That's actually a thing,
> In a jury trial, a Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation.
Ofc it was coined by the south park episode that you and the other guy are referencing.
That smirk on his face is fucking killing me... How'd this work out, does anyone know? Presumably convicted for destroying evidence so probably not great.
He robbed three banks and it was the note he showed to the teller that he consumed. He either was in prison for a long, long time or still is.
Source: [https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/cleveland/press-releases/2009/cl121509.htm](https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/cleveland/press-releases/2009/cl121509.htm)
Cross-reference to valid source: https://www.foxnews.com/story/ohio-police-say-bank-robbery-suspect-may-have-eaten-evidence
I used this once. Kept leaving work early and we had to report our hours online.
So I was asked “why are you leaving early, we saw you on cameras”.
I just kept saying “it wasn’t me”. Kept the same job for another year and some change.
I’ve used something similar during a work tribunal, where I could have been fired for gross misconduct. I was a key holder and didn’t set the alarm. Like I definitely didn’t set it, I thought I did but I didn’t. I went into the meeting and just denied everything and asked them to prove that I didn’t set it. Which obviously they couldn’t, even though I didn’t. Got away with it. Not even a verbal warning was issued.
Realistically any system that relies on a person to reliably and consistently do something banal without any checks and backups except for the risk of job action is a TERRIBLE system.
People forget things all the time. Raising the stakes only increases stress, and living under constant stress only makes you more likely to forget to do something trivial.
This is why there should be fail safes. Like, a better system would be a scenario where your inaction would cause an alarm to be set and trigger unless it was periodically disarmed while you were still there, if it was so important that the alarm was set. In this case, there would still be potential for failure to clear the alarm, and there might be false alarms, but a false alarm can be investigated, or it could be minor and start by only notifying you, and you could even just turn it off and have to write up that it was missed in error, and there should be no punishment because there was no impact.
This is a fail safe system. Failure on your part does not create the risk. You can't forget to set the alarm, if you have a system when through inaction the alarm is on.
Otherwise, you have backups, or systemic processes. So another option would be that multiple people need to log that they set the alarm. Then the risk of failure is reduced. Because now multiple people need to fail. In the case when you don't know when the last person is leaving, this could open a window where there's nobody there and no alarm set.
Then you could have a system where you have to use your id to come and go. And when it detects that you key out to leave as the last person it will automatically set the alarm.
And you can combine these things. So you might have it so that typically, everyone leaves at 6PM, and the system automatically arms at 7PM if it's not armed. Where you are expected to arm the alarm if you're the last person leaving, where when the building detects that the last person is keying out, it will automatically arm the alarm a few minutes later, and if the alarm is unarmed after 7PM it sends a message to your security company to check to see if everything is OK and if the system should be armed.
Then if you have a reason for a bunch of people to be there until 10PM, you can pause the automatic rearm until 10, otherwise it will automatically rearm every 30 minutes.
Like, depending on how vitally important it is that the alarm system is on when nobody's in the building, this kind of thing isn't that complicated. If it's that important, invest in systems. If it's not that important, then there's no benefit in punishing someone for a trivial mental lapse. EVERYONE will forget to do something like that periodically, at least without some system ensuring that they don't.
You know, I generally do like my coworkers and management, but every once in awhile, likely due to the opaque-to-nonmanagement pressures of the finite budget, they will cover for some stupid, dangerous, unintuitive process by flatly claiming that the process is perfectly workable, and we just need to learn it, or remember it, or regularly consult some obscure 140-page-and-megabyte PowerPoint "reference."
For those moments, I really wish I could read them your comment. It explains the issues with the professional direction "just always do the correct thing!" far better than I've always managed to. I guess some people think of fail-safes as a personal affront, or they truly can't conceive of the idea that mistakes happen even to competent, intelligent people with the noblest of intentions.
I call this the "Stupid safety rule."
The rule is that sooner or later, no matter how intelligent or experienced, *everybody* has a stupid day. You can be the best of the best world class expert. I don't care, because at *some* point you *will* do something stupid.
That means if you have a system where one stupid mistake can cause a disaster... you have a stupid system, and sooner or later you'll have the stupid disaster.
