...he didn't think “the authorities were so stupid' by canttakesky

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

...he didn't think “the authorities were so stupid'

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 04:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1984
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, November 4, 2007 5:01 AM

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22694982-5005961,00.htm
l

Quote:
A MAN in Sweden who was angry with his daughter's husband has been charged with libel for telling the FBI the son-in-law had links to al-Qaeda, Swedish media reported today....

...his father-in-law wrote an email to the FBI saying the son-in-law had links to al-Qaeda in Sweden and was travelling to the US to meet his contacts.

He provided information on the flight number and date of arrival in the US.

The son-in-law was arrested upon landing in Florida.

He was placed in handcuffs, interrogated and placed in a cell for 11 hours before being put on a flight back to Europe, the paper said.

Are we too paranoid? Or is this sort of behavior an acceptable cost for preventing terrorism? Note that even though the guy was cleared, he was still sent home instead of being allowed to continue on his business. Is it right that all it takes is someone, anyone, to point a finger at you to get your arrested?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 5:17 AM

LEADB

Cleared? I didn't see anything that said the man was cleared before being sent back to Europe. The FBI may merely have felt they didn't have enough to hold him.

While the article mentions that the father in law admitted the lie it could have been after the son in law was on the plane back to Europe; timing isn't obvious.

The phrase that comes to mind immediately is McCarthyism. We do not want to go to a place where all it takes is someone pointing a finger at someone and lives and careers are ruined.

On the other hand, we don't know what the father in law put in the note. If it was as vague as what was published in the paper, I think the FBI over reacted; I think they should have merely followed him after the interrogation. On the other hand, they may have had significant concerns left open after the interrogation coupled with details in the note. All I can say is, I hope that the poor sap has been cleared in the mean time and is no longer on any watch lists.

Edit: Further pondering...
And how do you stop this sort of thing? I guess make an example of the Father in Law. I hope they press those libel charges to trial and give him a stiff penalty.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 5:37 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Are we too paranoid? Or is this sort of behavior an acceptable cost for preventing terrorism? Note that even though the guy was cleared, he was still sent home instead of being allowed to continue on his business. Is it right that all it takes is someone, anyone, to point a finger at you to get your arrested?

Yeah! The last thing we want is the govt investigating people accused of meeting their Al Queda contacts. Its just not fair to try and prevent a terrorist attack BEFORE it happens. Clearly the govt should just ignore every tip or informant that they get in favor of doing nothing and letting things work themselves out.

I note for the record we really do need a special sarcasm font.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 6:13 AM

CANTTAKESKY

There is such a thing as checking things out before arresting someone.

If I sent the FBI an anonymous tip that you, Hero, molest children, they would (I hope) check it out before cuffing you. Yet, it seems, from this story, that if my tip accused you of planning to meet terrorist contacts, they cuff you first, then check things out.

My question is, is it right to assume guilt until innocence is proven, where terrorism is concerned? Note that in this case, the man wasn't accused to carrying a bomb or any imminent terrorist threat. He was accused of being a member of an organization and planning to meet other members. Yet still, guilty until proven innocent.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 6:44 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There is such a thing as checking things out before arresting someone.

If I sent the FBI an anonymous tip that you, Hero, molest children, they would (I hope) check it out before cuffing you. Yet, it seems, from this story, that if my tip accused you of planning to meet terrorist contacts, they cuff you first, then check things out.

My question is, is it right to assume guilt until innocence is proven, where terrorism is concerned? Note that in this case, the man wasn't accused to carrying a bomb or any imminent terrorist threat. He was accused of being a member of an organization and planning to meet other members. Yet still, guilty until proven innocent.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

Or worse the guy could have been sent to a third party nation and had a false confession tortured out of him

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Wow, I know a few arseholes who are big time terrorists wink wink

make a phone call and laugh my ass off

all hail the frigging alliance

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 3:15 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Or is this sort of behavior an acceptable cost for preventing terrorism?

