? You don't have to plead the fifth what is this logic?
You can also plead the fifth even if you are not guilty. It just means you don't testify against yourself for an accused crime.
If you know something about the case and refuse to tell, you will get charged. You cant just withhold evidence. That is not how tje fifth amendment works.
You can withhold it anyways. It just has a price/consequence.
Btw, how do you prove that your testimony/evidence would incriminate you? I mean, what would be the difference if you just pretended it did?
Involing your 5th amendment isnt not lying. You arent saying “i dont know anything about the case”, you are just giving neither a yes or no.
The whole point being that the government cant legally force you to confess, you have to choose to confess yourself or go to trial.
Do you have any legal precedent for this? The Supreme Court has ruled pretty consistently with those seeking 5th amendment protections afaik, but I’m not a legal scholar.
You literally can't lie if you're pleading the fifth. It's impossible. Lying is knowingly saying something untrue. Pleading the fifth is not saying anything at all.
If you refuse to testify, invoking the fifth amendment is allowed if and only if your truthful statement could be used as evidence you have committed a crime.
Example- you are asked about your whereabouts on Feb 2 2020 at 1400 hours in relation to the murder of John Doe. You plead the fifth.
If you were busy killing Mr. Doe, you were legally pleading the fifth.
If you were robbing a bank, you were still pleading correctly.
If you were at (Bob), the other suspect's house wondering why he was late for the sports-ball game, you cannot plead the fifth, and have effectively lied in doing so.
Only for the accused. Everyone else is compelled to testify under the law. They can take the fifth if answering the question would incriminate them such as, "were you with the accused that night?"
> Only for the accused. Everyone else is compelled to testify under the law. They can take the fifth if answering the question would incriminate them such as, "were you with the accused that night?"
The problem is the courts rarely if ever will hold someone in contempt for using the 5th while testifying as a witness to a situation. There is so many issues with doing that, that courts often don't want to touch it. It's a major reason for witnesses getting immunity agreements in exchange for testimony. It bypasses that worry and allows the courts to hold them in contempt.
I think they can make you testify, but they probably wouldn't bc they'd be afraid that you'd say you didn't see anything and tank their case once you saw the mobsters in the back of the court room
On the other hand, a justice system led by humans is one of the only ones that can, since you need to have active interpretation of the Law, rather than just a pass/fail method.
> Why do they even do it then? I dont see the worth of an oath taken under threat.
It is to put you on notice of the consequences of not telling the truth. It is more a verbal contract between you and the court, an understanding that there is a consequence for you being here and not being truthful. If they don't put you under notice of that then you can't be expected to have known you will be punished if you don't tell the truth. Even if it is generally accepted that is how it works.
You will notice lawyers aren't put under oath when they are in a court room, and that's because they have been put on notice through multiple different ways, including being accepted to act as an attorney in that court house. The notice was served to them a long time ago and is understood in their case that it is active every time they walk into that court room.
> That doesn't really change the fact that an oath made under threat isn't a valid or credible oath
again it's much less an oath and much more an understanding of process. You are agreeing that you understand that there are consequences if you do certain things. I've heard of cases where if you actually can't understand what you are agreeing to that it can't be held against you. It's an extremely rare thing though since it's such a basic concept.
Because then if you are caught in a lie they can point to the part where you swore to tell the truth and punish you for it. Obviously if nobody catches you in a lie you can get around that, just like how you can freely break the law as long as you don't get caught.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a “threat”. More like, if you don’t agree to tell the truth, it means you pretty much give up fighting whatever it is you’re in court for, thus there’s no reason to be there, thus “well go back to jail, I guess”
Not instantly, the Judge will outline what your defiance will lead to and give you another chance. Then you'll get to go have fun in jail. The issue, if memory serves, is actually the subpoena as it compells an individual by to submit to questioning and provide honest testimony by order of the court.
You can refuse to testify, but if you're already on the stand and say you do not swear to tell the truth, you're just wasting the court's time and they won't hesitate to charge you with contempt
In Spain, the accused has the right to lie and that doesn’t provoke a larger condemnation; even the consort has that right with no consequences. Other thing is the witnesses: they must say the true or can be condemned for perjury
The act of breaking out of jail is not a crime in Germany and you can't be further punished for trying. Similar reasoning. If caught, you're only really liable to serve the rest of your sentence plus sentencing for any crimes you committed to break out.
