4 ms·
> Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved.
by jbapple 11y ago
> Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved.
What, in your opinion, are the limits of that investigation.
So
1. Alice announces she's looking to attack someone.
2. She attacks Bob.
3. She dies.
I gather that, in your opinion, we can search her possessions. Let's say she has a living mother and a best friend who died a week before the attack. Can we search her mother's things? How about her best friend's?
- ars 11y agoHumans are not computers with fixed rules. You look at the scenario at hand and see if it makes sense to search this person or that. I said it to someone else today, I'll tell you too: The law is not like a mathematical proof with exact rules. People with STEM backgrounds tend to think of the law that way because it seems to be all about rules. But it's not. It's about human judgment and gut feelings.
- jbapple 11y agoSorry, meant to say "ought", not "is". I'm mostly interested in what you think is appropriate, not what the justice system would do, today, with the laws and courts as they are.
- ars 11y agoI think it's appropriate to search anyone who might be relevant. There is no blanket rule, each situation is different. You need to have some reason to go searching someone, it doesn't have to be a great reason, but you do need a reason.