Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
did you stomp your feet on that one as well? hahahahahahahaha dude, we don't agree with you. you have nothing that proves your point. you sure are entertaining though, my impression is spot on too. you're literally jumping up and down demanding we see your way. come on now, tell us to stop it or else.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.
yep, I've done the circle tour with you here. Your arguing a point you can't win. and still here you are almost demanding we shut up and listen to you because you said so. the mere fact you keep repeating a dead point is true trolling.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.
No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had probable cause.did you miss the part where he was at the scene of a crime and dressed just like the people that committed the crimes???The precedent applies because we are trying to determine if he was arrested or detained.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 facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,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.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,,,,
Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.
You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".
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.
thats probable cause,,,,
Listening is a life skill that sadly a lot of people lack. I've listened to you blabber on but you've offered zero substance other than just saying I'm wrong "because".yep, I've done the circle tour with you here. Your arguing a point you can't win. and still here you are almost demanding we shut up and listen to you because you said so. the mere fact you keep repeating a dead point is true trolling.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.
The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?did you stomp your feet on that one as well? hahahahahahahaha dude, we don't agree with you. you have nothing that proves your point. you sure are entertaining though, my impression is spot on too. you're literally jumping up and down demanding we see your way. come on now, tell us to stop it or else.
well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had probable cause.did you miss the part where he was at the scene of a crime and dressed just like the people that committed the crimes???The precedent applies because we are trying to determine if he was arrested or detained.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 facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,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.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,,,,
Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.
You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".
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.
thats probable cause,,,,
Probable cause must be information or evidence that ties the person directly to the crime committed. That just doesn't exist here. Again, if the arrested person had been seen doing something criminal, that'd be different, but he wasn't.
reality,,,The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?did you stomp your feet on that one as well? hahahahahahahaha dude, we don't agree with you. you have nothing that proves your point. you sure are entertaining though, my impression is spot on too. you're literally jumping up and down demanding we see your way. come on now, tell us to stop it or else.
"Because,,,"?
Being there does not constitute probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois 1979. Proximity to someone who has committed a crime is not probable cause.well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had probable cause.did you miss the part where he was at the scene of a crime and dressed just like the people that committed the crimes???The precedent applies because we are trying to determine if he was arrested or detained.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 facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,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.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,,,,
Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.
You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".
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.
thats probable cause,,,,
Probable cause must be information or evidence that ties the person directly to the crime committed. That just doesn't exist here. Again, if the arrested person had been seen doing something criminal, that'd be different, but he wasn't.
thats what you call probable cause,,,
so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,
The "because I said so" argument is very weak, especially when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.reality,,,The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?did you stomp your feet on that one as well? hahahahahahahaha dude, we don't agree with you. you have nothing that proves your point. you sure are entertaining though, my impression is spot on too. you're literally jumping up and down demanding we see your way. come on now, tell us to stop it or else.
"Because,,,"?
why do you cherry pick what I say???Being there does not constitute probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois 1979. Proximity to someone who has committed a crime is not probable cause.well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had probable cause.did you miss the part where he was at the scene of a crime and dressed just like the people that committed the crimes???The precedent applies because we are trying to determine if he was arrested or detained.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 facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,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.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,,,,
Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.
You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".
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.
thats probable cause,,,,
Probable cause must be information or evidence that ties the person directly to the crime committed. That just doesn't exist here. Again, if the arrested person had been seen doing something criminal, that'd be different, but he wasn't.
thats what you call probable cause,,,
so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,
I never said because I said so,,,The "because I said so" argument is very weak, especially when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.reality,,,The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?did you stomp your feet on that one as well? hahahahahahahaha dude, we don't agree with you. you have nothing that proves your point. you sure are entertaining though, my impression is spot on too. you're literally jumping up and down demanding we see your way. come on now, tell us to stop it or else.
"Because,,,"?
And dressing like a criminal is now a crime? How was he dressed exactly? T-shirt and jeans? Oh. You got him.why do you cherry pick what I say???Being there does not constitute probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois 1979. Proximity to someone who has committed a crime is not probable cause.well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had probable cause.did you miss the part where he was at the scene of a crime and dressed just like the people that committed the crimes???The precedent applies because we are trying to determine if he was arrested or detained.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 facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,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.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,,,,
Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.
