DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[progressive hunter]

I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,

No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.

Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.

when I said because it was meant,,
"because your a fucking idiot"

You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.

I have several times,,,

You haven't. You've just wasted most of the day trying not to.

Now you're going to claim you have. When asked where such an explanation is in this thread, your response will be "find it yourself".

But it doesn't exist so no one is going to be able to find it and you'll refuse to provide it.

So how about it. Show me where you think you explained it.

I dont understand the question,,,

Your claim that he wasn't arrested is based on the fact that he was released. That's not relevant because actions taken after the arrest do not change the fact of the arrest.

He was arrested the second he was taken off the street by force and transported to the courthouse to be questioned. Releasing him does not change that.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Too vague and doesn't touch the difference between a detention and arrest, which is the actual point of contention here.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Doesn't even touch the difference between arrest and detention.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

 

[colfax_m]

I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,

No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.

Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.

when I said because it was meant,,
"because your a fucking idiot"

You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.

I have several times,,,

You haven't. You've just wasted most of the day trying not to.

Now you're going to claim you have. When asked where such an explanation is in this thread, your response will be "find it yourself".

But it doesn't exist so no one is going to be able to find it and you'll refuse to provide it.

So how about it. Show me where you think you explained it.

I dont understand the question,,,

Your claim that he wasn't arrested is based on the fact that he was released. That's not relevant because actions taken after the arrest do not change the fact of the arrest.

He was arrested the second he was taken off the street by force and transported to the courthouse to be questioned. Releasing him does not change that.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Too vague and doesn't touch the difference between a detention and arrest, which is the actual point of contention here.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Doesn't even touch the difference between arrest and detention.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

 

[colfax_m]

I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,

No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.

Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.

when I said because it was meant,,
"because your a fucking idiot"

You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.

I have several times,,,

You haven't. You've just wasted most of the day trying not to.

Now you're going to claim you have. When asked where such an explanation is in this thread, your response will be "find it yourself".

But it doesn't exist so no one is going to be able to find it and you'll refuse to provide it.

So how about it. Show me where you think you explained it.

I dont understand the question,,,

Your claim that he wasn't arrested is based on the fact that he was released. That's not relevant because actions taken after the arrest do not change the fact of the arrest.

He was arrested the second he was taken off the street by force and transported to the courthouse to be questioned. Releasing him does not change that.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Too vague and doesn't touch the difference between a detention and arrest, which is the actual point of contention here.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Doesn't even touch the difference between arrest and detention.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

Florida v Royer:
A man was in an airport and brought into an interrogation room and held there against his will constituted an arrest, not a dtention.

 

[jc456]

He wasn't detained, he was arrested. Plucking him off the street, taking him to the courthouse to be interrogated makes it an arrest, just like the case I showed you.

and there it is, the loop. can't accept it can you. your done, I gave you the legal precedence. you've been thoroughly beaten down and you're still stomping your feet. literally.

 

[Papageorgio]

Everything I am reading is that they had probable cause, so they legally detained him. The versions of both sides are far apart, however if these detainees have had their rights violated, they will sue. My guess is that they won't because it was done legally.

The stories out there have some great spin to them, however, I believe they were legal. IMHO

 

[jc456]

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

now you're reposting posts, hly fk dude. The issue was they used coercion in the case. I sent you the info in the other post of yours. stop going in fking circles. fk I'm getting dizzy.

 

[colfax_m]

He wasn't detained, he was arrested. Plucking him off the street, taking him to the courthouse to be interrogated makes it an arrest, just like the case I showed you.

and there it is, the loop. can't accept it can you. your done, I gave you the legal precedence. you've been thoroughly beaten down and you're still stomping your feet. literally.

No you didn't. You gave no legal precedence.

