这个存疑吧。维基上明明给了一个案例： 2013年德州高法有过判例，说明不提供监控录像完全有可能被视为销毁证据，但是后果的轻重视情而定。德州某人去超市买菜，滑倒受伤。然后他去看了医生，5天后回到店里说有背伤。超市的保安部只保留了他摔倒前后几分钟的监控。他后来雇佣的律师也要求调出当时的录像来看，超市没给。 初审法官对陪审团的指示明确指出超市方面存在销毁证据的问题，然后陪审团判超市赔偿顾客一百万。二审法院支持初审法院的判决，但是这个直到官司达到德州最高法院才下令重申。不过德州最高法院更改的理由不是超市方没错，而是初审法院判的太狠。 这个还是民事诉讼而已。澳洲的例子已经是刑事诉讼，要求的标准应该更高。 Brookshire Brothers Ltd. v. Aldridge[edit] The use of a spoliation inference may be warranted depending on the circumstances, but not all cases of spoliation warrant this serious response by the court. In a 2013 case before the Texas Supreme Court named Brookshire Brothers Ltd. v. Aldridge, A man named Jerry Aldridge went into one of Brookshire Brothers'' supermarkets, and after a few minutes in the store, slipped and fell. He went to a doctor approximately 90 minutes later, and returned to the store five days after the accident to complain of back injuries caused by the fall. The supermarket chain''s security department only kept what it felt was the relevant part of that store''s surveillance video consisting of just before to a few minutes after Mr. Aldridge slipped and fell. When he first filed suit against Brookshire Brothers without an attorney, Mr. Aldridge was able to get video evidence consisting of the 30 seconds before he slipped and fell, plus the next seven minutes. He attempted to obtain more of the store''s video surveillance footage, but was refused. When he hired an attorney, the attorney was also unable to obtain footage from before or after the event (which might have been useful to prove negligence based on how long the spill was on the floor, or on the seriousness of Mr. Aldridge''s injury). The store''s surveillance system automatically writes over previously recorded video after 30 days, unless saved separately. Brookshire Brothers did not keep any additional footage from before or after the accident. The trial court judge found that the store''s refusal to provide the additional video footage constituted spoliation, and gave the jury a "spoliation inference instruction". The jury was instructed that they may find the failure by the store to retain (and subsequently provide to the other party) the additional footage may be considered an attempt to hide evidence that Brookshire Brothers'' management knew would be damaging to their case. The jury returned a verdict for Mr. Aldridge in excess of US $1 million. The Texas Twelfth District Court of Appeals upheld the verdict and the spoliation inference instruction. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ordering a new trial, stating that it was abuse of discretion by the trial court to issue a spoliation inference instruction in this case, that the court should have imposed a different corrective measure on Brookshire Brothers (a less severe sanction), and that a spoliation inference instruction to the jury is only warranted in egregious cases of destruction of relevant evidence.[12]
你是店主？ 我看过一个案件。 在美国一个有钱人， 好像是球星？ 在自己豪宅里里外外装了监控。 后来杀人了。 结果这些监控都是证据。
所以说这是狗咬狗。双方都有责任。惩罚程度不同而已。
就是，这楼里有的人真是一点常识和逻辑都没有
踹的是女主 劝架的店员他给推倒了
这太好了 被害人不是打黑工更理直气壮
真是韩国人也不奇怪，在韩国豆腐煲店亲见经理大骂员工，员工像孙子一样一句都不敢回，他们上级下属等级区分及其严格。
我稍微歪一下楼。你这个link和我们讨论的完全牛头不对马嘴。
你说的是东西已经被认为是证物的情况下，去销毁，修改或者隐藏的情况。这是犯罪。
我说的是这东西能不能充当证物。
一般来说，证物是法院下令，搜查某种东西，警察才能去搜查，然后取得之后才能成为证物。如果警察没有经过法庭的允许去搜查，即使查到也不能作为证物。就好比周立波吸毒案，西雅图嫖娼案，警察在取证过程中都出现了问题，被证明是不合法的，结果脱罪。
澳洲不清楚，但美国作为被告的私有财产的监控录像，是有权利不交给警察的。除非法院下令。但法院要下令之前，要有一套很复杂的辩论程序，讨论这个证物能不能搜取。一般是不能去搜取。因为美国的第五修正案。
我估计都没合同，就是口头上说试用一下。
花钱去澳洲留学真不值啊……
陪一大笔回国爽啊 留这儿还担心被这俩黑心的坐完牢出来报复
在美国也不可能被判离境啊
笑死了，你想不给就不给啊
警察去拿个certificate,能把你家里翻个底朝天
手动+1
你说啥呢？要是你莫名其妙被辞退还不给工钱你给我展示一下绅士风度看看
不知道澳洲有没有小额法庭，如果有应该直接去告。使用法律工具。上门讨债发生争执导致打斗伤人两败俱伤。
不是奇葩多，是成分不一样。澳洲大多是官二代富二代小留，立场和利益跟大多靠自己出来的北美华人
