Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Malaysia Airlines 'loses contact with plane' (and search effort updates)||
|Crimea Votes For Russia Union'||
|The Big Wrestling Thread!||
|[Suggestion] Multi-Factor Login||
|Popular OSX music organizing tool relaunches as TuneUp||
Posted 14 April 2013 - 22:50
Posted 15 April 2013 - 00:05
Posted 15 April 2013 - 00:12
The officers took them into custody, even though they never touched anything inside the car, the suit says. While entering a stationhouse in handcuffs, Myers spotted the driver of the car standing outside, smoking a cigarette. It dawned on her that he was an undercover with a starring role in the sting — a suspicion supported by the court ruling.
Posted 15 April 2013 - 00:14
Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:02
Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:06
Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:10
Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:52
Posted 15 April 2013 - 02:39
Posted 15 April 2013 - 02:44
That's what I thought this was about also,
I thought this was about the bait cars like on TV, where the keys are left inside, unlocked, and the crook drives off, then gets pulled over.
Funny show on TV.
Posted 16 April 2013 - 08:53
Posted 16 April 2013 - 14:43
Article clearly states that "then passed up chances to return it to the undercover cop or to report it to a uniformed officer posted nearby". Also keep in mind the mom/daughter are saying they didnt touch the contents of the car but that doesnt mean thats what really happened.
A pack of cigarettes baits poor nicotine-addicted heads, not criminals. And in the land of the free, I should be able to pick-up anything that's left unattended without the fear of becoming a subject of bait. What if I pick-up a wallet with the sole intention of taking it to the lost and found? Or they trying to engineer the society to make it like Japan where people return to the place where they'd lost something?
Posted 16 April 2013 - 14:46
If they did not touch anything how could they be charged with possession of stolen property??