Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right

" Alternate fact libtards. " T2 #140

44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif


"Alternate fact" is a term that originated with the Trump administration.
 
Taft2016 said:
You already described the summary arrest scenario. That's one example.

The is also the accusatory instrument scenario I linked you to, which you obviously ignored.

If we take a report at 9:00 am from a woman whose husband beat her and left the house, the we see the husband the next day downtown, walking down the street and eating an apple, can we arrest him even though no arrest warrant has yet been issued? Yes or no?

Do I really need go on?

So far your expertise amounted to "You can't arrest a guy walking down the street eating an apple for murder. Unless you have a warrant in your hand. Except it doesn't have to be in your hand."

Pfft. Alternate fact libtards.
Click to expand...

First answer the more basic question? Was the 4th amendment intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as searches? Yes or no. Your initial post suggests you were wholly unaware. Need me to paste it?

Boom
 
Taft2016 said:
You already described the summary arrest scenario. That's one example.

The is also the accusatory instrument scenario I linked you to, which you obviously ignored.

If we take a report at 9:00 am from a woman whose husband beat her and left the house, the we see the husband the next day downtown, walking down the street and eating an apple, can we arrest him even though no arrest warrant has yet been issued? Yes or no?

Do I really need go on?

So far your expertise amounted to "You can't arrest a guy walking down the street eating an apple for murder. Unless you have a warrant in your hand. Except it doesn't have to be in your hand."

Pfft. Alternate fact libtards.
Click to expand...

Ok looks like you aren't playing. The answer to your question is yes, so long as the report supplied facts which indicate probable cause to believe it happened, and it sounds like it does from the way you framed the issue. So, are you ready to admit you had no idea that the fourth applied to seizures of persons? No need, it is quite evident. Well that's just sad. No wonder you law and order conservatives believe the dirty harry shit you do. You are ignorant of the bill of rights.
 
Micawber said:
First answer the more basic question? Was the 4th amendment intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as searches? Yes or no. Your initial post suggests you were wholly unaware. Need me to paste it?

Boom
Click to expand...

Boom what?

Whoever spoke out in favor or arbitrary arrests, or even arbitrary searches, in the first place?

Weak strawman.
 
Micawber said:
Ok looks like you aren't playing. The answer to your question is yes, so long as the report supplied facts which indicate probable cause to believe it happened, and it sounds like it does from the way you framed the issue. So, are you ready to admit you had no idea that the fourth applied to seizures of persons? No need, it is quite evident. Well that's just sad. No wonder you law and order conservatives believe the dirty harry shit you do. You are ignorant of the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

Zzzz.

You started out blabbering about needing "a warrant in hand" and we've blown that up repeatedly.

It's time for you to cut your losses.
 
Taft2016 said:
Zzzz.

You started out blabbering about needing "a warrant in hand" and we've blown that up repeatedly.

It's time for you to cut your losses.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a stupid troll, how embarrassing. Do you have a rep here already for that? Do you just ask questions and not answer them? Seems so.
 
Micawber said:
Wow, what a stupid troll, how embarrassing. Do you have a rep here already for that? Do you just ask questions and not answer them? Seems so.
Click to expand...

You're embarrassing yourself at this point, and this thread is "a warrant in hand" proving it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
but because you're a conservative, you do get to determine what is and isn't reasonable?
Click to expand...

but because you're an anarchist, you get to determine what is reasonable? That's your problem, pussy. You claim the Constitution means what you say it means and demand everyone else simply accept your word. I wouldn't trust one of you liars.
 
CFM said:
but because you're an anarchist, you get to determine what is reasonable? That's your problem, pussy. You claim the Constitution means what you say it means and demand everyone else simply accept your word. I wouldn't trust one of you liars.
Click to expand...

I claim the constitution means by what the words actually say. if you have some secret document that details otherwise, please show it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I claim the constitution means by what the words actually say. if you have some secret document that details otherwise, please show it.
Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment SAYS "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

While the words SAY, "abridging", "peaceably", and "establishment", along with others along those same lines, tell me what determines whether something has been abridged, is no longer peaceful, and what constitutes establishment. To do so, you have to use subjective opinions. Who gets to determine when what the Constitution SAYS applies or doesn't apply? It seems you think you get to make that determination for the rest of us and we're supposed to accept your OPINION.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I claim the constitution means by what the words actually say. if you have some secret document that details otherwise, please show it.
Click to expand...

And yet for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along.

Is it your contention the Constitution was immediately ignored once it was signed?
 

The delusional myth:

"And yet for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

The actual fact:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #4: aka United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please note, this Article #4 was ratified December 15, 1791

"And yet for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

So tell us T2. What's your pleasure?
Moonshine?
LSD?
"Magic" mushrooms?

Just how is it that you're such a prolific source for these fantastic hallucinations?
 
sear said:

The delusional myth:

"And yet for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

The actual fact:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #4: aka United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please note, this Article #4 was ratified December 15, 1791

"And yet for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

So tell us T2. What's your pleasure?
Moonshine?
LSD?
"Magic" mushrooms?

Just how is it that you're such a prolific source for these fantastic hallucinations?
Click to expand...

These are the people who want to defund public education, provide vouchers to stay at home with mom and watch Fox to get a HS diploma.
 
sear said:

The delusional myth:

"And yet for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

The actual fact:

B. O. R. ARTICLE #4: aka United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please note, this Article #4 was ratified December 15, 1791

"And yet for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

So tell us T2. What's your pleasure?
Moonshine?
LSD?
"Magic" mushrooms?

Just how is it that you're such a prolific source for these fantastic hallucinations?
Click to expand...

Sure. It wasn't until nearly the 20th century that search and seizure requirements were placed upon law enforcement by SCOTUS rulings and that evidence seized without a warrant was suppressed in court.

You're welcome.
 
I'll refer you to Bram 1897
Weeks 1914
And Mapp in 1961, which made the exclusionary rule binding on the states.
 
For the more than 100 years after its ratification, the Fourth Amendment was of little value to criminal defendants because evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the warrant or reasonableness requirements was still admissible during the defendant's prosecution. The Supreme Court dramatically changed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence when it handed down its decision in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). Weeks involved the appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or other constitutional justification. The Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction, thereby creating what is known as the "exclusionary rule." In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states.
Click to expand...

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html
 
Taft2016 said:
You're embarrassing yourself at this point, and this thread is "a warrant in hand" proving it.
Click to expand...

Was the 4th amendment intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as searches? Yes or no.

I stand by that statement. "warrant in hand" is an idiomatic expression, like in your back pocket, dummy. Anyone can be arrested for outstanding warrants, nobody suggested otherwise. A guy walking down the street that is not objectively evidencing any behavior that portends of imminent criminality, you can't lay a finger on him without a warrant. It's the 4th amendment, and you had no idea it protected persons from arrest. You want to supply facts like there is already an open warrant, or he is wielding a fucking knife, or you know he is the guy who owns the house with the bodies buried in his backyard, go ahead, but that's you, nothing I said. People can't be fucked with by cops for no reason, as you seem to want, jack boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top