On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:31:39 +0100, MM wrote:
>>If they know for certain who is doing it, there is obviously
>>sufficient evidence to allow a magistrate or jury to *also* know for
>>certain.
>>Therefore ISTM that harrassment is a ridiculously soft option to use -
>>the perps should obviously be arrested, charged, convicted and
>>sentenced.
>>Or could it be that they are not quite as certain that the people they
>>harrass are as guilty as they say they are?
>I'm pretty sure that the police's intent is to warn them off BEFORE
>they consider further intimidation etc,
Oh. So you would obviously have no problem if the police were to
harass *you* in order to prevent you committing any crime that you
*might* be thinking about committing.
Warning a person who *has* committed a minor crime as an alternative
to prosecuting the crime is a different thing entirely to harrassing
that person in case they are thinking of committing a crime. A
warning is a one-off event, it does not amount to harrassment.
--
Cynic
|