 

[jc456]

Florida v Royer:

wrong yet again fool

Florida v. Royer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Decision[edit]

The Supreme Court held that, although the officers correctly approached Mr. Royer in the airport, they moved him without his consent to the small room and held him there without probable cause. Therefore, his consent to search the suitcase resulted from an illegal custody and the marijuana discovered could not be admitted into evidence. The officers should not have asked the suspect to accompany them from the point of the initial consensual encounter to the small room until they returned his ticket and license. There was nothing to indicate the officers had any concern for their safety, or any legitimate need related to the limited purpose of the initial Terry stop. The court makes its decision about custody/non-custody based on everything police say or do—the totality of circumstances test.

 

[jc456]

No you didn't. You gave no legal precedence.

sure I did, you just chose to ignore it like you continue to do in this thread. you're very boring.

 

[colfax_m]

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

now you're reposting posts, hly fk dude. The issue was they used coercion in the case. I sent you the info in the other post of yours. stop going in fking circles. fk I'm getting dizzy.

You obviously didn't read the case.

Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979)

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

Held:

1. The Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they seized petitioner and transported him to the police station for interrogation. Pp. 442 U. S. 206-216.

(a) Petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station, and the State concedes that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him before his incriminating statement during interrogation. P. 442 U. S. 207.

(b) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, which held that limited "stop and frisk" searches for weapons are so substantially less intrusive than arrests that the general rule requiring probable cause to make Fourth Amendment "seizures" reasonable can be replaced by a test balancing the limited violation of individual privacy against the opposing interests in crime prevention and detection and in the police officer's safety, and the Terry case's progeny, do not support the application of a balancing test so as to hold that "seizures" such as that in this case may be justified by mere "reasonable suspicion." The narrow intrusions in Terry and its progeny were judged by a balancing test, rather than the general rule requiring probable cause only because those intrusions fell so far short of the kind of intrusion associated with an arrest. For all but those narrowly defined intrusions, the requisite balancing has been performed in centuries of precedent, and is embodied in the principle that seizures are reasonable only if supported by probable cause. Pp. 442 U. S. 208-214.

(c) The treatment of petitioner, whether or not technically characterized as an arrest, was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest, and must be supported by probable cause. Detention for custodial interrogation -- regardless of its label -- intrudes so severely on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment as necessarily to trigger the traditional safeguards against illegal arrest. Cf. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721; Brown v. Illinois, supra. Pp. 442 U. S. 214-216.

Swear to god, you have the reading comprehension of a grade schooler.

 

[colfax_m]

Florida v Royer:

wrong yet again fool

Florida v. Royer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Decision[edit]

The Supreme Court held that, although the officers correctly approached Mr. Royer in the airport, they moved him without his consent to the small room and held him there without probable cause. Therefore, his consent to search the suitcase resulted from an illegal custody and the marijuana discovered could not be admitted into evidence. The officers should not have asked the suspect to accompany them from the point of the initial consensual encounter to the small room until they returned his ticket and license. There was nothing to indicate the officers had any concern for their safety, or any legitimate need related to the limited purpose of the initial Terry stop. The court makes its decision about custody/non-custody based on everything police say or do—the totality of circumstances test.

This decision states that they needed probable cause to take Royer from the airport to a small room and be held against his will for interrogation.

Your copy paste from Wiki supports me.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="jc456, post: 25130780, member: 46512"]

That’s what the DHS is trying to argue, but the facts of the matter demonstrate otherwise.

Carting him off to the courthouse takes this from detention into the realm of arrest.

prove it.

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

"Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, was a United States Supreme Court case that held a subsequent Miranda warning is not sufficient to cure the taint of an unlawful arrest, when the unlawful arrest led to a coerced confession."

 

[jc456]

Florida v Royer:

wrong yet again fool

Florida v. Royer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Decision[edit]

The Supreme Court held that, although the officers correctly approached Mr. Royer in the airport, they moved him without his consent to the small room and held him there without probable cause. Therefore, his consent to search the suitcase resulted from an illegal custody and the marijuana discovered could not be admitted into evidence. The officers should not have asked the suspect to accompany them from the point of the initial consensual encounter to the small room until they returned his ticket and license. There was nothing to indicate the officers had any concern for their safety, or any legitimate need related to the limited purpose of the initial Terry stop. The court makes its decision about custody/non-custody based on everything police say or do—the totality of circumstances test.

