Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I'm not assuming that Mr. Norris is guilty, but I'm not presuming he's innocent either. The doctrine you're quoting is ONLY reserved for the courtroom, and the government is allowed to gather evidence to prove his guilt (and rightly so).
|
then you are only using half of our justice systems documentum for your own purposes. we ALL are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Gathering evidence is allowed but the 4th amendment standards have to be applied
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Please point to the portion of the full article that discusses Mr. Norris's innability to redress the "abuses" by the government. 6 months is not an unreasonable amount of time for the government to try to put together a case, especially considering that smuggling typically involves a much larger operation than a single individual. Why do I get the feeling that there are potentially more suspects in this case than just Mr. Norris?
|
There is one other 'collaberator', a peruvian citizen who helped smuggle it in as a mislabled common orchid. The main issue with this is we are acting like flower smuggling is a national security issue and treating the flower smugglers as if they were terrorists. Nobody sees something wrong with that? At the most, they should be fined, not face 35 years in prison for illegal flowers.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|