How Far Into The Future Should Whites Apologize?

[Grigorio]

You

 

[Liability]

How about ending profiling by police officers...

Because it helps catch criminals when properly applied.

Criminal Profiling in Forensic Psychology

Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis -- FINTZY 157 (9): 1532 -- Am J Psychiatry

Criminal Profiling, the history and method of this discipline - Crime Library on truTV.com

Wow.

I cannot believe that I have now seen two of your posts that make actual sense.

RACIAL profiling of blacks in America should be prohibited.

ALL profiling is not "wrong" on that basis, however.

Further, the ability of the police to stop people cannot always depend exclusively on "visible evidence" as bfgrn posits it. That suggestion doesn't even make sense.

 

[Bfgrn]

How about ending profiling by police officers...

Because it helps catch criminals when properly applied.

Criminal Profiling in Forensic Psychology

Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis -- FINTZY 157 (9): 1532 -- Am J Psychiatry

Criminal Profiling, the history and method of this discipline - Crime Library on truTV.com

Wow.

I cannot believe that I have now seen two of your posts that make actual sense.

RACIAL profiling of blacks in America should be prohibited.

ALL profiling is not "wrong" on that basis, however.

Further, the ability of the police to stop people cannot always depend exclusively on "visible evidence" as bfgrn posits it. That suggestion doesn't even make sense.

Not to Statists like Liability and Grigorio... There is NO reason to stop anyone if they're not breaking the law. And even when someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, there is no reason to search the person or the vehicle without VISIBLE evidence of an illegal substance

You pea brains are Monica Lewinsky's for AUTHORITY...

 

[Grigorio]

Not to Statists like Liability and Grigorio...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ4A2MflNL8]YouTube - Laibach - Der Staat[/ame]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that I am a statist?

There is NO reason to stop anyone if they're not breaking the law.

Really? So, if I say I say a blond man in a blue prius driving away from the scene of a murder moments after the shooting stopped, there's no reason to stop every blond man driving a blue prius within a radius encircling the area the perp might have traveled because that might be the wrong person and he might not be committing any crime?

There's no reason to stop a suspect who is wanted for questioning for a crime if the person is not actively breaking the law?

You are an idiot.

And even when someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, there is no reason to search the person or the vehicle without VISIBLE evidence of an illegal substance

Really? If I smell the stench of crystal meth on someone upon pulling them over, or I smell alcohol or I see bloody clothes in the back seat, or if they make a comment about 'I told that bitch I'd get her' and a woman was found shot ten minutes earlier... there's no reason to search the car, since there's no visible evidence of any illegal substance(s)?

I repeat: you are an idiot.

You pea brains are Monica Lewinsky's for AUTHORITY...

Do you have any evidence to support your idiotic statements?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWmmPMuBgjA]YouTube - Stupid MF- Mindless Self Indulgence[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

Not to Statists like Liability and Grigorio...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ4A2MflNL8]YouTube - Laibach - Der Staat[/ame]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that I am a statist?

There is NO reason to stop anyone if they're not breaking the law.

Really? So, if I say I say a blond man in a blue prius driving away from the scene of a murder moments after the shooting stopped, there's no reason to stop every blond man driving a blue prius within a radius encircling the area the perp might have traveled because that might be the wrong person and he might not be committing any crime?

There's no reason to stop a suspect who is wanted for questioning for a crime if the person is not actively breaking the law?

You are an idiot.

And even when someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, there is no reason to search the person or the vehicle without VISIBLE evidence of an illegal substance

Really? If I smell the stench of crystal meth on someone upon pulling them over, or I smell alcohol or I see bloody clothes in the back seat, or if they make a comment about 'I told that bitch I'd get her' and a woman was found shot ten minutes earlier... there's no reason to search the car, since there's no visible evidence of any illegal substance(s)?

I repeat: you are an idiot.

You pea brains are Monica Lewinsky's for AUTHORITY...

Do you have any evidence to support your idiotic statements?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWmmPMuBgjA]YouTube - Stupid MF- Mindless Self Indulgence[/ame]

I can tell by your examples you're not very bright...LOL

If there is an APB with description (your blue/blond) then it would be within the rights of an officer to stop someone that meets that description within a reasonable radius...

In your second example, you are taking "visible" literally... if there were a smell associated with an illegal substance, that would qualify as "visible"...

My contention has to do with profiling...the act of pulling over someone solely because they LOOK like they might fit a set of characteristics...i.e. skin color, age, vehicle type or condition...

If you defend THAT kind of police work, you are a PEA brain statist MORON...

 

[Liability]

Because it helps catch criminals when properly applied.

Criminal Profiling in Forensic Psychology

Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis -- FINTZY 157 (9): 1532 -- Am J Psychiatry

Criminal Profiling, the history and method of this discipline - Crime Library on truTV.com

Wow.

I cannot believe that I have now seen two of your posts that make actual sense.

RACIAL profiling of blacks in America should be prohibited.

ALL profiling is not "wrong" on that basis, however.

