That Gun Totting Evil White Man that shot that poor black teen.

[bodecea]

Would anyone here attack some random kid eating Skittles having a drink while he is talking on his phone?

The black looked like he was casing the neighborhood, hence the 911 call.

The skittle-eater wasn't attacked. He did the attacking.

The victim was on his cell phone while attacking? The killer had called 911; told not to follow the kid while he cursed "these a**holes" . No mention of any threat from the victim, just the killer's rage. Who is delusional enough to believe the teenager was the attacker?

Just a troll.

 

[Mr.Nick]

You're just interpreting ideas through your own logic...

NOT PROVIDING A WARRANT IS A FIFTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION.

Never mind anything else that happened - the fact the cop said "we don't have the warrant - it's in the computer" then that idiot should have gone and got a copy...

End of story...

Everything after that is defunct..

I am reading the text of the 5th amendment, and NONE of it applies.

If not providing an arrest warrant at the moment of arrest is a 5th amendment violation, then almost every arrest in the US...EVER... is unconstitutional. Even YOU can't be mind bogglingly stupid enough to believe that. Can you?

That's because you don't have the mental capacity to click the link "due process" on your wiki page..

 

[Conservative]

This wasn't a search warrant it was an arrest warrant dummy..

This is a Fifth Amendment issue because it violates due process procedure.

which is why I never CALLED it a search warrant, dipshit.

The 5th amendment you cited DOES NOT APPLY in regards to an ARREST warrant not being shown to someone when they are arrested.

God.. you even FAIL at FAILing

Not to mention, in what universe are legal documents housed in a computer??

Now these days the cops are like "trust me take my word for it you have a warrant."

Only a dumb republican would accept such bullshit...

Criminal Procedure (Encyclopedia of Everyday Law) - eNotes.com

Case Law Interpreting the Fifth Amendment

Once a suspect has been arrested or taken into CUSTODY, the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are triggered

5th amendment...POST arrest, not PRE arrest.

moron.

 

[Peach]

The black looked like he was casing the neighborhood, hence the 911 call.

The skittle-eater wasn't attacked. He did the attacking.

The victim was on his cell phone while attacking? The killer had called 911; told not to follow the kid while he cursed "these a**holes" . No mention of any threat from the victim, just the killer's rage. Who is delusional enough to believe the teenager was the attacker?

Just a troll.

Thanks Bodecea. Odd bunch, those trolls...................................

 

[Mustang]

I'm not confused you're confused...

nope, still you who is confused...



you claim here that not showing you an arrest warrant is a 5th amendment violation.

Here is a link to the 5th amendment text on wiki...
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

none of that applies to your not seeing an arrest warrant.

Now, the 4th amendment might at least have been more relevant to your comment...
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

...but it still does not say that you are required to be SHOWN an arrest warrant upon arrest.

You confused the 5th and 4th amendments.

This wasn't a search warrant it was an arrest warrant dummy..

This is a Fifth Amendment issue because it violates due process procedure.

I've never heard of a court case which set a precedent that in order to make an arrest, an arrest warrant had to be physically presented to someone first.

Search warrants? Yes. Arrest warrants? No. Could that be because people who are about to get arrested aren't likely to wait for a warrant to be presented or read?

 

[Salt Jones]

The kid was black, that's enough for him to be murdered according to a few posters on this thread. They just are too sissified to say so.

 

[Conservative]

nope, still you who is confused...



you claim here that not showing you an arrest warrant is a 5th amendment violation.

Here is a link to the 5th amendment text on wiki...
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

none of that applies to your not seeing an arrest warrant.

Now, the 4th amendment might at least have been more relevant to your comment...
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...but it still does not say that you are required to be SHOWN an arrest warrant upon arrest.

You confused the 5th and 4th amendments.

This wasn't a search warrant it was an arrest warrant dummy..

This is a Fifth Amendment issue because it violates due process procedure.

I've never heard of a court case which set a precedent that in order to make an arrest and arrest warrant had to be physically presented to someone first.

Search warrants? Yes. Arrest warrants? No. Could that be because people who are about to get arrested aren't likely to wait for a warrant to be presented or read?

He's confusing amendments, and refuses to admit his error.

 

[Peach]

nope, still you who is confused...



you claim here that not showing you an arrest warrant is a 5th amendment violation.

Here is a link to the 5th amendment text on wiki...
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

none of that applies to your not seeing an arrest warrant.

Now, the 4th amendment might at least have been more relevant to your comment...
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...but it still does not say that you are required to be SHOWN an arrest warrant upon arrest.

You confused the 5th and 4th amendments.

This wasn't a search warrant it was an arrest warrant dummy..

This is a Fifth Amendment issue because it violates due process procedure.

I've never heard of a court case which set a precedent that in order to make an arrest and arrest warrant had to be physically presented to someone first.

Search warrants? Yes. Arrest warrants? No. Could that be because people who are about to get arrested aren't likely to wait for a warrant to be presented or read?

Police have fill in the blank warrants in their pockets I gather.............................but NOT in FLORIDA.

 

[Mr.Nick]

which is why I never CALLED it a search warrant, dipshit.

The 5th amendment you cited DOES NOT APPLY in regards to an ARREST warrant not being shown to someone when they are arrested.

God.. you even FAIL at FAILing

Not to mention, in what universe are legal documents housed in a computer??

Now these days the cops are like "trust me take my word for it you have a warrant."

Only a dumb republican would accept such bullshit...

Criminal Procedure (Encyclopedia of Everyday Law) - eNotes.com

Case Law Interpreting the Fifth Amendment

Once a suspect has been arrested or taken into CUSTODY, the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are triggered

5th amendment...POST arrest, not PRE arrest.

moron.

A) your reading comprehension sucks, B) you are retarded to the term "due process."

