Election results are among the most popular posts here, so I'm very sorry they were not posted. You can find all results here. I was busy, and so was my co-blogger.
I'm trying to focus on the reason for the arrest, and so far I have not heard a serious probable cause basis for it. In fact, at this point it *appears* that Kerr was arrested for the good faith act of being a neighbor. The Post Office *allowed* him to accept delivery of a package addressed to someone else at a building with six other tenants besides him.
There *appears* to be no other basis for the arrest, and I want people to consider carefully the meaning and implication of such a thing.
A federal agency, in cooperation with local police, knowingly delivers a suspicious package to an address and then allow someone to sign for it, as happens in the normal course of business all the time, and on no other apparent basis, such as evidence that he knew what was in the package, make an arrest that essentially changes that person's life forever.
That is a police state tactic, my friends, and must be considered as such until some further basis for the arrest is given. Perhaps Kerr is indeed guilty of being more than a neighbor, but he wasn't arrested for anything more than that, as it now stands.
If I'm proved wrong here, I won't be happy that there is a real case against Kerr, but I'll be happy to know that a police agency didn't just do what it looks to have done.
I think that the district attorney should take a look at this matter and if it comes down to the Post Office handing over the package to the first poor sap who came along, then he should ask the court to dismiss the case without prejudice (meaning that if there ever is evidence charges can be reinstated) and to void the arrest.
I think that you can still correct mistakes in America.
Also, there's been a lot of reference back to Kerr's previous arrest for possession of reefer. Does anyone seriously think that that implies guilt in this case? It means virtually nothing.
Nor is this some sort of karma, coming back at Kerr for his less than stand-up behavior on that earlier charge.
This is serious business, for Kerr and for all of us.
.png)
3 comments:
How about a post on the arrest of Don Kerr?
I'm trying to focus on the reason for the arrest, and so far I have not heard a serious probable cause basis for it. In fact, at this point it *appears* that Kerr was arrested for the good faith act of being a neighbor. The Post Office *allowed* him to accept delivery of a package addressed to someone else at a building with six other tenants besides him.
There *appears* to be no other basis for the arrest, and I want people to consider carefully the meaning and implication of such a thing.
A federal agency, in cooperation with local police, knowingly delivers a suspicious package to an address and then allow someone to sign for it, as happens in the normal course of business all the time, and on no other apparent basis, such as evidence that he knew what was in the package, make an arrest that essentially changes that person's life forever.
That is a police state tactic, my friends, and must be considered as such until some further basis for the arrest is given. Perhaps Kerr is indeed guilty of being more than a neighbor, but he wasn't arrested for anything more than that, as it now stands.
If I'm proved wrong here, I won't be happy that there is a real case against Kerr, but I'll be happy to know that a police agency didn't just do what it looks to have done.
You're not the first to ask for such a post, Martin, and I plan on having my thoughts together by the end of the weekend.
I think that the district attorney should take a look at this matter and if it comes down to the Post Office handing over the package to the first poor sap who came along, then he should ask the court to dismiss the case without prejudice (meaning that if there ever is evidence charges can be reinstated) and to void the arrest.
I think that you can still correct mistakes in America.
Also, there's been a lot of reference back to Kerr's previous arrest for possession of reefer. Does anyone seriously think that that implies guilt in this case? It means virtually nothing.
Nor is this some sort of karma, coming back at Kerr for his less than stand-up behavior on that earlier charge.
This is serious business, for Kerr and for all of us.
Post a Comment