Is It Legal To Trick Children Into Giving Evidence?
Jan 11, 2013 Political
We have all seen the TV cop shows where a perp is tricked into giving evidence. He is offered a drink or given a tissue so that fingerprints and DNA evidence can be collected from the items. The perp thinks the offer is genuine but it is solely to collect evidence. This happens all the time in the real world as officers fool people into giving evidence. These folks are adults and if they are fooled then it is their fault.
But what about children?
We already know that children are only allowed to consent to certain things (like abortions where they do not have to inform parents) but for the most part parents are supposed to be involved when students are questioned by police.
How about when evidence is being sought? Are the police allowed to trick children into providing information that might incriminate them? Is it legal for people who children believe to be in authority positions to have children unwittingly provide evidence by using false pretenses?
In Northampton Massachusetts a joint effort by the police, the District Attorney, and the school board has resulted in children being fooled into providing handwriting samples. This stems from an incident where a threatening note was left at the school resulting in an incident where the school was evacuated.
After that incident the three entities obtained handwriting samples from the children to use for comparison to the note containing the threat. The children were led to believe they were writing a statement indicating they take the threat seriously and share the concern of the police. There is no indication these children were ever informed that their statements were going to be used as evidence to see if one of them was the note writer.
It does not appear as if the children were given an option not to write the statement so many probably looked at it as a mandatory school assignment. What would have happened to any student who refused?
I don’t think that collecting evidence like this is appropriate since the intended use of the statements was only for this purpose. Why wouldn’t the police just ask teachers for handwritten assignments to use for comparison? Would a warrant be required for this? If the purpose of obtaining the samples was for comparison why was a warrant not required to get them?
“We disagree that it violates student rights,” he [Police Chief Russell P. Sienkiewicz] said.
Sullivan released a statement saying that the bottom line is ensuring the safety of students.
“We take any threats against children seriously and investigate all such threats,” he said. “The alleged threat at Northampton High School was of a serious nature.” Mass Live
The claim is that the DA said the method is valid and legal. Under what laws and why were parents not involved?
How is what happened here any different than tricking all students into providing a DNA sample to see who was sticking gum under desks?
I think threats should be taken seriously but violating the rights of citizens to do so makes those involved no better than the criminal who left the note.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: constitution, evidence, handwriting samples, illegal acts, school children
Did Congress Outlaw its own Acts?
May 26, 2008 Political
Mark Steyn wrote an excellent piece entitled “Too Bad Your Car Can’t Run on Congress’ Hot Air” in which he looks at the way the House hauled oil executives in to grill them over the price of oil and gasoline. Steyn makes excellent points about the process and then what the House did to screw itself with a vote called the NOPEC vote.
Earlier I wrote a post and I indicated that I did not get the name of the Congresswoman who was asking the stupid questions and Steyn mentioned her and the inane line of questioning. Her name is Debbie Wasserman Schultz and she actually made this statement:
“I can’t say that there is evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not.”
First of all it is impossible to prove a negative and second of all why would someone have to prove they are NOT doing something wrong? The burden of proof is on the government or those making the accusation. Perhaps we should all send letters to Wasserman Schulz stating that there is no evidence she is taking illegal campaign contributions but we suspect she probably is so she needs to prove that she is not. How retarded is she and why did the people in Florida put this Yenta in office? If I had been the oil executive I would have chewed this dingbat up and spit her out all over the walls of Congress. She would have been whimpering in a corner wondering why she asked such a stupid question. Steyn makes it clear that his answers are a reason he is not asked to testify in front of Congress.
After this show for the American people (it had nothing to do with gas prices because the Congress and the oil companies cannot control them) the members of the House voted 324-82 for the so called NOPEC Bill which states:
“It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product … or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas or any petroleum product when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price or distribution of oil, natural gas or other petroleum product in the United States.”
OK, let’s look at this in a couple of ways. First of all do the members of the House actually think OPEC gives a rodent’s derriere how the price and distribution of a product is affecting the US? The OPEC nations are a cartel that is not subject to US law and is not subject to the whims of the US Congress. Congress cannot make it illegal for other countries to do what they want with the products that they produce. Imagine how these very people would act if Iran passed a similar bill making it illegal to withhold any item we currently refuse to sell them? Our Congress would laugh and say Iranian law does not apply so who the hell are we to make laws that apply to other countries?
Having said that I think we should do whatever it takes to get this through and have the President sign it without delay. It should become the law of the land immediately. You see, as Steyn points out, the US is in violation of this Bill. The refusal of our government to allow drilling (Wasserman addressed this during her lunatic rantings) in ANWR, off the coasts and in the Gulf and in any number of places has caused the price of gas and other products to rise. Wasserman and Schumer can say drilling here will not make a difference but they use that Congressional math that NEVER adds up.
The fact is if we started building more refineries, stopped with the boutique blends of gasoline and drilled for and pumped our own oil, we would be able to regulate part of the market. We would influence how much oil is produced and how much is in the market which would affect the prices. When supply is greater than demand then prices go down. If we pump and use our own oil we can decide how much it should cost without outside influences. I doubt we will ever be able to pump enough to be independent but we can certainly put a dent in the prices.
Steyn is absolutely correct in that the US is the biggest violator of this Bill and that is why I say that we need to get it signed quickly before the Democrats and their environmentalist wacko friends realize that they will not be able to stop drilling if this becomes a law. The President can sign it into law and then immediately level charges at anyone opposed to drilling. Congress will have no choice but to allow drilling (and anything else associated with our energy needs; nuclear, refineries etc.) because opposition to such would be in violation of the very law they passed. So, for those who wonder why any Republicans signed on, maybe this explains it.
If this all took place and we could finally start going after our own oil and building more refineries because of a law the Democratically controlled Congress aimed at other countries it would be a great example of the expression “to be hoisted by one’s own petard.”
This is all a great demonstration as to how Congress is so arrogant that it cannot see it is the biggest violator of the Bill. I wish someone would have pointed that out to Debbie Yenta Wasserman. I don’t think she would have had an answer but it would have been fun watching her babble on.
It is not nice to pick on retards but she and the others in Congress make it so easy…
Tags: Congress, illegal acts, mark steyn, nopec, stupidity, wasserman