Strike 13

How many times have I said "due process" now???

 

[Conservative]

Not to mention, in what universe are legal documents housed in a computer??

Now these days the cops are like "trust me take my word for it you have a warrant."

Only a dumb republican would accept such bullshit...

Criminal Procedure (Encyclopedia of Everyday Law) - eNotes.com

Case Law Interpreting the Fifth Amendment

Once a suspect has been arrested or taken into CUSTODY, the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are triggered

5th amendment...POST arrest, not PRE arrest.

moron.

A) your reading comprehension sucks, B) you are retarded to the term "due process."

Strike 13

How many times have I said "due process" now???

you can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't suddenly make you right.

I have linked twice now to sources showing you you're wrong. Live with the shame, asshat.

 

[Peach]

The kid was black, that's enough for him to be murdered according to a few posters on this thread. They just are too sissified to say so.

Salt, that is what scares me. The victim is now the the bad guy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Eventually the libtards will give up trying to sell this shit like they did that Flucke BS.

Try dropping it.....maybe there wouldn't be so much anonymous.

 

[Peach]

Eventually the libtards will give up trying to sell this shit like they did that Flucke BS.

Try dropping it.....maybe there wouldn't be so much anonymous.

Will the pity for Dharun Ravi ever end with the hard right?

 

[Ariux]

The victim was on his cell phone while attacking?

Neither the victim nor the black were on a cell phone at the time the black attacked the Jewish Mr. Zimmerman. The only one on the phone at the time was someone overhearing the attack, who called 911.

The killer had called 911; told not to follow the kid

Your use of the term "killer" is prejudicial. Please try to keep prejudice out of this.

It could be argued that Zimmerman thought the police wanted him to follow the black. The operator told him to relay what was happening. Following someone for the purpose of reporting to the police is no evidence of attacking someone.

However, the black told his girlfriend on the phone "Som whitte muddafucker id on mu six. I'm gonna fuck 'im up. Beatch." The girlfriend hasn't admitted to this, but you know it was said.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Criminal Procedure (Encyclopedia of Everyday Law) - eNotes.com


5th amendment...POST arrest, not PRE arrest.

moron.

A) your reading comprehension sucks, B) you are retarded to the term "due process."

Strike 13

How many times have I said "due process" now???

you can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't suddenly make you right.

I have linked twice now to sources showing you you're wrong. Live with the shame, asshat.

I'm not wrong.... You odd precedence.

Showing up at an individuals door without a warrant is a Fifth Amendment violation.

Breaking into ones home is a Fourth Amendment violation..

Both occurred in the video.

Attacking an individual when they want to consult with an attorney - priceless..

 

[mudwhistle]

Eventually the libtards will give up trying to sell this shit like they did that Flucke BS.

Try dropping it.....maybe there wouldn't be so much anonymous.

Will the pity for Dharun Ravi ever end with the hard right?

Hun. My nephew is black. Florida is a bad place for blacks, dependent on where you live. I was his legal guardian after his mother died.

Like I've been saying all along......I don't go for all of this selective moral-outrage.

 

[Conservative]

You're just interpreting ideas through your own logic...

NOT PROVIDING A WARRANT IS A FIFTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION.

Never mind anything else that happened - the fact the cop said "we don't have the warrant - it's in the computer" then that idiot should have gone and got a copy...

End of story...

Everything after that is defunct..

I am reading the text of the 5th amendment, and NONE of it applies.

If not providing an arrest warrant at the moment of arrest is a 5th amendment violation, then almost every arrest in the US...EVER... is unconstitutional. Even YOU can't be mind bogglingly stupid enough to believe that. Can you?

That's because you don't have the mental capacity to click the link "due process" on your wiki page..

coming from a man that cannot figure out that 5th amendment protections begin AFTER an arrest, I find your comments about mental capacity rather amusing.

 

[Salt Jones]

The victim was on his cell phone while attacking?

Neither the victim nor the black were on a cell phone at the time the black attacked the Jewish Mr. Zimmerman. The only one on the phone at the time was someone overhearing the attack, who called 911.

The killer had called 911; told not to follow the kid

Your use of the term "killer" is prejudicial. Please try to keep prejudice out of this.

It could be argued that Zimmerman thought the police wanted him to follow the black. The operator told him to relay what was happening. Following someone for the purpose of reporting to the police is no evidence of attacking someone.

However, the black told his girlfriend on the phone "Som whitte muddafucker id on mu six. I'm gonna fuck 'im up. Beatch." The girlfriend hasn't admitted to this, but you know it was said.

Yeah. because that's how you imagined it happen as you sit with your tissues and Jergen's.

 

[Mr.Nick]

If they wanted my brother like he was "Billy the fucking kid" they could have provided a warrant.

 

[Conservative]

A) your reading comprehension sucks, B) you are retarded to the term "due process."

Strike 13

How many times have I said "due process" now???

you can say it as many times as you like, it doesn't suddenly make you right.

I have linked twice now to sources showing you you're wrong. Live with the shame, asshat.

I'm not wrong.... You odd precedence.

Showing up at an individuals door without a warrant is a Fifth Amendment violation.

Breaking into ones home is a Fourth Amendment violation..

Both occurred in the video.

Attacking an individual when they want to consult with an attorney - priceless..

the police said there was an arrest warrant on file. The Supreme Court has held that the actual physical arrest warrant need not be shown immediately at the time of arrest. The 5th amendment protections begin POST arrest, not PRE arrest. No one broke into the home, as the door was opened from the inside. Had the man in the video not placed his hand on the officer (as I pointed out to you earlier) it would have gone much differently. The police did not attack the man in the video, they reacted accordingly, given his attitude and aggression.

Again, on all counts, you FAIL.