Minneapolis Police Chief: "It has absolutely become an unlawful assembly."

Grabbing brown people off the streets and demanding their papers is unconstitutional. None are suspected of a crime outside of their skin color or accent. Trump has thrown out the useless piece of paper called the constitution. It doesn’t apply anymore. I suggest the government is now defunct as it has violated the principles of its founding. I will be curious what rises from the ashes of democracy.
I'm sorry you're pissed your voters are getting deported.🖕
 
Federal Law Enforcement can detain you and verify who you are if they feel in their sole discretion you are a threat. They don’t have to arrest you or have probable cause to arrest you.

You can protest but not if hinders thier operations.
And we are back to relying on “feelings” and not facts.

Sorry. Facts still matter in the judicial system.

If there are no facts supporting the obstruction, their feelings don’t create a crime.
 
Another fun one. Can ICE break down your door without a judicial warrant looking for someone to deport?
 
And we are back to relying on “feelings” and not facts.

Sorry. Facts still matter in the judicial system.

If there are no facts supporting the obstruction, their feelings don’t create a crime.
I previously cited, posted links to and highlighted on-point portions of case law and Federal law in support of my assertions it is not my “feelings”.
 
I previously cited, posted links to and highlighted on-point portions of case law and Federal law in support of my assertions it is not my “feelings”.
Perhaps you even believe that.

The only cases you cited proved that dragging him to the federal building constituted an arrest.

There’s no citations showing that he was breaking any law because he was following them around.

You think it’s illegal because ICE felt hindered. That’s not the law.
 
Perhaps you even believe that.

The only cases you cited proved that dragging him to the federal building constituted an arrest.

In previously posted this:

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 (1969). So long as the initial seizure of the person is reasonable, as in a lawful arrest, subsequent fingerprinting is permissible. It is also possible that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could be met through "narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no probable cause for arrest."
 
In previously posted this:

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 (1969). So long as the initial seizure of the person is reasonable, as in a lawful arrest, subsequent fingerprinting is permissible. It is also possible that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment could be met through "narrowly circumscribed procedures for obtaining, during the course of a criminal investigation, the fingerprints of individuals for whom there is no probable cause for arrest."
Which is 100% irrelevant and doesn’t even say what you think it says because you clearly never read the case.

And the whole thing come from a bunch of racist pricks who rounded up every black kid they could find to fingerprint them.
 
Which is 100% irrelevant and doesn’t even say what you think it says because you clearly never read the case.

And the whole thing come from a bunch of racist pricks who rounded up every black kid they could find to fingerprint them.
I have read the case it’s entirety.

Any chance you will post something from the case that supports your assertions or is it just racists (again)?

Your last legal theory supported by Hayes v. Florida was completely off point.
 
15th post
I have read the case it’s entirety.

Any chance you will post something from the case that supports your assertions or is it just racists (again)?

Your last legal theory supported by Hayes v. Florida was completely off point.
I honestly don’t know where your obsession with fingerprinting entered into the case because it makes zero sense. There was no criminal investigation at play here where they wanted to match his fingerprints to a crime scene. It’s gibberish.

And where in this case did they establish the narrow circumstances in which it would be acceptable and how does that apply here?

It doesn’t.

Hayes v Florida clearly points out that what they did to this man was an arrest. They can call it whatever they want, but it was an arrest.
 
Convicted rapist criminals dont get released. They get jail.
Do you really believe that? You must only get your news from CNN and the View.

The release of a twice-deported rapist in Virginia is putting renewed focus on the dangers posed by Democrat-led sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Guatemala national David Cabrera was collared by ICE last week after being set free by sanctuary-aligned jurisdiction Arlington County, who refused to honor a federal detainer and released him without notifying ICE.

In a video obtained by Fox News, Cabrera is seen roaming a local street before ICE agents initiate his arrest.


Honduran illegal immigrant David Cabrera mugshot.


 
So ICE was violating the constitution when they broke down this man’s door.


So ICE was violating the constitution when they broke down this man’s door.

Perhaps. He should sue them. From Liberia because they got him when he left the house to check in with immmigration.
 
Last edited:
He was under formal immigration supervision the terms of which allow them to

Perhaps. He should sue them. From Liberia because they got him when he left the house to check in with immmigration.
What happened to Ryan Ecklund and his dilemma?
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom