DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[irosie91]

for the record----assuming that the people who were approached in unmarked vans were merely detained and questioned (unless a warrant had already been issued) -------I SUPPORT the unmarked van operation

 

[beautress]

Wayne Dupree

Wayne Dupree political stories

www.waynedupree.com

well that's one way to get them off the streets.

hey man, y'all see freddy???
nah man, he got "van-go'd" the other night at the riots...

All that really needs be done is place Maxine Waters in the van, put her in solitary confinement and throw away the key. Voila! The Constitutents would then do the right thing and just go back home, knowing their statement has been heard.

 

[colfax_m]

4th amendment requires probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was no probable cause here.

yep that's our 4th amendment, however, that's trying to charge someone. To bring someone in for questioning has nothing to do with the 4th amendment probable cause clause. They are allowed to question people, anyone. they can knock on your door and ask you to come down to the station. whether you want to or not.

They can ask you to get out of your car and put you in their squad for nothing.

Bringing someone in for questioning against their will is seizing that person which is specifically referenced in the amendment.

No, they cannot knock on your door and drag you in for questioning against your will without probable cause. Maybe they do that in authoritarian states, but not in this one.

Without probable cause, they can ask you to come in for questioning, but if you refuse they can't force you. They'd have to get a subpoena or a warrant to do so, which requires probable cause.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was no probable cause here.

yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,

You haven't provided any probable cause.

barricading a federal building, looting, destroying public property, setting fires to cars and buildings, sounds like probable cause, what does probable cause mean to you?

 

[dblack]

Maybe Rand Paul still has a little libertarian in him:

Rand Paul says there's 'no place' for federal agents 'rounding people up at will' in Portland

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.

well when he does something but complain and do something about the lawlessness in our cities his words are garbage.

He's right though, at least on this issue.

 

[colfax_m]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was no probable cause here.

yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,

You haven't provided any probable cause.

yes I did,,,

Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.

Which they don't have.

 

[colfax_m]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was no probable cause here.

yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,

You haven't provided any probable cause.

barricading a federal building, looting, destroying public property, setting fires to cars and buildings, sounds like probable cause, what does probable cause mean to you?

You listed crimes, not probable cause. If federal agents had seen the suspect doing those things, they'd have probable cause.

But that's not what happened.

 

[jc456]

You haven't provided any probable cause.

you ignored it. it's who you are.

 

[jc456]

Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.

Which they don't have.

sure it does if you fit the profile of those involved. son, you're losing your shit. too fking funny. still spinning in circles I see.

 

[jc456]

You listed crimes, not probable cause. If federal agents had seen the suspect doing those things, they'd have probable cause.

But that's not what happened.

trying to solve a crime is probable cause stupid fk. spinning still

 

[colfax_m]

You haven't provided any probable cause.

you ignored it. it's who you are.

I didn't ignore it. I politely and calmly explained why what was presented doesn't constitute probable cause.

 

[colfax_m]

You listed crimes, not probable cause. If federal agents had seen the suspect doing those things, they'd have probable cause.

But that's not what happened.

trying to solve a crime is probable cause stupid fk. spinning still

What? That doesn't even make any sense.

 

[progressive hunter]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was no probable cause here.

yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,

You haven't provided any probable cause.

yes I did,,,

Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.

Which they don't have.

how do you know what they have????

 

[progressive hunter]

You haven't provided any probable cause.

you ignored it. it's who you are.

I didn't ignore it. I politely and calmly explained why what was presented doesn't constitute probable cause.

in your opinion,,,which means nothing in the real world,,,

 

[jc456]

I didn't ignore it. I politely and calmly explained why what was presented doesn't constitute probable cause.

nope, ignored it. investigating crimes allows for probable cause.

 

[jc456]

What? That doesn't even make any sense.

to you, of course not. you're too fking stupid.

 

[colfax_m]

I didn't ignore it. I politely and calmly explained why what was presented doesn't constitute probable cause.

nope, ignored it. investigating crimes allows for probable cause.

This is idiotic. Probable cause is a level reached by evidence about a specific person committing a specific crime. That doesn't exist here.

 

[colfax_m]

So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.

not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.

4th amendment requires probable cause.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was no probable cause here.

yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,

You haven't provided any probable cause.

yes I did,,,

Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.

Which they don't have.

how do you know what they have????

The press conference I showed you.

How do you know what they have?

 

[progressive hunter]

I didn't ignore it. I politely and calmly explained why what was presented doesn't constitute probable cause.

nope, ignored it. investigating crimes allows for probable cause.

This is idiotic. Probable cause is a level reached by evidence about a specific person committing a specific crime. That doesn't exist here.

prove it???

cause all the evidence says it does exist,,,

 

[colfax_m]

I didn't ignore it. I politely and calmly explained why what was presented doesn't constitute probable cause.

nope, ignored it. investigating crimes allows for probable cause.

This is idiotic. Probable cause is a level reached by evidence about a specific person committing a specific crime. That doesn't exist here.

prove it???

cause all the evidence says it does exist,,,

But you haven't provided any. You gave a single link to events taking place days after the suspects were arrested which clearly doesn't constitute probable cause.

And nothing else.

So if you can provide the evidence, I'll gladly look at it. Until then, you're claims about it's existence are unsubstantiated.