DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[colfax_m]

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.

So where did you get your legal definition of what constitutes 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.

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,,,

Why not?

 

[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,,,

Why not?

because,,,,

 

[colfax_m]

That’s what the DHS is trying to argue, but the facts of the matter demonstrate otherwise.

Carting him off to the courthouse takes this from detention into the realm of arrest.

prove it.

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

 

[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.

NOPE it doesnt,,,

Why not?

because,,,,

Is this a “because I said so” argument?

You lose.

 

[August West]

Former Pa. governor and the first Homeland Security Secretary, Republican Tom Ridge has this to say about Trump`s riot in Portland. "It would be a cold day in hell if he left uninvited federal agents into cities". He said the Dept. was not established to be the "president`s personal militia.

Ridge: ‘It would be a cold day in hell’ before I’d let ‘uninvited’ federal agents into cities

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, the first homeland security secretary, criticized the deployment of federal agents in Portland, Ore., as mayors throughout...

www.post-gazette.com

 

[jc456]

So where did you get your legal definition of what constitutes an arrest?

Arrest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Distinction between arrest and detention[edit]

In the United States, there exists a distinction between an investigatory stop or detention, and an arrest. The distinction tends to be whether or not the stop is "brief and cursory" in nature, and whether or not a reasonable individual would feel free to leave.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

 

[jc456]

Former Pa. governor and the first Homeland Security Secretary, Republican Tom Ridge has this to say about Trump`s riot in Portland. "It would be a cold day in hell if he left uninvited federal agents into cities". He said the Dept. was not established to be the "president`s personal militia.

Ridge: ‘It would be a cold day in hell’ before I’d let ‘uninvited’ federal agents into cities

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, the first homeland security secretary, criticized the deployment of federal agents in Portland, Ore., as mayors throughout...

www.post-gazette.com

all sorts of precedence on this. And laws. President Grant used it. As have others.

 

[colfax_m]

So where did you get your legal definition of what constitutes an arrest?

Arrest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Distinction between arrest and detention[edit]

In the United States, there exists a distinction between an investigatory stop or detention, and an arrest. The distinction tends to be whether or not the stop is "brief and cursory" in nature, and whether or not a reasonable individual would feel free to leave.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

Something about two armed men grabbing someone and forcing him into a van doesn’t seem brief and cursory or leave him feeling free to leave.

So, yes. It’s an arrest.

 

[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.

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

"Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, was a United States Supreme Court case that held a subsequent Miranda warning is not sufficient to cure the taint of an unlawful arrest, when the unlawful arrest led to a coerced confession."

 

[jc456]

Something about two armed men grabbing someone and forcing him into a van doesn’t seem brief and cursory or leave him feeling free to leave.

So, yes. It’s an arrest.

nope

 

[August West]

Former Pa. governor and the first Homeland Security Secretary, Republican Tom Ridge has this to say about Trump`s riot in Portland. "It would be a cold day in hell if he left uninvited federal agents into cities". He said the Dept. was not established to be the "president`s personal militia.

Ridge: ‘It would be a cold day in hell’ before I’d let ‘uninvited’ federal agents into cities

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, the first homeland security secretary, criticized the deployment of federal agents in Portland, Ore., as mayors throughout...

www.post-gazette.com

all sorts of precedence on this. And laws. President Grant used it. As have others.

Lincoln sent troops to put down the draft riots in NYC in 1863. His troops went to STOP a riot, not start one.

 

[colfax_m]

That’s what the DHS is trying to argue, but the facts of the matter demonstrate otherwise.

Carting him off to the courthouse takes this from detention into the realm of arrest.

prove it.

Dunaway v New York 1979
We first consider whether the Rochester police violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when, without probable cause to arrest, they took petitioner into custody, transported him to the police station, and detained him there for interrogation.

The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio,367 U. S. 643 (1961), provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. . . ."

There can be little doubt that petitioner was "seized" in the Fourth Amendment sense when he was taken involuntarily to the police station.

"Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, was a United States Supreme Court case that held a subsequent Miranda warning is not sufficient to cure the taint of an unlawful arrest, when the unlawful arrest led to a coerced confession."

So? The suspect was taken by police to be interrogated at the police station without probable cause, which constituted an illegal arrest. The exact same thing that happened here.

 

[colfax_m]

Something about two armed men grabbing someone and forcing him into a van doesn’t seem brief and cursory or leave him feeling free to leave.

So, yes. It’s an arrest.

nope

But you haven't quite figured out why yet.

Another "because I said so" argument.

Fail.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Next time they need an express helicopter trip to Gitmo, only they forgot to fasten their seatbelt and get lost on the way between America and Cuba. Tiger sharks need food.
People do realize where Guantanamo bay is, right?

 

[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,,,

Why not?

because,,,,

Is this a “because I said so” argument?

You lose.

BLESS YOUR HEART!!!

you try so hard and fail over and over again,,,

 

[LeftofLeft]

It's unconstitutional to use federal policing power....

It was not delegated to the federal gvt, in the Constitution, thus it is reserved to the State.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

when the crime happened on federal property they have the authority,,,
more so when the locals refuse to do their job,,,

The mayor and politicians of Portland have chosen to side with the terrorist actions of ANTIFA. This is what you will get with Democrats and ***** Republicans who need to be liked. Appeasing domestic terrorists. Who wants this?

 

[Marion Morrison]

It's unconstitutional to use federal policing power....

It was not delegated to the federal gvt, in the Constitution, thus it is reserved to the State.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

when the crime happened on federal property they have the authority,,,
more so when the locals refuse to do their job,,,

The mayor and politicians of Portland have chosen to side with the terrorist actions of ANTIFA. This is what you will get with Democrats and ***** Republicans who need to be liked. Appeasing domestic terrorists. Who wants this?

Not me. Why pay taxes to the government when they do nothing for you?

 

[colfax_m]

BLESS YOUR HEART!!!

you try so hard and fail over and over again,,,

Is that what you think happened?

"Because" isn't winning. That's giving up. You lose.

 

[progressive hunter]

BLESS YOUR HEART!!!

you try so hard and fail over and over again,,,

Is that what you think happened?

"Because" isn't winning. That's giving up. You lose.

I can neither win nor lose because I'm not playing a game,,,

I am just stating facts and reality against your imaginary assumptions,,,