DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[colfax_m]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

 

[progressive hunter]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

peaceful protests dont happen in the middle of the night by mask person destroying public property and threatening government officials,,,

thats a riot/insurgence by hostile persons,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

[VIDEO] Portland anarchists barricade courthouse with federal officers inside; they also try to set it on fire…

Last night was another lawless night in Portland, where anarchists actually tried to barricade the courthouse with federal officers inside: Protestors are now barricading one of the doors to the fe…

therightscoop.com

 

[colfax_m]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

peaceful protests dont happen in the middle of the night by mask person destroying public property and threatening government officials,,,

thats a riot/insurgence by hostile persons,,,

The right to assembly and protest is not contingent on time of day.

You still haven't described probable cause.

 

[colfax_m]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

[VIDEO] Portland anarchists barricade courthouse with federal officers inside; they also try to set it on fire…

Last night was another lawless night in Portland, where anarchists actually tried to barricade the courthouse with federal officers inside: Protestors are now barricading one of the doors to the fe…

therightscoop.com

Given your link describes events that occurred well after the arrest in question, it's irrelevant.

 

[progressive hunter]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

peaceful protests dont happen in the middle of the night by mask person destroying public property and threatening government officials,,,

thats a riot/insurgence by hostile persons,,,

The right to assembly and protest is not contingent on time of day.

You still haven't described probable cause.

protests dont include property damage and attempts to murder government officials,,,

thats called a riot not a peaceful protest,,,

 

[colfax_m]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

peaceful protests dont happen in the middle of the night by mask person destroying public property and threatening government officials,,,

thats a riot/insurgence by hostile persons,,,

The right to assembly and protest is not contingent on time of day.

You still haven't described probable cause.

protests dont include property damage and attempts to murder government officials,,,

thats called a riot not a peaceful protest,,,

And you have a link that shows that occurred on the night in question and that's why these guys were arrested?

Of course not.

 

[progressive hunter]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

peaceful protests dont happen in the middle of the night by mask person destroying public property and threatening government officials,,,

thats a riot/insurgence by hostile persons,,,

The right to assembly and protest is not contingent on time of day.

You still haven't described probable cause.

protests dont include property damage and attempts to murder government officials,,,

thats called a riot not a peaceful protest,,,

And you have a link that shows that occurred on the night in question and that's why these guys were arrested?

Of course not.

they werent arrested,,,and there are many videos of what happened that night to justify them being taken in for questioning,,,

 

[colfax_m]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

peaceful protests dont happen in the middle of the night by mask person destroying public property and threatening government officials,,,

thats a riot/insurgence by hostile persons,,,

The right to assembly and protest is not contingent on time of day.

You still haven't described probable cause.

protests dont include property damage and attempts to murder government officials,,,

thats called a riot not a peaceful protest,,,

And you have a link that shows that occurred on the night in question and that's why these guys were arrested?

Of course not.

they werent arrested,,,and there are many videos of what happened that night to justify them being taken in for questioning,,,

What legal standard are you using to determine they weren't arrested? I've provided mine. Now show me yours.

 

[jc456]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

 

[progressive hunter]

and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?

Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.

At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.

he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,

That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.

no its not,,,

Dunaway v New York says differently.

Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.

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

Dunaway v. New York

supreme.justia.com

well they did have probable cause,,,

They did? Do tell.

already did,,,

You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.

it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,

Even if it was (it wasn't) you're still not describing probable cause.

peaceful protests dont happen in the middle of the night by mask person destroying public property and threatening government officials,,,

thats a riot/insurgence by hostile persons,,,

The right to assembly and protest is not contingent on time of day.

You still haven't described probable cause.

protests dont include property damage and attempts to murder government officials,,,

thats called a riot not a peaceful protest,,,

And you have a link that shows that occurred on the night in question and that's why these guys were arrested?

Of course not.

they werent arrested,,,and there are many videos of what happened that night to justify them being taken in for questioning,,,

What legal standard are you using to determine they weren't arrested? I've provided mine. Now show me yours.

dont need a legal standard when reality works so well to explain it,,,

they werent charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,and were released after they refused to answer questions,,,

 

[jc456]

should be easy. stop talking shit in circles and prove ANYTHING you blither out.

that's all that stupid fker knows how to do.

 

[dblack]

Maybe Rand Paul still has a little libertarian in him (but it's screaming to get out):

Rand Paul says there's 'no place' for federal agents 'rounding people up at will' in Portland

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.

 

[jc456]

dont need a legal standard when reality works so well to explain it,,,

they werent charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,and were released after they refused to answer questions,,,

that fk doesn't know that cops bring in people daily for questioning to gather information. too fking funny, he likes to go round in circles.

 

[colfax_m]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

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.

There was no probable cause here.

 

[jc456]

Maybe Rand Paul still has a little libertarian in him:

Rand Paul says there's 'no place' for federal agents 'rounding people up at will' in Portland

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.

well when he does something but complain and do something about the lawlessness in our cities his words are garbage.

 

[progressive hunter]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

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.

There was no probable cause here.

yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,

 

[jc456]

4th amendment requires probable cause.

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.

There was no probable cause here.

yep that's our 4th amendment, however, that's trying to charge someone. To bring someone in for questioning has nothing to do with the 4th amendment probable cause clause. They are allowed to question people, anyone. they can knock on your door and ask you to come down to the station. whether you want to or not.

They can ask you to get out of your car and put you in their squad for nothing.

fk dude, bouncers can throw you out for looking at them wrong. you're so fking clueless, we should nick name you clueless.

 

[colfax_m]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

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.

There was no probable cause here.

yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,

You haven't provided any probable cause.

 

[progressive hunter]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

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.

There was no probable cause here.

yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,

You haven't provided any probable cause.

yes I did,,,