Obama sending US Marshalls to ARREST those who owe federal student loans! Dang libs...

[Si modo]

And, let's not forget there IS LEO discretion, even when a court orders a Bench Warrant.

Can you show us the slightest evidence that Obama directed anyone to do anything regarding this arrest? Or that he was even aware of it?

Laughing....of course not.

There you go again, listening to the voices in your head telling you what I've posted.

So you didn't babble about 'LEO discretion'.....that there's zero evidence to show had anything to do with this case?

You know you can't demonstrate that Obama had a thing to say about this specific arrest. Or was even aware of it. Making your 'LEO discretion' shtick yet another red herring. But hey, what's complete irrelevance to the case we're discussing when you're hopped up on holding Obama 'accountable'.

Accountable for what, you've never actually been able to tell us. Accountable for the marshals obeying a lawful federal court order?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

I'm not OK with it; and I'm pretty sure our system hasn't been OK with it, since debtors' prisons are so two centuries ago.

LEO discretion is applicable to every arrest,, whether ordered by a court or not.

I think I'm safe in betting Obama is clueless about this situation in his administration; cluelessness is his track record.

However, this IS his administration; he IS the executive, thus, he IS accountable.

 

[Si modo]

So just for the record......

Skylar isn't sure who ranks higher on the chain of command for federal law enforcement - the POTUS or a court room judge.

He just can't figure it out.

And just for the record.....the marshals are required to obey a federal court order.

...

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

 

[Skylar]

And, let's not forget there IS LEO discretion, even when a court orders a Bench Warrant.

Can you show us the slightest evidence that Obama directed anyone to do anything regarding this arrest? Or that he was even aware of it?

Laughing....of course not.

There you go again, listening to the voices in your head telling you what I've posted.

So you didn't babble about 'LEO discretion'.....that there's zero evidence to show had anything to do with this case?

You know you can't demonstrate that Obama had a thing to say about this specific arrest. Or was even aware of it. Making your 'LEO discretion' shtick yet another red herring. But hey, what's complete irrelevance to the case we're discussing when you're hopped up on holding Obama 'accountable'.

Accountable for what, you've never actually been able to tell us. Accountable for the marshals obeying a lawful federal court order?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Um, he was arrested for not appearing in court. Not for student loan debt. Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Marshal Service on the other hand, does:

According to a statement from the U.S. Marshals Service, Aker repeatedly refused to show up in court after being contacted several times. Disobeying a court order is a criminal offense. Within a few months, the judge issued a warrant for his arrest, which the U.S. Marshals carried out. So, yes, Aker was arrested, but not just because he owed a little student loan debt. He was arrested for disobeying a court order.

U.S. Marshals didn't really arrest a man for missed student loan payments

So why would I or any other rational person ignore the US Marshal Service....and instead believe you? Especially when you still haven't been bothered to educate yourself on even the simplest details of this case?

 

[Skylar]

So just for the record......

Skylar isn't sure who ranks higher on the chain of command for federal law enforcement - the POTUS or a court room judge.

He just can't figure it out.

And just for the record.....the marshals are required to obey a federal court order.

...

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

 

[Si modo]

And, let's not forget there IS LEO discretion, even when a court orders a Bench Warrant.

Can you show us the slightest evidence that Obama directed anyone to do anything regarding this arrest? Or that he was even aware of it?

Laughing....of course not.

There you go again, listening to the voices in your head telling you what I've posted.

So you didn't babble about 'LEO discretion'.....that there's zero evidence to show had anything to do with this case?

You know you can't demonstrate that Obama had a thing to say about this specific arrest. Or was even aware of it. Making your 'LEO discretion' shtick yet another red herring. But hey, what's complete irrelevance to the case we're discussing when you're hopped up on holding Obama 'accountable'.

Accountable for what, you've never actually been able to tell us. Accountable for the marshals obeying a lawful federal court order?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Um, he was arrested for not appearing in court. Not for student loan debt. Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Marshal Service on the other hand, does:

According to a statement from the U.S. Marshals Service, Aker repeatedly refused to show up in court after being contacted several times. Disobeying a court order is a criminal offense. Within a few months, the judge issued a warrant for his arrest, which the U.S. Marshals carried out. So, yes, Aker was arrested, but not just because he owed a little student loan debt. He was arrested for disobeying a court order.

U.S. Marshals didn't really arrest a man for missed student loan payments

So why would I or any other rational person ignore the US Marshal Service....and instead believe you? Especially when you still haven't been bothered to educate yourself on even the simplest details of this case?

Clear proof you only imagine what I post, not what I actually post.

 

[Skylar]

Can you show us the slightest evidence that Obama directed anyone to do anything regarding this arrest? Or that he was even aware of it?

Laughing....of course not.

There you go again, listening to the voices in your head telling you what I've posted.

So you didn't babble about 'LEO discretion'.....that there's zero evidence to show had anything to do with this case?

