DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[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.

Wrong thread?

yes. my bad.

 

[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?

yes. my bad.

No problem!

 

[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."

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.

You didn’t pay attention to why it was. I gave it to you

 

[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.

You didn’t pay attention to why it was. I gave it to you

It was an unlawful arrest because they didn't have probable cause, just like Pettibone.

 

[jc456]

It was an unlawful arrest because they didn't have probable cause, just like Pettibone.

"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." the suit was because of the coercion, I told you that already. why do we keep dancing?

 

[colfax_m]

It was an unlawful arrest because they didn't have probable cause, just like Pettibone.

"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." the suit was because of the coercion, I told you that already. why do we keep dancing?

Its entirely clear you didn't actually read the case because it's about unlawful arrest. The confession was thrown out specifically because his arrest was unlawful.

 

[Billiejeens]

It's very revealing how the right has embraced absolute tyranny when it is manifest before them. We real Americans won't forgive or forget.

I, for one, am absolutely counting on real Americans understanding and remembering - the remembering part should be easy, what is happening in this country. If they do, same end result as 2016.

 

[Billiejeens]

So you're going on record as supportive of a police state.

tRumplings have always been fascists. Now we have confirmation.

are you saying the citizens of the city have no rights?

Apparently not because Trump's thugs can now arrest people without probable cause.

Literally not happening -
You are simply repeating falsehoods
Not shocking.

 

[jc456]

Its entirely clear you didn't actually read the case because it's about unlawful arrest. The confession was thrown out specifically because his arrest was unlawful

Except I gave you why, coercion

 

[Billiejeens]

So you're going on record as supportive of a police state.

tRumplings have always been fascists. Now we have confirmation.

are you saying the citizens of the city have no rights?

Apparently not because Trump's thugs can now arrest people without probable cause.

if you took time to educate yourself on the subject you would know that never happened,,,

That one literally does not care.
No one here repeats propaganda more, than he does.

 

[colfax_m]

Its entirely clear you didn't actually read the case because it's about unlawful arrest. The confession was thrown out specifically because his arrest was unlawful

Except I gave you why, coercion

Be honest, did you actually read the SCOTUS decision?

 

[colfax_m]

Literally not happening -
You are simply repeating falsehoods
Not shocking.

Plucking people off the street against their will and driving them to the federal courthouse to be interrogated isn't an arrest?

How do you figure?

 

[Billiejeens]

Literally not happening -
You are simply repeating falsehoods
Not shocking.

Plucking people off the street against their will and driving them to the federal courthouse to be interrogated isn't an arrest?

How do you figure?

You can't be serious

 

[jc456]

Be honest, did you actually read the SCOTUS decision

LOL, I quoted it

 

[colfax_m]

Literally not happening -
You are simply repeating falsehoods
Not shocking.

Plucking people off the street against their will and driving them to the federal courthouse to be interrogated isn't an arrest?

How do you figure?

You can't be serious

I am. Are you?

 

[colfax_m]

Be honest, did you actually read the SCOTUS decision

LOL, I quoted it

You quoted Wikipedia kiddo.

 

[jc456]

You quoted Wikipedia kiddo

From the section Supreme Court ruling

 

[colfax_m]

You quoted Wikipedia kiddo

From the section Supreme Court ruling

So you didn’t read the case. You read Wikipedia.

Is that right?

 

[jc456]

So you didn’t read the case. You read Wikipedia.

Is that right

So here we go huh?

 

[colfax_m]

So you didn’t read the case. You read Wikipedia.

Is that right

So here we go huh?

Just admit you didn’t read the case and that you lied when you said you quoted it.

It’ll save us both some time.

The case was centered around whether the defendant’s arrest was legal.