Further, the ability of the police to stop people cannot always depend exclusively on "visible evidence" as bfgrn posits it. That suggestion doesn't even make sense.

Not to Statists like Liability and Grigorio... There is NO reason to stop anyone if they're not breaking the law. And even when someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, there is no reason to search the person or the vehicle without VISIBLE evidence of an illegal substance

You pea brains are Monica Lewinsky's for AUTHORITY...

Only a complete imbecile, and that does refer to the ever stupid bfgrn, would confuse my position for that of a statist.

Idiots like bfgrn don't even comprehend what that word means.

I would offer bfgrn an education, but I suspect he is educably mentally retarded. Nevertheless, it probably warrants a brief effort.

Supporting the legitimate authority of the police to perform their lawful and Constitutional duties is not even remotely akin to making one a "statist."

Statists prefer the government as the "solution" to all problems. Those of us who recognize that the police perform a legitimate function for any civil society do not, thereby, support or endorse the silly claim that the government is a proper solution for all problems.

Bfgrn couldn't ever rationally or reasonably suppport his mindless and foolish contention that the police should only have the ability to conduct a "search" when the "evidence is visible."

The contention is beyond laughable. Bfgrn doesn't have the first or faintest inkling of what he's babbling about.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow.

I cannot believe that I have now seen two of your posts that make actual sense.

RACIAL profiling of blacks in America should be prohibited.

ALL profiling is not "wrong" on that basis, however.

Further, the ability of the police to stop people cannot always depend exclusively on "visible evidence" as bfgrn posits it. That suggestion doesn't even make sense.

Not to Statists like Liability and Grigorio... There is NO reason to stop anyone if they're not breaking the law. And even when someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, there is no reason to search the person or the vehicle without VISIBLE evidence of an illegal substance

You pea brains are Monica Lewinsky's for AUTHORITY...

Only a complete imbecile, and that does refer to the ever stupid bfgrn, would confuse my position for that of a statist.

Idiots like bfgrn don't even comprehend what that word means.

I would offer bfgrn an education, but I suspect he is educably mentally retarded. Nevertheless, it probably warrants a brief effort.

Supporting the legitimate authority of the police to perform their lawful and Constitutional duties is not even remotely akin to making one a "statist."

Statists prefer the government as the "solution" to all problems. Those of us who recognize that the police perform a legitimate function for any civil society do not, thereby, support or endorse the silly claim that the government is a proper solution for all problems.

Bfgrn couldn't ever rationally or reasonably suppport his mindless and foolish contention that the police should only have the ability to conduct a "search" when the "evidence is visible."

The contention is beyond laughable. Bfgrn doesn't have the first or faintest inkling of what he's babbling about.

You blurted:
"Supporting the legitimate authority of the police to perform their lawful and Constitutional duties is not even remotely akin to making one a "statist." "

No, but supporting the UNlawful and UNconstitutional acts of a police officer; a representative of the STATE does make you a "statist."

I guess statists like you need a Constitutional education...

Here's some Constitutional "babble"...

The Fourth Amendment reads in whole:

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.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Liability]

Not to Statists like Liability and Grigorio... There is NO reason to stop anyone if they're not breaking the law. And even when someone is stopped for a traffic infraction, there is no reason to search the person or the vehicle without VISIBLE evidence of an illegal substance

You pea brains are Monica Lewinsky's for AUTHORITY...

Only a complete imbecile, and that does refer to the ever stupid bfgrn, would confuse my position for that of a statist.

Idiots like bfgrn don't even comprehend what that word means.

I would offer bfgrn an education, but I suspect he is educably mentally retarded. Nevertheless, it probably warrants a brief effort.

Supporting the legitimate authority of the police to perform their lawful and Constitutional duties is not even remotely akin to making one a "statist."

Statists prefer the government as the "solution" to all problems. Those of us who recognize that the police perform a legitimate function for any civil society do not, thereby, support or endorse the silly claim that the government is a proper solution for all problems.

Bfgrn couldn't ever rationally or reasonably suppport his mindless and foolish contention that the police should only have the ability to conduct a "search" when the "evidence is visible."

The contention is beyond laughable. Bfgrn doesn't have the first or faintest inkling of what he's babbling about.

You blurted:
"Supporting the legitimate authority of the police to perform their lawful and Constitutional duties is not even remotely akin to making one a "statist." "

No, but supporting the UNlawful and UNconstitutional acts of a police officer; a representative of the STATE does make you a "statist."

Wrong. I didn't "blurt," you imbecile. I stated. And I was correct.

And since my refutation of your imbecilic proposition does NOT in ANY way entail support of either unlawful orUN-Constitutional acts of the police, your idiotic contention that such support does make me a statist is revealed as the absolutely meaningless blather it is.

I guess statists like you need a Constitutional education...

Wrong and wrong, moron. Again, I am not a statist no matter how often you repeat your bogus contention and I know a great deal more about constitutional law than you will ever learn, primarily because I have studied it and because you are -- well -- an imbecile.

Here's some Constitutional "babble"...

The Fourth Amendment reads in whole:

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.

