On 04/26/2011 11:48 AM, Stuart Jansen wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 11:30 -0600, Nicholas Leippe wrote: >> It's not raiding the *collectors* of child pornography that pose a >> serious risk IMO. It's raiding the *producers* of child pornography. >> They are abusers, in some cases kidnappers, and most likely willing to >> defend themselves for escape via a response of lethal force. > Agreed. Suspected kidnapping would be an example of the "clear and > present danger to someone's life" I mentioned earlier. > > But, there is no indication that was the case in the story that started > this thread. As I understand it, if they suspected kidnapping that's > even more reason the FBI should have been performing the raid instead of > ICE. > > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ I think it's a slippery slope assumption that kiddie porn addict == child molester / kidnapper, and assuming such a crime is likely to exist based solely on the evidence that the person looks at dirty pictures. It goes back to the "guilty until proven guilty" argument.
Is this really how far we have fallen though that this kind of flagrant disregard to rights is so abundant? I have to think that there is still a level-headed judge out there that would deny such extreme measures with so little compelling evidence being offered. Rock paper scissors, we go with the SWAT team today? --Henry /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
