Simple question... do you agree with the following statement?

[iamwhatiseem]

"You investigate the crime, not the person"

 

[Timmy]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

 

[Wyatt earp]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

That sounds racist

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Are you serious? Or just joking?

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.
Let's say - someone is accused of shoplifting.
The justice system does not therefore have the right to look into that persons business practices, start investigating the lives of everyone around them. Begin investigating their family to look for other crimes...hoping to find something, anything.
That is investigating the person, and not the crime.

 

[Timmy]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

That sounds racist

Well it is a common tactic of law enforcement.

Pull the guy over for some bogus traffic violation. Suddenly you smell pot, now you search the car and so on. A simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of criminals charges !

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, the GOP should not have set the example with the Clintons . . . hmmm.

Trump will be investigated beyond his Presidency and life.

 

[DJT for Life]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

That sounds racist

Well it is a common tactic of law enforcement.

Pull the guy over for some bogus traffic violation. Suddenly you smell pot, now you search the car and so on. A simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of criminals charges !

God...How dumb are you.

First you type that you pull some one over for a bogus traffic violation
and then you end with..."a simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of
criminal charges." An illegal turn is not a bogus violation, asshole.

This is the big boy board. The 3rd grade playground can be reached
by opening the third door down the hall on the left.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

That sounds racist

Well it is a common tactic of law enforcement.

Pull the guy over for some bogus traffic violation. Suddenly you smell pot, now you search the car and so on. A simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of criminals charges !

You just got me confused, first you said you have to investigate the person and now you say no.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

That sounds racist

Well it is a common tactic of law enforcement.

Pull the guy over for some bogus traffic violation. Suddenly you smell pot, now you search the car and so on. A simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of criminals charges !

No.
If an officer smells pot, then he is possibly witnessing a crime...he would still be investigating the crime and not the person.
If a person gets pulled over, gets a ticket...then later that day cops show up at their residence saying they want to also search the house...at the same time subpoena their tax records, and get a warrant for not only their phone records, but phone records of their business acquaintances also....that is investigating the person and not the crime.
And that is absolutely not not a "common tactic"

 

[Auld Phart]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

That sounds racist

Well it is a common tactic of law enforcement.

Pull the guy over for some bogus traffic violation. Suddenly you smell pot, now you search the car and so on. A simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of criminals charges !

That happen to you often?


(never happened to me)

 

[OldLady]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Are you serious? Or just joking?

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.
Let's say - someone is accused of shoplifting.
The justice system does not therefore have the right to look into that persons business practices, start investigating the lives of everyone around them. Begin investigating their family to look for other crimes...hoping to find something, anything.
That is investigating the person, and not the crime.

You bellyaching about the Mueller investigation? In order to see if there was collusion or quid pro quo or whatever going on, in order to see if the Russians were blackmailing Trump based on prior shady business deals, YES he had to follow the money. In this case, the whole being involved with the Russians thing relates to finances. Unfortunately.

 

[BlindBoo]

Depends on who is in office at the time.

If it's your team, there was no crime and the investigation in moot.

If it's the other team, then all aspects of their personal life past, present and future should all be explored and exploited.

 

[flacaltenn]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

It's what USMB moderation does.. Would you like to see US change that policy to investigating posters??

 

[OldLady]

Depends on who is in office at the time.

If it's your team, there was no crime and the investigation in moot.

If it's the other team, then all aspects of their personal life past, present and future should all be explored and exploited.

I'll agree with that.

 

[Timmy]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

That sounds racist

Well it is a common tactic of law enforcement.

Pull the guy over for some bogus traffic violation. Suddenly you smell pot, now you search the car and so on. A simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of criminals charges !

No.
If an officer smells pot, then he is possibly witnessing a crime...he would still be investigating the crime and not the person.
If a person gets pulled over, gets a ticket...then later that day cops show up at their residence saying they want to also search the house...at the same time subpoena their tax records, and get a warrant for not only their phone records, but phone records of their business acquaintances also....that is investigating the person and not the crime.
And that is absolutely not not a "common tactic"

My point is that it’s a crime chain reaction .
If you run across money laundering while investigating collusion , the cops ain’t going to ignore the newly discovered crime .

 

[bendog]

"You investigate the crime, not the person"

Al Capone

 

[Timmy]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

It's what USMB moderation does.. Would you like to see US change that policy to investigating posters??

Like that doesn’t happen now ?

 

[Timmy]

Depends on who is in office at the time.

If it's your team, there was no crime and the investigation in moot.

If it's the other team, then all aspects of their personal life past, present and future should all be explored and exploited.

I'll agree with that.

Like Hillary and her emails? Which the cons still scream about .

 

[g5000]

No . How do u investigate a crime without investigating the person?

Are you serious? Or just joking?

You investigate the crime....and part of that is absolutely investigate the people surrounding that CRIME.
You do not, however, use that crime to being a lifelong investigation into that persons life an all aspects of it.
THAT is investigating the person and not the crime.
HUGE difference.
Let's say - someone is accused of shoplifting.
The justice system does not therefore have the right to look into that persons business practices, start investigating the lives of everyone around them. Begin investigating their family to look for other crimes...hoping to find something, anything.
That is investigating the person, and not the crime.

A person shoplifts. During the investigation of the shoplifting incident, the investigator discovers the thief is part of a huge shoplifting ring. So a wiretap is put on the thief's phone line to determine who else is part of the ring.

During the wiretap, someone calls the thief to arrange the murder of a Senator. The thief and the caller are then arrested for conspiracy to murder a US Senator.

Then some little whiny bitch on an internet forum cries out, "You aren't supposed to investigate the PERSON!"

 

[Some Guy]

Well it is a common tactic of law enforcement.

Pull the guy over for some bogus traffic violation. Suddenly you smell pot, now you search the car and so on. A simple illegal turn becomes a bunch of criminals charges !

And he's asking is that the correct thing to do? Yes or no?