Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
The point is they could simply say they were using SWIM as an acronym for someone else. I understand it's commonly used as a way to talk about yourself without talking about yourself. The system would have to have some kind of evidence or argument to prove the defendant was in fact talking about their self.
It could mean they are talking about themselves in code OR about someone else. It doesn't matter what the common use is, you still have to prove it's use in the situation.
Don't blame me, blame all the loopholes and inconsistencies in the justice system.
|
You watch too much CSI. You only have to prove it beyond a
reasonable doubt. There is no other
reasonable explanation for the use of SWIM in this kind of case other than it being a first person pronoun. I checked. There isn't. Not unless you think that "Southeast Unitarian Universalist Winter Institute in Miami got hella baked at the Phish concert yesterday", is a reasonable interpretation. And yes, the acronym for... that, is also SWIM.
You're wrong, you're stupid, put the bong down and go take a shower.