I am the guy vs I was the guy

[Rollercoaster1]

If I met you in a street and told you that I am the guy who broke into your house, what would you do?


If I met you in a street and told you that I was the guy who broke into your house, what would you do?

'I am the guy' suggests that it was certainly me.
'I was the guy' suggests that what could have been if it was me.

Have I explained correctly?

 

[emsr2d2]

1. If I met you in a street and told you that I am the guy who broke into your house, what would you do?
2. If I met you in a street and told you that I was the guy who broke into your house, what would you do?

'I am the guy' suggests that it was certainly me.
'I was the guy' suggests that what could have been if it was me. The blue part doesn't make sense.

Have I explained correctly?

To me, both sentences mean the same. As you can see above, I don't know what you mean by the part I have changed to blue. I have two other points:
- Usually, we say "If I met you in the street ..."
- There is really no need for the part about the street at all. You could just say "If I told you I ...".

 

[Tarheel]

Americans would probably say:

If I met you on the street...

(If you going to tell somebody you're the person w ho broke into their house you better have several people with you.)

 

[Yankee]

"I am the guy....." OK.
"I was the guy...." As emsr2d2 posted, it literally doesn't make sense, but in Am.E. you will/would hear it.

Sorry, scratch "literally". It's a symptom of the times. I meant grammatically.

 

[emsr2d2]

I should clarify - I have no problem with "If I told you I was the guy who broke into your house ...". You'll hear both "I am" and "I was" in BrE. The part that makes no sense is "... that what could have been if it was me".

 

[Tdol]

I see no real difference here between I am/I was.

 

[jutfrank]

My advice is to use the second version, whether you are the guy or not.

Using the former would probably not carry any meaningful difference.