DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[colfax_m]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

Based on what definition?

That's right, you don't have one because you're just making it up as you go along.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

it was voluntary cause they released him when he refused,,,

They grabbed him by the arms and forced him in the back of a van is not voluntary by any sane person.

but releasing him was,,,

Let me rephrase. They could only question him on a voluntary basis, meaning if he wanted to leave, he could. The law enforcement did not give him a choice in whether he could leave or not, which is one element of an arrest.

so they still have him in custody???

I didnt know that,,,that changes everything,,,

 

[colfax_m]

Being there was not a crime, so no, it's not probable cause.

it's probable cause. hence the questioning. how do you think police do investigations? They get the correct guy every time huh? LOL you're fking a loony toon.

Police gather evidence before making arrests. They don't just scoop up every person they feel like it.

The fact that this seems crazy to you shows how bad it's gotten since you no longer care about constitutional protections.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

Based on what definition?

That's right, you don't have one because you're just making it up as you go along.

based on the reality they released him,,,

 

[colfax_m]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

it was voluntary cause they released him when he refused,,,

They grabbed him by the arms and forced him in the back of a van is not voluntary by any sane person.

but releasing him was,,,

Let me rephrase. They could only question him on a voluntary basis, meaning if he wanted to leave, he could. The law enforcement did not give him a choice in whether he could leave or not, which is one element of an arrest.

so they still have him in custody???

I didnt know that,,,that changes everything,,,

Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an arrest.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

Based on what definition?

That's right, you don't have one because you're just making it up as you go along.

based on the reality they released him,,,

Arrests are still arrests whether they're released or not.

 

[progressive hunter]

Being there was not a crime, so no, it's not probable cause.

it's probable cause. hence the questioning. how do you think police do investigations? They get the correct guy every time huh? LOL you're fking a loony toon.

Police gather evidence before making arrests. They don't just scoop up every person they feel like it.

The fact that this seems crazy to you shows how bad it's gotten since you no longer care about constitutional protections.

they didnt scoop up every person, they just picked him up and left the other people,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

it was voluntary cause they released him when he refused,,,

They grabbed him by the arms and forced him in the back of a van is not voluntary by any sane person.

but releasing him was,,,

Let me rephrase. They could only question him on a voluntary basis, meaning if he wanted to leave, he could. The law enforcement did not give him a choice in whether he could leave or not, which is one element of an arrest.

so they still have him in custody???

I didnt know that,,,that changes everything,,,

Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an arrest.

on what charges was he arrested???

 

[colfax_m]

Formal charges are not an essential component of an arrest.

sure they are. that's why people ask if they are being charged or not.

Nope. The 4th amendment says nothing about that.

 

[colfax_m]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

it was voluntary cause they released him when he refused,,,

They grabbed him by the arms and forced him in the back of a van is not voluntary by any sane person.

but releasing him was,,,

Let me rephrase. They could only question him on a voluntary basis, meaning if he wanted to leave, he could. The law enforcement did not give him a choice in whether he could leave or not, which is one element of an arrest.

so they still have him in custody???

I didnt know that,,,that changes everything,,,

Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an arrest.

on what charges was he arrested???

None, but that's not an essential part of an arrest.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

Based on what definition?

That's right, you don't have one because you're just making it up as you go along.

based on the reality they released him,,,

Arrests are still arrests whether they're released or not.

yes they are,,but in this case he wasnt arrested,, he was brought in for questioning,,,

 

[colfax_m]

Being there was not a crime, so no, it's not probable cause.

it's probable cause. hence the questioning. how do you think police do investigations? They get the correct guy every time huh? LOL you're fking a loony toon.

Police gather evidence before making arrests. They don't just scoop up every person they feel like it.

The fact that this seems crazy to you shows how bad it's gotten since you no longer care about constitutional protections.

they didnt scoop up every person, they just picked him up and left the other people,,,

So what?

 

[colfax_m]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

Based on what definition?

That's right, you don't have one because you're just making it up as you go along.

based on the reality they released him,,,

Arrests are still arrests whether they're released or not.

yes they are,,but in this case he wasnt arrested,, he was brought in for questioning,,,

Grabbing someone off the street, forcing them into a vehicle, driving them to another location and subjecting them to interrogation is an arrest.

 

[jc456]

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

neither is what they did.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

Based on what definition?

That's right, you don't have one because you're just making it up as you go along.

based on the reality they released him,,,

Arrests are still arrests whether they're released or not.

yes they are,,but in this case he wasnt arrested,, he was brought in for questioning,,,

Grabbing someone off the street, forcing them into a vehicle, driving them to another location and subjecting them to interrogation is an arrest.

a more accurate term would be detained for questioning

 

[jc456]

Grabbing someone off the street, forcing them into a vehicle, driving them to another location and subjecting them to interrogation is an arrest.

will you go round in circles, can you fly high like a bird up in the sky, uh huh.

 

[jc456]

Let me rephrase. They could only question him on a voluntary basis, meaning if he wanted to leave, he could. The law enforcement did not give him a choice in whether he could leave or not, which is one element of an arrest.

nope Billy P.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

Based on what definition?

That's right, you don't have one because you're just making it up as you go along.

based on the reality they released him,,,

Arrests are still arrests whether they're released or not.

yes they are,,but in this case he wasnt arrested,, he was brought in for questioning,,,

Grabbing someone off the street, forcing them into a vehicle, driving them to another location and subjecting them to interrogation is an arrest.

a more accurate term would be detained for questioning

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.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

Based on what definition?

That's right, you don't have one because you're just making it up as you go along.

based on the reality they released him,,,

Arrests are still arrests whether they're released or not.

yes they are,,but in this case he wasnt arrested,, he was brought in for questioning,,,

Grabbing someone off the street, forcing them into a vehicle, driving them to another location and subjecting them to interrogation is an arrest.

a more accurate term would be detained for questioning

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.

NOPE it doesnt,,,

 

[jc456]

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.