“By your ‘logic’ there should be no one in jail or out on bail either, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But by that ‘logic’ you can’t arrest or hold anyone until they have already been to trial, and since you can’t take them to trial unless you arrest them for a crime, ergo no one in jail anymore by your ‘logic.’”
Abosuletly NOT what I wrote. You should re-read it. I didn’t use any big words, maybe the concepts were beyond you ability to understand.
Let try to be even simpler. ‘Some one accused of a crime SHOULD be apprehended IF there is enough evidence to warrent a trial.’ Any words there you have trouble understanding?
‘The Police should NOT commit a crime in the process of apprehending that suspect’. Any more tough words there?
The basic concept here is committing a crime to apprehend a criminal means there has been TWO crimes committed. Two crimes IS NOT an improvement over one crime.
Or are you arguing that a cop speeding, reckless driving and committing actions hazardous to the public welfare (reckless endangerment) is not a crime?
Please explain your logic there.
I am not arguing against arresting the speeder, I’m arguing against breaking the law to do it. Especially when there are ways to arrest that suspect that do not involve breaking the law. A Digital camera in the squad car and you have a tag number. Send over a car the next day and pick up the suspect. Two cars if that seems wise. If the owner of those tags wasn’t driving the car, then odds are they know who was. Hold them for the 72 hours allowed by law and see if it jogs their memory.
If you want to attack me, fine. I’m a big boy and take care of myself. I just would ask that you don’t put words in my mouth then attack those words.
“because everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”
That isn’t logic, that is the LAW of the land. If you have a problem with it, either immigrate, or try to get a Constitutional amendment passed.
