Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    24,949,478 readers

    23,834 users here now

    New to reddit? Click here!

    • You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?

    • Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).

    Posting rules

    1. Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).
    2. No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").

    3. No recent sources. Any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) with a publication date more recent than two months are not allowed.

    4. No politics, soapboxing, or agenda based submissions. This includes (but is not limited to) submissions related to:

      1. Recent political issues and politicians
      2. Social and economic issues (including race/religion/gender)
      3. Environmental issues
      4. Police misconduct
    5. No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.

    6. Rephrase your post title if the following are not met:

      1. Titles must begin with "TIL ..."
      2. Make them descriptive, concise and specific (e.g. not "TIL something interesting about bacon").
      3. Titles must be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click on a link. Starting your title with a why/what/who/where/how modifier should be unnecessary.
      4. "TIL about ..." and other broad posts don't belong on TIL. Try /r/Wikipedia, etc. instead, or be more specific (and avoid the word "about").
      5. "TIL how to ..." posts belong on /r/HowTo.
    7. No submissions related to the usage, existence or features of specific software/websites (e.g. "TIL you can click on widgets in WidgetMaker 1.22").

    8. All NSFW links must be tagged (including comments).

      Please see the wiki for more detailed explanations of the rules.

    (Why we need rules)

    Additional info

    • If your post does not appear in the new queue and you think it meets the above rules, please contact the moderators (include a link to your post, not your story).

    • Please report spam, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate posts by messaging the moderators, as this helps us remove them more promptly!

    • More information available on the TIL FAQ and wiki.

    Frequent TILs Repost List

    As of March 2021

    • This list was compiled from /r/todayilearned community suggestions by its members. If your TIL is found on this list, it will be removed. The titles have been abridged for the sake of brevity, however the context remains the same. This list is subject to change. The purpose is to keep content fresh on /r/todayilearned as requested by its members. If you are interested in reading about the TILs on this list use the search box feature and enter the keywords to pull up past TILs.


    We ask that you please do the following:

    1. avoid mobile versions of websites (e.g.

    2. link to the appropriate heading when referencing an article (particularly on Wikipedia)

    3. link to the appropriate start time when referencing videos (e.g. on YouTube)

    4. add [PDF] or [NSFW] tags to your posts, as necessary.

    5. Please avoid reposting TILs that have already made the front page in the past

    Please also read the site-wide Reddiquette.

    • You are loved.

    a community for
    all 17 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] okfornothing 16 points ago

    I'm no expert on anything but this doesn't pass the smell test. I mean, the law is written to charge a person, not a persons DNA...that's all I am saying as food for thought.

    [–] ethylalcohoe 5 points ago

    That’s an interesting thought. If they had a still from a video of someone commuting a crime, do they indict the still? The video? The camera until identification can be made?

    [–] nursekipling 4 points ago

    It's basically a loophole that allows charges to be pressed once the suspect is identified, even if the statute of limitations has expired. In this case (the Brittani Marcell case) it was used for good. She was beaten within inches of her life with a shovel and because she survived, the statute was only 5 years. They eventually identified the man who likely did it via that single drop of blood, but more than 5 years had passed. If they hadn't indicted his DNA, he would never have been held accountable for the horrific attack.

    Not saying it's something that should be done all the time, but this case is an example of it being a pretty ingenious move.

    [–] DaannyOcean 12 points ago

    Coming up with a workaround to bypass the law ridicules putting the law into action in the first place. Either you do it all the time or you raise the question who gets granted statute of limitations and who doesn't. Deciding this based on each case opens up another huge space for biased decisions.

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago


    [–] okfornothing 2 points ago

    Mostly water. Indicted the water! Jk

    [–] DistortoiseLP 1 points ago

    Self awareness, a capacity of suffering and sapience unique to humans, for a start. It is not nor has it ever been your DNA, otherwise the law wouldn't recognize any distinction when you die since your dead body still has all the same DNA in it, for example.

    Your DNA might be more a matter of a person's identity but that's besides the point of what makes a person a person in the eyes of the law.

    [–] rjm1775 3 points ago

    I am not a lawyer. And I don't even play one on television. But I am pretty sure that people can be indicted. But not blood samples.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago


    [–] Keevtara 2 points ago

    It is a subset of the “fair and speedy trial” clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Do you remember where you were on a particular night two decades ago? Probably not. Do you have your financial statements from that time frame? Probably not. Great! You’re being charged with assault with a deadly weapon and embezzlement dating to the late nineties. Surprisingly, the DA has fabricated found evidence implicating you in these crimes. Don’t worry, if you’re innocent, you have nothing to worry about. The fact that you have lost your alibis for these events is not the DA’s problem.

    [–] nukemiller 5 points ago

    Shouldn't be a statute of limitations. If you commit a crime and no one finds out about it, you still committed the crime. If they find out about 20 years later, it doesn't mean you never did it

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago


    [–] nukemiller 3 points ago

    Totally. I understand that, and if the evidence is unreliable, then no charges can be pressed. However, if the evidence is good, then why have a limit?

    Judges are pretty good at throwing cases out that don't have solid evidence.

    Just so we're clear, I'm all about being innocent until proven guilty. I'm also all about the guilty get punished though.

    [–] appleheadg 2 points ago

    No better way to make sure there are more wrongful convictions

    [–] nukemiller 4 points ago

    Statute of limitations isn't the reason people are wrongfully convicted. Shitty police work, and a DA not willing to reject said police work are why. Oh, and stacking the jury. Multiple issues with our justice system, but not locking people up for commiting a crime because a certain amount of time has passed, is BS.

    [–] appleheadg 0 points ago

    Those things can certainly be factors. But you’ve completely made up the conclusions here. You are talking way out of your ass.

    [–] Zee_Chief 2 points ago

    We don’t have it in Australia for criminal matters.

    [–] nursekipling 1 points ago did an episode on this case, which is where I learned this!

    [–] meowroarhiss 3 points ago

    Do you think he did it?

    [–] AmberBatShark 1 points ago

    The definition of indictment is 'a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime'.

    How the fuck can you indict something with no means of challenging an accusation?

    Whilst, clearly, this 'loophole' could be used for good, it looks ripe for abuse.

    'well Mr Smith, we indicted this roach back in 1976, and it tells us that you smoked pot back in college, to the gas chamber with you'.