You know you can't demonstrate that Obama had a thing to say about this specific arrest. Or was even aware of it. Making your 'LEO discretion' shtick yet another red herring. But hey, what's complete irrelevance to the case we're discussing when you're hopped up on holding Obama 'accountable'.

Accountable for what, you've never actually been able to tell us. Accountable for the marshals obeying a lawful federal court order?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Um, he was arrested for not appearing in court. Not for student loan debt. Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Marshal Service on the other hand, does:

According to a statement from the U.S. Marshals Service, Aker repeatedly refused to show up in court after being contacted several times. Disobeying a court order is a criminal offense. Within a few months, the judge issued a warrant for his arrest, which the U.S. Marshals carried out. So, yes, Aker was arrested, but not just because he owed a little student loan debt. He was arrested for disobeying a court order.

U.S. Marshals didn't really arrest a man for missed student loan payments

So why would I or any other rational person ignore the US Marshal Service....and instead believe you? Especially when you still haven't been bothered to educate yourself on even the simplest details of this case?

Clear proof you only imagine what I post, not what I actually post.

So you didn't post this?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Because I can quote you doing it. And we both know that's not what happened here.

 

[Si modo]

So just for the record......

Skylar isn't sure who ranks higher on the chain of command for federal law enforcement - the POTUS or a court room judge.

He just can't figure it out.

And just for the record.....the marshals are required to obey a federal court order.

...

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

I'm positive you have no clue what argument I have. Right now, I'm simply highlighting your insanity - yes, listening to voices in your head is insanity.

 

[bucs90]

So just for the record......

Skylar isn't sure who ranks higher on the chain of command for federal law enforcement - the POTUS or a court room judge.

He just can't figure it out.

And just for the record.....the marshals are required to obey a federal court order.

...

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

Ok....just to be clear...you're saying federal law enforcement has dual chains of command....the Judicial and executive branches. Right?

 

[Si modo]

There you go again, listening to the voices in your head telling you what I've posted.

So you didn't babble about 'LEO discretion'.....that there's zero evidence to show had anything to do with this case?

You know you can't demonstrate that Obama had a thing to say about this specific arrest. Or was even aware of it. Making your 'LEO discretion' shtick yet another red herring. But hey, what's complete irrelevance to the case we're discussing when you're hopped up on holding Obama 'accountable'.

Accountable for what, you've never actually been able to tell us. Accountable for the marshals obeying a lawful federal court order?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Um, he was arrested for not appearing in court. Not for student loan debt. Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Marshal Service on the other hand, does:

According to a statement from the U.S. Marshals Service, Aker repeatedly refused to show up in court after being contacted several times. Disobeying a court order is a criminal offense. Within a few months, the judge issued a warrant for his arrest, which the U.S. Marshals carried out. So, yes, Aker was arrested, but not just because he owed a little student loan debt. He was arrested for disobeying a court order.

U.S. Marshals didn't really arrest a man for missed student loan payments

So why would I or any other rational person ignore the US Marshal Service....and instead believe you? Especially when you still haven't been bothered to educate yourself on even the simplest details of this case?

Clear proof you only imagine what I post, not what I actually post.

So you didn't post this?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Because I can quote you doing it. And we both know that's not what happened here.

The default on the federal student loan is the case for the issuance of the capias, honey chunks.

But, it's OK. You are fine with this.

I'm not, and that makes you mad.

Which makes me laugh.

 

[Skylar]

So just for the record......

Skylar isn't sure who ranks higher on the chain of command for federal law enforcement - the POTUS or a court room judge.

He just can't figure it out.

And just for the record.....the marshals are required to obey a federal court order.

...

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

 

[Si modo]

So just for the record......

Skylar isn't sure who ranks higher on the chain of command for federal law enforcement - the POTUS or a court room judge.

He just can't figure it out.

And just for the record.....the marshals are required to obey a federal court order.

...

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to say when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

The fact that you don't understand the implications of that discretion is not surprising.

I have no idea why that fact bothers you, but it seems as if many things bother you.

 

[Skylar]

So you didn't babble about 'LEO discretion'.....that there's zero evidence to show had anything to do with this case?

You know you can't demonstrate that Obama had a thing to say about this specific arrest. Or was even aware of it. Making your 'LEO discretion' shtick yet another red herring. But hey, what's complete irrelevance to the case we're discussing when you're hopped up on holding Obama 'accountable'.

Accountable for what, you've never actually been able to tell us. Accountable for the marshals obeying a lawful federal court order?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Um, he was arrested for not appearing in court. Not for student loan debt. Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Marshal Service on the other hand, does:

According to a statement from the U.S. Marshals Service, Aker repeatedly refused to show up in court after being contacted several times. Disobeying a court order is a criminal offense. Within a few months, the judge issued a warrant for his arrest, which the U.S. Marshals carried out. So, yes, Aker was arrested, but not just because he owed a little student loan debt. He was arrested for disobeying a court order.