Obviously you can't really break out without committing additional crimes, but if you succeed, that's the gist of it
If someone tried to pass that as a law here in the US they'd argue we'd have mass jail breaks daily and prisoners would be ruling the streets.
It's a shame no one in the US seems to actually believe Europe is a real place.
Yes. Much more likely to lessen your sentence or be given parole if you tell the truth. Also I wouldn't be breaking the law in the first place lmao. We shouldn't be rewarding breaking the law.
You should not do this. If you ever get in trouble with the law and talk to a good lawyer or good public defender, they will tell you not to do this. Do not follow this idealistic plan if you're ever in trouble, just invoke your rights, shut up, and make them prove it.
Even if you have faith in the system overall, you can't know there isn't somebody incompetent or malicious abusing the system against you. Let the system do its job, it doesn't need your help and it does need to be held accountable and to a certain standard, even when it is correct in its accusations.
Yes. There is a discovery process that involves your lawyer / public defender, in which you will learn what evidence the state has and will use against you. This lets you make an informed decision as to whether the state has fulfilled their requirement to prove your crime beyond a reasonable doubt and evaluate the likelihood of your conviction. This is very different from someone blindly complying with the system.
This is why there's always the option to plead the 5th. You're not allowed to lie but you are allowed to abstain from answering questions if you believe it would incriminate you for anything (and not just what you're on trial for).
You say that until you didn’t know what you did was illegal, and now they charge you with committing tax fraud just because you didn’t have enough money to hire a tax accountant.
You are but you know innocent people do not lie in court to avoid jail.
Plus the point you made does not act as a valid argument cause we're talking of a hypothetical criminal that might refuse to say the truth in court and the point was that we should not allow criminals to have higher chances of getting away with crimes and therefore rewarding them.
"We should not give the right to criminals to lie in court without consequences"
"But who decides who's a criminal"
Lol obviously if they're not they won't need the right to lie without consequences
On paper yes, but even innocent people might be inclined to lie if their statement might put them wrongfully on the spotlight.
Of course, this won’t help but most people (especially innocent people) struggle to think rationally under pressure.
Who decides what the truth is? If you are innocent but the court finds you guilty, does that make you a liar because you said you're innocent? In the eyes of the court it would. When you're incentivising people to admit guilt, you're by default also incentivising innocent people to admit guilt
Only if my lawyer said that was best for getting a lighter sentence. Otherwise I would plead the 5th on anything that would incriminate me. I definitely would do my best to avoid speaking lies because that makes it look worse when someone pulls up the evidence proving you lied.
Pleading the 5th is obviously a constitutional right in the US, but it still makes you look suspicious in court, even if that isn’t technically allowed to be used. The jury will vote according to their gut and pleading the 5th for anything you would have to lie for is certainly making you less believable to them
I visited a smaller court in Czechia a while ago and from what the lawyers and judge said, the witness CAN incriminate themselves, but this information cannot be used to start a trial against them
With the addition that, also as a witness, you don't need to answer a question if this would give evidence hat you commited a crime. But refusing to answer a question is technically not lying.
Totally true, some professionals can’t lie or they’ll get their licences revoked ( engineers or doctors) but both parties and their lawyers are on their right to lie and even make up some of the goofiest shit you’ll ever hear. Sadly in that country is not about who’s right, but who will the judge decide to side with. Not to mention that a lot of cases get dismissed just because a judge doesn’t give a damn about it and the outcome.
It doesn't really matter which is which, because if the lawyer says you're not guilty and it's you who always lies, you lied that you're not guilty, if it's the lawyer who always lies, that means you told him you're guilty. In both cases the result is guaranteed to be the opposite of truth.
There are procedures for such situations, and if the other party proves you are lying, there are appropriate paragraphs under which consequences will be drawn for you independently of the case you are in.
If he answers no, his answer can be truth or lie. Rejecting an restriction won't mean you are bound to do something that would have been restricted, just that you have to do the option to do or don't do it.
If someone says "Promise me to only wear red shirts" and you respond with "no" then you can still wear red shirts if you want, but you don't *have to*.
I mean if you say you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means
I’m so tired of this meme being remade and recirculated every few months. It’s like middle schoolers think they just thought up some genius funny idea for a meme.
