Law and order drove is one of the biggest things that I want to take a look at when I take my second or third course in business. If you are going to start a business and have a good business plan, then you should take that first course.
It is really interesting to see how some people’s businesses have ended up on the wrong side of the law. A great example of this is when, back in 2009, an American couple was arrested for manufacturing meth. The police found meth in the home, along with a shotgun and a note, and later released the couple on bail. The couple was later charged with meth manufacture and possession, and the case went to trial and the jury convicted them.
I have to say I was shocked to read about this case. You see, the man and woman had been selling meth since 2003, so if the jury in that trial had known that the couple had actually produced a meth lab, the jury would very likely have had a much easier time acquitting them of the charges.
This case is a good example of the need for law enforcement when using the law to prevent crime. In a case where the defendant was accused of manufacturing meth, all it took was a law enforcement officer to find the lab and get it dismantled. The fact that the case went to trial was a huge deal. I personally would have rather seen the case go to a jury trial.
In the end, it would have been much easier to convict this couple of the charges if the police had gone to the lab and found methamphetamine, but it’s worth pointing out that the actual lab wasn’t even the key evidence. Instead, it was a bunch of meth paraphernalia that was found in the defendant’s home. It was also found that the defendant was a convicted felon, which would have made the case a lot easier.
Of course, when the case went to trial it was a bit more complex because the prosecution wasn’t able to prove that the police actually used a warrant to search the defendants home. Instead, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, the fact that the defendants had a gun in their home (which they didn’t), and the testimony of the officer that called in the warrant.
The defendants home were a convicted felon, but it was clear that the police had found the gun inside the home.
The only thing the prosecution really needed to prove was that the police searched the home. The defense didnt really need to even establish the facts of the case. They just needed to prove that the police acted in good faith. The prosecutor also argued that the gun in the defendants home was a “deadly weapon’’ because the police wouldnt search the home with a warrant.
Not so fast, says the defense. The police acted in good faith and they needed to have a warrant. The defense would have you believe that the only reason the police didn’t search the home was because they were afraid of legal trouble. Since the police acted in good faith, there was no reason for the warrant. The defense would have you believe that the police could have searched the house without a warrant if they wanted to.
The reason the police acted in good faith is that they didnt want to scare anyone away from the neighborhood. It wouldnt be the first time the police have searched houses and been unable to find anything. The police would not have acted in good faith if they genuinely wanted to search the home. Even if they thought they could search the house without a warrant, they would not have acted in good faith if they really wanted to.