Another attack on internet privacy.

There are plenty of reasons, starting with: the article implies that the defendant claims this was an accident. Maybe the internet poster knows better?

Off on a tangent but still law-and-order stuff, I'm flummoxed by every criminal act being described as "alleged". Yesterday there was an article in the local news about a shooting by an "alleged shooter" in MS. Guy shot and killed 2 co-workers, one that he had to run after to get a good shot. Cop saw this, (now dead) shooter shot at the cop and hit his car 9 times before the cop shot and killed him. He's not standing trial, in other words. What's "alleged" about this?

Ah. Well that's different.

I ready "privacy" as "piracy" like 4 times and could not figure out how this had anything to do with piracy.

quote:

---

The way that I read it: The internet poster was critical of the way that The D.A, was handling the case (bringing capital murder charges),so I doubt that the D.A. wants to call that person as a witness. My guess is that the person is in The Sheriff's Department and The D.A. realizes this, and wants to find out who it is.

---

If that were the case he would not be after the info before the trial. A LE official critical of the investigation would be potentially exculpatory and would have to be turned over to the defense. I seriously doubt the DA is terribly interested in helping the defense.

Al.com is going to lose. If not at the circuit court then at the appellate level. This isn't really new ground.