[txnative]

Tom,

Use this scenario:

A person witnesses a robbery and calls the cops. A description of the suspect is then sent out. A cop sees someone matching the description and goes over to them to investigate.

In Tcintn's situation, he either matched or was the subject of a call made to TWRA. The field agent then conducted an investigation. Tcintn complied completely (knowing he was innocent) and once the agent corroborated his innocence by doing a thorough investigation, the issue died. Tcintn would be totally within his rights to have refused to cooperate, but that would have cost him time he could be fishing. Complying was by far the easiest way to clear the matter up.

To answer the question of the accused's obligation, I think the burden of evidence lies on the accuser. If it was the other way around, people could be detained any time a crime was committed ANYWHERE and then be forced to prove their innocence one by one until the perpetrator was left by process of elimination. That would be WAAAAY too much work for the judicial system.


Chris Bryant