Sorry, poor choice of phrasing on my part. I meant to say that, *if* events transpired roughly as we heard, and if something illegal was done, then IMHO it probably reflects more poorly on the police than anybody else.
Also, generally I'd expect professional private investigators to know more about the legal bounds than the police: they don't have qualified immunity or a separate investigative arm that figures out if they did something wrong separately from criminal charges. Thanks, gopi@iPad On Sep 3, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Jim Warthman <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, do we have sufficient facts to establish there was anything illegal > about it? > > Otherwise best not to jump to conclusions... > > > On Sep 3, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Gopiballava wrote: > >> I think it will look uglier for the police. On duty police facilitating >> illegal activity reflects poorly on the police. >> >> Thanks, >> >> gopi@iPhone >> >> >> On Sep 3, 2011, at 16:24, Andy Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 3, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Gopiballava wrote: >>>> I'm going to reserve judgement till the full story comes out. >>> >>> Likewise, especially a significant part of the story is based purely on the >>> claims of the guy whose place was searched. This *could* be ugly for Apple, >>> but I'd rather wait and see. >>> >>> --Andy >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> iPhone-talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/iphone-talk > > > _______________________________________________ > iPhone-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/iphone-talk _______________________________________________ iPhone-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/iphone-talk
