Black "pastor" arrested for crime of watering his neighbours garden

[BackAgain]

even after you posted a link proving you were wrong you still going to run your penis holster???

you got some guts little boy,,,

I posted a link proving me right. Your post demonstrates that you’re a petulant dick sucking moron and too stubborn to admit your defeat.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't remember where I got the 1st quote as there are numerous websites which state the same thing but here's another:

Traffic Stops, Littering Tickets, and Police Warnings: The Case for a Fourth Amendment Non-Custodial Arrest Doctrine | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

It's from the American Criminal Law Review. I hope that's not too intimidating for you, smart guy.

your link proves me right,,,

thanks for that,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted a link proving me right. Your post demonstrates that you’re a petulant dick sucking moron and too stubborn to admit your defeat.

your link was for practicing law not giving legal advice,,,

 

[BackAgain]

You guys need to get a room

Nah. He just needs to grow up.

In any event, problem is now solved. He will never admit it, but I proved my assertions. Hell, I almost forced him to learn on his own!

Back on topic.

The pastor could have resolved the whole situation with a simple answer: “my name is Pastor (whatever). This is my neighbor’s property. He is on vacation, but he asked me to water his plants while he’s away. That’s what I’m doing.”

 

[progressive hunter]

Nah. He just needs to grow up.

In any event, problem is now solved. He will never admit it, but I proved my assertions. Hell, I almost forced him to learn on his own!

Back on topic.

The pastor could have resolved the whole situation with a simple answer: “my name is Pastor (whatever). This is my neighbor’s property. He is on vacation, but he asked me to water his plants while he’s away. That’s what I’m doing.”

you only proved you were wrong and giving legal advice isnt illegal,,,

 

[Ralph Norton]

your link proves me right,,,

thanks for that,,

What the **** are you talking about?
You said that traffic stops are "arrests". This CLEARLY demonstrates that they are not.
You really are a dumb ass.

 

[progressive hunter]

What the **** are you talking about?
You said that traffic stops are "arrests". This CLEARLY demonstrates that they are not.
You really are a dumb ass.

but it says you are ,,,

if you are not under arrest then why do you have to sign a signature bond before he lets you go???

 

[BackAgain]

you only proved you were wrong and giving legal advice isnt illegal,,,

No. I am saddened (honestly) by your petulance. But, since I’m feeling a bit lazy, I’m not gonna trace back to the actual quote. I’ll simplify. As I recall, what I did say was that laws define their terms. And in some jurisdictions (I’ll limit this to just NY for the moment) the rendering of legal advice IS INCLUDED in the definition of practicing law.

I even gave you the NY Ed Law section.

Why you’d require any additional spoon feeding is beyond me.

 

[progressive hunter]

No. I am saddened (honestly) by your petulance. But, since I’m feeling a bit lazy, I’m not gonna trace back to the actual quote. I’ll simplify. As I recall, what I did say was that laws define their terms. And in some jurisdictions (I’ll limit this to just NY for the moment) the rendering of legal advice IS INCLUDED in the definition of practicing law.

I even gave you the NY Ed Law section.

Why you’d require any additional spoon feeding is beyond me.

what you gave me was for practicing law not giving legal advice,,

youve given legal advice several times in this discussion,, are you saying you can be arrested for that??

 

[Ralph Norton]

No. I am saddened (honestly) by your petulance. But, since I’m feeling a bit lazy, I’m not gonna trace back to the actual quote. I’ll simplify. As I recall, what I did say was that laws define their terms. And in some jurisdictions (I’ll limit this to just NY for the moment) the rendering of legal advice IS INCLUDED in the definition of practicing law.

I even gave you the NY Ed Law section.

Why you’d require any additional spoon feeding is beyond me.

OK, I'm out.
This guy is both stupid AND a jack ass.
Good luck.

 

[progressive hunter]

OK, I'm out.
This guy is both stupid AND a jack ass.
Good luck.

just tell me why you have to sign a signature bond if you are not under arrest???

 

[progressive hunter]

What the **** are you talking about?
You said that traffic stops are "arrests". This CLEARLY demonstrates that they are not.
You really are a dumb ass.

Understanding the Two General Types of Arrests in Connecticut

Have you been arrested? Learn the differences between a custodial and non-custodial arrest, and find out what you should do if you have been accused of a crime.

www.bayerandblack.com

Custodial and Non-Custodial Arrests: What Are the Differences? - DeLaughter Bail Bonds

Being arrested comes in different forms, and not every arrest requires that you be put behind bars. Is it still an arrest in that case, though?

delaughterbailbonds.com

Traffic Stops, Littering Tickets, and Police Warnings: The Case for a Fourth Amendment Non-Custodial Arrest Doctrine | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

 

[BackAgain]

what you gave me was for practicing law not giving legal advice,,

Wrong. What I said was that practicing law can include something as simple as rendering legal advice. I also know that it doesn’t always require accepting a fee. You need to be more accurate and precise.

youve given legal advice several times in this discussion,, are you saying you can be arrested for that??

