See? It works even in non-legal matters *BigCheesyGrin*
Wow, Kiwi Blitz is full of people who have terrible poker faces…
Whatever Cop seems to have it down pretty well, though.
Oh look, it’s an entire room full of people who have been knocked out by Blitz.
Natrix, you’re so bad at this.
This is false. Natrix wasn’t knocked out by Blitz because he was zarped.
He WAS however knocked out by the Blitz team, even if the knock-out method was being ‘zarped’.
Well his short term memory always seems to be shot after a zarping, so maybe he doesn’t remember it. First time he asked if he had a really great party he forgot. Bets on him forgetting the second time are pretty good odds.
Correction, it’s an entire room full of people who’ve been tasered under questionable circumstances initiated by Blitz.
I’ll say it again. I’ve never found such a creepy and weird criminal more adorable. :3
Also, “Whatever Cop” is win.
Partial leaked script to KB316:
Panel 3, visual of a closed door.
Speech bubble: “…So legally, I’m safe, right? You can’t admit vigilante evidence in court… Right?”
Second speech bubble: “HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA. You’re going to jail for a long time.
Panel 4, same visual
Speech bubble: “But you’re my lawyer! You’re supposed to protect me!”
Second speech bubble: “Look, Natrix. I’m your lawyer, not Jesus. You dun goofed.”
“You dun goofed.” I remember that moron and the meme him and his idiot daughter got started. oh if only punching through the internet was a possibility. Them, not you just so you know.
…For the record, I have no idea what you’re referring to. I got it from Hellsing Ultimate Abridged. Although they probably got it from whatever you’re talking about.
That and you kind of brought this on yourself. While the government can’t judge you for your um….”choice”,they can however for what you’ve done. The best I can do is if you testify against one of your associates at Alter,you can get 3 months with community service. I’m not Phoenix Wright,Natrix. You frakked up. /facepalm
…Guys. Different laws in KiwiBlitz.universe. Our legal precedent for the viability of evidence gathered illegally by a third party is irrelevant.
Quite possible. One would hope after WWIII they revise laws a bit, particularly relating to digital issues and robotics.
In my head this is how Batman should work- As long as the police aren’t involved in his actions they can take advantage of whatever evidence he provides. The sticky bit is that they should, by all rights, also be forced to prosecute him for the many crimes he commits gaining that evidence or become complicit in his actions and go back to having to throw it out.
That’s probably why they frequently do either try to catch him or pretend they want to catch him.
Jonah Hex (bounty hunter), Detective Chimp (don’t ask how I know this), any Green Lantern (intergalactic police), The Force of July (created by the government), possibly Red Star (Russian), possible but doubtful Uncle Sam. EVERY OTHER ONE IN DC is a vigilante. Batman, Superman, Flash? All criminals. Aquaman only has authority in Atlantis. Diana with the amazons.
This list is crazy short… I might be missing something.
Wait, Superman is a criminal? Only in Luthor’s warped mind
Where’s Superman’s badge?
Well, Superman technically is a vigilante. He just also happens to be a super-powered alien who is virtually invulnerable to all Earthly forms of law enforcement, and he’s generally beloved by the public, so almost nobody has the balls (or motivation) to try and take him down.
So this means Lex Luthor is arguably doing the government a favor with his kryptonite gathering and superman cloning operations.
If Superman is to be taken as an Alien Ambassador, a large portion of his legal ‘infractions’ are covered under that so long as the government get adequately compensated (same for Aquaman and and Diana). Since Superheros tend to ‘save the world’ that could qualify as compensation for mild amounts of destruction (maintaining status quo is not as impressive to the government as ‘saving the world’ seems to us in the spectator isle)
If Superman were to continue being far more advanced than humanity forever, he would eventually become a dictator. Villains often keep this in check with humbling attacks on either his person or loved ones.
Lex Luthor is known to sell his advanced weaponry to governments (rogue and otherwise), and his weaponry is known for going toe to toe with Superman. He hasn’t been shown breaking business contracts/agreements, only utilizing fine print.
It is reasonable to assume that despite being a known villain, the government prefers to have a businessman with a monopoly on such tech in their pocket. Perhaps the government views Lex Luthor a hero to for the international/interplanetary political and economic benefits he sends their way?
His lawyer’s going to be a shark.
Sigh. No “Like” button around here.
You, sir, deserve a cookie.
Pft! I would fall out of my chair laughing if that actually happens! XD
What?! The next button doesn’t work! Oh, this is the latest page.
Mary, you’re a genius and Kiwi Blitz is great!
Ooh, poor Natrix, he looks like a spanked puppy, I can’t help but feel sorry for him…
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
*EMAIL — Get a Gravatar
NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Click here for KB page 355!
©2009-2013 Kiwi Blitz | Powered by WordPress with Easel
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