DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[jc456]

And using court cases, I demonstrated that constitutes an arrest. You're reply is "no" with no further supporting argument. It's the "because I said so" argument.

your example court case the guy was charged and admitted guilt. sued for coercion.

 

[colfax_m]

An opinion based on fact will indeed trump an opinion based on nothing.

sure, when will that happen for you?

You've been seeing it. Notice how I justify my opinion with references to court cases, highlighting relevant sections?

Here's another.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Several factors led the court to conclude that respondent's confinement was tantamount to arrest. Royer had "found himself in a small enclosed area being confronted by two police officers - a situation which presents an almost classic definition of imprisonment."

So when I say that Pettibone was arrested, I can explain why I believe that. When y'all say he wasn't arrested, the reason given for why you believe that is "because". There is no reason. Just "because".

 

[colfax_m]

And using court cases, I demonstrated that constitutes an arrest. You're reply is "no" with no further supporting argument. It's the "because I said so" argument.

your example court case the guy was charged and admitted guilt.

My example court case was that bringing the suspect in for questioning constituted an arrest and the confession that they obtained was suppressed because the arrest was unlawful, having not had probable cause to bring him in.

You should have read the case because it contradicts what you've been trying to say.

 

[colfax_m]

it could,, but in this case its just taking him in for questioning,,,

Did he come in willingly or did they force him to?

has nothing to do with it,,,

Of course it does. Arrests are involuntary confinement. The amount of force used is essential to whether he was arrested or not.

Why wouldn't it have anything to do with it?

Let me guess. "Because,,,"

 

[progressive hunter]

An opinion based on fact will indeed trump an opinion based on nothing.

sure, when will that happen for you?

You've been seeing it. Notice how I justify my opinion with references to court cases, highlighting relevant sections?

Here's another.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Several factors led the court to conclude that respondent's confinement was tantamount to arrest. Royer had "found himself in a small enclosed area being confronted by two police officers - a situation which presents an almost classic definition of imprisonment."

So when I say that Pettibone was arrested, I can explain why I believe that. When y'all say he wasn't arrested, the reason given for why you believe that is "because". There is no reason. Just "because".

who said "because" was the reason???

I've said repeatedly that he was detained for questioning and released when he refused to answer their questions,,,

if he was arrested they wouldnt let him leave and filed charges against him,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

it could,, but in this case its just taking him in for questioning,,,

Did he come in willingly or did they force him to?

has nothing to do with it,,,

Of course it does. Arrests are involuntary confinement. The amount of force used is essential to whether he was arrested or not.

Why wouldn't it have anything to do with it?

Let me guess. "Because,,,"

did they cuff him?? I dont recall seeing one way or another,,,

kidnapping is involuntary confinement,,arrested is when they want to put you in jail when they think youve committed a crime,,
\neither of those happened here

 

[colfax_m]

An opinion based on fact will indeed trump an opinion based on nothing.

sure, when will that happen for you?

You've been seeing it. Notice how I justify my opinion with references to court cases, highlighting relevant sections?

Here's another.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Several factors led the court to conclude that respondent's confinement was tantamount to arrest. Royer had "found himself in a small enclosed area being confronted by two police officers - a situation which presents an almost classic definition of imprisonment."

So when I say that Pettibone was arrested, I can explain why I believe that. When y'all say he wasn't arrested, the reason given for why you believe that is "because". There is no reason. Just "because".

who said "because" was the reason???

I've said repeatedly that he was detained for questioning and released when he refused to answer their questions,,,

if he was arrested they wouldnt let him leave and filed charges against him,,,

The second he was taken into police custody and brought to the courthouse for interrogation, he was arrested.

His release and lack of charges don’t change that fact. It’s completely irrelevant

 

[progressive hunter]

An opinion based on fact will indeed trump an opinion based on nothing.

sure, when will that happen for you?

You've been seeing it. Notice how I justify my opinion with references to court cases, highlighting relevant sections?

