🏅 Top traders

@mods i think this resolved too early

It looks like multiple sources are now reporting the more precise time of 10pm or “before 10pm” local time, which would be by 12pm ET.

Here are three different news articles (CNN, CNN, and BBC):

@bens it’s also possible it was even earlier!

His discord logs say he posted he would surrender “within moments” at 7:57pm local time.

I think we might have to wait for official court documents to know the precise time, but “just before 10pm” seems to be the most precise time given so far, which would actually indicate a YES resolution here.

@bens it says that they were driving right before 10pm, not that he was turned in at that moment.

if this gets unresolved, please don't reopen it, no need to burn mana speculating over this messy resolution

@bens I only see one source there use the word “before” (the first pic), and grammatically it seems to clearly refer to them driving, which is pre-custody.

I agree that if several sources say “at 10pm” that seems like evidence it could have been a minute earlier and they’re rounding. But if this is resolving based on a consensus of credible reporting, every source I’ve seen says 10 or later, and I haven’t seen any claim before 10. (And it’d need to be more than just one source to override the consensus anyways).

It seems possible that later evidence could overturn this reporting but “but ‘just before 10pm’ seems to be the most precise time given so far” seeems straightforwardly false—one source says that he was driving before 10, many say custody at 10 or just after 10, and that’s the current media consensus (unless there are other examples not yet linked).

@Ziddletwix I think the issue was that early reporting said 11pm because that’s when the department announced that he was in custody (with press reports on that not even coming until after midnight). This market then resolved on the basis of that. Then, it looks like many sources have been saying 10pm, presumably because the department gave a loose timeline of the events at a press conference. But now there’s one source that specifies not just 10pm but “just before 10pm” which seems even more precise but also still indicates that the media hasn’t been given the exact time he was booked. In any case, I don’t see why there should be a higher bar to re-resolve. If the market closed now, I think the balance of evidence would probably skew towards a YES, rather than a NO, especially given the information from the discord logs that has been released, which indicates a time even farther in advance of 10pm.

@bens

But now there’s one source that specifies not just 10pm but “just before 10pm” which seems even more precise...

Again, this is not accurate. The full quote is:

Just before 10 p.m. on Thursday, Robinson, his father and a close friend who previously worked in law enforcement — [...] — drove together from Washington, Utah, to the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Hurricane, according to Sgt. Lance Alfred, a spokesperson for the sheriff's office.

The grammar here is not ambiguous—"just before 10 p.m." refers to "drove together", not custody (the following paragraph even continues to discuss what other things happened on that drive). This is not a source that claims he was in custody before 10pm.

If the market closed now, I think the balance of evidence would probably skew towards a YES, rather than a NO

Given that several sources say "after 10pm" and others say "at 10pm", and none (that have yet been linked here) claim custody "before 10pm", I personally think this would be a strange reading of the current evidence. The more narrow claim that the media simply doesn't know the exact time and rounded to 10pm (whether up or down) is plausible. But it's important to be clear that the only "before" source you have linked here (so far) was not referring to custody.

@Ziddletwix that’s not how I parsed the sentence, tbh: I think they’re using that time to refer to the end of the process of bringing him in, not the beginning, but just weren’t great at grammatically structuring that. But I see why one might think that from a literal read.

@bens actually from a literal read

“At X time, they drove from ___ to ___” is quite ambiguous, and if anything the “to” time takes precedence, but it’s a bit of an archaic grammar rule and I can’t find a source that backs me up on whether the leading or trailing prepositional clause should take precedence so I’ll concede it’s ambiguous.

@bens For reference, the full quote (with the following paragraph) is:

Just before 10 p.m. on Thursday, Robinson, his father and a close friend who previously worked in law enforcement -- who is also a youth volunteer with a local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- drove together from Washington, Utah, to the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Hurricane, according to Sgt. Lance Alfred, a spokesperson for the sheriff's office.

During the drive, the family friend called the personal cellphone of the Washington County Sheriff's Office patrol division chief to report the suspect was about to turn himself in, Alfred told ABC News.

When Robinson arrived at the sheriff's office, he was taken into a building marked "Authorized Personnel Only," with personnel from the sheriff's office notifying the Salt Lake City FBI office and other local law enforcement officials of the suspect's arrival, Alfred said.

I don't think the grammar is ambiguous, but I think it's particularly clear in its. The article tells a story, with three events in chronological order: "(1) Just before 10pm... Robinson, his father & a close friend... drove together from [...] to [...]. (2) During the drive, [...]. (3) When Robinson arrived [...]". It would be extremely strange for "Just before 10pm" to refer not to the verb in the same sentence ("drove"), but to his the "arrived" that occurs two paragraphs later (setting aside the timing of custody after arrival).

@Ziddletwix right, but meta-gaming a bit here, I’m guessing the journalist was more likely to be given the time of his arrival at the station, or perhaps the time of the phone call, rather than extrapolating back to determine the time they left their house (how would they have known this time?)

@bens it referring to the phone call timing does make more sense.

"Kash Patel did not disclose that Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer had been arrested, leaving the announcement for Donald Trump to make on Fox. The suspect was taken into custody at 10 p.m. Thursday in Utah, or midnight Eastern."

"By" usually means "by the end of" on Manifold.

@AndrewHebb i have never understood it that way, but i can see how the title could've been clearer ! sorry about that.

@256 Neither did I until there was a big argument about it here and the consensus settled on that meaning.

@256 It’s still confusing to me. I’ve learned to just avoid the word altogether in my market titles to avoid ambiguity.

STOP THE STEAL

Hold up! The question doesn’t specify he needed to be in custody by the state. It appears that his family member had taken custody of him in order to turn him in BEFORE midnight EST! This resolves YES @creator

@bens unironically (but not really)

@bens god always had him in custody. his parents had his custody until he turned 18. smh

@256 before creation of market never counts, is my understanding

@bens do we actually know for sure the exact time he came into the state custody?

@JussiVilleHeiskanen Patel said "Just last night, the suspect was taken into custody at 10pm local time", so somewhere between 10 and 11 pm local, which is still after midnight ET

@256 Eh, was talking about god and parents

@JussiVilleHeiskanen tagged the wrong person :c