quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica well he's definitely trying to save his own ass. there's no denying that he's guilty as sin (which i have some experience with so i'm able to use this comparison). however, in America they're all about personal privacy (which really they don't realize they have none of)... but regardless the question here is - what if the government, on a whim, decides that it needs to search someone's body in the future without implication. is it right for them to do that? how would you feel getting stopped at an airport and having your vagine poked around in because some government hired official "thinks" you may be smuggling cocaine in there. (ok extreme example but basically that's the issue)

Totally different examples.

This guy has admitted to being involved in the incident, and he has a bullet in his head. There is sufficent evidence and reason to believe and suspect that the bullet in his head is related to the events.

Now if a government official had sufficient evidence to prove his theory that I had cocaine in my vag, then I think they have a right to find out. Sufficient evidence being that they have proven I am a drug smuggler, they have a dog that has sniffed me out, and they have already checked everything else on me but haven't found anything.

Of course it should be done in the most professional/respectful/safe way they can manage.

However, with something like vag/anal searches, those can be done now with special x-ray screenings, so it doesn't get too personal.

Withholding evidence, in my opinion, makes you an accomplice to the crime, and if anything, you should be punished for that.