U.S. Marshals didn't really arrest a man for missed student loan payments

So why would I or any other rational person ignore the US Marshal Service....and instead believe you? Especially when you still haven't been bothered to educate yourself on even the simplest details of this case?

Clear proof you only imagine what I post, not what I actually post.

So you didn't post this?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Because I can quote you doing it. And we both know that's not what happened here.

The default on the federal student loan is the case for the issuance of the capias, honey chunks.

Ah, shit-stain....and here I'd thought you'd decided to be polite and speak with civility. You get what you give, sweetie.

Once again, for the cheap seats.......the man was ordered to appear in court because of a civil suit made against him. He refused to appear in court. When the marshals showed up to merely bring him to court, he resisted arrest, retreated into his home and insisted he had a gun.

Those are the facts of this case. When he was eventually arrested and brought to the court he was released after appearing. There's zero evidence he spent a second in jail.

You can fallaciously babble about 'being arrested for student debt' all you like. But you know those claims have nothing to do with this case.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

 

[Skylar]

And just for the record.....the marshals are required to obey a federal court order.

...

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

 

[bucs90]

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Um, he was arrested for not appearing in court. Not for student loan debt. Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Marshal Service on the other hand, does:

According to a statement from the U.S. Marshals Service, Aker repeatedly refused to show up in court after being contacted several times. Disobeying a court order is a criminal offense. Within a few months, the judge issued a warrant for his arrest, which the U.S. Marshals carried out. So, yes, Aker was arrested, but not just because he owed a little student loan debt. He was arrested for disobeying a court order.

U.S. Marshals didn't really arrest a man for missed student loan payments

So why would I or any other rational person ignore the US Marshal Service....and instead believe you? Especially when you still haven't been bothered to educate yourself on even the simplest details of this case?

Clear proof you only imagine what I post, not what I actually post.

So you didn't post this?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Because I can quote you doing it. And we both know that's not what happened here.

The default on the federal student loan is the case for the issuance of the capias, honey chunks.

Ah, shit-stain....and here I'd thought you'd decided to be polite and speak with civility. You get what you give, sweetie.

Once again, for the cheap seats.......the man was ordered to appear in court because of a civil suit made against him. He refused to appear in court. When the marshals showed up to merely bring him to court, he resisted arrest, retreated into his home and insisted he had a gun.

Those are the facts of this case. When he was eventually arrested and brought to the court he was released after appearing. There's zero evidence he spent a second in jail.

You can fallaciously babble about 'being arrested for student debt' all you like. But you know those claims have nothing to do with this case.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

Its no different than you libs saying Mike Brown was shot "for shoplifting".

 

[Skylar]

Um, he was arrested for not appearing in court. Not for student loan debt. Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Marshal Service on the other hand, does:

So why would I or any other rational person ignore the US Marshal Service....and instead believe you? Especially when you still haven't been bothered to educate yourself on even the simplest details of this case?

Clear proof you only imagine what I post, not what I actually post.

So you didn't post this?

If you're OK that the current system allows for persons to be arrested for being in default on a federal student debt, okie doke.

Because I can quote you doing it. And we both know that's not what happened here.

The default on the federal student loan is the case for the issuance of the capias, honey chunks.

Ah, shit-stain....and here I'd thought you'd decided to be polite and speak with civility. You get what you give, sweetie.

Once again, for the cheap seats.......the man was ordered to appear in court because of a civil suit made against him. He refused to appear in court. When the marshals showed up to merely bring him to court, he resisted arrest, retreated into his home and insisted he had a gun.

Those are the facts of this case. When he was eventually arrested and brought to the court he was released after appearing. There's zero evidence he spent a second in jail.

You can fallaciously babble about 'being arrested for student debt' all you like. But you know those claims have nothing to do with this case.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?

Its no different than you libs saying Mike Brown was shot "for shoplifting".

Show me ever saying that Mike Brown was shot for 'shop lifting'.

Laughing........god, you're awful at this, Bucky.

 

[bucs90]

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

So If they have no discretion then that means they are under the judges chain of command. And that would mean they have 2 chains of command (Executive and Judicial). Which they don't.

So which is it?

 

[Si modo]

When it comes to executing a court order involving an arrest, LEOs have discretion.

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

 

[Skylar]

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

So If they have no discretion then that means they are under the judges chain of command. And that would mean they have 2 chains of command (Executive and Judicial). Which they don't.

So which is it?

Show us the evidence that there was any LEO 'discretion' in this case. And given your batshit that Obama 'sent' the Marshals, show us that Obama was even aware the case existed?

You can't. There is no such evidence. Your entire thread is a lie. The title is a lie. The OP is a lie. The federal judge that issued the arrest warrant is who sent the marshals. And he was arrested because he refused to appear in court. Not because he had student loan debt.

 

[bucs90]

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

 

[Skylar]

There's zero evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. Which you know as you run screaming whenever I ask you to show us the slightest evidence of it.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to tap the Red Herring Fallacy as often as you do.

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Right after you acknowledge that your LEO discretion argument has nothing to do with this case.