![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Martin Hotze
writes: (pacplyer) wrote: I for one, will support any invasion to discover those facts if inspectors are not happy. to reduce it to a personal platform: let's assume that you are doing something illegal. Intelligence has no chance to get enough evidence (for the sake of the argument). Now: shall police - just because they are not happy of the outcome and they don't have 100% proof that you are _INNOCENT_ (rings a bell?) have every right to search your house (without a warrant) and your belongings? [well, in the name of terrorism this is already the law in the US] OK, lets do make it personal. A known thug, who you know for a fact has killed many people, approaches you on the street and threatens you. He is holding his hand in his jacket pocket as though he has a gun in there. He says he has a gun, but you cannot actually see if he has it or if he is bluffing. You, on the other hand, do have a gun. What are you going to do? Give him first shot? Wait to see if he is lying about having the gun? Demand that a third party, who hates you as much as the thug, be allowed to peek inside the pocket and tell you if there is a gun? Or are you going to assume his threat is sincere and take him out first? Don -- Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS PP-ASEL Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|