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.
It was coercion because it was an illegal arrest. He was brought into custody without probable cause, just like Pettibone was.the link and quote I provided. hmmm your court case was a suit due to coercion by the cops.The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?
when I said because it was meant,,No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.
just because you dont see it as probable cause doesnt mean shit because youre a fucking idiot,,,It was coercion because it was an illegal arrest. He was brought into custody without probable cause, just like Pettibone was.the link and quote I provided. hmmm your court case was a suit due to coercion by the cops.The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?
You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.when I said because it was meant,,No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.
"because your a fucking idiot"
You said he was at a place, dressed a certain way, which amounts to probable cause that he committed a crime.MY GOD YOURE A STUPID MOTHER FUCKER,,,
when did I say dressing that way was a crime???
I'l wait for your answer,,,
That's absurd because it's not specific evidence linking that specific person to the crime.
I have several times,,,You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.when I said because it was meant,,No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.
"because your a fucking idiot"
Because it isn't. Not even the DHS thinks its probable cause. That's not specific information linking him to a specific crime.just because you dont see it as probable cause doesnt mean shit because youre a fucking idiot,,,It was coercion because it was an illegal arrest. He was brought into custody without probable cause, just like Pettibone was.the link and quote I provided. hmmm your court case was a suit due to coercion by the cops.The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?
he didn't need to. you haven't proved your point.You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.
you don't need probable cause to detain someone. I just sent you a legal link.Because it isn't. Not even the DHS thinks its probable cause. That's not specific information linking him to a specific crime.
You haven't. You've just wasted most of the day trying not to.I have several times,,,You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.when I said because it was meant,,No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.
"because your a fucking idiot"
I never said he committed a crime and neither has anyone else,,,Because it isn't. Not even the DHS thinks its probable cause. That's not specific information linking him to a specific crime.just because you dont see it as probable cause doesnt mean shit because youre a fucking idiot,,,It was coercion because it was an illegal arrest. He was brought into custody without probable cause, just like Pettibone was.the link and quote I provided. hmmm your court case was a suit due to coercion by the cops.The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?
I dont understand the question,,,You haven't. You've just wasted most of the day trying not to.I have several times,,,You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.when I said because it was meant,,No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.
"because your a fucking idiot"
Now you're going to claim you have. When asked where such an explanation is in this thread, your response will be "find it yourself".
But it doesn't exist so no one is going to be able to find it and you'll refuse to provide it.
So how about it. Show me where you think you explained it.
He wasn't detained, he was arrested. Plucking him off the street, taking him to the courthouse to be interrogated makes it an arrest, just like the case I showed you.you don't need probable cause to detain someone. I just sent you a legal link.Because it isn't. Not even the DHS thinks its probable cause. That's not specific information linking him to a specific crime.
Oh, so just dressed in all black and in the area of a riot, hmm?Because it isn't. Not even the DHS thinks its probable cause. That's not specific information linking him to a specific crime.just because you dont see it as probable cause doesnt mean shit because youre a fucking idiot,,,It was coercion because it was an illegal arrest. He was brought into custody without probable cause, just like Pettibone was.the link and quote I provided. hmmm your court case was a suit due to coercion by the cops.The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?
He wasn't detained, he was arrested. Plucking him off the street, taking him to the courthouse to be interrogated makes it an arrest, just like the case I showed you.you don't need probable cause to detain someone. I just sent you a legal link.Because it isn't. Not even the DHS thinks its probable cause. That's not specific information linking him to a specific crime.
Your claim that he wasn't arrested is based on the fact that he was released. That's not relevant because actions taken after the arrest do not change the fact of the arrest.I dont understand the question,,,You haven't. You've just wasted most of the day trying not to.I have several times,,,You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.when I said because it was meant,,No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.
"because your a fucking idiot"
Now you're going to claim you have. When asked where such an explanation is in this thread, your response will be "find it yourself".
But it doesn't exist so no one is going to be able to find it and you'll refuse to provide it.
So how about it. Show me where you think you explained it.
Doesn't arise to probable cause that he committed any crimes.Oh, so just dressed in all black and in the area of a riot, hmm?Because it isn't. Not even the DHS thinks its probable cause. That's not specific information linking him to a specific crime.just because you dont see it as probable cause doesnt mean shit because youre a fucking idiot,,,It was coercion because it was an illegal arrest. He was brought into custody without probable cause, just like Pettibone was.the link and quote I provided. hmmm your court case was a suit due to coercion by the cops.The court cases I've presented proves my point. What proves your point?
Too vague and doesn't touch the difference between a detention and arrest, which is the actual point of contention here.Your claim that he wasn't arrested is based on the fact that he was released. That's not relevant because actions taken after the arrest do not change the fact of the arrest.I dont understand the question,,,You haven't. You've just wasted most of the day trying not to.I have several times,,,You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.when I said because it was meant,,No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.
"because your a fucking idiot"
Now you're going to claim you have. When asked where such an explanation is in this thread, your response will be "find it yourself".
But it doesn't exist so no one is going to be able to find it and you'll refuse to provide it.
So how about it. Show me where you think you explained it.
He was arrested the second he was taken off the street by force and transported to the courthouse to be questioned. Releasing him does not change that.Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcementdefinitions.uslegal.com
Doesn't even touch the difference between arrest and detention.Too vague and doesn't touch the difference between a detention and arrest, which is the actual point of contention here.Your claim that he wasn't arrested is based on the fact that he was released. That's not relevant because actions taken after the arrest do not change the fact of the arrest.I dont understand the question,,,You haven't. You've just wasted most of the day trying not to.I have several times,,,You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't actually answer the question. You've provided no explanation.when I said because it was meant,,No, you haven't you just keep saying that it's "detention for questioning" but you haven't explained it.I've explained it several times and you keep ignoring it,,,
Saying it's not A, it's B is not an explanation. It's a assertion. To explain it, you'd have to say why it is the way you say it is, but you've not done so. When I asked you to explain why, you said "because,,," which isn't an explanation.
"because your a fucking idiot"
Now you're going to claim you have. When asked where such an explanation is in this thread, your response will be "find it yourself".
But it doesn't exist so no one is going to be able to find it and you'll refuse to provide it.
So how about it. Show me where you think you explained it.
He was arrested the second he was taken off the street by force and transported to the courthouse to be questioned. Releasing him does not change that.Detain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcementDetain Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Detain generally means to prevent from proceeding; to restrict freedom of movement. In criminal law, detain means to hold a person in custody, often for purposes of questioning. A law enforcement
