|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 13 new of 37 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 25 of 37:
| 
Apr 11 14:25 UTC 2002 |
Re #21: I don't have enough information to tell.
Re #23: He was being sarcastic, methinks.
|
flem
|
|
response 26 of 37:
|
Apr 11 14:38 UTC 2002 |
Ah. On rereading, you're right, of course. I got confused 'cause he was
arguing the opposite point earlier.
|
slynne
|
|
response 27 of 37:
|
Apr 11 17:01 UTC 2002 |
You know, in the past, this information wouldnt have even been
available. Maybe the best way for a bookstore to protect themselves is
not to collect the data in the first place. It probably is still ok for
the police to interview staff at the store although it is unlikely that
the staff would remember who bought the book.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 37:
|
Apr 11 18:13 UTC 2002 |
Re #20: I often pay cash for stuff I buy in person, but I consider it
risky to send cash through the mail.
|
russ
|
|
response 29 of 37:
|
Apr 12 04:16 UTC 2002 |
I think the weakest part of the scenario in #21 is that the police
have far better ways of determining who really was involved with
the drug lab than by seeing who bought a book. Have these cops
ever heard of fingerprints? They should look into them.
If the cops can't make a case without looking to see who bought
a book (assuming the book isn't the actual evidence, like it was
used to smuggle contraband or something), they need more education
in what is commonly known as "police work". A LOT more.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 30 of 37:
|
Apr 12 08:19 UTC 2002 |
re#29: Do you know what 'gloves' are? They are actually kinda
clever devices useful in lots of situations. Have you ever heard
of the concept of 'calculus'? Its a notion in part of variable and
often opposing forces. In the social world this means we kinda do want a
'police' who pursue all leads (specially if we are the victim) to a
crime without regard for due process balanced against a judicial system
that tends toward favoring what the individual citizen wants - at least
in theory. Thus in the case of the drug lab it is probably better to
er on the part of the book seller whereas in the hypothetical case of
a nuclear bomb book its clear that every citizen who ever purchased
said should submit to proctological exams at the extreme. (simple -
don't buy nuclear bomb manuals unless you are interested in building
same.)
|
flem
|
|
response 31 of 37:
|
Apr 12 15:35 UTC 2002 |
Beady, I suggest you write your congressperson immediately and demand
proctological exams for anyone purchasing a "nuclear bomb manual". This
is exactly the sort of thing Congress needs to be working on to secure
this country's, uh, security. And stuff.
|
russ
|
|
response 32 of 37:
|
Apr 13 02:24 UTC 2002 |
Re #30: I own a number of pairs of gloves m'self. I seriously
doubt that someone building a drug lab would wear gloves all the
time, especially when handling delicate and slippery stuff like
glassware. Glassware also does a really nice job of holding
fingerprints.
Given the small size of (im)mobile homes, I'm really surprised
that the prosecutors haven't charged all the occupants with
conspiracy (because they had to know) and waited to see who
turns state's evidence first.
|
mdw
|
|
response 33 of 37:
|
Apr 13 05:35 UTC 2002 |
Do we as a nation actually care about the anal health of nuclear
terrorists?
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 37:
|
Apr 13 16:25 UTC 2002 |
re #32: don't discount the grip-enhancing, fingerprint-obscuring
advantages of latex surgical type gloves.
|
oval
|
|
response 35 of 37:
|
Apr 14 04:17 UTC 2002 |
hahahaha!!!!!
|
russ
|
|
response 36 of 37:
|
Apr 14 19:23 UTC 2002 |
Re #34: I discount the likelihood that someone who needs to buy a
book to find out how to make a drug lab would spend money on them.
|
gull
|
|
response 37 of 37:
|
Apr 15 20:27 UTC 2002 |
Maybe the book told them to.
|