Does it?

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 3:33 PM

FLETCH2

Was he arrested at the airport or afterwards?

If you got a tip that someone with terrorist connections was coming in on a flight you would have at best 8 hours to do a complete background check and satisfy yourself that the tip was bogus. Since you can't be sure that once he's in the country he wont just disappear you're kind of forced to hold him at least as long as it takes to do background checks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 3:39 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
My question is, is it right to assume guilt until innocence is proven, where terrorism is concerned? Note that in this case, the man wasn't accused to carrying a bomb or any imminent terrorist threat. He was accused of being a member of an organization and planning to meet other members. Yet still, guilty until proven innocent.

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. If he had been assumed guilty, he would have been detained and held for interrogation. We’re at war with Al Qaeda. We’re not going to let someone we suspect of being an Al Qaeda operative, just walk away after entering this country, nor should we. The FBI doesn’t have the same kind of jurisdiction in Sweden that they have in the US. They can request information through the State Department or Interpol, but that kind of investigation can be a fairly involved matter, certainly not the kind of effort the FBI would want to waste too much time on a tourist. But the FBI were obviously convinced relatively quickly that this person was not an Al Qaeda operative, however they have no way of knowing the truth and a foreign national has no right to enter the country. If the FBI had simply allowed this person to go on his way, and he turned out to be an Al Qaeda operative, it could have been an enormous mistake. So the simplest thing to do was to send him back to Sweden. Unfortunate if he’s really not a threat, but it’s not the FBI’s fault - this guy just has some serious family problems.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 4, 2007 3:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

FBI gets a tip that a guy is a terrorist, and specific info such as what flight he's on and every thing matches up. What are they suppose to do, NOT check into it? Please.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 6:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There is such a thing as checking things out before arresting someone.

Often taking someone into custody for questioning is part of the investigation. The law allows for people to be held for a reasonable period before trial.

Quote:

If I sent the FBI an anonymous tip that you, Hero, molest children, they would (I hope) check it out before cuffing you.

I had this case last week. Anonymous tip about child molesting. We did nothing until we received a second tip from another source whose identity we knew. Then we brought in the man and his daughter and questioned them, seperately. He confessed. We also had DNA proving her baby was his (meaning he father his own grandson and the baby's mom is also his sister...which makes the holidays much more fun).

Quote:

Yet, it seems, from this story, that if my tip accused you of planning to meet terrorist contacts, they cuff you first, then check things out.

I don't recall the tip being anonymous. In fact it was a known person who was close enough to the subject and provided enough detail to warrant a closer look, which they did, and when the truth came out the guy was sent home.

The wrong here is not the police investigation...it was the false report.

Quote:

My question is, is it right to assume guilt until innocence is proven, where terrorism is concerned?

The standard of proof changes depending on what part of the process you are in. Much investigation phase is covered by 'reasonable suspicion'. Some of the more invasive investigations and the entire charging phase is based on 'probable cause. The trial phase is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.

If the police presumed everyone innocent, then there'd be no crime or punishment. Their job is to investigate, not to determine guilt.

Nun: "I saw that man take out his gun, load it, tell the man 'I'm going to kill you now just like I planned with this gun I bought a month ago after researching them on the net and have been practicing with ever since'. He then carefully took aim...fired...fired again...fired again. And I recorded the whole thing on this video camera."

Detective Canttakesky: "I'm sorry Sister, he's presumed innocent. No crime here, move along. Sir, your free to go...oh, here's your gun back, after all if your innocent we can't take your property..."

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 7:33 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

THANK YOU! I loved that episode.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 7:44 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I don't recall the tip being anonymous.

It was. They had to track it down to find out it came from the father-in-law's computer. At that point, they questioned the FIL who admitted to sending a malicious email.

Quote:
The standard of proof changes depending on what part of the process you are in. Much investigation phase is covered by 'reasonable suspicion'.

