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.
No, he wasn't. That's why he was charged and arrested.
You actually think those cops just made up a charge that doesn't exist and arrested the guy?
Never said I wasn't racist. The phony pastor has nothing to gripe about thoughNo racism here, boss, no sirree...
Never said I wasn't racist. The phony pastor has nothing to gripe about though
Nah Tommy I'm just calling out a hypocrite. Your constantly on this site bitching about racism in the US. Start at home first Tommy boy before you start criticizing others.You are way off topic. Are you suggesting that I cant comment on this story ?
Is that because you have nothing of value to add to the thread ?
So you try to shut me up.
Wish I was home schooled the education system in this country is terrible. You seem to be lacking in English comprehension apparently. My post was a demonstration ofActually, home school, they don`t vote for kings and queens.
What ?Probably about the same time we see a Republican President.
Wish I was home schooled the education system in this country is terrible. You seem to be lacking in English comprehension apparently. My post was a demonstration of
sar·casm
(sär′kăz′əm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to express contempt or ridicule.
2. A form of wit characterized by the use of such remarks.
Sure.Yet your comment was not cutting, nor ironic and it showed no wit at all.
The cops were legally obligated to conduct an investigation. Jennings obstructed that investigation. That's his crime.The cops were in the wrong. There was no crime he was reasonably suspected of. Thus they had no right to demand an ID. Thus this pastor will soon be a rich man after the department settles his lawsuit out of court because they know their cops were in the wrong.
The cops were legally obligated to conduct an investigation. Jennings obstructed that investigation. That's his crime.
He did have that obligation and the law says he did. That's why he was charged.He did no such thing. he had no obligation to give his ID since there was no reasonable suspicion he was committing a crime.
Says the guy who backs up his idiotic assertions by posting links to lawyer & bail bondsmen web sites.an investigation doesnt require me to say anything,, in fact the 5th allows me to remain silent,,,
and you need to use something other than wiki for anything legal or political since its allowed to be edited by almost anyone,,
He did have that obligation and the law says he did. That's why he was charged.
The cops were conducting an investigation, because they had reasonable suspicion. Therefore, Jennings had a legal obligation to comply.The law says he has the obligation if he can reasonably be suspected of a crime.
This was not the case
The cops were conducting an investigation, because they had reasonable suspicion. Therefore, Jennings had a legal obligation to comply.
And the cops has reasonable suspicion and we're conducting an investigation. Jennings obstructed that investigation. That, is a crime.The law that has been posted on here multiple times says one only has to give ID if they are reasonably suspected of a crime.
And the cops has reasonable suspicion and we're conducting an investigation. Jennings obstructed that investigation. That, is a crime.
You're wrong.He did no such thing. Not giving them his ID did not obstruct a thing. He was under no legal obligation to do so.
You're wrong.
again I say it varies by state,,Says the guy who backs up his idiotic assertions by posting links to lawyer & bail bondsmen web sites.
BTW I never stated a detainee must say anything but good job changing the crux of the argument.
