• ditty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Sarcasm and humor rarely work in your favor in a court setting, it’s true. That was a pretty inane line of questioning, however.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      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.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      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?

      • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        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.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          Most of the people who lost, lost because they were being sarcastic.

          What a complete and utter rubbish.

            • FelixCress@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 days ago

              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.

              • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 days ago

                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.

                • FelixCress@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 days ago

                  Yup, let’s double down on your nonsense and your lack of understanding correlation and causation 🙄

      • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        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.

  • xkbx@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    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

    • Moops@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      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.