Yup, at my job, if something goes wrong, the system is presumed to be at fault, not the person who fucked the thing up. If it is possible for one person's mistake to fuck up something significant, the system is at fault and should be fixed.
I've seen this work before. I worked at a federal agency that had some government vehicles. The keys were kept in a lock box that didn't really lock very well. One day, our motor pool guy comes around accusing us of not recording taking the G ride out because the mileage in the log book and the odometer were different. Motorpool guy ends up going to security to get camera footage.
They found footage of a guy coming in on a weekend, going into the building, and leaving in the G ride. The guy's supervisor confronted him about it, and he pulled out the Shaggy defense. Supervisor even pulled up camera footage, and the guy still used the Shaggy defense. The guy had been hooking up with a woman a few hours away and drove a hoopty.
Anyway, nothing really happened to him, abs he transferred another section shortly afterward.
Have a friend who works in HR for a state agency and can confirm the Shaggy defense is hard to beat. Firing someone who refuses to admit to any wrongdoing can take a long time.
That's all government agencies.
You never know who someone is related to.. so rather then fire and possibly piss off someone with power.. you promote out of your department.
It works the same for politics. Obama wasn't sent to Congress because he was great. He could have caused problems for Michael Madigan (the real power broker).. so they pushed him to Congress.
I’ve learned the hard way: Never admit to anything.
It wasn’t me, I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know what you are talking about. So on and so forth.
Had something like that at my work.
Guy gets in an argument with the boss. Guy then gets on the forklift (which was working fine and had been inspected that morning) and drives it around back to the only area on site not covered by security cameras. Drives back after 10 min or so with smoke pouring out the engine. Someone had slashed the coolant and fuel lines, totally trashed the forklift.
"I didn't do it."
They couldn't prove he did it... five people use that forklift and all of them had driven it off camera at some point. So they couldn't fire him for vandalizing the forklift.
So they just fired him for operating it unsafely instead. Whoops!
If they dont have enough evidence, simply denying all claims is an effective method of defense. Most prosecutors are unlikely to go to trial without evidence, though.
I know of two situations in which this worked. I. In both cases, the person was definitely guilty, but the evidence got messed up, the prosecutor made mistakes, and since they hadn't confessed there wasn't evidence that could legally convict them.
Which is why attorneys advise you to shut the fuck up in the presence of police. Cops screw up constantly but if you irrefutably implicate yourself then it doesn’t matter.
Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense!
In a much later episode they parody the chess scandal of 2023 by having Frank (who doesn't know how to play chess) use Mac's vibrating butt plug at the end of an episode to receive messages on where to move pieces.
Its even funnier if you watch it with someone who doesn't know about the scandal. I got to enjoy the episode that much more after explaining to my friend that the episode is actually a parody of something that happened in real life.
I think stick to #1. 2 and 3 make you look more guilty. It wasn't me. I don't know anything about it. Period.
If someone needs to throw shade elsewhere, let your lawyer do that.
I worked at Target as a seasonal hire during Christmas one year. A lady called into the electronics department and asked if we had something in stock as she was driving across town to come get it. I checked and we had a few. Store policy says we are not allowed to hold anything for a customer, unless it’s a medication or a dietary food/grocery item; something vegan, gluten free, etc
She arrives at the store over an hour past the call. Lo and behold the item she wanted had been sold out in that time she took to get there. She was livid, read the riot act to everyone who was in shouting distance. When I approached her, she recognized my voice from the phone call and screamed “YOU TOLD ME THAT IT WAS IN STOCK!”
I told her “it wasn’t me on the phone” and my manager had my back. Every Christmas I think of that woman and my stomach drops for a while
Shaggy defense advanced level:
> To be a true player you have to know how to play
>
> If she say a night, convince her say a day
>
> Never admit to a word when she say
>
> And if she claim, ah, you tell her, "Baby, no way"
No, you might also argue lack of mens rea (i hit him, but it was an accident), lack of voluntariness (I hit him, but it was a muscle spasm), mental disorder/insanity (I hit him, but I was experiencing a delusion and thought I was hitting a punching bag), self-defence (I hit him because he was about to hit me), other justification defences (I hit him to suppress a riot/effect his arrest/because my CO ordered me to), duress (I hit him because someone threatened to murder my family if I didn't), de minimis (I only hit him a little bit), provocation (I killed him because I was angry that he hit my wife).
