Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Question_Assumptions
And, as I pointed out, you are assuming guilt.

I'm not assuming anything. BSA knew about the problem based on reliable sources, they raided him, and he couldn't produce the licenses. This is no different than the police acting on a tip from an informant. It's called probable cause.
105 posted on 08/21/2003 2:30:47 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: Bush2000
I'm not assuming anything. BSA knew about the problem based on reliable sources, they raided him, and he couldn't produce the licenses. This is no different than the police acting on a tip from an informant. It's called probable cause.

Yes, but the BSA are not the police and Microsoft is not the government and, since you seem to be rather weak on your Constitutional protections:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That this person enjoyed none of those protections does not seem to bother you. Indeed, it sounds like you enjoy having Microsoft operate as a shadow government with the authority to control, fine, and tax without Constitutional oversight. Yeah, that's just what we all need.

107 posted on 08/21/2003 2:38:03 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson