Maine law allows police to arrest victims to make sure they testify

PoliceStateUsa.com ^ | September 23, 2013 | PSUSA

[Ken H]

When somebody is not just an idiot but deluded, and that delusion may result in their death, I'm more inclined to think intervention is o.k.

Well of course if they're mentally unsound and a danger to themselves you intervene! That's not what you said, though.

Do you have any evidence that the lady in the article is mentally unsound?

[Altariel]

You have far too optimistic a view of politicians and politics in general to suppose that they would not be willing to suspend habeas corpus to justify their ends.

Again, let’s stick to the available facts, not suppositions or assumptions.

It’s hardly a possibility limited to literature. If you are willing to allow the camel to stick his nose into your tent, do not be surprised when he bites you on the rump in return for your willingness to grant him the benefit of the doubt.

Freegards,

[Altariel]

Be careful. In the eyes of a government employee, *you* could be considered “idiotic”.

Believe in God? you must be a simpleton.

Own a gun? You’re clearly a vile fiend.

All it takes is the right—or wrong-—person to believe you require the “care” and “protection” of The State, and you are in the same situation as the woman in this account.

By the way, government overreach, corruption and tyranny are also “well established functions” of government-—be careful what you defend on the basis of a practice being “well-established”.

[zeugma]

The prosecutor is between a rock and a hard place.

Actually, the prosecution has a job. Most places aren't idiotic enough to imprison victims to make the prosecutor's job easier. This is just another reason to stay below the Mason-Dixon line.

I think it's sad that there are people who would defend this practice.

[AnAmericanMother]

My point (I'm repeating myself but I'm trying to make it clear) is that we don't know the whole story.

Sure this sounds bad as presented, but the story was framed in so one-sided a way that it makes me suspicious. "Somebody ain't tellin' all they knows."

I am not saying that I know what happened here, because given this extremely slanted article crammed full of buzzwords and setting out to paint the DA in the worst possible light, we can't know. I am simply pointing out circumstances under which it is possible that the DA was trying to do the right thing. Unhinged victim or intimidated victim who swears out a warrant and then changes her story, dangerous offender who may be released on bail, threats against victim, etc.

I know the default at FR is "jack booted thugs and you're next" but I wouldn't hang a dog on this basis, let alone a DA. And anybody who thinks a DA is "just a job" . . . nope. It doesn't pay well unless you're in a big county with a supplement. I know a few hacks in crooked counties, mostly urban ones < cough cough Nifong cough cough > but most DAs are dedicated to the job and honestly want to do the right thing.