Yes. And you do not comprehend what it means, nor do you understand in even a tiny way that not all searches require a warrant. That's how ignorant and foolish you are.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes. That is what it says. The application of which to YOUR sub-moronic contention is what is and will forever be impossible. Why? Because nothing the 4th and 5th Amendments say supports your idiotic absoluitist grunting notion of what they mean.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

Nice quote, but of no value to this discussion. If what you are presently attempting to grunt out is that somehow Thomas Jefferson would deny police officers the authority to search in all cases where "evidence" is not "visible," you dishonor the memory of a great man. You are the idiot, not Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Bfgrn]

Only a complete imbecile, and that does refer to the ever stupid bfgrn, would confuse my position for that of a statist.

Idiots like bfgrn don't even comprehend what that word means.

I would offer bfgrn an education, but I suspect he is educably mentally retarded. Nevertheless, it probably warrants a brief effort.

Supporting the legitimate authority of the police to perform their lawful and Constitutional duties is not even remotely akin to making one a "statist."

Statists prefer the government as the "solution" to all problems. Those of us who recognize that the police perform a legitimate function for any civil society do not, thereby, support or endorse the silly claim that the government is a proper solution for all problems.

Bfgrn couldn't ever rationally or reasonably suppport his mindless and foolish contention that the police should only have the ability to conduct a "search" when the "evidence is visible."

The contention is beyond laughable. Bfgrn doesn't have the first or faintest inkling of what he's babbling about.

You blurted:
"Supporting the legitimate authority of the police to perform their lawful and Constitutional duties is not even remotely akin to making one a "statist." "

No, but supporting the UNlawful and UNconstitutional acts of a police officer; a representative of the STATE does make you a "statist."

Wrong. I didn't "blurt," you imbecile. I stated. And I was correct.

And since my refutation of your imbecilic proposition does NOT in ANY way entail support of either unlawful orUN-Constitutional acts of the police, your idiotic contention that such support does make me a statist is revealed as the absolutely meaningless blather it is.



Wrong and wrong, moron. Again, I am not a statist no matter how often you repeat your bogus contention and I know a great deal more about constitutional law than you will ever learn, primarily because I have studied it and because you are -- well -- an imbecile.



Yes. And you do not comprehend what it means, nor do you understand in even a tiny way that not all searches require a warrant. That's how ignorant and foolish you are.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yes. That is what it says. The application of which to YOUR sub-moronic contention is what is and will forever be impossible. Why? Because nothing the 4th and 5th Amendments say supports your idiotic absoluitist grunting notion of what they mean.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

Nice quote, but of no value to this discussion. If what you are presently attempting to grunt out is that somehow Thomas Jefferson would deny police officers the authority to search in all cases where "evidence" is not "visible," you dishonor the memory of a great man. You are the idiot, not Thomas Jefferson.

LOL...Hey, Einstein of the Constitution and the law...you don't even understand basic WORDS much less the Constitution...IF you did, you'd comprehend the meaning of "visible" AND you would NEVER say the 4th amendment does not apply...

Ever HEAR of Probable cause pea brain???

In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

To legally pull someone over, an officer has to witness a traffic violation or another crime committed by someone in the car, the license plate shows up as stolen or if there are arrest warrants out for the registered owner.

Once that person is pulled over, the officer must have probable cause to search the occupant or the vehicle...UNLESS that person forfeits his or her 4TH AMENDMENT rights by a consent to search...

Here are some synonyms for "visible"... a synonym is a word that can be used to replace that word depending on the context...

Synonyms: apparent, seeable, arresting, big as life, bold, clear, conspicuous, detectable, discernible, discoverable, distinguishable, evident, in sight, in view, inescapable, macroscopic, manifest, marked, not hidden, noticeable, observable, obtrusive, obvious, ocular, open, out in the open, outstanding, palpable, patent, perceivable, perceptible, plain, pointed, pronounced, revealed, salient, seen, signal, striking, to be seen, unconcealed, under one's nose, unhidden, unmistakable, viewable, visual

If you can't see that the meaning of Jefferson's words cuts right to the heart of this matter, then you are no longer a pea brain statist, you are a BB brained MORON...

 

[Liability]

You blurted:
"Supporting the legitimate authority of the police to perform their lawful and Constitutional duties is not even remotely akin to making one a "statist." "

No, but supporting the UNlawful and UNconstitutional acts of a police officer; a representative of the STATE does make you a "statist."

Wrong. I didn't "blurt," you imbecile. I stated. And I was correct.

And since my refutation of your imbecilic proposition does NOT in ANY way entail support of either unlawful orUN-Constitutional acts of the police, your idiotic contention that such support does make me a statist is revealed as the absolutely meaningless blather it is.



Wrong and wrong, moron. Again, I am not a statist no matter how often you repeat your bogus contention and I know a great deal more about constitutional law than you will ever learn, primarily because I have studied it and because you are -- well -- an imbecile.



Yes. And you do not comprehend what it means, nor do you understand in even a tiny way that not all searches require a warrant. That's how ignorant and foolish you are.



