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.
Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
case law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
It was in the DHS press conference.got a link that gives the lawyers name or that he was there cause I aint heard that one yet,,,Taking someone in for questioning requires probable cause they committed a crime because that's an arrest. He wasn't released because he refused to answer questions, he was released because the lawyer realized they didn't have probable cause.no its not,,,its called taking someone in for questioning,, and as we see he refused to answer questions and was released,,,how do you know they didnt have probable cause???thats what you claim the violated,,,but how did they violate it???4th amendment kiddo. Asked and answered. Try to remember.you have yet to show where the constitution was violated,,,Because Americans care about the constitution. It's kind of important to us.Again, why do we care?Because the DHS admitted it in a press conference which is why they're bending over backwards to make it seem like this wasn't an arrest when it very clearly was
By arresting someone without probable cause.
were you there???
NO you werent,,,
based on all the info I've read they had plenty of probable cause,,,
OH,,, and he wasnt arrested,,,
DHS admitted it in a press conference.
Grabbing someone on a street and hauling them off to the court house is an arrest.
sorry thats not being arrested,,,
and youre wrong about the rest of that BS,,,
he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
the constitution,,,it clearly states only an amendment can change the meaning of what it says,,,not case lawcase law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
The hell it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense?
That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
no its not,,,That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
Case law is how the constitution is applied. No one is changing the constitution but case law determines how that is applied.the constitution,,,it clearly states only an amendment can change the meaning of what it says,,,not case lawcase law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
The hell it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense?
WRONG!!!Case law is how the constitution is applied. No one is changing the constitution but case law determines how that is applied.the constitution,,,it clearly states only an amendment can change the meaning of what it says,,,not case lawcase law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
The hell it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense?
Dunaway v New York says differently.no its not,,,That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
That's idiotic and obviously false. Why do you think court decision are always referring to case law?WRONG!!!Case law is how the constitution is applied. No one is changing the constitution but case law determines how that is applied.the constitution,,,it clearly states only an amendment can change the meaning of what it says,,,not case lawcase law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
The hell it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense?
well they did have probable cause,,,Dunaway v New York says differently.no its not,,,That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.
its OK when its not a constitutional issue,,,That's idiotic and obviously false. Why do you think court decision are always referring to case law?WRONG!!!Case law is how the constitution is applied. No one is changing the constitution but case law determines how that is applied.the constitution,,,it clearly states only an amendment can change the meaning of what it says,,,not case lawcase law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
The hell it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense?
well they did have probable cause,,,Dunaway v New York says differently.no its not,,,That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.
already did,,,well they did have probable cause,,,Dunaway v New York says differently.no its not,,,That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.
They did? Do tell.
Complete nonsense. Courts have been doing this since the founding of the nation.its OK when its not a constitutional issue,,,That's idiotic and obviously false. Why do you think court decision are always referring to case law?WRONG!!!Case law is how the constitution is applied. No one is changing the constitution but case law determines how that is applied.the constitution,,,it clearly states only an amendment can change the meaning of what it says,,,not case lawcase law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
The hell it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense?
You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.already did,,,well they did have probable cause,,,Dunaway v New York says differently.no its not,,,That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.
They did? Do tell.
WRONG!!!Complete nonsense. Courts have been doing this since the founding of the nation.its OK when its not a constitutional issue,,,That's idiotic and obviously false. Why do you think court decision are always referring to case law?WRONG!!!Case law is how the constitution is applied. No one is changing the constitution but case law determines how that is applied.the constitution,,,it clearly states only an amendment can change the meaning of what it says,,,not case lawcase law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
The hell it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense?
it was a riot not a protest where criminal damage to property and attempts at personal harm happened,,,,,,You did not. Merely being at the protest does not rise to probable cause and the DHS knows it.already did,,,well they did have probable cause,,,Dunaway v New York says differently.no its not,,,That's an arrest. Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is an arrest.he wasnt arrested,,,he was brought in for questioning because he just left the site of a riot where property damage and violent attacks against federal officers happened,,,,,,Because the probable cause has to connect the individual that was arrested and the actual crime. You can't just arrest whoever you want.and what makes you think that after WEEKS of tearing shit up, lighting fires and attacking police, federal officers and federal buildings they LACK probable cause?
At least, not if the constitution means anything to you.
Transporting someone to being interrogated constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause.
They did? Do tell.
Well, Marbury v Madison was in 1803, so no.WRONG!!!Complete nonsense. Courts have been doing this since the founding of the nation.its OK when its not a constitutional issue,,,That's idiotic and obviously false. Why do you think court decision are always referring to case law?WRONG!!!Case law is how the constitution is applied. No one is changing the constitution but case law determines how that is applied.the constitution,,,it clearly states only an amendment can change the meaning of what it says,,,not case lawcase law doesnt apply to constitution,,,your own link just proved you wrong,,,,That's not how the courts define an arrest.when youre arrested you are charged with a crime and given a court date to answer for those charges,,,
The link gives a court case asserting that an arrest does not require charges or booking.
So it actually proves you wrong.
The hell it doesn't. Where do you get this nonsense?
case law only started after the progressive movement in the early 1900's to subvert the original intent and meanings of the law,,,