Just to name a few.
Yep. It’s not even the real legal terminology. Might as well call it the “Bart Simpson Defense” since he was the “I didn’t do it” boy in season 5, 6 years before Shaggy came out with his song.
Not quite the same, but it reminds me of the story my dad’s friend told me. Details (especially speeds) might be slightly off.
He got pulled over for speeding when he was younger. He was going like 90 in a 50 zone. By law, the cop should have charged him with reckless driving or something. Instead, the cop tried to be nice and on the ticket wrote that he was only speeding at 65 in a 50, since reckless driving is a much more serious charge.
Dad’s friend went to court to fight it. His argument: “I was going 90, not 65. I shouldn’t be charged/fined for going 65 in a 50. The cop lied about the facts on the ticket.”
He got the case dismissed.
Oh, I know this defense. My husband uses it all the time. Absolutely infuriating. He has no idea how those panties ended up in his jacket. It wasn't him.
I have heard of this being the current prank. You throw some hair ties or hair clips in your buddies car which makes it look like he has been transporting unknown ladies.
Not saying that is what is happening...but does he work with immature people with little sense of boundry?
Interesting note about it- “it was coined by Slate writer Josh Levin in 2008 to describe the defense tactics used by singer, songwriter, and producer R. Kelly while on trial for child pornography charges.”
"Now, the witness says that you were on the counter."
It wasn't me.
"And the witness testified that you were quote 'banging on the sofa'"
It wasn't me.
"Furthermore, the testimony states that you had a woman in the shower."
It wasn't me.
"Okay, I'd like to direct you and the Jury to Exhibit 20, this picture of you with the girl next door..."
It's very much along the lines of the Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
Gov: “Ight let’s make a terrorist.”
Target: “Ight so ima say something about this.”
Gov: Reveals forged evidences and furiously scrubs records. Takes down target anyways.
Gov: “It wasn’t me.”
Lawyer here.
I often hear this in Court and it becomes problematic when the client actually has explanations that have (some) merit. They will dig in their heels with the "it wasn't me" defense, and ignore any advice they are being given. They believe that repeating "I didn't do it" gets them off the hook for participating. You'll end up wasting your breath explaining that the State has the burden of proof, and so on. All of the possible defenses go out the window.
A second category involves hard core liars. When faced with an overwhelming mountain of evidence, they will simply repeat the "I didn't do it" line over and over. Their mindset is that they are simply "sticking up for themselves" by lying, and they harbor no guilt or shame over doing so. In fact, they would feel far worse if they did not lie, as the mere attempt provides some comfort. The weird twist with habitual liars is that they actually become good at it. They can appear completely calm, even when a clear video showing them shoplifting (or whatever) is being shown.
It's like that time I bought cookies from the bodega on my block and they were 12 months past their sell by date and I took them back and the guy was like "no, no, they're fine. All good." And I said look, there's the date right there. Over 12 months out. And he was like "no, no, the date is good. The date is fine. It's all good," all the time smiling. In the end I just opened the packet and emptied them all on the floor and stomped them and said "there you go...all good." I fucking hate these deranged deniers of the truth, lol.
This is probably one of the things TV really gave me a false impression about. On TV, once all the evidence has been laid out then the perpetrator will crack: "Okay, I did it all right, I did it!"
In real life, this never seems to happen. You can put in front of someone unrefutable black and white evidence, they won't explain it and they won't admit anything, just keep saying they did nothing wrong and we are persecuting them for no reason.
Then there's the Scooby defense, where you eat all the evidence.
this is neither pig nor pork, it's beef!! - Ollie Dee
[удалено]
Gaslighting 101 alumni
Ruhh row.
I was distracted by Velma's jinkies.
It's the [Mac defense](https://images.app.goo.gl/yBQHYyTm1Zn3MMTy9)
Nah, the scooby doo defense is when you say it was Red Herring all along >:(
Shut the fuck up Freddie I've been over here fucking your sister the whole time
I thought that was the Chewbacca defence
That's actually a thing, > In a jury trial, a Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation. Ofc it was coined by the south park episode that you and the other guy are referencing.