Yes. That is what it says. The application of which to YOUR sub-moronic contention is what is and will forever be impossible. Why? Because nothing the 4th and 5th Amendments say supports your idiotic absoluitist grunting notion of what they mean.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

Nice quote, but of no value to this discussion. If what you are presently attempting to grunt out is that somehow Thomas Jefferson would deny police officers the authority to search in all cases where "evidence" is not "visible," you dishonor the memory of a great man. You are the idiot, not Thomas Jefferson.

LOL...Hey, Einstein of the Constitution and the law...you don't even understand basic WORDS much less the Constitution...IF you did, you'd comprehend the meaning of "visible" AND you would NEVER say the 4th amendment does not apply...

Ever HEAR of Probable cause pea brain???

In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

To legally pull someone over, an officer has to witness a traffic violation or another crime committed by someone in the car, the license plate shows up as stolen or if there are arrest warrants out for the registered owner.

Once that person is pulled over, the officer must have probable cause to search the occupant or the vehicle...UNLESS that person forfeits his or her 4TH AMENDMENT rights by a consent to search...

Here are some synonyms for "visible"... a synonym is a word that can be used to replace that word depending on the context...

Synonyms: apparent, seeable, arresting, big as life, bold, clear, conspicuous, detectable, discernible, discoverable, distinguishable, evident, in sight, in view, inescapable, macroscopic, manifest, marked, not hidden, noticeable, observable, obtrusive, obvious, ocular, open, out in the open, outstanding, palpable, patent, perceivable, perceptible, plain, pointed, pronounced, revealed, salient, seen, signal, striking, to be seen, unconcealed, under one's nose, unhidden, unmistakable, viewable, visual

If you can't see that the meaning of Jefferson's words cuts right to the heart of this matter, then you are no longer a pea brain statist, you are a BB brained MORON...

Wrong, chucklehead.

As I am often obliged to do: I must advise you, too, that words have actual meaning. I recognize that this will come as a shcok to a moron such as yourself. But there ya are.

Evidence indeed need not necessarily be "visible" in order for a police officer to have a reasonable ground to search for it in your home, on your person or in your briefcase, etc.

It takes a monumental moron (and you are there to fit the bill!) to assume that if evidence is not "visible" no search can be properly founded upon probable cause.

Most of the case law in criminal justice -- including tons of cases involving close and detailed Constitutional analysis -- involves scenarios where this is exactly the case.

The import of your moronic contention would be that all any criminal need do to insulate himself and his criminal conduct from police scrutiny is properly wrap and conceal contraband or fruits of a crime. And provided that the criminal does that carefully enough, he may never have any such evidence seized from him or introduced into evidence against him at any trial! Anyone WITH a functioning brain (thus excluding you, bfgrn) would immediately see thaat your formulation is obviously flawed.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wrong. I didn't "blurt," you imbecile. I stated. And I was correct.

And since my refutation of your imbecilic proposition does NOT in ANY way entail support of either unlawful orUN-Constitutional acts of the police, your idiotic contention that such support does make me a statist is revealed as the absolutely meaningless blather it is.



Wrong and wrong, moron. Again, I am not a statist no matter how often you repeat your bogus contention and I know a great deal more about constitutional law than you will ever learn, primarily because I have studied it and because you are -- well -- an imbecile.



Yes. And you do not comprehend what it means, nor do you understand in even a tiny way that not all searches require a warrant. That's how ignorant and foolish you are.



Yes. That is what it says. The application of which to YOUR sub-moronic contention is what is and will forever be impossible. Why? Because nothing the 4th and 5th Amendments say supports your idiotic absoluitist grunting notion of what they mean.



Nice quote, but of no value to this discussion. If what you are presently attempting to grunt out is that somehow Thomas Jefferson would deny police officers the authority to search in all cases where "evidence" is not "visible," you dishonor the memory of a great man. You are the idiot, not Thomas Jefferson.

LOL...Hey, Einstein of the Constitution and the law...you don't even understand basic WORDS much less the Constitution...IF you did, you'd comprehend the meaning of "visible" AND you would NEVER say the 4th amendment does not apply...

Ever HEAR of Probable cause pea brain???

In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

To legally pull someone over, an officer has to witness a traffic violation or another crime committed by someone in the car, the license plate shows up as stolen or if there are arrest warrants out for the registered owner.

Once that person is pulled over, the officer must have probable cause to search the occupant or the vehicle...UNLESS that person forfeits his or her 4TH AMENDMENT rights by a consent to search...

Here are some synonyms for "visible"... a synonym is a word that can be used to replace that word depending on the context...

Synonyms: apparent, seeable, arresting, big as life, bold, clear, conspicuous, detectable, discernible, discoverable, distinguishable, evident, in sight, in view, inescapable, macroscopic, manifest, marked, not hidden, noticeable, observable, obtrusive, obvious, ocular, open, out in the open, outstanding, palpable, patent, perceivable, perceptible, plain, pointed, pronounced, revealed, salient, seen, signal, striking, to be seen, unconcealed, under one's nose, unhidden, unmistakable, viewable, visual

If you can't see that the meaning of Jefferson's words cuts right to the heart of this matter, then you are no longer a pea brain statist, you are a BB brained MORON...