It is exactly the standard of proof that I am questioning. It seems to me that an anonymous email with no supporting evidence or information does NOT constitute reasonable suspicion. The criticism is that when it comes to anything related to "terrorism," the standard of proof for reasonable suspicion has lowered to almost nothing. Anyone can be cuffed and detained in a cell simply from finger-pointing. That doesn't seem right, esp when the threat was not imminent.

Quote:
If the police presumed everyone innocent,...

Detective Canttakesky: "I'm sorry Sister, he's presumed innocent.

First of all, Hero, I've never been mean to you. There is no need to be snarky.

Second of all, the phrase is, "presumed innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY." If the proof of guilt exists, then obviously no one (including me) would argue for presumption of innocence.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 7:50 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What are they suppose to do, NOT check into it? Please.

No one is suggesting ignoring the tip.

How about tracking the email and questioning the source of the email FIRST? If that wasn't possible before the man arrived, then interrogate the man (with the presumption of innocence since no EVIDENCE of guilt has been provided yet) without cuffing him and putting him in a cell.

Is it so wrong to ask that authorities match their level of investigation to the level of proof provided in an accusation?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 8:01 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
If he had been assumed guilty, he would have been detained and held for interrogation.

He WAS detained and held for interrogation, for 11 hours. He was assumed guilty until proven innocent.

The fact that they sent him back to Sweden suggests to me that they had already found out the truth and cleared him. (Otherwise, they would have arrested him and kept him here until trial.) If he was cleared, why didn't they just let him go on his business? It smacks of paranoia resulting from the mere stigma from having been accused.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 10:55 AM

LEADB

Sky:
I think you are a bit 'too far' on this one. The only point where I will say the FBI -may- have gone too far was in sending him home -if and only if- they had confirmed -prior to them put the SIL on the plane back to Europe- that the FIL had lied. In that case, it seems a bit silly to send him packing on the plane unless they had uncovered something else while checking things out (which of course, we don't know).

From the FBI's perspective.
Anonymous tip (bad)
Real person (good)
Person really is on plane (good)
Flight information is accurate (good)
Person is part of Sweden Al-queda (probably can't verify quickly)
Person is going to meet US contacts (probably impossible to verify unless they release him and follow within the US; high risk).

I'll be honest, given that type of tip, I'd be unhappier if they had just let him go his merry way. As Hero points out, the real 'wrong doer' in this situation is the FIL. I hope they throw the book at him.

Detaining someone for 11 hours to question them is not presuming guilt; you can usually hold someone for at -least- 24 hours on suspicion, with even less than what they had on this guy. If you don't like that, you got a whole load of law precedent to get turned over.

Just curious Hero, what would happen to someone in the US if they clearly, blatantly, manipulated the police to harass someone like this?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:33 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Just curious Hero, what would happen to someone in the US if they clearly, blatantly, manipulated the police to harass someone like this?

Hero prosecutes them and gives them a choice of 1 million years breaking rocks in Nevada OR a plea deal where they harrass PirateNews 24 hours a day for 3 months.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:39 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Hero prosecutes them and gives them a choice of 1 million years breaking rocks in Nevada OR a plea deal where they harrass PirateNews 24 hours a day for 3 months.

Seems fair.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:41 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
From the FBI's perspective.
Anonymous tip (bad)
Real person (good)
Person really is on plane (good)
Flight information is accurate (good)
Person is part of Sweden Al-queda (probably can't verify quickly)
Person is going to meet US contacts (probably impossible to verify unless they release him and follow within the US; high risk).

From my perspective:
Anonymous tip: bad
Real person: so what?
Person is on the plane: so what?
Flight info is good: so what?
(All the above PROVES is that someone knows this guy is going to be on a certain flight. There is no reasonable suspicion with this info alone that there is any wrongdoing at all.)

Person is part of Swedish Al-Qaeda: (First of all, are you serious?) OK, so take his info and investigate further. Send requests to Swedish police to check his police record, see if he frequents mosques, etc. Do some detective work to gather RELEVANT evidence.