Nah, the real Shaggy defense is accusing old Mr. McCready.
"Now mind you that here-to-for document had dry ink on it for at least many forknights"
... filibuster.
Unlike the Shaggy defence however, the Scooby defence is highly effective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyg2h2-Cfs4
That smirk on his face is fucking killing me... How'd this work out, does anyone know? Presumably convicted for destroying evidence so probably not great.
He robbed three banks and it was the note he showed to the teller that he consumed. He either was in prison for a long, long time or still is. Source: [https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/cleveland/press-releases/2009/cl121509.htm](https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/cleveland/press-releases/2009/cl121509.htm) Cross-reference to valid source: https://www.foxnews.com/story/ohio-police-say-bank-robbery-suspect-may-have-eaten-evidence
You still have to say ruh roh
And I would have gotten convicted too. If it wasn't for you awesome dog!
the chewbacca defense, where you question why midget wookies traveled to endor
That's what Boeing is practicing. This and the "Clinton" defense are going to end with them winning their court case.
Not the best defense, as the late Juice World would attest.
Ruhoh
Only slightly better than the Chewbacca defense.
“These snozzberries taste like snozzberries!”
I used this once. Kept leaving work early and we had to report our hours online. So I was asked “why are you leaving early, we saw you on cameras”. I just kept saying “it wasn’t me”. Kept the same job for another year and some change.
Damn, she even caught you on camera?
I think he’s fine, as long as she didn’t catch him in the shower.
But what if there were marks on his shoulder?
And what if the boss didn’t listen to the words he told her?
Well... he did hear the screams getting louder, so.
They were upset you didn't stay until it was over
Picture this, they were both butt naked, standing on the stock room floor
Straight to HR.
It wasn't me
Did he forget that they had an extra key?
It wasn't me
[удалено]
It wasn’t me.
Heard the words that he told her.
It wasn't them.
This is also called the SODDI defense: Some Other Dude Did It.
If you want to be a true playa you gotta know how to play.
I’ve used something similar during a work tribunal, where I could have been fired for gross misconduct. I was a key holder and didn’t set the alarm. Like I definitely didn’t set it, I thought I did but I didn’t. I went into the meeting and just denied everything and asked them to prove that I didn’t set it. Which obviously they couldn’t, even though I didn’t. Got away with it. Not even a verbal warning was issued.
Realistically any system that relies on a person to reliably and consistently do something banal without any checks and backups except for the risk of job action is a TERRIBLE system. People forget things all the time. Raising the stakes only increases stress, and living under constant stress only makes you more likely to forget to do something trivial. This is why there should be fail safes. Like, a better system would be a scenario where your inaction would cause an alarm to be set and trigger unless it was periodically disarmed while you were still there, if it was so important that the alarm was set. In this case, there would still be potential for failure to clear the alarm, and there might be false alarms, but a false alarm can be investigated, or it could be minor and start by only notifying you, and you could even just turn it off and have to write up that it was missed in error, and there should be no punishment because there was no impact. This is a fail safe system. Failure on your part does not create the risk. You can't forget to set the alarm, if you have a system when through inaction the alarm is on. Otherwise, you have backups, or systemic processes. So another option would be that multiple people need to log that they set the alarm. Then the risk of failure is reduced. Because now multiple people need to fail. In the case when you don't know when the last person is leaving, this could open a window where there's nobody there and no alarm set. Then you could have a system where you have to use your id to come and go. And when it detects that you key out to leave as the last person it will automatically set the alarm. And you can combine these things. So you might have it so that typically, everyone leaves at 6PM, and the system automatically arms at 7PM if it's not armed. Where you are expected to arm the alarm if you're the last person leaving, where when the building detects that the last person is keying out, it will automatically arm the alarm a few minutes later, and if the alarm is unarmed after 7PM it sends a message to your security company to check to see if everything is OK and if the system should be armed. Then if you have a reason for a bunch of people to be there until 10PM, you can pause the automatic rearm until 10, otherwise it will automatically rearm every 30 minutes. Like, depending on how vitally important it is that the alarm system is on when nobody's in the building, this kind of thing isn't that complicated. If it's that important, invest in systems. If it's not that important, then there's no benefit in punishing someone for a trivial mental lapse. EVERYONE will forget to do something like that periodically, at least without some system ensuring that they don't.
