[Alan Turing]

What happened? Good luck and clench your asshole as tight as possible.

[w00t]

I've not seen any evidence of any abuse of power. You might not like how they did what they did, but from what you've said its all legal. Maybe not the nicest, but completely legal.

[Jolly]

You know, I'm perfectly willing to pay for what I did, but this town has a long history of police thinking they are above the law. And this is no exception. At one point they even brought up a 40 year old file saying that when my father was 18 he was stopped for a dui, and then continue to talk shit about other family members of mine, and questioning their ability to be parents. What I did was very serious, but so is public servicemen abusing their power.

Isn't bringing up un-relevant cases in the court forbidden? Dafuq your lawyer doing?

[w00t]

Isn't bringing up un-relevant cases in the court forbidden? Dafuq your lawyer doing?

Yes, it is. The parenting ability of his parents is relevant, and therefore so is that charge.

[BlueScreen]

I've not seen any evidence of any abuse of power. You might not like how they did what they did, but from what you've said its all legal. Maybe not the nicest, but completely legal.

I don't know what its like where you come from, but here, its extremely illegal to bring up old case files, and records on random people for no reason. As for the abuse of power part, 1; bringing up old records without a reason, and before I had the status 'convicted', 2; Illegally breaking into my house without a valid warrant, 3; not informing me of my rights, and not allowing me to contact a lawyer, 4; removing my right to be silent, 5; picking me up in a public area, with police clothes on and a police car, which is really unneccesary and punishable, considering they only had a skype log and an IP address, and much much more I won't get into detail about right now.

---

Yes, it is. The parenting ability of his parents is relevant, and therefore so is that charge.

Well, with a mother that worked in the child services for a while, and now is a teacher, and a father that owns his own building company that is quite successfull and has children that grew up to be also quite successfull and both have their own children at this point, its quite silly to question their parenting. Its also illegal to randomly bring up outdated files from the archive before the person is even convicted, or they have any proof beyond an IP address and a skype chat.

[Feat]

If anyone wants to know what type of pornography he was distributing, it was CP.

[w00t]

It's not illegal to bring up old records. Even if they were sealed.

From everything you've said, they had a valid search warrant. Probable cause is easily gotten through these skype logs you keep referencing. Once the search warrant was executed, they likely had enough to easily convince the crown that you should be arrested.

Contraray to what TV may habe you believe, you don't need to be read your rights instantly upon arrest, only before an interrogation that will be used as evidence. Same goes for your right to not speak.

I'm not sure why you think it's an abuse of power for you to be arrested, given that you're more than willing to admit you have broken laws.

[Jolly]

W00t is right there.
Just because you aren't read your rights doesn't mean you don't have your rights, reading them is just a common procedure made for the public to remind them that these rights exist and it would be preferable for them to use them.
Also if they arrested you that means they probally had a warrant given out by court, since CP is kinda of a touchy subject even the slightest hint that you have something to do with it would issue a search warrant, i'm confused about the arrest part though, they should have more than an IP address and some Skype logs... depending on what's in the logs...

And bring up old-cases isn't forbidden, it's bringing up irrelevant cases that have nothing to do with the current one. I don't remember the exact reason but probally because two different trials have nothing to do with eachother and the fact that if someone is guilty or not-guilty sentence shouldn't be affected by previous offenses. Determinating the punishment is another thing though...

[BlueScreen]

It's not illegal to bring up old records. Even if they were sealed.

From everything you've said, they had a valid search warrant. Probable cause is easily gotten through these skype logs you keep referencing. Once the search warrant was executed, they likely had enough to easily convince the crown that you should be arrested.

Contraray to what TV may habe you believe, you don't need to be read your rights instantly upon arrest, only before an interrogation that will be used as evidence. Same goes for your right to not speak.

I'm not sure why you think it's an abuse of power for you to be arrested, given that you're more than willing to admit you have broken laws.

First off all, I've known most of these police officers since I was like 12, and they know I'm not a threat, so sending 4 people was just silly. Even though they have a valid warrant, they, according to the laws of Norway, have to show a warrant, and prefferably 3 days in advance. Legally they have to read me my rights, because according to them, I had the status 'siktet' before even arriving at the station.

Unless you actually have the Norwegian rule book infront of you I'd rather if you just stopped posting in my thread, as your retarded non-sence is starting to piss me off.

---

W00t is right there.
Just because you aren't read your rights doesn't mean you don't have your rights, reading them is just a common procedure made for the public to remind them that these rights exist and it would be preferable for them to use them.
Also if they arrested you that means they probally had a warrant given out by court, since CP is kinda of a touchy subject even the slightest hint that you have something to do with it would issue a search warrant, i'm confused about the arrest part though, they should have more than an IP address and some Skype logs... depending on what's in the logs...

And bring up old-cases isn't forbidden, it's bringing up irrelevant cases that have nothing to do with the current one. I don't remember the exact reason but probally because two different trials have nothing to do with eachother and the fact that if someone is guilty or not-guilty sentence shouldn't be affected by previous offenses. Determinating the punishment is another thing though...

As mentioned before, the laws here are kind of retarded compared to most first world countries, but if the person asks to have their rights read, the officer can't just deny to do that, and if the person asks for a lawyer, they should get the option to choose between a public one, or one that you already have, and they shouldnt tell you to wait every time you ask for one, continue to ask questions, and when you go quite, say that if the person doesn't talk he'll have to stay in the jail untill the next day.

[LeoTheLone]

You know what I'm with you BlueScreen and I'm rooting for you.