You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".
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.
thats probable cause,,,,
Probable cause must be information or evidence that ties the person directly to the crime committed. That just doesn't exist here. Again, if the arrested person had been seen doing something criminal, that'd be different, but he wasn't.
thats what you call probable cause,,,
so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,
I also said he was dressed just like the criminals,,,
and again no one has yet to accuse him of a crime,,,
MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER FUCKER,,,And dressing like a criminal is now a crime? How was he dressed exactly? T-shirt and jeans? Oh. You got him.why do you cherry pick what I say???Being there does not constitute probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois 1979. Proximity to someone who has committed a crime is not probable cause.well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had probable cause.did you miss the part where he was at the scene of a crime and dressed just like the people that committed the crimes???The precedent applies because we are trying to determine if he was arrested or detained.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 facts aren't in question. He was taken against his will, transported to the courthouse and interrogated.thanks for your opinion,,but I will stick with the reality and facts of the case,,,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.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,,,,
Precedent demonstrates that's an arrest.
You don't believe it is, but we don't really know why. Just "because".
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.
thats probable cause,,,,
Probable cause must be information or evidence that ties the person directly to the crime committed. That just doesn't exist here. Again, if the arrested person had been seen doing something criminal, that'd be different, but he wasn't.
thats what you call probable cause,,,
so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,
I also said he was dressed just like the criminals,,,
and again no one has yet to accuse him of a crime,,,
Complete nonsense. That doesn't arise to probable cause because it doesn't specifically link the person to any actual crime.
Again, not even the DHS said they had probable cause, they cited reasonable suspicion, which is justifiable. The only point of contention here is whether he was detained or arrested. Because if he was detained, reasonable suspicion is okay. If he was arrested, they need probable cause.
We aren't arguing about what happened to him or why. We are arguing about what those actions amount to.I never said because I said so,,,The "because I said so" argument is very weak, especially when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.reality,,,The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?did you stomp your feet on that one as well? hahahahahahahaha dude, we don't agree with you. you have nothing that proves your point. you sure are entertaining though, my impression is spot on too. you're literally jumping up and down demanding we see your way. come on now, tell us to stop it or else.
"Because,,,"?
I have laid out in detail what happened and why it happened and you keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with this case,,,or twist them to form a false narrative,,,,
Carting him off to the courthouse takes this from detention into the realm of arrest.
NOPE it doesnt,,,
Why not?
because,,,,
You said he was at a place, dressed a certain way, which amounts to probable cause that he committed a crime.MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER FUCKER,,,
when did I say dressing that way was a crime???
I'l wait for your answer,,,
I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,We aren't arguing about what happened to him or why. We are arguing about what those actions amount to.I never said because I said so,,,The "because I said so" argument is very weak, especially when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.reality,,,The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?did you stomp your feet on that one as well? hahahahahahahaha dude, we don't agree with you. you have nothing that proves your point. you sure are entertaining though, my impression is spot on too. you're literally jumping up and down demanding we see your way. come on now, tell us to stop it or else.
"Because,,,"?
I have laid out in detail what happened and why it happened and you keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with this case,,,or twist them to form a false narrative,,,,
I say those actions amount to an arrest and I've explained why. You say it doesn't, but haven't explained why. This is what you said when I asked you to explain:
Carting him off to the courthouse takes this from detention into the realm of arrest.NOPE it doesnt,,,Why not?because,,,,
so youre going to dbl down on being a fucking idiot,,,You said he was at a place, dressed a certain way, which amounts to probable cause that he committed a crime.MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER FUCKER,,,
when did I say dressing that way was a crime???
I'l wait for your answer,,,
That's absurd because it's not specific evidence linking that specific person to the crime.
No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
the link and quote I provided. hmmm your court case was a suit due to coercion by the cops. maybe you should have read it.The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?
You said there was probable cause he committed a crime numerous times.so youre going to dbl down on being a fucking idiot,,,You said he was at a place, dressed a certain way, which amounts to probable cause that he committed a crime.MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER FUCKER,,,
when did I say dressing that way was a crime???
I'l wait for your answer,,,
That's absurd because it's not specific evidence linking that specific person to the crime.
I never said he committed a crime,,,