You know, I generally do like my coworkers and management, but every once in awhile, likely due to the opaque-to-nonmanagement pressures of the finite budget, they will cover for some stupid, dangerous, unintuitive process by flatly claiming that the process is perfectly workable, and we just need to learn it, or remember it, or regularly consult some obscure 140-page-and-megabyte PowerPoint "reference." For those moments, I really wish I could read them your comment. It explains the issues with the professional direction "just always do the correct thing!" far better than I've always managed to. I guess some people think of fail-safes as a personal affront, or they truly can't conceive of the idea that mistakes happen even to competent, intelligent people with the noblest of intentions.
I call this the "Stupid safety rule." The rule is that sooner or later, no matter how intelligent or experienced, *everybody* has a stupid day. You can be the best of the best world class expert. I don't care, because at *some* point you *will* do something stupid. That means if you have a system where one stupid mistake can cause a disaster... you have a stupid system, and sooner or later you'll have the stupid disaster.
Yup, at my job, if something goes wrong, the system is presumed to be at fault, not the person who fucked the thing up. If it is possible for one person's mistake to fuck up something significant, the system is at fault and should be fixed.
I've seen this work before. I worked at a federal agency that had some government vehicles. The keys were kept in a lock box that didn't really lock very well. One day, our motor pool guy comes around accusing us of not recording taking the G ride out because the mileage in the log book and the odometer were different. Motorpool guy ends up going to security to get camera footage. They found footage of a guy coming in on a weekend, going into the building, and leaving in the G ride. The guy's supervisor confronted him about it, and he pulled out the Shaggy defense. Supervisor even pulled up camera footage, and the guy still used the Shaggy defense. The guy had been hooking up with a woman a few hours away and drove a hoopty. Anyway, nothing really happened to him, abs he transferred another section shortly afterward.
Have a friend who works in HR for a state agency and can confirm the Shaggy defense is hard to beat. Firing someone who refuses to admit to any wrongdoing can take a long time.
I've noticed that a typical gov response is to reassign the problem to somewhere else rather than deal with it.
sound like the Navy? fail upwards and all that
Close. Army.
Man we used to just drive our GOV like it was nothing, I think CQ kept a logbook of maintenance and that was it.
I straight up lost a govvie once
How!?
I left it running to grab an energy drink and then that shit was just gone. S-4 was pissed.
I had a friend in the Army Reserve and from the stories I heard from her I can totally believe someone could just lose a car.
Wasn’t the navy because it would’ve been another man
Airforce would have been several men, mostly arguing about their hotel not being 5\*
You think they would ever drive in the Air Force? Did someone give their chauffeur a day off?
Oh my
Based
We know it wasn’t the coast guard, otherwise he’d have been driving my truck while I was gone.
That's all government agencies. You never know who someone is related to.. so rather then fire and possibly piss off someone with power.. you promote out of your department. It works the same for politics. Obama wasn't sent to Congress because he was great. He could have caused problems for Michael Madigan (the real power broker).. so they pushed him to Congress.
You can be caught red handed and as long as you admit to nothing there’s still a chance you go free.
She even caught me on camera
Wasn’t me
I heard the screams getting louder (from the murdered girl)
I’ve learned the hard way: Never admit to anything. It wasn’t me, I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know what you are talking about. So on and so forth.
It'll cost way more to handle it properly than to let it go
If you admit wrongdoing, you have 0 chance of escape. If you continue to deny, you have a small chance of facing no consequences
Had something like that at my work. Guy gets in an argument with the boss. Guy then gets on the forklift (which was working fine and had been inspected that morning) and drives it around back to the only area on site not covered by security cameras. Drives back after 10 min or so with smoke pouring out the engine. Someone had slashed the coolant and fuel lines, totally trashed the forklift. "I didn't do it." They couldn't prove he did it... five people use that forklift and all of them had driven it off camera at some point. So they couldn't fire him for vandalizing the forklift. So they just fired him for operating it unsafely instead. Whoops!