Here's another.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Several factors led the court to conclude that respondent's confinement was tantamount to arrest. Royer had "found himself in a small enclosed area being confronted by two police officers - a situation which presents an almost classic definition of imprisonment."

So when I say that Pettibone was arrested, I can explain why I believe that. When y'all say he wasn't arrested, the reason given for why you believe that is "because". There is no reason. Just "because".

who said "because" was the reason???

I've said repeatedly that he was detained for questioning and released when he refused to answer their questions,,,

if he was arrested they wouldnt let him leave and filed charges against him,,,

The second he was taken into police custody and brought to the courthouse for interrogation, he was arrested.

His release and lack of charges don’t change that fact. It’s completely irrelevant

NOOOOO,,
he was being detained for questioning and released when he refused to answer their questions,,,

 

[colfax_m]

An opinion based on fact will indeed trump an opinion based on nothing.

sure, when will that happen for you?

You've been seeing it. Notice how I justify my opinion with references to court cases, highlighting relevant sections?

Here's another.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Several factors led the court to conclude that respondent's confinement was tantamount to arrest. Royer had "found himself in a small enclosed area being confronted by two police officers - a situation which presents an almost classic definition of imprisonment."

So when I say that Pettibone was arrested, I can explain why I believe that. When y'all say he wasn't arrested, the reason given for why you believe that is "because". There is no reason. Just "because".

who said "because" was the reason???

I've said repeatedly that he was detained for questioning and released when he refused to answer their questions,,,

if he was arrested they wouldnt let him leave and filed charges against him,,,

The second he was taken into police custody and brought to the courthouse for interrogation, he was arrested.

His release and lack of charges don’t change that fact. It’s completely irrelevant

NOOOOO,,
he was being detained for questioning and released when he refused to answer their questions,,,

When you're brought into the courthouse and put in a room to be interrogated, it becomes an arrest. You are in police custody.

As I've demonstrated in numerous court cases.

 

[colfax_m]

it could,, but in this case its just taking him in for questioning,,,

Did he come in willingly or did they force him to?

has nothing to do with it,,,

Of course it does. Arrests are involuntary confinement. The amount of force used is essential to whether he was arrested or not.

Why wouldn't it have anything to do with it?

Let me guess. "Because,,,"

did they cuff him?? I dont recall seeing one way or another,,,

kidnapping is involuntary confinement,,arrested is when they want to put you in jail when they think youve committed a crime,,
\neither of those happened here

Arrest does not require being put in jail.

 

[progressive hunter]

An opinion based on fact will indeed trump an opinion based on nothing.

sure, when will that happen for you?

You've been seeing it. Notice how I justify my opinion with references to court cases, highlighting relevant sections?

Here's another.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Several factors led the court to conclude that respondent's confinement was tantamount to arrest. Royer had "found himself in a small enclosed area being confronted by two police officers - a situation which presents an almost classic definition of imprisonment."

So when I say that Pettibone was arrested, I can explain why I believe that. When y'all say he wasn't arrested, the reason given for why you believe that is "because". There is no reason. Just "because".

who said "because" was the reason???

I've said repeatedly that he was detained for questioning and released when he refused to answer their questions,,,

if he was arrested they wouldnt let him leave and filed charges against him,,,

The second he was taken into police custody and brought to the courthouse for interrogation, he was arrested.

His release and lack of charges don’t change that fact. It’s completely irrelevant

NOOOOO,,
he was being detained for questioning and released when he refused to answer their questions,,,

When you're brought into the courthouse and put in a room to be interrogated, it becomes an arrest. You are in police custody.

As I've demonstrated in numerous court cases.

could be ,,but in this case he was detained for questioning because he was at the scene of a crime and when he refused to answer questions he was released,,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

it could,, but in this case its just taking him in for questioning,,,

Did he come in willingly or did they force him to?

has nothing to do with it,,,

Of course it does. Arrests are involuntary confinement. The amount of force used is essential to whether he was arrested or not.