Person is going to meet AlQaeda contacts: why is it high risk to follow him? If the tip were indeed true, it would be GOOD detective work to follow him and find MORE AlQaeda members. Then bug those people and see what they are up to. Then when there is EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, or even a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, arrest him and his buddies.

Is no one else bothered that all it takes to be considered a terrorist suspect is have someone point his finger at you and know what flight you are taking? Are we ok with such low standards of what constitutes "reasonable" suspicion?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:44 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What are they suppose to do, NOT check into it? Please.
No one is suggesting ignoring the tip.

How about tracking the email and questioning the source of the email FIRST? If that wasn't possible before the man arrived, then interrogate the man (with the presumption of innocence since no EVIDENCE of guilt has been provided yet) without cuffing him and putting him in a cell.

Because, like it or not, far more 'tips' come in which are utterly baseless, pranks and the like than ones with specific information. Also, there's the time factor. If an email is sent concerning a flight which lands in as soon as a few hours, then the clock is running. The info has to be checked and double checked, making sure that a subject matching the description is indeed on the plane which he's said to be on. That takes time for a person or persons to run down that info, and then personnel has to be ready to take the guy in.

Quote:

Is it so wrong to ask that authorities match their level of investigation to the level of proof provided in an accusation?

They'd BETTER do that, it's part of their job, but a far more pressing issue is making sure they have the subject in custody, regardless. The trace of the e-mail can wait.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 11:52 AM

FLETCH2

Sweden has very liberal immigration policies especially if you can prove persecution back home. When I lived in Stockholm I knew Palistinians, Kurds and Syrians and worked with folk from Iran and Afghanistan.

In addition Swede's in general have sympathy for certain oppressed minorities. I know when I was there Israel did another West Bank incursion and the resulting demonstration in Stockholm was probably 50% native Swedes.

If you look at the intelligence "worse case" it isnt guys that look Middle Eastern you worry about -- you can ethnically profile them -- it's European Muslims like folks from Kosovo or Chechnia or western converts. Folks that don't stand out or draw attention to themselves because ....well they are white...they dont fit the stereotype.

So looking at Sweden through Intelligence tinted glasses and you see big immigrant population, and a sympathetic western host country potentially ripe with converts that can be radicalised.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 12:13 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Is no one else bothered that all it takes to be considered a terrorist suspect is have someone point his finger at you and know what flight you are taking? Are we ok with such low standards of what constitutes "reasonable" suspicion?

I will say I'm concerned; but at the same time, I don't see how the FBI could have responsibly done other than what it did. Beyond this, I think it is probably safe to say this is not something we will agree on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 12:39 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Is no one else bothered that all it takes to be considered a terrorist suspect is have someone point his finger at you and know what flight you are taking? Are we ok with such low standards of what constitutes "reasonable" suspicion?

Say two high school kids are arguing and one decides to start an 'anonymous' rumor that the other kid has drugs or a gun in their locker.

Say two neighbours are having a disagreement and one decides to get even by tipping off Police to the 'grow-op' in his next door neighbours basement.

People have been involving 'The Man' in disputes that they are unwilling or unable to solve themselves for as long as there has been 'The Man'. Pulling the terrorist card is the new sure-fire way of making sure the object of your dispute has a really, really bad day so to speak.

I would like to see the FIL dealt with harshly under the law for the gross negligence shown by him in this matter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 1:11 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I would like to see the FIL dealt with harshly under the law for the gross negligence shown by him in this matter.

I think that is something we all agree on. In our climate, that is akin to a false bomb threat.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 1:27 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

What's funny, is it sounds like we're trying hard to insulate the informants in this country from liability, so that they won't be "afraid" to inform authorities if they see suspicious activity.

Dems pulled legislation from a homeland security bill that would do just that, but when the drummed up outrage occured, they remembered that they didn't actually have testicles and reinstated it.
...................................