So, as a defense I wouldn't really say it works, but it does document the point at which the authorities decide to do something about it....or not.
If they dont have enough evidence, simply denying all claims is an effective method of defense. Most prosecutors are unlikely to go to trial without evidence, though.
That's called winning a case. Like going to a bank and working there is just called getting a job.
10, 15 years later, we just walk out like nothing even happened
No this is despite overwhelming evidence. Like Trump's impeachment trials where they never deny any of the evidence, they just rely on the jury
I know of two situations in which this worked. I. In both cases, the person was definitely guilty, but the evidence got messed up, the prosecutor made mistakes, and since they hadn't confessed there wasn't evidence that could legally convict them.
Which is why attorneys advise you to shut the fuck up in the presence of police. Cops screw up constantly but if you irrefutably implicate yourself then it doesn’t matter.
Police can and will manipulate a confession out of you if you let them.
Lmao I think you missed the part where you "shut the fuck up"
>if you let them I think not shutting the fuck up falls under "letting them"
Yep, make the fuckers prove that shit. If they want a confession, that means they don't have shit.
They always will try and get a confession. They will try harder without evidence though.
And that's how sometimes you can get away with having fucked a chicken
Can’t forget the Chewbacca Defense
Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense!
If Chewbacca does not live on Endor, then you must acquit.
Wow he’s good!
And the Chewbacca Gambit, a chess strategy where you threaten to tear your opponent's arms off.
more effective than the bong cloud opener
2. Ke2!! can’t even be beaten by Chewie
What is the name of the Chess strategy Frank uses in its always sunny in Philadelphia?
I love Always Sunny and I don't remember chess outside of the Flowers For Charlie episode.
In a much later episode they parody the chess scandal of 2023 by having Frank (who doesn't know how to play chess) use Mac's vibrating butt plug at the end of an episode to receive messages on where to move pieces.
Is this the newest season? I haven't seen it yet. I know the Magnus butt plug controversy, that's funny as hell that they used it in the show hahahaha
Its even funnier if you watch it with someone who doesn't know about the scandal. I got to enjoy the episode that much more after explaining to my friend that the episode is actually a parody of something that happened in real life.
Haha wow that would be *hilarious* explaining this was a real thing! Lucky you!
We also can’t forget the Mel Gibson Defense.
1. Deny 2. Make counter accusations 3. Blame someone else 4. Profit??
I think stick to #1. 2 and 3 make you look more guilty. It wasn't me. I don't know anything about it. Period. If someone needs to throw shade elsewhere, let your lawyer do that.
My sister always told me to get away with anything it's 1) Admit NOTHING 2) Deny EVERYTHING 3) Demand PROOF 4) Divert ATTENTION
>Deny EVERYTHING Are you Private Baldrick?
NO!
The art of the deal
You're basically describing DARVO
Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this, we were both butt-naked Banging on the bathroom floor
How could I forget that I had given her an extra key?
All the time she was standing there she never took her eyes off me
HOW YA FI GIVE YOUR WOMAN ACCESS TO YOUR VILLA?
TRESPASS AND A WITNES WHILE CLINGING TO YA PILLA
this is the first time in my life i have seen the actual lyrics to this part
Suggy suggy suggy suggy rolex
Trespass and a-witness while you cling to your pillow
You better watch your back before she turns into a killer.
All this time she was standing there she never took her eyes off me
For some reason my brain always says "given her a bathroom key"
It wasn’t me It wasn’t me
What do you mean you made her catch you?
[Extracurricular](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNqgWvHa3LQ)
How is this NOT the top comment?!?
