It is never ethical to break the law to catch a criminal. Police are still citizens, the shield doesn't protect them from the Bill Of Rights. This is the United States of America, we all are one, police are just broke down, dunking jelly donates, pieces of crap. Cops are always going to be U.S. citizens, but it's reasonable if you get a criminal to find a criminal, because they already know the streets. In conclusion, police are people, just like the rest of us, but police are just fatter.
period 2 #4 They should be able to do anything to catch criminals unless it indangers savilions or the persons health. Yes they should be alowed to follow people to get evadence. Also they should be alowed to set traps as long as no one in indanger. The only thing they should not be alowed to do is to beat them untell they tell them what they want. No the law should never be broken even wher it come to catching criminals.
They shouldn't use certain rules to convict criminals. They shouldn't be allowed to catch criminals in other crimes. They shouldn't be allowed to entrap suspected criminals. They shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want to get confessions. The law should never be broken.
It is never ethical to break the law to catch a criminal. Police are still citizens, the shield doesn't protect them from the Bill Of Rights. This is the United States of America, we all are one, police are just broke down, dunking jelly donates, pieces of crap. Cops are always going to be U.S. citizens, but it's reasonable if you get a criminal to find a criminal, because they already know the streets. In conclusion, police are people, just like the rest of us, but police are just fatter.
I don't think that it is ethical to convict SUSPECTED criminals because they are only suspects the cops don't have for sure evidence that the person commited the crime. I think the police should be able to follow people but I don't that they should follow them. I DO NOT think that cops should set traps because that is just messed up like they shouldn't do that at all. I don't think should be able to do anything but they should be able to do some stuff. I think that the law should only be broken if the criminal that dealing with is really bad but if the crimes are bot super bad then they should just not break the law.
period.2\3 #22 The police should go by the rules to convict someone. Beacause if the poloce dont have evideince on the convict.How would they be sure that the convict did that crime. And setting a criminal up is wrong. beacause the convict can get alota years in prison.And the convict might be innocent.The conclusion to this problem.Is to just go by the rules.
Umm I think that police should follow the criminal on how bad they did something. If they just stold something from a 7-11 and then they are being followed to make sure they steal again? Then that will be really weird and will make you feel bad about yourself. If you had murdered someone then in a way you should be follwed but then you shouldnt. I think that because they have feelings about other people and if they police want to follow them then they should just lay off and make sure the person the murderer is with knows what they did. Its not really the polices bissnuess about it, its the persons liberty to be with the "criminal" Just like Eric and Lori have their own choice.
The police should'nt be alowed to acuse random people of being a criminal. They should'nt be alowed to just place drugs or a weapon down some were and wait for someone to pick it up so they can convict them. Police should'nt be alowed to follow suspected criminals unless they have proof that they have comitted a crime of some sort. Well if cops did what they pleased just to get info outta suspectected criminals that would'nt be fair to the person.Yes the law could be broken to bring suspected criminals to justice but that stil would'nt be fair to the person they are acuseing..
I don't think pigs should be able to trap people. What I mean is they shouldn't be able to put crack on the side walk and wait until someone picks it up. Thats really like pressuring someone to pick it up. No, they shouldn't be able to follow unconvicted criminals because what if they didn't do anything. I don't think pigs should be able to do what ever it takes to catch a suspected criminal because if that person had weed how is it right for them to have it on them too?
I don't know if it is ethical to convict suspected criminals. The police shouldn't follow unconvicted criminals to catch them committing other crimes let them be free. the Law Enforcement shouldn't do anything to do whatever to entrap suspected criminals. the police should get confessions from suspected criminal unless they are big strong and can kick your bun-bun. The law can be broken to make sure that the criminals are brought to justice
The police should follow the same rules as everybody else. By means they shouldn't over reacting on stupid things that aren't even worth over reacting. Polices shouldn't commit other crimes to catch criminals that can put others people in dangers. In my opioin it kind of depends on the crime to entrap suspected criminals. Polices shouldn't do whatever it takes to get confessions like it depends on the crime that these criminals did. I think laws can be broken to make sure that suspect criminals to bring brought to justices. In fact, polices should follow the same rules as everyone else does.