Wrong, chucklehead.

As I am often obliged to do: I must advise you, too, that words have actual meaning. I recognize that this will come as a shcok to a moron such as yourself. But there ya are.

Evidence indeed need not necessarily be "visible" in order for a police officer to have a reasonable ground to search for it in your home, on your person or in your briefcase, etc.

It takes a monumental moron (and you are there to fit the bill!) to assume that if evidence is not "visible" no search can be properly founded upon probable cause.

Most of the case law in criminal justice -- including tons of cases involving close and detailed Constitutional analysis -- involves scenarios where this is exactly the case.

The import of your moronic contention would be that all any criminal need do to insulate himself and his criminal conduct from police scrutiny is properly wrap and conceal contraband or fruits of a crime. And provided that the criminal does that carefully enough, he may never have any such evidence seized from him or introduced into evidence against him at any trial! Anyone WITH a functioning brain (thus excluding you, bfgrn) would immediately see thaat your formulation is obviously flawed.

You blurted: "As I am often obliged to do: I must advise you, too, that words have actual meaning. I recognize that this will come as a shcok to a moron such as yourself. But there ya are."

IF word have ACTUAL meaning, WHAT does "shcok" mean pea brain...LMAO!

You show all the markers of a die hard statist...the person pulled over is already a CRIMINAL and you've moved right to the trial...care to move to the execution, you pea brained moron statist...

Why don't we talk about the way the law is SUPPOSED to work, instead of your statist view that authority can do no wrong...according to the law, IF "evidence" is secured without probable cause and proper procedure, then any evidence gathered as a result would not be allowed in a court of law...unfortunately SHOULD not be allowed in a court of law has become the norm...

IF a person is pulled over, and there is a box on the back seat, the officer can ASK "what's in the box?", but the cop's suspicion does NOT give him the RIGHT to search the box...

Of course, with today's right wing fascist changes to the Supreme Court under Republicans, he can call in the dogs to sniff the outside of the car...and detain the person for 2 hours...

You show NO signs of being anything but a die hard statist...

Here's a few more quotes from Thomas Jefferson to choke on...or should I say "shcok" you...

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

"It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape."

 

[Liability]

LOL...Hey, Einstein of the Constitution and the law...you don't even understand basic WORDS much less the Constitution...IF you did, you'd comprehend the meaning of "visible" AND you would NEVER say the 4th amendment does not apply...

Ever HEAR of Probable cause pea brain???

In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

To legally pull someone over, an officer has to witness a traffic violation or another crime committed by someone in the car, the license plate shows up as stolen or if there are arrest warrants out for the registered owner.

Once that person is pulled over, the officer must have probable cause to search the occupant or the vehicle...UNLESS that person forfeits his or her 4TH AMENDMENT rights by a consent to search...

Here are some synonyms for "visible"... a synonym is a word that can be used to replace that word depending on the context...

Synonyms: apparent, seeable, arresting, big as life, bold, clear, conspicuous, detectable, discernible, discoverable, distinguishable, evident, in sight, in view, inescapable, macroscopic, manifest, marked, not hidden, noticeable, observable, obtrusive, obvious, ocular, open, out in the open, outstanding, palpable, patent, perceivable, perceptible, plain, pointed, pronounced, revealed, salient, seen, signal, striking, to be seen, unconcealed, under one's nose, unhidden, unmistakable, viewable, visual

If you can't see that the meaning of Jefferson's words cuts right to the heart of this matter, then you are no longer a pea brain statist, you are a BB brained MORON...

Wrong, chucklehead.

As I am often obliged to do: I must advise you, too, that words have actual meaning. I recognize that this will come as a shcok to a moron such as yourself. But there ya are.

Evidence indeed need not necessarily be "visible" in order for a police officer to have a reasonable ground to search for it in your home, on your person or in your briefcase, etc.

It takes a monumental moron (and you are there to fit the bill!) to assume that if evidence is not "visible" no search can be properly founded upon probable cause.

Most of the case law in criminal justice -- including tons of cases involving close and detailed Constitutional analysis -- involves scenarios where this is exactly the case.

The import of your moronic contention would be that all any criminal need do to insulate himself and his criminal conduct from police scrutiny is properly wrap and conceal contraband or fruits of a crime. And provided that the criminal does that carefully enough, he may never have any such evidence seized from him or introduced into evidence against him at any trial! Anyone WITH a functioning brain (thus excluding you, bfgrn) would immediately see thaat your formulation is obviously flawed.

You blurted: "As I am often obliged to do: I must advise you, too, that words have actual meaning. I recognize that this will come as a shcok to a moron such as yourself. But there ya are."

IF word have ACTUAL meaning, WHAT does "shcok" mean pea brain...LMAO!

You show all the markers of a die hard statist...the person pulled over is already a CRIMINAL and you've moved right to the trial...care to move to the execution, you pea brained moron statist...