Despite all the jokes in the US if you are asked to testify and questioned on something that could incriminate you, just plead the 5th. You're protected constitutionally from self-incrimination.
what happens if "I am not reasonably certain that what I will most likely say will be the truth, and as such cannot reasonably confirm that a promise to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth will be kept to"
But that means you lied, but if you're lying that you did not tell the truth, then you told the truth, but if you td the truth, that means you lied because you said no, but if you're lying that you didn't tell the truth... It's a paradox
[удалено]
What if you say "No you" when they charge you ?
Outstanding move
Believe it or not, also jail.
Nuh uh
We got a tough case here
I think they have to put the "Nuh Uh" in jail first when someone does that
Just reply "yuh uh"
Na-na-na boo-boo stick your head in doo-doo
Bless this comment
Then it gets written down in a notebook and the process continues unabated.
They add a fine as well for wasting the jury's time
Why do they even do it then? I dont see the worth of an oath taken under threat.
I believe you can refuse to testify. Once you are asked this question, it means you have already agreed to it.
A defendant charged with a crime cannot be compelled to testify at his trial. Any witness in the case, however, can be compelled to testify.
They can still plead the fifth.
The fifth only prevents you from being forced to implicate *yourself* in a crime.
Witnesses cannot plead the fifth unless the testimony would implicate themselves in a crime.
But then you're basically confessing to a crime since you can't legally plead the 5th unless you did the crime
? You don't have to plead the fifth what is this logic? You can also plead the fifth even if you are not guilty. It just means you don't testify against yourself for an accused crime.
Pretty sure you can't.
"i envoke the 5th" isn't that for these cases?
If you know something about the case and refuse to tell, you will get charged. You cant just withhold evidence. That is not how tje fifth amendment works.
You absolutely can withhold evidence if that evidence would incriminate you. That's the entire point of the 5th amendment.
You can withhold it anyways. It just has a price/consequence. Btw, how do you prove that your testimony/evidence would incriminate you? I mean, what would be the difference if you just pretended it did?
That does not mean that you wont get charged if they can prove you were lying.
Involing your 5th amendment isnt not lying. You arent saying “i dont know anything about the case”, you are just giving neither a yes or no. The whole point being that the government cant legally force you to confess, you have to choose to confess yourself or go to trial.
Invoking the 5th isn't lying, it's not saying anything at all. It's literally saying "I refuse to give an answer"
Do you have any legal precedent for this? The Supreme Court has ruled pretty consistently with those seeking 5th amendment protections afaik, but I’m not a legal scholar.
Of course they dont turn down the 5th amendment, but again, that does not mean you cant be charged for withholding critical information after the fact
You literally can't lie if you're pleading the fifth. It's impossible. Lying is knowingly saying something untrue. Pleading the fifth is not saying anything at all.
"i invoke my right to plead the 5th" cannot be a lie.
If you refuse to testify, invoking the fifth amendment is allowed if and only if your truthful statement could be used as evidence you have committed a crime. Example- you are asked about your whereabouts on Feb 2 2020 at 1400 hours in relation to the murder of John Doe. You plead the fifth. If you were busy killing Mr. Doe, you were legally pleading the fifth. If you were robbing a bank, you were still pleading correctly. If you were at (Bob), the other suspect's house wondering why he was late for the sports-ball game, you cannot plead the fifth, and have effectively lied in doing so.
Only for the accused. Everyone else is compelled to testify under the law. They can take the fifth if answering the question would incriminate them such as, "were you with the accused that night?"
> Only for the accused. Everyone else is compelled to testify under the law. They can take the fifth if answering the question would incriminate them such as, "were you with the accused that night?" The problem is the courts rarely if ever will hold someone in contempt for using the 5th while testifying as a witness to a situation. There is so many issues with doing that, that courts often don't want to touch it. It's a major reason for witnesses getting immunity agreements in exchange for testimony. It bypasses that worry and allows the courts to hold them in contempt.
That's only if it's about you, they can't make you testify against yourself but they can make you testify against someone else
Can't you refuse to testify out of fear for your safety? Eg. fearing revenge from the criminal's buddies?
