4 ms·
Aren't you mixing up two different things? There's your problem, being harassed for something you say you didn't do. And there is the criminal's problem, being
by Veen 4y ago
Aren't you mixing up two different things? There's your problem, being harassed for something you say you didn't do. And there is the criminal's problem, being found out for something they did do. For the latter problem, not doing the illegal thing sounds like a solid strategy.
- notch656c 4y agoActually I could have avoided the warrant had I broke the law. It was because I followed the law that I was harassed. I could have easily jumped the fence to the US, and as a citizen unless caught in the act it'd be nigh impossible to prove I did anything wrong. Instead I presented at a port of entry where an insane officer claimed there was drugs up my ass.
- 1shooner 4y agoWhat's the purpose of this distinction, if the actor (law enforcement) does not effectively make this distinction?
- Veen 4y agoLaw enforcement and the courts mostly do make the distinction effectively—it's what they are for. That they sometimes accidentally or deliberately fail to do so is true, but it doesn't license lawbreaking. In the US, there's a small chance of an innocent being harassed for something they didn't do, but a much larger chance of a criminal being arrested, charged, and jailed for something they did do. If you don't want to be treated like a criminal, the smart choice is not to commit crimes, even though there is small chance you'll be treated like a criminal anyway.
- 1shooner 4y ago>it doesn't license lawbreaking The question at hand is not whether to break the law, it's whether to protect yourself from intrusion by state authorities with demonstrably little public accountability.