Why don't we talk about the way the law is SUPPOSED to work, instead of your statist view that authority can do no wrong...according to the law, IF "evidence" is secured without probable cause and proper procedure, then any evidence gathered as a result would not be allowed in a court of law...unfortunately SHOULD not be allowed in a court of law has become the norm...

IF a person is pulled over, and there is a box on the back seat, the officer can ASK "what's in the box?", but the cop's suspicion does NOT give him the RIGHT to search the box...

Of course, with today's right wing fascist changes to the Supreme Court under Republicans, he can call in the dogs to sniff the outside of the car...and detain the person for 2 hours...

You show NO signs of being anything but a die hard statist...

Here's a few more quotes from Thomas Jefferson to choke on...or should I say "shcok" you...

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

"It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape."

Oh good. The imbecile managed to spot a typo.

That quality kind of refutation is revealing about who and what bfgrn is.

Since you are far too much of a wussy and an imbecile to have the nadz to stick to the topic, there's nothing much worthwhile in attempting to converse with you.

Still, the point remains. You use the term "statist" but have no clue what it really means. You quote the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment, but do not comprehend how they work nor what they were even intended to accomplish.

You are one of the drooling tools who seemingly believe that all searches made without a warrant are per se a violation of the Constitution. You remain an imbecile.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wrong, chucklehead.

As I am often obliged to do: I must advise you, too, that words have actual meaning. I recognize that this will come as a shcok to a moron such as yourself. But there ya are.

Evidence indeed need not necessarily be "visible" in order for a police officer to have a reasonable ground to search for it in your home, on your person or in your briefcase, etc.

It takes a monumental moron (and you are there to fit the bill!) to assume that if evidence is not "visible" no search can be properly founded upon probable cause.

Most of the case law in criminal justice -- including tons of cases involving close and detailed Constitutional analysis -- involves scenarios where this is exactly the case.

The import of your moronic contention would be that all any criminal need do to insulate himself and his criminal conduct from police scrutiny is properly wrap and conceal contraband or fruits of a crime. And provided that the criminal does that carefully enough, he may never have any such evidence seized from him or introduced into evidence against him at any trial! Anyone WITH a functioning brain (thus excluding you, bfgrn) would immediately see thaat your formulation is obviously flawed.

You blurted: "As I am often obliged to do: I must advise you, too, that words have actual meaning. I recognize that this will come as a shcok to a moron such as yourself. But there ya are."

IF word have ACTUAL meaning, WHAT does "shcok" mean pea brain...LMAO!

You show all the markers of a die hard statist...the person pulled over is already a CRIMINAL and you've moved right to the trial...care to move to the execution, you pea brained moron statist...

Why don't we talk about the way the law is SUPPOSED to work, instead of your statist view that authority can do no wrong...according to the law, IF "evidence" is secured without probable cause and proper procedure, then any evidence gathered as a result would not be allowed in a court of law...unfortunately SHOULD not be allowed in a court of law has become the norm...

IF a person is pulled over, and there is a box on the back seat, the officer can ASK "what's in the box?", but the cop's suspicion does NOT give him the RIGHT to search the box...

Of course, with today's right wing fascist changes to the Supreme Court under Republicans, he can call in the dogs to sniff the outside of the car...and detain the person for 2 hours...

You show NO signs of being anything but a die hard statist...

Here's a few more quotes from Thomas Jefferson to choke on...or should I say "shcok" you...

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

"It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape."

Oh good. The imbecile managed to spot a typo.

That quality kind of refutation is revealing about who and what bfgrn is.

Since you are far too much of a wussy and an imbecile to have the nadz to stick to the topic, there's nothing much worthwhile in attempting to converse with you.

Still, the point remains. You use the term "statist" but have no clue what it really means. You quote the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment, but do not comprehend how they work nor what they were even intended to accomplish.

You are one of the drooling tools who seemingly believe that all searches made without a warrant are per se a violation of the Constitution. You remain an imbecile.

You ignore my irrefutable points about probable cause, proper procedure and evidence seized and found something you can use to deflect your loss in this debate...

YOU are a STATIST to the core...the government can do no wrong in your eyes when it comes to arresting, incarcerating and killing human beings...just don't have the government try to HELP people...THAT is EVIL...

 

[Liability]

You blurted: "As I am often obliged to do: I must advise you, too, that words have actual meaning. I recognize that this will come as a shcok to a moron such as yourself. But there ya are."

IF word have ACTUAL meaning, WHAT does "shcok" mean pea brain...LMAO!

You show all the markers of a die hard statist...the person pulled over is already a CRIMINAL and you've moved right to the trial...care to move to the execution, you pea brained moron statist...

Why don't we talk about the way the law is SUPPOSED to work, instead of your statist view that authority can do no wrong...according to the law, IF "evidence" is secured without probable cause and proper procedure, then any evidence gathered as a result would not be allowed in a court of law...unfortunately SHOULD not be allowed in a court of law has become the norm...