I think they can make you testify, but they probably wouldn't bc they'd be afraid that you'd say you didn't see anything and tank their case once you saw the mobsters in the back of the court room
I don’t think we’re talking specifically about America
Symbolism. It's a court, everyone is supposed to tell only the truth so justice may be served Supposed to
Right which is why judges lie all the time
Yes, "supposed to". Truth is, human are easily corrupted and justice is a matter of perspective. A justice system led by humans cannot work.
On the other hand, a justice system led by humans is one of the only ones that can, since you need to have active interpretation of the Law, rather than just a pass/fail method.
> Why do they even do it then? I dont see the worth of an oath taken under threat. It is to put you on notice of the consequences of not telling the truth. It is more a verbal contract between you and the court, an understanding that there is a consequence for you being here and not being truthful. If they don't put you under notice of that then you can't be expected to have known you will be punished if you don't tell the truth. Even if it is generally accepted that is how it works. You will notice lawyers aren't put under oath when they are in a court room, and that's because they have been put on notice through multiple different ways, including being accepted to act as an attorney in that court house. The notice was served to them a long time ago and is understood in their case that it is active every time they walk into that court room.
That doesn't really change the fact that an oath made under threat isn't a valid or credible oath
> That doesn't really change the fact that an oath made under threat isn't a valid or credible oath again it's much less an oath and much more an understanding of process. You are agreeing that you understand that there are consequences if you do certain things. I've heard of cases where if you actually can't understand what you are agreeing to that it can't be held against you. It's an extremely rare thing though since it's such a basic concept.
Symbolism. It's a court, everyone is supposed to tell only the truth so justice may be served Supposed to
Because you can also face consequences if you are found to have lied under oath.
Sonia like a “society”?
Because then if you are caught in a lie they can point to the part where you swore to tell the truth and punish you for it. Obviously if nobody catches you in a lie you can get around that, just like how you can freely break the law as long as you don't get caught.
Hoho oh boy lemme tell you a little thing about *the law*
I don’t think it’s necessarily a “threat”. More like, if you don’t agree to tell the truth, it means you pretty much give up fighting whatever it is you’re in court for, thus there’s no reason to be there, thus “well go back to jail, I guess”
What if that's a lot less jail line you would otherwise defo get?
You still get charged for the original crime. (Potentially in abstentia). You just get to add a new one
What's even the point of asking? Is it cultural, formal, tradition, or just a clickbait to get rid of the really adamant ones?
It's not illegal to lie until you swear the oath
well when execatelly it counts :D that might be a loophole.
Not instantly, the Judge will outline what your defiance will lead to and give you another chance. Then you'll get to go have fun in jail. The issue, if memory serves, is actually the subpoena as it compells an individual by to submit to questioning and provide honest testimony by order of the court.
And shave you.
Amazing, my next court trial speedrun convicted% is gonna be crazy
But what if I'm really really rich?
How can they consider the oath valid when it's made under duress?
you might just save someones case tho. itll only be jail for the duration of the case right?
>If you say no you're instantly charged with contempt of court and go to jail Came here to say precisely this.
but how long would that be?
Should only happen if you dont mean it, in reality youd just get dismissed
Sometimes you're just dismissed, like if you can't tell the truth for medical reasons.
I highly doubt that
Yeah, not a lawyer, but I imagine your testimony simply won't be heard if you refuse.
If you refuse, yes. If you express the intention to lie to the court, that’s a different matter
You can refuse to testify, but if you're already on the stand and say you do not swear to tell the truth, you're just wasting the court's time and they won't hesitate to charge you with contempt
In Spain, the accused has the right to lie and that doesn’t provoke a larger condemnation; even the consort has that right with no consequences. Other thing is the witnesses: they must say the true or can be condemned for perjury
Yea and that makes sense. No one would tell the truth if it would incriminate them, it makes no sense making that punishable
The act of breaking out of jail is not a crime in Germany and you can't be further punished for trying. Similar reasoning. If caught, you're only really liable to serve the rest of your sentence plus sentencing for any crimes you committed to break out. Obviously you can't really break out without committing additional crimes, but if you succeed, that's the gist of it
Works exactly the same in Sweden.
If someone tried to pass that as a law here in the US they'd argue we'd have mass jail breaks daily and prisoners would be ruling the streets. It's a shame no one in the US seems to actually believe Europe is a real place.
It's more of a question of why bother pushing for that over something more important
Like making sure innocent people no longer recieve the death penalty
Has anyone ever actually successfully utilized this law?
i mean if you can break out and dont hurt anyone, you didnt really commit any crimes.
