|
|
|
|
|
|
by xixi77
3336 days ago
|
|
|
But the employees in question didn't even identify themselves as such, did they? Like, if a random person on the street asks you what's your name etc., are you required to answer truthfully just because that person could be an undercover officer? Or even if you strongly suspect he could be one? I see some room for false advertisement claims, but obstruction of justice doesn't feel right... |
|
|
They sought out LEO people, tagged them, and served up misleading data to them, for the obvious purpose of evading them and wasting their time.
Your analogy doesn't match what happened. Try one where you seek out someone you research first, believe is an LEO, and then deliberately lead them away from something they might think is criminal or some other violation.