Why wouldn't it have anything to do with it?

Let me guess. "Because,,,"

did they cuff him?? I dont recall seeing one way or another,,,

kidnapping is involuntary confinement,,arrested is when they want to put you in jail when they think youve committed a crime,,
\neither of those happened here

Arrest does not require being put in jail.

youre right,,,that happens after trial and a conviction for the crime you were arrested for,,,

 

[colfax_m]

could be ,,but in this case he was detained for questioning because he was at the scene of a crime and when he refused to answer questions he was released,,,,

It was a de facto arrest because he was brought into police custody. It doesn't matter what you call it, it became an arrest by their actions.

 

[progressive hunter]

could be ,,but in this case he was detained for questioning because he was at the scene of a crime and when he refused to answer questions he was released,,,,

It was a de facto arrest because he was brought into police custody. It doesn't matter what you call it, it became an arrest by their actions.

thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,

 

[colfax_m]

could be ,,but in this case he was detained for questioning because he was at the scene of a crime and when he refused to answer questions he was released,,,,

It was a de facto arrest because he was brought into police custody. It doesn't matter what you call it, it became an arrest by their actions.

thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,

The facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.

Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.

You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".

 

[progressive hunter]

could be ,,but in this case he was detained for questioning because he was at the scene of a crime and when he refused to answer questions he was released,,,,

It was a de facto arrest because he was brought into police custody. It doesn't matter what you call it, it became an arrest by their actions.

thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,

The facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.

Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.

You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".

precedent doesnt apply here because the facts say he was at the location of a crime dressed like the criminals and detained for questioning and then released because he refuse to answer those questions,,,

 

[jc456]

The facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.

Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.

You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".

dude, I bet you're literally jumping up and down demanding we listen to you. no?

 

[colfax_m]

could be ,,but in this case he was detained for questioning because he was at the scene of a crime and when he refused to answer questions he was released,,,,

It was a de facto arrest because he was brought into police custody. It doesn't matter what you call it, it became an arrest by their actions.

thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,

The facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.

Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.

You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".

precedent doesnt apply here because the facts say he was at the location of a crime dressed like the criminals and detained for questioning and then released because he refuse to answer those questions,,,

The precedent applies because we are trying to determine if he was arrested or detained.

This is important because the DHS didn't get probable cause. Being at the location and "dressed like the criminals" does not amount to probable cause.

Now, if you want to argue that his detention was so brief that it couldn't be an arrest, I presented a case above where someone was held in police custody for 15 minutes but constituted an arrest because he was brought into a room away from where he was and kept there by two police officers. If that counts an arrest, surely this does to.

 

[colfax_m]

The facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.

Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.

You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".

dude, I bet you're literally jumping up and down demanding we listen to you. no?

You're free to stop replying at any time, but if you reply to my post, I assume you're reading what I'm writing.

If not, you're just trolling.

Probably because you are just trolling.

 

[progressive hunter]

could be ,,but in this case he was detained for questioning because he was at the scene of a crime and when he refused to answer questions he was released,,,,

It was a de facto arrest because he was brought into police custody. It doesn't matter what you call it, it became an arrest by their actions.

thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,

The facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.

Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.

You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".

precedent doesnt apply here because the facts say he was at the location of a crime dressed like the criminals and detained for questioning and then released because he refuse to answer those questions,,,

The precedent applies because we are trying to determine if he was arrested or detained.

This is important because the DHS didn't get probable cause. Being at the location and "dressed like the criminals" does not amount to probable cause.

Now, if you want to argue that his detention was so brief that it couldn't be an arrest, I presented a case above where someone was held in police custody for 15 minutes but constituted an arrest because he was brought into a room away from where he was and kept there by two police officers. If that counts an arrest, surely this does to.

did you miss the part where he was at the scene of a crime and dressed just like the people that committed the crimes???

thats probable cause,,,,