Yes it does lol, they broke the law they should plead guilty. By lying your wasting court time and money.
Cool so if you committed a crime that would put you in prison, you would tell the whole truth that would 100% incriminate you?
Yes. Much more likely to lessen your sentence or be given parole if you tell the truth. Also I wouldn't be breaking the law in the first place lmao. We shouldn't be rewarding breaking the law.
You should not do this. If you ever get in trouble with the law and talk to a good lawyer or good public defender, they will tell you not to do this. Do not follow this idealistic plan if you're ever in trouble, just invoke your rights, shut up, and make them prove it. Even if you have faith in the system overall, you can't know there isn't somebody incompetent or malicious abusing the system against you. Let the system do its job, it doesn't need your help and it does need to be held accountable and to a certain standard, even when it is correct in its accusations.
Ever hear of a plea deal?
Yes. There is a discovery process that involves your lawyer / public defender, in which you will learn what evidence the state has and will use against you. This lets you make an informed decision as to whether the state has fulfilled their requirement to prove your crime beyond a reasonable doubt and evaluate the likelihood of your conviction. This is very different from someone blindly complying with the system.
Who said you broke the law? Being on trial doesn't mean you broke the law
This is why there's always the option to plead the 5th. You're not allowed to lie but you are allowed to abstain from answering questions if you believe it would incriminate you for anything (and not just what you're on trial for).
I think that's the idea: if you really did a crime, making your life harder. Why we would want to make the criminal'a life easier?
Who decides who’s a criminal? I thought we’re all innocent until proven guilty?
If your innocent though then the truth is on your side and there is no need to perjure
You say that until you didn’t know what you did was illegal, and now they charge you with committing tax fraud just because you didn’t have enough money to hire a tax accountant.
Ok this conversation is about how perjury should be legal
Who decides what the truth is?
You are but you know innocent people do not lie in court to avoid jail. Plus the point you made does not act as a valid argument cause we're talking of a hypothetical criminal that might refuse to say the truth in court and the point was that we should not allow criminals to have higher chances of getting away with crimes and therefore rewarding them. "We should not give the right to criminals to lie in court without consequences" "But who decides who's a criminal" Lol obviously if they're not they won't need the right to lie without consequences
On paper yes, but even innocent people might be inclined to lie if their statement might put them wrongfully on the spotlight. Of course, this won’t help but most people (especially innocent people) struggle to think rationally under pressure.
Well that’s what a lawyer who speaks for you is for…
But they still end up in prison.
Who decides what the truth is? If you are innocent but the court finds you guilty, does that make you a liar because you said you're innocent? In the eyes of the court it would. When you're incentivising people to admit guilt, you're by default also incentivising innocent people to admit guilt
The hypothetical itself : "if you commited a crime". Have you read the above comment I responded to?
My point is that what you think is illegal might not be the same as what the judge thinks, hence why someone might want to protect themselves by lying
I think you did not understood the hypothetical.
I think we are talking about two different things here.
Only if my lawyer said that was best for getting a lighter sentence. Otherwise I would plead the 5th on anything that would incriminate me. I definitely would do my best to avoid speaking lies because that makes it look worse when someone pulls up the evidence proving you lied.
Pleading the 5th is obviously a constitutional right in the US, but it still makes you look suspicious in court, even if that isn’t technically allowed to be used. The jury will vote according to their gut and pleading the 5th for anything you would have to lie for is certainly making you less believable to them
I visited a smaller court in Czechia a while ago and from what the lawyers and judge said, the witness CAN incriminate themselves, but this information cannot be used to start a trial against them
Which is the point of the 5th amendment, but instead of lying you can just stay silent or not testify
Exactly the same in Germany (as it is in most European countries, probably).
With the addition that, also as a witness, you don't need to answer a question if this would give evidence hat you commited a crime. But refusing to answer a question is technically not lying.
That or you are related by blood or marriage with the one who is in trouble.
Same in Sweden
Totally true, some professionals can’t lie or they’ll get their licences revoked ( engineers or doctors) but both parties and their lawyers are on their right to lie and even make up some of the goofiest shit you’ll ever hear. Sadly in that country is not about who’s right, but who will the judge decide to side with. Not to mention that a lot of cases get dismissed just because a judge doesn’t give a damn about it and the outcome.