IF a person is pulled over, and there is a box on the back seat, the officer can ASK "what's in the box?", but the cop's suspicion does NOT give him the RIGHT to search the box...

Of course, with today's right wing fascist changes to the Supreme Court under Republicans, he can call in the dogs to sniff the outside of the car...and detain the person for 2 hours...

You show NO signs of being anything but a die hard statist...

Here's a few more quotes from Thomas Jefferson to choke on...or should I say "shcok" you...

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

"It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape."

Oh good. The imbecile managed to spot a typo.

That quality kind of refutation is revealing about who and what bfgrn is.

Since you are far too much of a wussy and an imbecile to have the nadz to stick to the topic, there's nothing much worthwhile in attempting to converse with you.

Still, the point remains. You use the term "statist" but have no clue what it really means. You quote the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment, but do not comprehend how they work nor what they were even intended to accomplish.

You are one of the drooling tools who seemingly believe that all searches made without a warrant are per se a violation of the Constitution. You remain an imbecile.

You ignore my irrefutable points about probable cause, proper procedure and evidence seized and found something you can use to deflect your loss in this debate...

YOU are a STATIST to the core...the government can do no wrong in your eyes when it comes to arresting, incarcerating and killing human beings...just don't have the government try to HELP people...THAT is EVIL...

LOL! You have yet to make an irrefutable point. You are an Oblio. A pointless one.

No. Again, your lie (no matter how often you deliberately attempt to reiterate it) is still just a lie. The truth (a novel concept for an ass like you) is that I am not even close to a statist. It's just another word you lack understanding of.

Here: let's quiz you, you moron.

A police officer sees no "evidence" of a weapon on you. Nevertheless, he pats you down and, upon doing so, he feels an object in your jacket pocket. He reaches into that pocket and recovers a loaded and operable handgun from you. He has, this whole time, no warrant to search you.

In your vaunted opinion:

(a) has the officer violated the Constitution?
(b) has the officer violated any of your personal Constitutionally enshrined rights?
(c) might it be that the officer is comporting himself perfectly within the confines of the Constitution?
(d) do you lack sufficient information to formulate a reasonable position on the matter?

It can be a multiple choice if you'd like. Explain you "answers" concisely, if you are capable of doing so.

 

[thu theenker]

D.

Patdowns are leegil upon stopping someone to check for wepuns.

Why wus the person stoped?

 

[Liability]

D.

Patdowns are leegil upon stopping someone to check for wepuns.

Why wus the person stoped?

Patdowns are not always permitted to check for weapons, actually.

The answer DOES, however, depend on the circumstances. The TEST is "reasonableness." This should not surprise anybody. It is even referenced in the Constitution itself.

 

[bodecea]

I have no problem with ex-slaves being paid reparations by the ex-Confederate government members and ex-slave owners themselves.

Anyone else...not so much.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh good. The imbecile managed to spot a typo.

That quality kind of refutation is revealing about who and what bfgrn is.

Since you are far too much of a wussy and an imbecile to have the nadz to stick to the topic, there's nothing much worthwhile in attempting to converse with you.

Still, the point remains. You use the term "statist" but have no clue what it really means. You quote the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment, but do not comprehend how they work nor what they were even intended to accomplish.

You are one of the drooling tools who seemingly believe that all searches made without a warrant are per se a violation of the Constitution. You remain an imbecile.

You ignore my irrefutable points about probable cause, proper procedure and evidence seized and found something you can use to deflect your loss in this debate...

YOU are a STATIST to the core...the government can do no wrong in your eyes when it comes to arresting, incarcerating and killing human beings...just don't have the government try to HELP people...THAT is EVIL...

LOL! You have yet to make an irrefutable point. You are an Oblio. A pointless one.

No. Again, your lie (no matter how often you deliberately attempt to reiterate it) is still just a lie. The truth (a novel concept for an ass like you) is that I am not even close to a statist. It's just another word you lack understanding of.

Here: let's quiz you, you moron.

A police officer sees no "evidence" of a weapon on you. Nevertheless, he pats you down and, upon doing so, he feels an object in your jacket pocket. He reaches into that pocket and recovers a loaded and operable handgun from you. He has, this whole time, no warrant to search you.

In your vaunted opinion:

(a) has the officer violated the Constitution?
(b) has the officer violated any of your personal Constitutionally enshrined rights?
(c) might it be that the officer is comporting himself perfectly within the confines of the Constitution?
(d) do you lack sufficient information to formulate a reasonable position on the matter?

It can be a multiple choice if you'd like. Explain you "answers" concisely, if you are capable of doing so.

WHY is the policeman patting you down??? Without PROBABLE CAUSE, the officer has NO right to search your person... he IS violating your Constitutional rights...

Got it statist???

Here's an education for the Constitutional Einstein...LOL!!!

unreasonable search and seizure n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

unreasonable search and seizure legal definition of unreasonable search and seizure. unreasonable search and seizure synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[Liability]

You ignore my irrefutable points about probable cause, proper procedure and evidence seized and found something you can use to deflect your loss in this debate...