2/3 #13 I don't think it is ethical to convict suspected criminals by any means. I believe the police should not be able to follow suspected but unconvicted criminals to catch them committing other crimes. No, I don't think the law enforcement officials should be able to entrap because if they already served there time for doing there crime then they don't need to be watched every single minute of the day. The police should not be able to do whatever it takes to get confessions from suspected because if they threaten them to get a confession then they are no better then the criminal. The law should never be broken to make sure that suspected criminals are brought to justice. If the criminal is going to jail for breaking the law then the person breaking the law to make a criminal be brought to justice then they should go to jail too. Overall the police should not be able to break the law just because there cops
2/3.15 No because what if they didnt do it then you put someone in jail or gave them a ticket for no reson.Sure if they do a really bad crime.No because what if they got the wrong person.Not whatever they want,but they should be able to do some stuff.No they can not
period 2 #4 I disagree with #8 because if they are not followed then they could do something ales bad and the cops would not know about it and could of arrested the person.
It is ethical to convict suspected criminals only if they are murders and are planning to harm again. I think police should be able to follow suspected criminals to make sure if they should or shouldn't be convicted. Police men can also entrap suspected criminals. What I don't agree with is that police can do anithing it takes to get confessions from the suspected criminals unless they have badly harmed people. In my opinion law can not be broken to make sure that suspected criminals are brought to justice. In that case not only would the suspected criminal be convicted but also the person who broke the law.
I would say that there is no purpose in conviction of a criminal of certain crimes. I believe and as well as dont believe cops should be allowed to follow suspects who are only suspected of committing a crime yes should be followed if there level of crime is above murder but no if it is just a petty crime. cops should never endanger civilians lives for any reason. Law should under situation be broken to catch a crook or convict
2.2 Police officers should not be able to be able to follow a suspected criminal. An officer should have a warnt to even follow a person. Also, i believe that a criminal should have commited a level 2 or higher crime. not a parking ticket or a jay walking ticket! these crimes should be theift, grand thieft, murder, ect. But if a poliece officer cimmited a crime to catch a criminal, they should be pinelized. i dont believe that any any circomstance should ploiece officers get a "free pass," becuase they are normal people, and normal people do not get free passes.
comp #17 has a good point to the cops can't just put like a gun or drugs on the side walk and wait till someone picks it up so they could convict them that would'nt be fait because i'm pretty sure that anyone that gets curiouse to see what it is (if they don't no what drugs look like).
I disagree with #9 because that is waaaaaaaay stupid if the cops convicted a SUSPECT because they don't know if the "criminal" will attack again they dont know so think about it!!!!!!!!!!! =)
#20 2/3 ==Fly Guy== If i was to judge who would be responsible for the Cyclops's eye i would say. The cyclops is responsible for his eye, now i will not say what odysseus made the best choice but drastic situation call for drastic actions. Now i believe that odysseus did make a mistake going into a cave in which he knew nothing of the residence. I think the cyclops did not have to treat odysseus and his men in such ill manner. The Cyclops I would say would be the convicted in court because he killed mortal men in pure anger which back then was against the gods. Honestly i do not sympathize for ether of them because they both broke rules and both paid a price. I think that this situation could not be avoided not without changing the characters all together
26 comments:
2-3
comp. 20
It is never ethical to break the law to catch a criminal. Police are still citizens, the shield doesn't protect them from the Bill Of Rights. This is the United States of America, we all are one, police are just broke down, dunking jelly donates, pieces of crap. Cops are always going to be U.S. citizens, but it's reasonable if you get a criminal to find a criminal, because they already know the streets. In conclusion, police are people, just like the rest of us, but police are just fatter.
period 2 #4
They should be able to do anything to catch criminals unless it indangers savilions or the persons health. Yes they should be alowed to follow people to get evadence. Also they should be alowed to set traps as long as no one in indanger. The only thing they should not be alowed to do is to beat them untell they tell them what they want. No the law should never be broken even wher it come to catching criminals.