This decision states that they needed probable cause to take Royer from the airport to a small room and be held against his will for interrogation.

Your copy paste from Wiki supports me.

again, what they said.

The officers should not have asked the suspect to accompany them from the point of the initial consensual encounter to the small room until they returned his ticket and license.

 

[colfax_m]

No you didn't. You gave no legal precedence.

sure I did, you just chose to ignore it like you continue to do in this thread. you're very boring.

What case did you cite again?

 

[Faun]

Because it isn't. Not even the DHS thinks its probable cause. That's not specific information linking him to a specific crime.

you don't need probable cause to detain someone. I just sent you a legal link.

He wasn't detained, he was arrested. Plucking him off the street, taking him to the courthouse to be interrogated makes it an arrest, just like the case I showed you.

Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement

definitions.uslegal.com

"A law enforcement officer needs to have a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain a person."

Great, prove they're law enforcement...

 

[iceberg]

No you didn't. You gave no legal precedence.

sure I did, you just chose to ignore it like you continue to do in this thread. you're very boring.

What case did you cite again?

dude - the St Louis DA is taking apart evidence, "fixing it" and putting it back together.

GET OFF THIS HORSE SHIT.

 

[colfax_m]

Florida v Royer:

wrong yet again fool

Florida v. Royer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Decision[edit]

The Supreme Court held that, although the officers correctly approached Mr. Royer in the airport, they moved him without his consent to the small room and held him there without probable cause. Therefore, his consent to search the suitcase resulted from an illegal custody and the marijuana discovered could not be admitted into evidence. The officers should not have asked the suspect to accompany them from the point of the initial consensual encounter to the small room until they returned his ticket and license. There was nothing to indicate the officers had any concern for their safety, or any legitimate need related to the limited purpose of the initial Terry stop. The court makes its decision about custody/non-custody based on everything police say or do—the totality of circumstances test.

This decision states that they needed probable cause to take Royer from the airport to a small room and be held against his will for interrogation.

Your copy paste from Wiki supports me.

again, what they said.

The officers should not have asked the suspect to accompany them from the point of the initial consensual encounter to the small room until they returned his ticket and license.

And?

Pettibone in our scenario was held against his will as well, not allowed to leave as law enforcement held his arms and pulled his cap over his eyes so he could not see.

Are you telling me that a reasonable person wouldn't have felt like they weren't being held in custody under those circumstances?

 

[colfax_m]

No you didn't. You gave no legal precedence.

sure I did, you just chose to ignore it like you continue to do in this thread. you're very boring.

What case did you cite again?

dude - the St Louis DA is taking apart evidence, "fixing it" and putting it back together.

GET OFF THIS HORSE SHIT.

Wrong thread?

 

[colfax_m]

QUOTE="jc456, post: 25130780, member: 46512"]

That’s what the DHS is trying to argue, but the facts of the matter demonstrate otherwise.

Carting him off to the courthouse takes this from detention into the realm of arrest.

prove it.

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

"Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, was a United States Supreme Court case that held a subsequent Miranda warning is not sufficient to cure the taint of an unlawful arrest, when the unlawful arrest led to a coerced confession."

I guess you didn't notice these terms:
"Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, was a United States Supreme Court case that held a subsequent Miranda warning is not sufficient to cure the taint of an unlawful arrest, when the unlawful arrest led to a coerced confession."

This case is about an unlawful arrest, just like the case we are discussing.

 

[iceberg]

Department of Homeland Security's Ken Cuccinelli: Portland "protesters" are domestic terrorists

The label comes after seeing a video people appearing to attempt to set fire to a federal courthouse in the Oregon city as violence explodes.

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

peaceful protestors. uh huh.