Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Crime & justice fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about crime & justice. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

6,836 published reviews in this topic

Boatos.orgCrime & justice

Comandante do Exército é PRESO após ordem de ministro do STM

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim concerned a YouTube video asserting that the Army commander appointed by Lula had been imprisoned after an STM minister ordered it. The video’s narration alleged that the commander was convicted by a military court and sentenced to 20 years for, among other things, treason and bribery. It also named General Lourival Carvalho as the minister involved and General Décio Luiz Sons as the intelligence chief who supposedly uncovered the case. The article identifies those allegations as the video’s account, rather than as established events. The investigation reports that its initial search found no support for the claim. It says that a real case of this significance would have generated multiple reports in reliable outlets, but that it found none. It also states directly that no STM ministerial decision had resulted in the commander’s imprisonment. The article characterizes the story as invented and points to the video page’s pattern of alarmist claims about arrests involving military figures and politicians. The article’s stated checks are its search for reliable reporting and its examination of the claim’s details and the page’s other titles. On the evidence described, the specific allegation of an STM-ordered imprisonment is unsupported; the article concludes that the commander was not imprisoned by such an order.

FACTLYCrime & justice

A Muslim boy cut a Hindu girl’s wrist in Delhi after an argument broke between them

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a video presented as showing a Muslim boy cutting a Hindu girl’s wrist after an argument in Delhi. The review says police gave a different account of the same incident: the girl cut her own wrist, and her father was present. It therefore distinguishes the fact of the injury from the claim about who caused it. The review also says the police confirmed the boy did not cut her wrist. [S1]

YouturnCrime & justice

வானதி சீனிவாசன் அலுவலகத்தில் இளைஞர் அடித்து கொலை அரசு வேலை வாங்கித் தருவதாக கூறி பெற்ற பணத்தை பணத்தை திரும்ப கேட்டதாலேயே வானதி சீனிவாசன் ஆதரவாளர்களால் அந்த இளைஞர் கொடூர தாக்குதலுக்கு உள்ளாக்கப்பட்டு கொலை செய்திருக்கலாம் என்று முதற்கட்ட விசாரணையில் தகவல்.

Publisher’s rating: Fake

dpaCrime & justice

La police dit que si vous voyez un chien enfermé dans une voiture en cas de forte chaleur, prenez une photo du chien et de la voiture, appelez la police, attendez 5 minutes et cassez la vitre de la voiture. De cette façon, vous ne serez pas accusé de dommages criminels.

Publisher’s rating: Non. En Belgique, quiconque endommage la propriété d’autrui, même avec des intentions louables, peut être tenu responsable des dommages. Dans ce genre de situations, il est préférable d’appeler la police, qui est autorisée à prendre de telles mesures si nécessaire, et d’attendre leur arrivée. S’il s’agit d’une urgence vitale et que vous décidez tout de même de briser la vitre de la voiture, il est important de savoir que le propriétaire pourra vous poursuivre pour les dégâts occasionnés.

dpaCrime & justice

Je bent niet schuldig aan schade, wanneer je de ruit van een auto breekt wanneer er een hond in de hete auto zit. Het geeft juist bewijs aan de politie om de eigenaars van honden voor de rechtbanken te slepen.

Publisher’s rating: Nee, de omschreven procedure (bellen, vijf minuten wachten, ruit inslaan) stelt je niet automatisch vrij van 'criminele schade'. In werkelijkheid adviseert de politie om te bellen naar 112 of 144, en vervolgens met de politie verdere acties te bespreken. Ook het Openbaar Ministerie adviseert niet op eigen houtje de autoruit in te slaan.

The claim describes a social-media procedure for rescuing a dog left in a hot car: photograph the situation, call police, wait five minutes, and then break a window, supposedly without being accused of criminal damage and with evidence to take the owner to court. The fact-check examined that specific advice and reports that a police spokesperson confirmed the circulating procedure was too simplistic. The investigation says that whether breaking a window is appropriate depends on how serious the dog’s condition is; it is not automatically justified by following those steps. The article reports that the police advise calling 112 when an animal is in distress, or 144 if there is no emergency, and waiting for instructions rather than simply breaking a window. It also says the Public Prosecution Service shared that advice. The fact-check therefore concludes that a photograph and five-minute wait do not automatically protect someone from liability or provide automatic proof for taking the owner to court. The advice is particularly inadequate where the dog does not show extreme signs of heat distress. The article notes a qualification: breaking a window may be permitted as “zaakwaarneming” (acting to protect another’s interests) when the situation is genuinely a matter of life or death, according to the cited animal-rescue and animal-protection organizations. But it stresses that this depends on the specific circumstances. Its practical conclusion is to call and follow instructions, rather than treating the social-media sequence as a blanket legal safeguard.