I have given no legal advice at all (except of course to advise you, and anybody else with a legal issue, to consult with a lawyer admitted to practice in your jurisdiction).

So, the balance of your question is not just silly, but still off topic.

Are you able to discuss the topic?

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong. What I said was that practicing law can include something as simple as rendering legal advice. I also know that it doesn’t always require accepting a fee. You need to be more accurate and precise.

I have given no legal advice at all.

So, the balance of your question is not just silly, but still off topic.

you said that after you said that giving legal advice was illegal,, I even gave you a chance to walk that back and you choose to stand on what you said,,

 

[progressive hunter]

You aren’t allowed to offer legal advice in your own state if you’re not an admitted attorney in that state. Plus, you initially didn’t limit your advice to just your state.

Others should be very cautious about accepting any legal advice over the internet. If anyone needs legal advice, they should get it from a legally admitted attorney in their jurisdiction.

here is the comment where you said giving legal advice was illegal,,,

 

[BackAgain]

you said that after you said that giving legal advice was illegal,, I even gave you a chance to walk that back and you choose to stand on what you said,,

You’re being obtuse. I’m not surprised by that anymore, coming from you.

It is illegal to practice law without a license. Yes.

Offering legal advice can be practicing law. Yes.

No fee is required to be guilty of practicing law without a license — at least in some jurisdictions. Yes.

Offering advice to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer does not constitute the rendering of legal advice. Yes.

I leave you now because I don’t wish to encourage you anymore to be off topic.

I have only one other more or less conservative member on my iggy list. You are now number 2. Adios.

 

[progressive hunter]

You’re being obtuse. I’m not surprised by that anymore, coming from you.

It is illegal to practice law without a license. Yes.

Offering legal advice can be practicing law. Yes.

No fee is required to be guilty of practicing law without a license — at least in some jurisdictions. Yes.

Offering advice to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer does not constitute the rendering of legal advice. Yes.

I leave you now because I don’t wish to encourage you anymore to be off topic.

I have only one other more or less conservative member on my iggy list. You are now number 2. Adios.

so you can be arrested for the legal advice youve been giving me???
yeah right,,,

 

[BackAgain]

Off topic a bit. Just verification of my prior post:

As a general rule, it has been my experience that folks on the right can disagree with each other without having to behave so childishly. There are many conservatives here with whom I have had some level of disagreement on one point or another or who have similar issues with my comments. But very few interact with each other or with me in the fashion chosen by “progressive hunter.”

I wasn’t kidding before when I told him I found his petulance disappointing. But alas. The mods have made it clear that this bickering bullshit (which can derail a thread) isn’t being tolerated. So, I find myself frequently having to note that I’m going back “on topic.”

My apologies to all for the off topic commentary in this thread.

Now, of course, BACK ON TOPIC!

I’ll pose what the cop confronted from a slightly different perspective: What if?

What if the pastor was indeed aware that the homeowner was away on a vacation? But what if he wasn’t a neighbor? What if he was just “casing the joint?” And finally, what if the cop had done nothing to try to establish who the pastor was under those circumstances?

Would a later burglary of the owner’s home, which may have been avoidable otherwise, be deemed an instance of the cops not caring about a “black neighborhood? “ Would the homeowner finding all of this out, later, not be justified in asking why the cops hadn’t done something to have protected that home?

 

[progressive hunter]

Of topic a bit. Just verification of my prior post:
View attachment 687025

As a general rule, it has been my experience that folks on the right can disagree with each other without having to behave so childishly. There are many conservatives here with whom I have had some level of disagreement on one point or another or who have similar issues with my comments. But very few interact with each other or with me in the fashion chosen by “progressive hunter.”

I wasn’t kidding before when I told him I found his petulance disappointing. But alas. The mods have made it clear that this bickering bullshit (which can derail a thread) isn’t being tolerated. So, I find myself frequently having to note that I’m going back “on topic.”

My apologies to all for the off topic commentary in this thread.

Now, of course, BACK ON TOPIC!

I’ll pose what the cop confronted from a slightly different perspective: What if?

What if the pastor was indeed aware that the homeowner was away on a vacation? But what if he wasn’t a neighbor? What if he was just “casing the joint?” And finally, what if the cop had done nothing to try to establish who the pastor was under those circumstances?

Would a later burglary of the owner’s home, which may have been avoidable otherwise, be deemed an instance of the cops not caring about a “black neighborhood? “ Would the homeowner finding all of this out, later, not be justified in asking why the cops hadn’t done something to have protected that home?

figures you would put me on ignore since I proved you so wrong,,,

 

[JOSweetHeart]

it violates the 4th amendment,,

Whoever dialed the law on the gun should then be searched as well only of course have their search be done the legal way. To me, if the law can't be thorough and go all the way, why start traveling at all in such a direction to begin with?

God bless you always!!!

Holly