2/3.7
They shouldn't use certain rules to convict criminals. They shouldn't be allowed to catch criminals in other crimes. They shouldn't be allowed to entrap suspected criminals. They shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want to get confessions. The law should never be broken.
2-3
comp. 19
It is never ethical to break the law to catch a criminal. Police are still citizens, the shield doesn't protect them from the Bill Of Rights. This is the United States of America, we all are one, police are just broke down, dunking jelly donates, pieces of crap. Cops are always going to be U.S. citizens, but it's reasonable if you get a criminal to find a criminal, because they already know the streets. In conclusion, police are people, just like the rest of us, but police are just fatter.
2/321
I don't think that it is ethical to convict SUSPECTED criminals because they are only suspects the cops don't have for sure evidence that the person commited the crime. I think the police should be able to follow people but I don't that they should follow them. I DO NOT think that cops should set traps because that is just messed up like they shouldn't do that at all. I don't think should be able to do anything but they should be able to do some stuff. I think that the law should only be broken if the criminal that dealing with is really bad but if the crimes are bot super bad then they should just not break the law.
period.2\3 #22
The police should go by the rules to convict someone. Beacause if the poloce dont have evideince on the convict.How would they be sure that the convict did that crime. And setting a criminal up is wrong. beacause the convict can get alota years in prison.And the convict might be innocent.The conclusion to this problem.Is to just go by the rules.
Period2/3 Computer#6
Umm I think that police should follow the criminal on how bad they did something. If they just stold something from a 7-11 and then they are being followed to make sure they steal again? Then that will be really weird and will make you feel bad about yourself. If you had murdered someone then in a way you should be follwed but then you shouldnt. I think that because they have feelings about other people and if they police want to follow them then they should just lay off and make sure the person the murderer is with knows what they did. Its not really the polices bissnuess about it, its the persons liberty to be with the "criminal" Just like Eric and Lori have their own choice.
2/3
comp # 23
The police should'nt be alowed to acuse random people of being a criminal. They should'nt be alowed to just place drugs or a weapon down some were and wait for someone to pick it up so they can convict them. Police should'nt be alowed to follow suspected criminals unless they have proof that they have comitted a crime of some sort. Well if cops did what they pleased just to get info outta suspectected criminals that would'nt be fair to the person.Yes the law could be broken to bring suspected criminals to justice but that stil would'nt be fair to the person they are acuseing..
period two-three
computer 17*
I don't think pigs should be able to trap people. What I mean is they shouldn't be able to put crack on the side walk and wait until someone picks it up. Thats really like pressuring someone to pick it up. No, they shouldn't be able to follow unconvicted criminals because what if they didn't do anything. I don't think pigs should be able to do what ever it takes to catch a suspected criminal because if that person had weed how is it right for them to have it on them too?
#1 2/3
I don't know if it is ethical to convict suspected criminals. The police shouldn't follow unconvicted criminals to catch them committing other crimes let them be free. the Law Enforcement shouldn't do anything to do whatever to entrap suspected criminals. the police should get confessions from suspected criminal unless they are big strong and can kick your bun-bun. The law can be broken to make sure that the criminals are brought to justice
period:two, computer:eiqht</3
The police should follow the same rules as everybody else. By means they shouldn't over reacting on stupid things that aren't even worth over reacting. Polices shouldn't commit other crimes to catch criminals that can put others people in dangers. In my opioin it kind of depends on the crime to entrap suspected criminals. Polices shouldn't do whatever it takes to get confessions like it depends on the crime that these criminals did. I think laws can be broken to make sure that suspect criminals to bring brought to justices.
In fact, polices should follow the same rules as everyone else does.
period 2 #4
i agree with #23 because like what what if someone ales picks it up and they are taken away. That would be unfair.
