DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[jc456]

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 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.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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,,,,

No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had 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.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

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.

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".

 

[colfax_m]

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 court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?

"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,,,

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,,,,

No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had 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.

well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,

thats what you call probable cause,,,

so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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 court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?

"Because,,,"?

reality,,,

 

[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.

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,,,,

No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had 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.

well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,

thats what you call probable cause,,,

so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,

Being there does not constitute probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois 1979. Proximity to someone who has committed a crime is not probable cause.

 

[colfax_m]

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 court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?

"Because,,,"?

reality,,,

The "because I said so" argument is very weak, especially when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[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,,,,

No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had 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.

well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,

thats what you call probable cause,,,

so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,

Being there does not constitute probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois 1979. Proximity to someone who has committed a crime is not probable cause.

why do you cherry pick what I say???

I also said he was dressed just like the criminals,,,

and again no one has yet to accuse him of a crime,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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 court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?

"Because,,,"?

reality,,,

The "because I said so" argument is very weak, especially when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

I never said because I said so,,,

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,,,,

 

[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.

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,,,,

No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had 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.

well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,

thats what you call probable cause,,,

so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,

Being there does not constitute probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois 1979. Proximity to someone who has committed a crime is not probable cause.

why do you cherry pick what I say???

I also said he was dressed just like the criminals,,,

and again no one has yet to accuse him of a crime,,,

And dressing like a criminal is now a crime? How was he dressed exactly? T-shirt and jeans? Oh. You got him.

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.

 

[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,,,,

No, it's not. Not even the DHS said they had 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.

well he was there and dressed just like the criminals,,he even admitted to being there,,

thats what you call probable cause,,,

so far no one has accused him of committing a crime,,,

Being there does not constitute probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois 1979. Proximity to someone who has committed a crime is not probable cause.

why do you cherry pick what I say???

I also said he was dressed just like the criminals,,,

and again no one has yet to accuse him of a crime,,,

And dressing like a criminal is now a crime? How was he dressed exactly? T-shirt and jeans? Oh. You got him.

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.

MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER ******,,,

when did I say dressing that way was a crime???

I'l wait for your answer,,,

 

[colfax_m]

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 court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?

"Because,,,"?

reality,,,

The "because I said so" argument is very weak, especially when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

I never said because I said so,,,

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,,,,

We aren't arguing about what happened to him or why. We are arguing about what those actions amount to.

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,,,,

 

[colfax_m]

MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER ******,,,

when did I say dressing that way was a crime???

I'l wait for your answer,,,

You said he was at a place, dressed a certain way, which amounts to probable cause that he committed a crime.

That's absurd because it's not specific evidence linking that specific person to the crime.

 

[progressive hunter]

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 court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?

"Because,,,"?

reality,,,

The "because I said so" argument is very weak, especially when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

I never said because I said so,,,

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,,,,

We aren't arguing about what happened to him or why. We are arguing about what those actions amount to.

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,,,,

I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER ******,,,

when did I say dressing that way was a crime???

I'l wait for your answer,,,

You said he was at a place, dressed a certain way, which amounts to probable cause that he committed a crime.

That's absurd because it's not specific evidence linking that specific person to the crime.

so youre going to dbl down on being a ******* idiot,,,
I never said he committed a crime,,,

 

[colfax_m]

I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,

No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.

Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.

 

[jc456]

The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?

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.

 

[colfax_m]

MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER ******,,,

when did I say dressing that way was a crime???

I'l wait for your answer,,,

You said he was at a place, dressed a certain way, which amounts to probable cause that he committed a crime.

That's absurd because it's not specific evidence linking that specific person to the crime.

so youre going to dbl down on being a ******* idiot,,,
I never said he committed a crime,,,

You said there was probable cause he committed a crime numerous times.

What do you think probable cause means?

You don't actually know, do you.