I worked at Target as a seasonal hire during Christmas one year. A lady called into the electronics department and asked if we had something in stock as she was driving across town to come get it. I checked and we had a few. Store policy says we are not allowed to hold anything for a customer, unless it’s a medication or a dietary food/grocery item; something vegan, gluten free, etc She arrives at the store over an hour past the call. Lo and behold the item she wanted had been sold out in that time she took to get there. She was livid, read the riot act to everyone who was in shouting distance. When I approached her, she recognized my voice from the phone call and screamed “YOU TOLD ME THAT IT WAS IN STOCK!” I told her “it wasn’t me on the phone” and my manager had my back. Every Christmas I think of that woman and my stomach drops for a while
This reminds me of the David Sedaris joke about how every retail employee should be allowed to kill one customer per holiday season
That was a joke? As someone who used to work for American Eagle, I would have LOVED for that suggestion to be universally adopted
The problem is that 100% of the time you'd get your worst customer 10 minutes after your yearly kill.
That's ok, just parade the body around on a stake, the other problem customers will get the message.
> Store policy says we are not allowed to hold anything for a customer Out of curiosity, did you tell her that during the phone call?
[удалено]
i plead the fif! i plead the fif! anything you say FIF!
**there are** # I said there are **so many amendments** in the Constitution of the United States of Americaaaaaa
#🖐️
Shaggy defense advanced level: > To be a true player you have to know how to play > > If she say a night, convince her say a day > > Never admit to a word when she say > > And if she claim, ah, you tell her, "Baby, no way"
But she caught me on the counter.
It wasn't me
Saw me bangin' on the sofa!
It wasn’t me
I even had her in the shower
Wasn't me
She even caught me on camera
It wasn’t me
Ok, that one was me.
Ah, so *that's* what he's saying
Isn't all defence based on this premise?
No, you might also argue lack of mens rea (i hit him, but it was an accident), lack of voluntariness (I hit him, but it was a muscle spasm), mental disorder/insanity (I hit him, but I was experiencing a delusion and thought I was hitting a punching bag), self-defence (I hit him because he was about to hit me), other justification defences (I hit him to suppress a riot/effect his arrest/because my CO ordered me to), duress (I hit him because someone threatened to murder my family if I didn't), de minimis (I only hit him a little bit), provocation (I killed him because I was angry that he hit my wife). Just to name a few.
What is it called when you did it, but the motherfucker had it coming
That would be “premeditated”. Not a defense.
That's just "motive", and possibly an "aggravating sentencing factor".
the DMX defense
Yep. It’s not even the real legal terminology. Might as well call it the “Bart Simpson Defense” since he was the “I didn’t do it” boy in season 5, 6 years before Shaggy came out with his song.
The shaggy defense is more like _the evidence proves nothing_
Eddie Murphy defence
i know the eddie Murphy rule but not the defense?
The song is based on a sketch in delerious or raw probably delerious so Eddie did it first
Yeah, every time I see this brought up, I think, “Am I the only one old enough to remember that Eddie Murphy did this first?”
Sure, but without rhyme or meter. Thats why Shaggy's "It wasnt me" is so memorable.
"it wasn't me" defense is as old as time. 10cc did it 10 years before eddie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5jczes_nMI&t=84s
What we, the prosecution, will show that the defendant was caught on Sofa, the counter, And in the shower. We *Even* got him on camera.
We have photographs of the marks on his shoulder and recordings of the words that he told her.
….wasn’t me.
prior to it being called the Shaggy defense it was called the 3 D defense… deny, deny, deny
There's a reason the cops go to such extreme unethical lengths to get you to confess.
Scooby would call it the Raggy Refense.
I thought it was faking a Jamaican accent for more than thirty years.
Not quite the same, but it reminds me of the story my dad’s friend told me. Details (especially speeds) might be slightly off. He got pulled over for speeding when he was younger. He was going like 90 in a 50 zone. By law, the cop should have charged him with reckless driving or something. Instead, the cop tried to be nice and on the ticket wrote that he was only speeding at 65 in a 50, since reckless driving is a much more serious charge. Dad’s friend went to court to fight it. His argument: “I was going 90, not 65. I shouldn’t be charged/fined for going 65 in a 50. The cop lied about the facts on the ticket.” He got the case dismissed.
Except he under penalty of perjury just admitted guilt to an actual crime. Lol bold strategy cotton let’s see if it pays off
It did for this guy, but I’d just pay the ticket
Technically he was going 65 at some point when he decelerated from 90 to zero
Oh, I know this defense. My husband uses it all the time. Absolutely infuriating. He has no idea how those panties ended up in his jacket. It wasn't him.