YOU are a STATIST to the core...the government can do no wrong in your eyes when it comes to arresting, incarcerating and killing human beings...just don't have the government try to HELP people...THAT is EVIL...

LOL! You have yet to make an irrefutable point. You are an Oblio. A pointless one.

No. Again, your lie (no matter how often you deliberately attempt to reiterate it) is still just a lie. The truth (a novel concept for an ass like you) is that I am not even close to a statist. It's just another word you lack understanding of.

Here: let's quiz you, you moron.

A police officer sees no "evidence" of a weapon on you. Nevertheless, he pats you down and, upon doing so, he feels an object in your jacket pocket. He reaches into that pocket and recovers a loaded and operable handgun from you. He has, this whole time, no warrant to search you.

In your vaunted opinion:

(a) has the officer violated the Constitution?
(b) has the officer violated any of your personal Constitutionally enshrined rights?
(c) might it be that the officer is comporting himself perfectly within the confines of the Constitution?
(d) do you lack sufficient information to formulate a reasonable position on the matter?

It can be a multiple choice if you'd like. Explain you "answers" concisely, if you are capable of doing so.

WHY is the policeman patting you down??? Without PROBABLE CAUSE, the officer has NO right to search your person... he IS violating your Constitutional rights...

Got it statist???

Here's an education for the Constitutional Einstein...LOL!!!

unreasonable search and seizure n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

unreasonable search and seizure legal definition of unreasonable search and seizure. unreasonable search and seizure synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I am not a statist at all. Your continued reiteration of that lie is just additional proof that you are ignorant and/or a deliberate liar.

I do, however, congratulate you for recognizing that the circustances of the search matter.

For example, if the officer had just placed the suspect under arrest for some crime, the pat down search incidenet to the arrest would NOT be dependent on any "evidence" being visible, and yet it would still be a perfectly valid Constitutionally appropriate search.

Or, if the suspect was not under arrest at all at the time of the pat down, but the officer had just gotten a detailed report of "man with gun involved in a shooting" at that immeidate vicinity describing the suspect to a "t," the officer might have to pat the guy down as a matter of his own security in order to briefly question him -- which he would also be allowed to do under Constitutional law analysis.

In NEITHER case was the "evidence" visible -- as you previously said was REQUIRED -- yet in each case there is no Constitutional violation. Supporting the officer's conduct in each case has no bearing on being a "statist" or not, you imbecile.

Your ignorance is massive but very amusing. Keep posting!

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL! You have yet to make an irrefutable point. You are an Oblio. A pointless one.

No. Again, your lie (no matter how often you deliberately attempt to reiterate it) is still just a lie. The truth (a novel concept for an ass like you) is that I am not even close to a statist. It's just another word you lack understanding of.

Here: let's quiz you, you moron.

A police officer sees no "evidence" of a weapon on you. Nevertheless, he pats you down and, upon doing so, he feels an object in your jacket pocket. He reaches into that pocket and recovers a loaded and operable handgun from you. He has, this whole time, no warrant to search you.

In your vaunted opinion:

(a) has the officer violated the Constitution?
(b) has the officer violated any of your personal Constitutionally enshrined rights?
(c) might it be that the officer is comporting himself perfectly within the confines of the Constitution?
(d) do you lack sufficient information to formulate a reasonable position on the matter?

It can be a multiple choice if you'd like. Explain you "answers" concisely, if you are capable of doing so.

WHY is the policeman patting you down??? Without PROBABLE CAUSE, the officer has NO right to search your person... he IS violating your Constitutional rights...

Got it statist???

Here's an education for the Constitutional Einstein...LOL!!!

unreasonable search and seizure n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

unreasonable search and seizure legal definition of unreasonable search and seizure. unreasonable search and seizure synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I am not a statist at all. Your continued reiteration of that lie is just additional proof that you are ignorant and/or a deliberate liar.

I do, however, congratulate you for recognizing that the circustances of the search matter.

For example, if the officer had just placed the suspect under arrest for some crime, the pat down search incidenet to the arrest would NOT be dependent on any "evidence" being visible, and yet it would still be a perfectly valid Constitutionally appropriate search.

Or, if the suspect was not under arrest at all at the time of the pat down, but the officer had just gotten a detailed report of "man with gun involved in a shooting" at that immeidate vicinity describing the suspect to a "t," the officer might have to pat the guy down as a matter of his own security in order to briefly question him -- which he would also be allowed to do under Constitutional law analysis.

In NEITHER case was the "evidence" visible -- as you previously said was REQUIRED -- yet in each case there is no Constitutional violation. Supporting the officer's conduct in each case has no bearing on being a "statist" or not, you imbecile.

Your ignorance is massive but very amusing. Keep posting!

Do you COMPREHEND that being stopped is NOT being under arrest? The officer has NO right to search your person without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

IF a person is placed under arrest, the officer HAS the right to search your person...

Liability...no......you are not a statist...you just support the state over the individual at every turn.You make excuses for the state to violate the rights of the individual...but you're not a statist...ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!