Info Why we don't use 'SWIM' MEGATHREAD

It can't really protect you. Cops can just get your ip and trace it, it's pretty easy. I don't like posting on forums where I have to use swim. It's fucking annoying.
 
Yea, pretty much everything thats been said here. Some people (wrongly) assume that it protects them legally in court, which it doesnt.
 
I understand that using SWIM might look dumb or cluttered and might be annoying, but why is everyone so adamant that it definitely would not hold up in court? Is there some legitimate reason why many of you believe this or does everyone just assume that? Here is how I see it. Saying "I did XYZ" in court would count as an admittance, but saying "My friend did XYZ" is clearly not an admittance. Only the former could possibly count as incriminating whereas the second, although many or all people might *guess* (and be right) that they meant themselves when they said "My friend," they have no case because there is no proof that the person did it himself.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you all to say that we should use SWIM. I'm just trying to figure out why so many are so sure that it's so useless legally. Thanks!

-Jaguraguguru
 
SWIM = someone who isn't me

SWIM = someone who is me

which one of these has an official legal definition? there's your answer.

it's the dumbest idea ever. whoever came up with it must have done it as a joke.


(requesting a 'why we don't use SWIM Megathread'.) ;)
 
SWIM = someone who isn't me

SWIM = someone who is me

which one of these has an official legal definition? there's your answer.
Click to expand...

I've read all the posts on several threads about this topic, so I've seen this argument, but it is not really an answer at all. I don't even know why you're asking which has an official legal definition. Obviously neither does and SWIM cannot be assumed to mean "I" legally by any court if it is trying to garner an admittance of crime, whether or not they are *certain* that that's what it in fact means. If someone said "my friend did this," they clearly can't use that as evidence against the person who said their friend did it. SWIM is no different. If, on the other hand, someone said "I just bought XYZ from XYZ" or anything along those lines, it might feasibly be used as an admittance of crime.
Why is it "the dumbest idea ever" to think that if you don't directly admit (in the first person) to having done or bought drugs but instead say you know someone who did, that you're less likely to be incriminating yourself? Do you really believe that there is absolutely no difference in saying "I did this" and "My friend did this" in terms of incrimination?
I just don't understand why everyone so strongly believes that you are just as screwed in court in either case. Is there any precedent for this or any examples that would show this to be the case?
I'm not trying to make anyone mad or just argue for the sake of arguing. I think this is important to everyone and I want to learn as much as possible about legal ramifications of these types of discussions. Thanks.

-Jaguraguguru
 
the acronym is completely ambiguous and therefore meaningless. i don't have any real life examples of people being prosecuted/not prosecuted when trying to use it as a defence, but i'm sure if such an episode had happened it would have caught our attention over our past 10+ years of operation. i'm guessing if someone had told their lawyer "but I used the SWIM method of protection" their lawyer would have told them to STFU and leave the talking/thinking to them. ;)

there is also the minor factor (let's admit it, the main factor) which is that it makes posts really fucking annoying to read. :|
 
It gets even more annoying when people start saying 'My cat took (x) last night' and 'My fish got totally fucked on (y)'

Just cut the readers some slack, it's frustrating having to decipher what pretext you're speaking in. Unless of course some members actually have a house filled with intoxicated domestic pets.
 
jaguraguguru said:
I've read all the posts on several threads about this topic, so I've seen this argument, but it is not really an answer at all. I don't even know why you're asking which has an official legal definition. Obviously neither does and SWIM cannot be assumed to mean "I" legally by any court if it is trying to garner an admittance of crime, whether or not they are *certain* that that's what it in fact means. If someone said "my friend did this," they clearly can't use that as evidence against the person who said their friend did it. SWIM is no different. If, on the other hand, someone said "I just bought XYZ from XYZ" or anything along those lines, it might feasibly be used as an admittance of crime.
Why is it "the dumbest idea ever" to think that if you don't directly admit (in the first person) to having done or bought drugs but instead say you know someone who did, that you're less likely to be incriminating yourself? Do you really believe that there is absolutely no difference in saying "I did this" and "My friend did this" in terms of incrimination?
I just don't understand why everyone so strongly believes that you are just as screwed in court in either case. Is there any precedent for this or any examples that would show this to be the case?
I'm not trying to make anyone mad or just argue for the sake of arguing. I think this is important to everyone and I want to learn as much as possible about legal ramifications of these types of discussions. Thanks.

-Jaguraguguru
Click to expand...


What Felix said was correct.

Apart from that, anyone who thinks even for a poofteenth of a second that using the acronym swim would protect them or alternately cause them to be prosecuted (in the event that its read as Somone Who Is Me) has no concept of how law works.

That is simply not enough evidence to prosecute someone.

Law Enforcement needs a lot more than that.

If you are busted then it may be because you tried to buy or sell drugs openly here or even via PM.
 
The affidavit for a warrant would read something like this:

Your affiant is a Special Agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration with 27 years law enforcement experience... through my experience and training I know that the term SWIM is an acronym used to falsely purport that the writer is not the person who committed the aforementioned act...

or something very similar.

Basically, it won't work. Internet posts alone would likely not be the only probable cause, either.

In short, it's a false sense of security. Acronyms, codewords and slang have made their way to many affidavits in support of search warrants.
 
If you really think that my pet hamster is going to save you then by logical extension that means that you could be in court for cruelty to animals.

The fact is that its just unnecessary.
 
there is no problem with swimming, it's good for your health. But this is a drug forum why would u wanna be swimming here?

Priorities are very important. There is a time and place for everything.

I know im corny, that's my style:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top