3 ms·

meh. before offering your hot takes on how Mr. Woods was the victim of governmental overreach, maybe read this... https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-wood

• salawat 4y ago
  It doesn't matter one iota. He could have waterboarded Mother Theresa for all I care. Due. Process. Them you can abscond with liberties. No due process, no absconding with liberties. Destroying evidence, especially exculpatory evidence is the System placing itself above it's mandate from the People as laid out in the Constitution. If you want to imprison someone, you prove your case, maintain all evidence, and investigate every instance of exculpatory evidence you can. It is not the job of Law Enforcement to secure a conviction. It is their job to see Justice done to the best of their ability. If they violate that mandate by destroying exculpatory evidence, they vacate their authority to imprison. The scales of Justice demand this bias. Otherwise you've equipped the State with carte blanche to lock up and keep locked up anyone they like. Due Process. It means something. You may not sympathize with the person, but it is critically important that we hold the edifices of power to maximal account.
  • dingosity 4y ago
    Go ahead and read the material facts of the case, it's actually useful.
    • arminiusreturns 4y ago
      Care to actually elaborate on what your meaning is, or refute any points presented?
• arminiusreturns 4y ago
  The supposed guilt (assuming you reference that as a "look how obviously guilty he is!") of a person is independent of the fact that destruction of evidence by the government is a violation of due process...