It doesn't say what the detectives' belief was based on, but presumably some evidence. You're awfully quick to take the side of a bunch of criminals and celebrate their vandalism in a situation where we clearly don't have the whole story.
This is no different than municipalities who fly over neighborhoods looking for plain sight illegal home additions here in the USA.
It only becomes a 4th amendment issue if you use technology to look inside the house.
> You’re awfully quick to take the side of a bunch of criminals and celebrate their vandalism in a situation where we clearly don’t have the whole story.
Yup, that I am. That is what “Innocent until proven Guilty” is all about. It’s a concept that my forefathers fought and died for. Yours, too, probably. I wouldn’t know, but perhaps you have defended that right in service to your country — if so, thankyou.
It is a legal principle that is so precious I feel obligated to take that side by default.
Law & Order is fine, and Law Enforcement is also fine: I believe in and support both concepts. But the state has all of the power and might in its corner: up to and including the deployment of the military if need be (eg the capture of Manuel Noriega). The accused doesn’t. So the presumption of innocence is both reasonable and essential, otherwise it just isn’t a fair fight.
And so it was, when I first read this article, I developed an immediate view, based on what we were told. And as this thread has progressed, nothing really has been said that has shifted that view.