Period:Two, Computer Eiqht</3
I agree with computer seventeen about trapping people because what if they didn't do anything, and they're just putting them in jail for nothing.
2/321
I agree with #6 because if you stole from like 7-11 that would be weird if the cops followed you for that.
2/3 #13
I don't think it is ethical to convict suspected criminals by any means. I believe the police should not be able to follow suspected but unconvicted criminals to catch them committing other crimes. No, I don't think the law enforcement officials should be able to entrap because if they already served there time for doing there crime then they don't need to be watched every single minute of the day. The police should not be able to do whatever it takes to get confessions from suspected because if they threaten them to get a confession then they are no better then the criminal. The law should never be broken to make sure that suspected criminals are brought to justice. If the criminal is going to jail for breaking the law then the person breaking the law to make a criminal be brought to justice then they should go to jail too. Overall the police should not be able to break the law just because there cops
2/3.15
No because what if they didnt do it then you put someone in jail or gave them a ticket for no reson.Sure if they do a really bad crime.No because what if they got the wrong person.Not whatever they want,but they should be able to do some stuff.No they can not
period 2 #4
I disagree with #8 because if they are not followed then they could do something ales bad and the cops would not know about it and could of arrested the person.
Period 2/3...#9...
It is ethical to convict suspected criminals only if they are murders and are planning to harm again. I think police should be able to follow suspected criminals to make sure if they should or shouldn't be convicted. Police men can also entrap suspected criminals. What I don't agree with is that police can do anithing it takes to get confessions from the suspected criminals unless they have badly harmed people. In my opinion law can not be broken to make sure that suspected criminals are brought to justice. In that case not only would the suspected criminal be convicted but also the person who broke the law.
#5 p2/3
I think that they should be able to follow the criminals
20# 2/3
==Fly Guy=
I would say that there is no purpose in conviction of a criminal of certain crimes. I believe and as well as dont believe cops should be allowed to follow suspects who are only suspected of committing a crime yes should be followed if there level of crime is above murder but no if it is just a petty crime. cops should never endanger civilians lives for any reason. Law should under situation be broken to catch a crook or convict
Period:Two, Computer:Eiqht</3
I agree with twenty-two, because if they don't have the evidence for the crime of that person did or not do.
2/3
comp # 23
I think computer # 8 has a good point the cops should'nt over react on stupid things and brake the law just to catch suspected criminals.
2.2
Police officers should not be able to be able to follow a suspected criminal. An officer should have a warnt to even follow a person. Also, i believe that a criminal should have commited a level 2 or higher crime. not a parking ticket or a jay walking ticket! these crimes should be theift, grand thieft, murder, ect. But if a poliece officer cimmited a crime to catch a criminal, they should be pinelized. i dont believe that any any circomstance should ploiece officers get a "free pass," becuase they are normal people, and normal people do not get free passes.
2/3
comp # 23
comp #17 has a good point to the cops can't just put like a gun or drugs on the side walk and wait till someone picks it up so they could convict them that would'nt be fait because i'm pretty sure that anyone that gets curiouse to see what it is (if they don't no what drugs look like).
2/321
I disagree with #9 because that is waaaaaaaay stupid if the cops convicted a SUSPECT because they don't know if the "criminal" will attack again they dont know so think about it!!!!!!!!!!! =)
#20 2/3
==Fly Guy==
If i was to judge who would be responsible for the Cyclops's eye i would say. The cyclops is responsible for his eye, now i will not say what odysseus made the best choice but drastic situation call for drastic actions. Now i believe that odysseus did make a mistake going into a cave in which he knew nothing of the residence. I think the cyclops did not have to treat odysseus and his men in such ill manner. The Cyclops I would say would be the convicted in court because he killed mortal men in pure anger which back then was against the gods. Honestly i do not sympathize for ether of them because they both broke rules and both paid a price. I think that this situation could not be avoided not without changing the characters all together
Post a Comment