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 I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
that link was a continuation of events that resulted in his detainment for questioning,,,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.prove it???nope, ignored it. investigating crimes allows for probable cause.I didn't ignore it. I politely and calmly explained why what was presented doesn't constitute 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.
cause all the evidence says it does exist,,,
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.
because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
Because to constitute probable cause for his arrest, he'd have to be the one seen committing the crime.when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
they could have been asking him what others were doing since he was there,,,
they didnt arrest him,,,,Because to constitute probable cause for his arrest, he'd have to be the one seen committing the crime.when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
they could have been asking him what others were doing since he was there,,,
If law enforcement wanted to question him about what other people were doing, they can only do so on a voluntary basis. Know your rights.
I'll have to ask again where you come up with the idea that he wasn't arrested. What legal definition are you applying here?they didnt arrest him,,,,Because to constitute probable cause for his arrest, he'd have to be the one seen committing the crime.when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
they could have been asking him what others were doing since he was there,,,
If law enforcement wanted to question him about what other people were doing, they can only do so on a voluntary basis. Know your rights.
and he refused to answer their questions and was released,,,
given they had been watching for weeks and going over video - there was probable cause.Because to constitute probable cause for his arrest, he'd have to be the one seen committing the crime.when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
they could have been asking him what others were doing since he was there,,,
If law enforcement wanted to question him about what other people were doing, they can only do so on a voluntary basis. Know your rights.
You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
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.
dont need a legal def,,,just the reality that when he refused to answer their questions they released him,,,I'll have to ask again where you come up with the idea that he wasn't arrested. What legal definition are you applying here?they didnt arrest him,,,,Because to constitute probable cause for his arrest, he'd have to be the one seen committing the crime.when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
they could have been asking him what others were doing since he was there,,,
If law enforcement wanted to question him about what other people were doing, they can only do so on a voluntary basis. Know your rights.
and he refused to answer their questions and was released,,,
given they had been watching for weeks and going over video - there was probable cause.
dont need a legal def,,,just the reality that when he refused to answer their questions they released him,,,I'll have to ask again where you come up with the idea that he wasn't arrested. What legal definition are you applying here?they didnt arrest him,,,,Because to constitute probable cause for his arrest, he'd have to be the one seen committing the crime.when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
they could have been asking him what others were doing since he was there,,,
If law enforcement wanted to question him about what other people were doing, they can only do so on a voluntary basis. Know your rights.
and he refused to answer their questions and was released,,,
I'm asking you because you're the ones making the claim. The feds already admitted they didn't see him commit any crimes but that hasn't filtered down to you geniuses.why are you asking us???given they had been watching for weeks and going over video - there was probable cause.
Okay. What was the suspect arrested (specifically referencing Pettibone's arrest on July 15th) seen doing on video?
you should be asking the feds,,,
if he was arrested he wouldnt have been allowed to leave without formal charges and a court date,,,dont need a legal def,,,just the reality that when he refused to answer their questions they released him,,,I'll have to ask again where you come up with the idea that he wasn't arrested. What legal definition are you applying here?they didnt arrest him,,,,Because to constitute probable cause for his arrest, he'd have to be the one seen committing the crime.when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
they could have been asking him what others were doing since he was there,,,
If law enforcement wanted to question him about what other people were doing, they can only do so on a voluntary basis. Know your rights.
and he refused to answer their questions and was released,,,
If you want to claim he wasn't arrested, then you do need a legal definition of arrest and explain how what he was subjected to doesn't constitute an arrest.
The DHS admitted it. That's why the DHS is bending over backwards trying to claim that grabbing people, putting them in vans and driving them to be interrogated wasn't an arrest. Unfortunately, whether they call it an arrest or not is irrelevant as to what it actually is.You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
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.
Do we know how if they didn't have probable cause? There were cameras, and maybe people were identified and that is why the van stopped them? The pick ups seemed to target specific people. I am not sure of the whole story however those pulled into the van had reasons to lie to the press.
Randomly pulling people in and arresting without cause is a Constitutional violation, however until we get both sides, no one knows.
I never said he committed a crime, just that he was there and brought in for questioning,,,I'm asking you because you're the ones making the claim. The feds already admitted they didn't see him commit any crimes but that hasn't filtered down to you geniuses.why are you asking us???given they had been watching for weeks and going over video - there was probable cause.
Okay. What was the suspect arrested (specifically referencing Pettibone's arrest on July 15th) seen doing on video?
you should be asking the feds,,,
Formal charges are not an essential component of an arrest.if he was arrested he wouldnt have been allowed to leave without formal charges and a court date,,,dont need a legal def,,,just the reality that when he refused to answer their questions they released him,,,I'll have to ask again where you come up with the idea that he wasn't arrested. What legal definition are you applying here?they didnt arrest him,,,,Because to constitute probable cause for his arrest, he'd have to be the one seen committing the crime.when did I say they saw him doing something???because I have eyes and can see he was leaving the scene of a riot where masked men and women were destroying public property and threatening the lives of public officials while wearing a mask,,,The press conference I showed you.how do you know what they have????Being at the place where crimes occurred does not constitute probable cause unless they have information that links that particular person to the crimes.yes I did,,,You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
Which they don't have.
How do you know what they have?
What was he seen doing at the scene of the "riot"?
they could have been asking him what others were doing since he was there,,,
If law enforcement wanted to question him about what other people were doing, they can only do so on a voluntary basis. Know your rights.
and he refused to answer their questions and was released,,,
If you want to claim he wasn't arrested, then you do need a legal definition of arrest and explain how what he was subjected to doesn't constitute an arrest.
Unless he was seen doing something, they don't have probable cause.I never said he committed a crime, just that he was there and brought in for questioning,,,I'm asking you because you're the ones making the claim. The feds already admitted they didn't see him commit any crimes but that hasn't filtered down to you geniuses.why are you asking us???given they had been watching for weeks and going over video - there was probable cause.
Okay. What was the suspect arrested (specifically referencing Pettibone's arrest on July 15th) seen doing on video?
you should be asking the feds,,,
The DHS admitted it. That's why the DHS is bending over backwards trying to claim that grabbing people, putting them in vans and driving them to be interrogated wasn't an arrest. Unfortunately, whether they call it an arrest or not is irrelevant as to what it actually is.You haven't provided any probable cause.yes there was,,,you just choose to ignore it,,,,4th amendment requires probable cause.not at all, I merely presented how our constitution works. you're just to fking stupid to learn.So you're saying the police violate the constitution every day and everywhere? And you wonder why we want police reforms so badly.
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.
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.
Do we know how if they didn't have probable cause? There were cameras, and maybe people were identified and that is why the van stopped them? The pick ups seemed to target specific people. I am not sure of the whole story however those pulled into the van had reasons to lie to the press.
Randomly pulling people in and arresting without cause is a Constitutional violation, however until we get both sides, no one knows.
