• lad@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      You’re right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case. You’re wrong to call at least this one person random, police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random

        • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          5 months ago

          you fucking morons.

          😂

          You realize we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right? I guess you don’t want to acknowledge that because it would mean admitting that you’ve been terribly wrong this whole time. I can’t wait for your next reply where you write 10 paragraphs about how worms aren’t real therefore the whole premise is wrong and you’re right.

        • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          5 months ago

          No, the point is that one of them is actually the suspect lmfao. And guess what, if it’s not, they tell you ahead of time. You’re just wrong on every level here, and are just making yourself look foolish now.

          The suspect, along with several “fillers” or “foils”—people of similar height, build, and complexion who may be prisoners, actors, police officers, or volunteers—stand side-by-side, both facing and in profile. There is crucial information that should be conveyed to the eyewitness prior to viewing the lineup. It is necessary to inform the eyewitness that it is possible the perpetrator is not present in the lineup.[1]

          You just aren’t all there are you?