Obama says Police acted stupidly!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
If the police have "resaonable suspision" that a crime has or will be commmited they can ask or briefly detain you. If you refuse to provide information, and they do not otherwise have probable cause to show you have committed a crime... they are SOL.
That does not mean that many dont just arrest you anyway then lie about it.
That does not mean that many dont just arrest you anyway then lie about it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Every time you say something ignorant like the above, I question whether you are actually a lawyer.
The 4th amendment protects against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. They had more than enough probable cause to investigate. The forced entry was there (not only from this event but also from a prior break in) and a witness called in the situation to 911...
Asking for ID to verify ownership of the property is NOT unreasonable in that situation. Period.
You have been lawyered
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)
You do not even know what you are talking about. Terms like "Probable Cause" are terms of art, they have very specific meaning. A cop does not have to have "probable cause" to investigate anything. They can investigate anything just because they want to.
I said the cop has everyright to ask for ID, the dude does not however have to provide it. Read the posts I write and stip jumping to conculsions that I am making claims that I am not.
They police would have to have "probable cause" to arrest someone, and untill the guy started yelling they did not have that.
Had the dude merely said no, they would have not had probable cause to arrest the guy for anything!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) You proclaimed the guy didn't have to provide ID because of the 4th Amendment. I showed you that the 4th protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Nothing in the 4th suggests protects the professor from having to provide the ID. Nothing.
2) As Dung pointed out, the Supreme Court already ruled on this topic. They only have to have 'reasonable suspicion' in order to arrest the subject. In this case, not only did they have reasonable suspicion, but they also had probably cause. When there are signs of a break in at the scene of a reported crime, THAT is probable cause if you are the one standing in the house when the cops arrive. That is why the cops ask for ID you idiot. To eliminate him as a suspect.
If they have "reasonable suspicion". They did not in the present case.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I will re-address your edited version....
1) Yes, you have the right to refuse.... and if you do, they have the right to arrest you. Period. Supreme Court ruled on it as Dung pointed out.
2) Please explain what you mean by 'check the 4th' because when I originally addressed your stupidity and stated that the 4th protects against UNREASONABLE search and seizure, you stated I didn't know what I was talking about. So tell us why you think the 4th protects him from showing his ID.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So posting the Supreme Court Ruling on this very issue that says exactly what I just did..... that to you means I am the one that doesn't know what he is talking about? I truly feel sorry for any idiot that hires you as his lawyer.
what was that thread the other day about 'conservatives' getting stronger in their convictions even after being proven to be wrong?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
you moron.... they not only had 'reasonable suspicion', they had probable cause.
There was a call into 911 that stated two men were seen forcing their way into a home. That right there casts suspicion on anyone they find in the home. The fact that the front door showed the signs of forced entry is probable cause.
You fucking moron.
Much like your messiah, you weigh in not knowing shit about the facts of this issue...you admit,
"Obama says Police acted stupidly!
He should not have weighed in on an issue he himself admitted he does not know about. "
Maybe there is hope...you can certainly see that your messiah can be wrong at times...actually, he looks like an asshole for opening his pie hole over this....
Maybe in the future you might recognize what a fuck up Obama really is in most of the crap he spews....the lies are blatant enough so that even you can see them if you care to lift an eyelid....
"resaonable suspision" the key to determine if the search or seizure was unreasonable or not.
That is not "probable cause", no court would call that probable cause.
I started this thread because I like to point out when I disagree with someone who I usually agree with.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You were correct, you didn't say "IN".
I got your comment mixed up with another apologist and waht you said was:
Now that we have that cleared up, what does it matter if he was arrested at his house??
Are you now contending that Blacks cann't be arrested, if thery're at their house??
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
OH, they understand it.
They're just ignoring it; because it doesn't help their agenda of demonizing an honest WHITE Police Office.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You're right, you have the right to refuse.
And then, you have the right to take the 5th; so that anything you say isn't used against you, when you're taken into custody.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Would you care to explain why you think they didn't have "resonable suspicion"??
*This should be entertaining*
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
call to a burglary in process...signs of forced entry...and you don't call that probable cause?
pssssssssst....common law no longer applies in virtually every state....so the nighttime requirement no longer is necessary