Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right

#102

Thanks for the option.
I'll take the latter, thank you very much.

Why do you think I post under lower-case pseud, if remaining in obscurity were not my preference?
 
#102

Thanks for the option.
I'll take the latter, thank you very much.

Why do you think I post under lower-case pseud, if remaining in obscurity were not my preference?
 
sear said:
#102

Thanks for the option.
I'll take the latter, thank you very much.

Why do you think I post under lower-case pseud, if remaining in obscurity were not my preference?
Click to expand...

Inattentive and disorganized, lacking the ability to be excellent in the moment and on the fly? :) I kid
 
Taft2016 said:
In case you missed it, Dipshit
Click to expand...

If you think I read all your posts you may suffer the same ailment as your idiot in chief. I read the OP and respond or whatever I happen upon. Your OP clearly credited the Combover- in- chief with apprehending an infamous rapist, and but for liberals he would have skated. If you knew anything about the case you posted, you would have known it was a Warren Court decision and that it is and has been the law of the land since 1968, and not to be credited the grand cuck cheeto, but rather you would have refrained from starting the stupid thread and its posit, imbecile. I have lint in my belly button that knows more constitutional law than you, your mother and the horse she rode in on combined. You are on notice.

Try again, fool.
 
Midas Whale67 said:
I have trouble with his apparent wishy-washiness with his politics. It's like he's a desperate Libertarian trying to disassociate with anything remotely conservative he consequently renders his point(s) moot.
Click to expand...

He is a Libertarian and he hates conservatives you fucking staggering stupid shitstain.
 
Taft2016 said:
As I said, probable cause is the level of proof to make an arrest. You don't have that here. There's nothing to charge him with.
Click to expand...

The fourth clarfiess probable cause to search without a warrant, something NYCP brass like yourself should be intimately aware of.
Your example is wrong, you suck.
 
Micawber said:
If you think I read all your posts you may suffer the same ailment as your idiot in chief. I read the OP and respond or whatever I happen upon. Your OP clearly credited the Combover- in- chief with apprehending an infamous rapist, and but for liberals he would have skated. If you knew anything about the case you posted, you would have known it was a Warren Court decision and that it is and has been the law of the land since 1968, and not to be credited the grand cuck cheeto, but rather you would have refrained from starting the stupid thread and its posit, imbecile. I have lint in my belly button that knows more constitutional law than you, your mother and the horse she rode in on combined. You are on notice.

Try again, fool.
Click to expand...

This
 
I don't believe you can stop and frisk without reasonable suspicion of an imminent crime and some fear for officer safety justifying the warrantless search, otherwise it would simply swallow the 4th. Why have a warrant requirement if you can just stop anyone for no or any reason, question them, demand answers and search them for evidence or weapons?

"am I free to leave, am I free to leave? am I free to leave? You are on camera" That's all you say until "I want my lawyer I waive no rights, and you screwed up your Miranda warning, jack boot!"
 
Rune said:
The fourth clarfiess probable cause to search without a warrant, something NYCP brass like yourself should be intimately aware of.
Your example is wrong, you suck.
Click to expand...

No, in the case of getting a warrant to conduct a search probable cause is needed, which is a different circumstance than probable cause to make an arrest.
 
Micawber said:
I don't believe you can stop and frisk without reasonable suspicion of an imminent crime and some fear for officer safety justifying the warrantless search, otherwise it would simply swallow the 4th. Why have a warrant requirement if you can just stop anyone for no or any reason, question them, demand answers and search them for evidence or weapons?

"am I free to leave, am I free to leave? am I free to leave? You are on camera" That's all you say until "I want my lawyer I waive no rights, and you screwed up your Miranda warning, jack boot!"
Click to expand...

SQF, despite its many misrepresentations, was never about randomly stopping and searching people.

In such a search, any contraband recovered would be inadmissible in court, so why would any police department want that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top