Posted:
#126
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
I agree with this- and that sounds great- but at 3am in a store parking lot with occupants "passing through"- how on earth could the officer verify or validate the story? He had to make a decision-
What would your opinion be if the whole story was bullshit but because the officer had no specific evidence of crime- he let them go, against his better judgement- and they raped / murdered the child?
I mean- do we just say tough garbage- those are the breaks?
cops separate them and ask questions. the kid is 13 and should be able to articulate if she's being kidnapped or in danger once she's with police. but even if she's scared, cops are trained to ask questions to determine if they are full of garbage. simple questions the suspect wouldn't have thought of to see if their stories match. if there are serious inconsistencies on questions that should be simple, that could be a reason to take the investigation to the next level.
if you view every question of constitutional protections in hindsight, then it becomes easy. but obviously you can't do that. we like our constitutional protections. we don't like it when criminals commit crimes or when a crime is committed and no one is convicted. that's the price of the constitutional protections we have. if the standard was, well the cops should be able to search this or seize that or arrest this person because this guy could be a murderer or rapist without the requirement of having specific facts indicating that is the case, then our constitutional protections are meaningless because a cop can come up with a real ugly what if or maybe in many situations.
the benefit is we get to live in a mostly free society without worrying about government taking us away or beating down our doors based on suspicion and the cost is that the cops can't take people away or beat down a door based on a suspicion when those suspicions later turn out to be correct.
0
Hot Forum Topics
