DHS Vans Taking Antifa Away

[progressive hunter]

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?

why are you asking us???

you should be asking the feds,,,

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.

I never said he committed a crime, just that he was there and brought in for questioning,,,

Unless he was seen doing something, they don't have probable cause.

he was seen being there,,,,and even admitted to it,,,thats enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

 

[colfax_m]

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?

why are you asking us???

you should be asking the feds,,,

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.

I never said he committed a crime, just that he was there and brought in for questioning,,,

Unless he was seen doing something, they don't have probable cause.

he was seen being there,,,,and even admitted to it,,,thats enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

Being there was not a crime, so no, it's not probable cause.

 

[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.

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.

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.

I missed all of this, I'll go look it up however if it is far left sites are reporting this, I'll give them as much credit as I do far right sites, zero.

You definitely should.

Here's the DHS press conference talking about it, long but if you want to go to the sources, this is your best bet.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

why are you asking us???

you should be asking the feds,,,

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.

I never said he committed a crime, just that he was there and brought in for questioning,,,

Unless he was seen doing something, they don't have probable cause.

he was seen being there,,,,and even admitted to it,,,thats enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

Being there was not a crime, so no, it's not probable cause.

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

 

[colfax_m]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

 

[irosie91]

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.

no one is irreplaceable. ----there are PLENTY of other vulgar loud mouth blobs

 

[progressive hunter]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

 

[colfax_m]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

it was voluntary cause they released him when he refused,,,

 

[jc456]

Liberals are crushing the authoritarians in the PR department here. On the news, we see faceless goons attacking moms singing lullabies. Only the most hardcore fascists aren't repulsed by that. Most of them are posting here.

So sad. Trump knew he had no chance to win, unless he could instigate violence and then claim to be the nation's savior. Standard fascist tactics. And it blew up in his face, thanks to the bravery of the moms.

wow, you're in drastic mode huh?

 

[jc456]

Formal charges are not an essential component of an arrest.

sure they are. that's why people ask if they are being charged or not.

 

[jc456]

Unless he was seen doing something, they don't have probable cause.

nope

 

[jc456]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

 

[colfax_m]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

it was voluntary cause they released him when he refused,,,

They grabbed him by the arms and forced him in the back of a van is not voluntary by any sane person.

 

[jc456]

Unless he was seen doing something, they don't have probable cause.

he merely needs to fit a profile.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

it was voluntary cause they released him when he refused,,,

They grabbed him by the arms and forced him in the back of a van is not voluntary by any sane person.

but releasing him was,,,

 

[jc456]

Being there was not a crime, so no, it's not probable cause.

it's probable cause. hence the questioning. how do you think police do investigations? They get the correct guy every time huh? LOL you're fking a loony toon.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

nope. still wrong son. Cops can set up road blocks and question any one they want. How else to catch DUI drivers? you're so far off your game you fell in.

Roadblocks for sobriety aren't arrests.

and neither is him being taken in for questioning,,,

 

[colfax_m]

I never said it was a crime,,,but as we see its enough to be brought in for questioning,,,

But you claimed there was probable cause. Witnessing him doing something that was not a crime therefore cannot constitute probable cause he committed a crime.

there was probable cause to bring him in for questioning since he was there,,,

be kinda stupid to question him if he wasnt there,,,

Nope, that's not probable cause. Ybarra v Illinois. Proximity to people committing crimes does not constitute probable cause. The probable cause has to be specific to the person being arrested.

And they could question him, but only on a voluntary basis. This was obviously not voluntary.

it was voluntary cause they released him when he refused,,,

They grabbed him by the arms and forced him in the back of a van is not voluntary by any sane person.

but releasing him was,,,

Let me rephrase. They could only question him on a voluntary basis, meaning if he wanted to leave, he could. The law enforcement did not give him a choice in whether he could leave or not, which is one element of an arrest.