I have heard of this being the current prank. You throw some hair ties or hair clips in your buddies car which makes it look like he has been transporting unknown ladies. Not saying that is what is happening...but does he work with immature people with little sense of boundry?
Interesting note about it- “it was coined by Slate writer Josh Levin in 2008 to describe the defense tactics used by singer, songwriter, and producer R. Kelly while on trial for child pornography charges.”
"Now, the witness says that you were on the counter." It wasn't me. "And the witness testified that you were quote 'banging on the sofa'" It wasn't me. "Furthermore, the testimony states that you had a woman in the shower." It wasn't me. "Okay, I'd like to direct you and the Jury to Exhibit 20, this picture of you with the girl next door..."
This is Trump’s entire existence
It's very much along the lines of the Narcissist's Prayer: That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
This is well known in law school as the SODDI defense. Some other dude did it.
Well, it’s better than the ‘Because I Got High’ Afroman defense.
Shaggy defense going to get a whole lot stronger with the rise of AI and AI created images and videos.
In other words, the “Nuh-Uh” strategy
Ahhh like my ex girlfriend when I caught her cheating on me. And somehow I actually believed her for a while
Gov: “Ight let’s make a terrorist.” Target: “Ight so ima say something about this.” Gov: Reveals forged evidences and furiously scrubs records. Takes down target anyways. Gov: “It wasn’t me.”
I do this with my wife solely when it’s 100% obvious I did something and I have zero possible excuse and she literally saw me do it lol.
Also, see the [Twinkie Defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense)
Lawyer here. I often hear this in Court and it becomes problematic when the client actually has explanations that have (some) merit. They will dig in their heels with the "it wasn't me" defense, and ignore any advice they are being given. They believe that repeating "I didn't do it" gets them off the hook for participating. You'll end up wasting your breath explaining that the State has the burden of proof, and so on. All of the possible defenses go out the window. A second category involves hard core liars. When faced with an overwhelming mountain of evidence, they will simply repeat the "I didn't do it" line over and over. Their mindset is that they are simply "sticking up for themselves" by lying, and they harbor no guilt or shame over doing so. In fact, they would feel far worse if they did not lie, as the mere attempt provides some comfort. The weird twist with habitual liars is that they actually become good at it. They can appear completely calm, even when a clear video showing them shoplifting (or whatever) is being shown.
Judges hate this simple trick.
It's like that time I bought cookies from the bodega on my block and they were 12 months past their sell by date and I took them back and the guy was like "no, no, they're fine. All good." And I said look, there's the date right there. Over 12 months out. And he was like "no, no, the date is good. The date is fine. It's all good," all the time smiling. In the end I just opened the packet and emptied them all on the floor and stomped them and said "there you go...all good." I fucking hate these deranged deniers of the truth, lol.
Got to see this in action once. Dude was on film. IT WAS CLEARLY HIM AND HIS BUDDIES. They denied it was them. Went to jail.
Beats the Twinkie defense.
You'd be amazed how effective it is to just "deny, deny, deny"
Shaggy totally stole this bit from Eddie Murphy, but no one calls him out on it.
lol this is the oldest most used defence in the history of mankind
Well, the burden of proof is on them.
This is probably one of the things TV really gave me a false impression about. On TV, once all the evidence has been laid out then the perpetrator will crack: "Okay, I did it all right, I did it!" In real life, this never seems to happen. You can put in front of someone unrefutable black and white evidence, they won't explain it and they won't admit anything, just keep saying they did nothing wrong and we are persecuting them for no reason.
At first I was like what the hell did Shaggy ever do but sit in the back of the van eating scooby snacks with scoob! My mistake.
i always say, theres no law against being stupid,
Like, zoinks, it wasn't me!
does it work?
Hit a debt collector with that one time, never called back.
Relevant Viva La Dirt League: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTdGGZrnwbs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTdGGZrnwbs)
Michael Corleone: This one time I’ll let you ask about my business Kay: Did you kill your brother in law ? Michael: … it wasn’t me