Setting aside the spirit of that law for a second, can't we put two and two together and realize how dangerous its implications can be?

I have no problem with a person being liable for their claims...its akin to Hero's favorite point about freedom, that you can't yell fire in a theater.

If you're going to report suspicious activity, it better have more teeth than a brown man wearing a turbin or a granny wearing a t-shirt that says "bring our troops home now." This provision is like giving a pass to harass and profile.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 5, 2007 7:09 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

All criminal prosecutions and arrests are initiated by mere accusation. In the case of traffic tickets, the accusation is not made under oath under penalty of perjury. The Burden of Proof for "proving" probable cause in a criminal complaint in any court is a mere 51%, which is the same odds as a coin toss.

In federal court, govt prosecutors, undercover cops and "informant witnesses" are such lying scumbags that TV news is forever banned from all courtrooms. Govt prosecutors are never under oath to tell the truth in court. Hence the Sunshine in the Courts Act now in Congress to repeal that unconstitutional "law".

Here's an example of a DETAILED, SIGNED, NOTARIZED Affidavit of Probable Cause for Criminal Complaint, with official police audiotapes and videotapes, with signed confessions by the accused criminals on their own letterhead postmarked by the US Govt, that was ignored by a prosecutor's office in order to obstruct justice and aid and abet racketeering and organized crime:

www.piratenews.org/affidavit-criminal-complaint13jun05.htm

This sworn Affidavit included FBI reports that these govt-contracted car-thieves are stealing cars in USA to bomb US soldiers in Iraq, which is the definition of AllCIAduh. My lawyer in my civil class action got 2 guns put to his head during that trial. Clearly a case of organized crime, but no police investigation of that "mugging", which is the modus operandi of these local car thieves, according to their own employees. FBI previously convicted them for killing a cop who was testifying against them. The sheriff was helping these copkilling towtruckers steal cars from shopping malls, then chopping them, according to detectives on the front page of the newspaper. Our previous sheriff was sent to prison for stealing $1-million worth of cars from car dealerships.

The District Attorney General (a politician) even appeared on TV begging witnesses to testify in my particular case, so that he could file motions for arrest warrants. But that was just BS during elections, to fool the sheeple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng
Hanoi Hannity: "Outsourcing your job is good for me."
"US ports owned by Commie China is good for me."
"Dead and disabled US soldiers are good for me."
"Sir Rupert dines with Hillary every week."
"Ron Paul does not exist in my 'Verse."

"As far as Chinese goes, I resented it."
-Adam Tudyk, The Making of Firefly

FOX, MYSPACE & FIREFLY OWNED BY COMMUNIST CHINA!
www.piratenews.org/pntv-schedule.html

Does that seem right to you?
Firefly Music Video: Tangerine dream - Confrontation, Thief soundtrack
www.megavideo.com/?v=JVT35GR8
www.scifi.com/onair

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 4:32 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Say two high school kids are arguing and one decides to start an 'anonymous' rumor that the other kid has drugs or a gun in their locker.

Say two high school kids are arguing and one tell the other he has a gun in his locker. The other kid decides to start an 'anonymous' rumor that the other kid has drugs or a gun in their locker.

Quote:

Say two neighbours are having a disagreement and one decides to get even by tipping off Police to the 'grow-op' in his next door neighbours basement.

Say one neighbor has a 'grow-op' and his neighbor gets into a dispute with him over all the illicit traffic coming to buy drugs on the same street where his kids play so he gets even by tipping off police.

Quote:

People have been involving 'The Man' in disputes that they are unwilling or unable to solve themselves for as long as there has been 'The Man'.

Everyday good citizens have been tipping police to legitimate criminal activity they are unable to handle themselves, because they are folk, not police...

In these circumstances I have no problem searching the locker (mainly because school lockers are not private and can be searched by schools). As for the basement, an investigation is warranted. Perhaps a look at the power meter, a controlled buy, some surveillance...then a search warrant.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE