What's interesting about this statement is that it is completely unnecessary, unless you are trying to get in front of something. The paper shredding company is akin to a garbage collector, with no duty to inspect or know what's in the "trash" they are collecting. If you throw evidence in a trash can, the collector isn't going to be arrested or charged with destruction of evidence.
What this means is the shredding company was in the know somehow, and that there is evidence they knew what they would be shredding.
What this means is the shredding company was in the know somehow
Not necessarily. What could have happened is that they shredded the document first, not realizing what they were, and then after seeing what was going on on social media, and putting 2 and 2 together, they got worried that they may have been duped into participating in a crime.
Even if they figure it out after the fact that they may have been duped, there's no criminal liability in that scenario. Most crimes have an intent at time of crime component (knowingly, willingly, intentionally, wanton disregard), which you don't have in the after the fact scenario. Now, I don't know enough about the ballot procedures, so maybe you get criminal liability out of ignorance of the law (doing something illegal, not knowing it is illegal). I just see statements like these as javelin catching, which innocent people usually don't make.
This could also be a state difference, as here we have cases dealing with these common carrier entities and liability.
What's interesting about this statement is that it is completely unnecessary, unless you are trying to get in front of something. The paper shredding company is akin to a garbage collector, with no duty to inspect or know what's in the "trash" they are collecting. If you throw evidence in a trash can, the collector isn't going to be arrested or charged with destruction of evidence.
What this means is the shredding company was in the know somehow, and that there is evidence they knew what they would be shredding.
Not necessarily. What could have happened is that they shredded the document first, not realizing what they were, and then after seeing what was going on on social media, and putting 2 and 2 together, they got worried that they may have been duped into participating in a crime.
They might be completely innocent here.
Even if they figure it out after the fact that they may have been duped, there's no criminal liability in that scenario. Most crimes have an intent at time of crime component (knowingly, willingly, intentionally, wanton disregard), which you don't have in the after the fact scenario. Now, I don't know enough about the ballot procedures, so maybe you get criminal liability out of ignorance of the law (doing something illegal, not knowing it is illegal). I just see statements like these as javelin catching, which innocent people usually don't make.
This could also be a state difference, as here we have cases dealing with these common carrier entities and liability.
I honestly don't think they'd tell some random dickweed employee one of the biggest secrets in history that he could quickly sell to the other side
'errr hello, mid league shredding company, we've got some black ops for you to do'