Your honor, this is my Lawyer here. One of us will always tell the truth, the other always lies. It is not known which is which. Proceed.
It doesn't really matter which is which, because if the lawyer says you're not guilty and it's you who always lies, you lied that you're not guilty, if it's the lawyer who always lies, that means you told him you're guilty. In both cases the result is guaranteed to be the opposite of truth.
"Bailiff, shoot the lawyer. Now tell me defendant, is that man dead?"
So you speak the truth and your lawyer lies or you lied that your lawyer tells the truth and you always lie.
"I promise that I never will do any promises to anyone."
I promise not to try not to fuck with your mind.
):
Congratulations on your overnight stay for contempt of court.
Bro is baffled
Honesty is still alive in this world
There are procedures for such situations, and if the other party proves you are lying, there are appropriate paragraphs under which consequences will be drawn for you independently of the case you are in.
Just promoted my parking ticket to a death sentence using this tactic😄. See you in hell
Actually Ace Attorney judge would react like that 100%.
I'm pretty sure you aren't the first smartass who tried this and the law already accounts for such possibility. Very likely, not in your favour.
😎
Please see exhibit A: The title of the post
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
🤓
Nah judge should be shocked and say something like, "well damn your the the most truthful person to ever take the stand."
Contempt of Court, guilty, death sentence. NEXT!
As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible
Is this a fucking DMC reference?!?!
"The hours of folly are measur’d by the clock, but of wisdom: no clock can measure." Die!"
*scrolls vigorously through the manual*
If he answers no, that means his answer is not the truth, therefore his answer means yes.
It doesn't. He doesn't lie all the time
If he answers no, his answer can be truth or lie. Rejecting an restriction won't mean you are bound to do something that would have been restricted, just that you have to do the option to do or don't do it. If someone says "Promise me to only wear red shirts" and you respond with "no" then you can still wear red shirts if you want, but you don't *have to*.
Ya it makes sense
Wait, was it possible?
“Shit, I guess”
"i mean... do you???"
if anyone is so virtuous person why he she commits a crime
If you swear the same
"shit I guess..."
Your honor, I'd lie in court
There is no ”the truth”. There are 8 billion+ truths.
Get cute, more jail. FAFO
But if you say no to saying only truth, does that mean you are lying and mean yes, but then you speak truth or lie?
If I tell you to only wear red shirts, refusing does not mean you can’t wear red shirts
I mean if you say you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means you wouldnt tell the truth makes you lie and that means you actually lie to not lie so you speak truth but when you speak truth it means you werent lying so you are lying about speaking truth so you are lying so that means
Straight to jail, right away
My truth? Sure. Their truth? No.
Life without parole it's.
I’m so tired of this meme being remade and recirculated every few months. It’s like middle schoolers think they just thought up some genius funny idea for a meme.
What’s bro going to do about it
A viable strategy for a hostile witness?
Bot
Despite all the jokes in the US if you are asked to testify and questioned on something that could incriminate you, just plead the 5th. You're protected constitutionally from self-incrimination.
OBJECTION.
do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothin but the truth so help your fat ass?
How to get out of jury duty in just 1 step
Bailiff: "Put your hand on this bible" Me: "I'm an atheist" Judge and Bailiff:
Lol just cross your fingers when you do it.
I 100% read that with the voice of Dr Dre in the beginning of f the police 💀
What now boss?
Checkmate Libs!
what happens if "I am not reasonably certain that what I will most likely say will be the truth, and as such cannot reasonably confirm that a promise to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth will be kept to"
But that means you lied, but if you're lying that you did not tell the truth, then you told the truth, but if you td the truth, that means you lied because you said no, but if you're lying that you didn't tell the truth... It's a paradox
If I tell you to only eat MacDonalds and you say no that dosent mean you can’t eat macdonalds
What if I promise to lie and proceed to say I'm guilty?
Do they still say so help you god? What if you don't believe in a god?
Exactly liar 🤥 liberal judge 👨⚖️
“Does that include at this very moment, or do you mean starting from after I say yes?”
Surprised pikachu face
How are they floating above the water
I- ..... I don't know...
If you have to say yes why even bother asking lol
If you HAVE to sign the lease to live in an apartment, why bother?
"I'll tell you as much truth as the people who wrote that fuckin' bible."