>How can you run a security contract that does explicitly illegal things w/o having clear language about what is supposed to happen.
Many actions are very illegal without permission yet we find it very unreasonable to spend time in prison if permission was given. Use sex for example. If you had permission you shouldn't spend any time in prison for it. If the police think you didn't have permission, they should establish that without enough confidence before acting upon it. It is one thing to open an investigation, but the point of arresting people should only be once it has been determined they didn't have permission.
>A piece of paper should not get you off free immediately.
Only once the police have reason to believe it was fake should you be arrested. Arrest first and ask questions later is a dystopian legal tactic.
> Arrest first and ask questions later is a dystopian legal tactic.
It's also the only practical tactic when there's a chance of the targets of an investigation hiding evidence, fleeing, or otherwise hindering that investigation.
None of which was involved in this case. You don’t arrest people for minor traffic violations for example. You detain them to collect relevant information aka pull them over, then let them go.
You're missing the point... it's not possible to tell in advance whether someone should be arrested or not, you have to follow a standard procedure for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that doing so safeguards everyone's rights.
In the case of traffic violations, the decision to not arrest by default is made far in advance as a matter of policy. When someone at a traffic stop gets arrested, it's not for the traffic violation, it's for another crime they're wanted for, and the standard process for that overrides the traffic stop process.
"arrest" is a vague term. There is a gap between "detaining" someone while investigating the situation, and "jailing" them. Note that if
jails were designer according to "innocent until proven guilty" as legally required, then being jailed temporarily wouldn't be so bad.
Many actions are very illegal without permission yet we find it very unreasonable to spend time in prison if permission was given. Use sex for example. If you had permission you shouldn't spend any time in prison for it. If the police think you didn't have permission, they should establish that without enough confidence before acting upon it. It is one thing to open an investigation, but the point of arresting people should only be once it has been determined they didn't have permission.
>A piece of paper should not get you off free immediately.
Only once the police have reason to believe it was fake should you be arrested. Arrest first and ask questions later is a dystopian legal tactic.