• BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    “It’s a federal crime” : the implication is clear.

    What was said after that was sophistry to make him sound better.

    The moment he said “it’s a federal crime”, the response should be “then I guess we’re done talking here”.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Really as soon as a lawyer is calling you is when you should stop talking and get your own lawyer.

    • Donut@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The parent literally asked whether their kid was in trouble. Wouldn’t it be disingenuous to not answer truthfully (at the caveat that it was actually the truth)?

      I saw it more as a way to resolve it peacefully without getting to the stuff nobody likes

      • Bezier@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        Wouldn’t it be disingenuous to not answer truthfully (at the caveat that it was actually the truth)?

        Well there’s the problem. Doesn’t seem that the kid did anything illegal, so the federal crime implication was a very disingenuous scare tactic.