这智力 这逻辑 你也是够奇葩了。。。
这店主也太恶心了 当别人都要是傻子么 我就觉得不可思议 这种人脸都不要了呀 脑子里都是💩么 简直恶心死了
劝架的22岁小姑娘头上缝了七针。
这个已经被打脸了
女孩并不是上门讨债，她是当晚上着班被解雇，临走前讨要工资
那个打人的男的是顾客吗？有他什么事儿？？？
被打了的女生扔个包都涉嫌斗殴？ 澳洲对受害者的定义是打不能还手，骂不能还口吗？
是黑衣人的老婆
那黑衣人是内蒙人
哎呀 看着就是推到了 这么严重？我去这要是毁容咋整 告死那个大SB 被踹女生啥情况呢 这些精神损失都少不了
事发地Adelaide是南澳大利亚州的首府，非常小的城市，打工机会不多。
在澳大利亚，国际学生每周打工20小时以下是合法的。 澳洲没有小费制度，所以临时工的最低工资比较高，接近每小时26澳币。
但是华人店工资只给每小时10澳币左右。很多店 ---- 包括7-11连锁店 ---- 以实习或者试工的名义，克扣留学生工资。
澳洲有小额法庭的。但是很多留学生（尤其是需要去华人店打工的留学生）英文普遍不太好，不懂得如何维护自己的权益。
倒下去的时候撞到了桌椅
yes
一家人渣 一起坐牢去
这个存疑吧。维基上明明给了一个案例：
2013年德州高法有过判例，说明不提供监控录像完全有可能被视为销毁证据，但是后果的轻重视情而定。德州某人去超市买菜，滑倒受伤。然后他去看了医生，5天后回到店里说有背伤。超市的保安部只保留了他摔倒前后几分钟的监控。他后来雇佣的律师也要求调出当时的录像来看，超市没给。
初审法官对陪审团的指示明确指出超市方面存在销毁证据的问题，然后陪审团判超市赔偿顾客一百万。二审法院支持初审法院的判决，但是这个直到官司达到德州最高法院才下令重申。不过德州最高法院更改的理由不是超市方没错，而是初审法院判的太狠。
这个还是民事诉讼而已。澳洲的例子已经是刑事诉讼，要求的标准应该更高。
Brookshire Brothers Ltd. v. Aldridge[edit] The use of a spoliation inference may be warranted depending on the circumstances, but not all cases of spoliation warrant this serious response by the court. In a 2013 case before the Texas Supreme Court named Brookshire Brothers Ltd. v. Aldridge, A man named Jerry Aldridge went into one of Brookshire Brothers'' supermarkets, and after a few minutes in the store, slipped and fell. He went to a doctor approximately 90 minutes later, and returned to the store five days after the accident to complain of back injuries caused by the fall. The supermarket chain''s security department only kept what it felt was the relevant part of that store''s surveillance video consisting of just before to a few minutes after Mr. Aldridge slipped and fell. When he first filed suit against Brookshire Brothers without an attorney, Mr. Aldridge was able to get video evidence consisting of the 30 seconds before he slipped and fell, plus the next seven minutes. He attempted to obtain more of the store''s video surveillance footage, but was refused. When he hired an attorney, the attorney was also unable to obtain footage from before or after the event (which might have been useful to prove negligence based on how long the spill was on the floor, or on the seriousness of Mr. Aldridge''s injury). The store''s surveillance system automatically writes over previously recorded video after 30 days, unless saved separately. Brookshire Brothers did not keep any additional footage from before or after the accident. The trial court judge found that the store''s refusal to provide the additional video footage constituted spoliation, and gave the jury a "spoliation inference instruction". The jury was instructed that they may find the failure by the store to retain (and subsequently provide to the other party) the additional footage may be considered an attempt to hide evidence that Brookshire Brothers'' management knew would be damaging to their case. The jury returned a verdict for Mr. Aldridge in excess of US $1 million. The Texas Twelfth District Court of Appeals upheld the verdict and the spoliation inference instruction. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ordering a new trial, stating that it was abuse of discretion by the trial court to issue a spoliation inference instruction in this case, that the court should have imposed a different corrective measure on Brookshire Brothers (a less severe sanction), and that a spoliation inference instruction to the jury is only warranted in egregious cases of destruction of relevant evidence.[12]
光脚的打人没事，但穿着鞋的打人会被整。这厮也该
华人一多，社会阶层界限会被明确，打工的不应该这么跟老板闹，要合法上访，否则权贵扇一个耳光是轻的，重的话直接让保安给你一顿毒打扔出门外。
是的，黑衣男的社交账号信息有没有 想去骂
你妈如果骂了你爸loser被你爸爸打死，是不是也是活该呢
他们那没疫情了？都不戴口罩聚集？我现在都强迫症了 一看到人多不戴口罩就难受
澳洲现在夏天，别说南澳了，人口最多的悉尼也基本正常了，只有留学生还没有回澳。
打人这件事，最后大概率是赔钱和解收场。