this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
445 points (99.6% liked)
Greentext
7736 readers
276 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Plus if police "believe" they are following the law, they are allowed to use the fruit from the poison tree, for decades now, ever since The Fear of the Others in the crime wave in the 80's and 90's gave them license to cancel the Bill of Rights.
Personally, I think it should work like this: any evidence found is admissible in court, but if the cops broke the law to get it, there are legal consequences for them.
The current system is abusable if you have connections with police willing to break some laws to make smoking guns inadmissible to court, and even if it's an honest mistake, the whole "if they looked when they weren't allowed to, you get away with whatever they saw" is just a second bad consequence to the public, assuming the crime was one of the harmful to the public ones.