+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
 
  1. #11
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Not James, but I have a brain and two good eyes. Please, by all means, what "probable cause to arrest" existed? What probable cause to lawfully detain existed? Yelling at someone "get back here" is not a lawful command. You must inform a person that they are legally being detained and why. You do understand that nobody has any obligation to speak to police or answer their questions don't you? This is part of the problem, PCSO deputies that do not understand the law or the constitution.
    Ok. I’ll play. The response just above yours explains probable cause pretty clearly. And I’m guessing you don’t understand the difference between probable cause (PC) and beyond and to the exclusion of any and all reasonable doubt. Pretty sure PC existed for trespassing, assault, disorderly conduct and obstruction. As far as your claim that “you must inform a person that they are legally being detained and why.” Do you think we have to use that exact verbiage? We don’t. The fact that we are in uniform and tell someone to stop or come to us actually counts as an execution of our lawful authority and the person should believe and know they are lawfully detained. In fact case law that applies to citizen contacts transitioning into detainments look at those facts. As far as no one has to speak to us or answer questions, you are correct. That’s about the only thing you are correct about. However, that doesn’t mean they get to do what ever they want. And if it’s a matter of a person refusing to identify themselves or provide identification when lawfully stopped, they can refuse to but they can also get charged with it. We understand the law just fine. You fail to understand that we have no moral or lawful obligation to give a shit what you think about it. Have a nice day 🖕🖕🖕🖕

  2. #12
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Bad, Bad, Boys

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Ok. I’ll play. The response just above yours explains probable cause pretty clearly. And I’m guessing you don’t understand the difference between probable cause (PC) and beyond and to the exclusion of any and all reasonable doubt. Pretty sure PC existed for trespassing, assault, disorderly conduct and obstruction. As far as your claim that “you must inform a person that they are legally being detained and why.” Do you think we have to use that exact verbiage? We don’t. The fact that we are in uniform and tell someone to stop or come to us actually counts as an execution of our lawful authority and the person should believe and know they are lawfully detained. In fact case law that applies to citizen contacts transitioning into detainments look at those facts. As far as no one has to speak to us or answer questions, you are correct. That’s about the only thing you are correct about. However, that doesn’t mean they get to do what ever they want. And if it’s a matter of a person refusing to identify themselves or provide identification when lawfully stopped, they can refuse to but they can also get charged with it. We understand the law just fine. You fail to understand that we have no moral or lawful obligation to give a shit what you think about it. Have a nice day 🖕🖕🖕🖕
    You're "pretty sure" probably cause existed for trespassing? Really? Zero evidence of trespassing was available when your boys started playing their escalation game. Now if they'd tried to find the pedophile who allegedly filmed the girls, and look at the tape, then verify with the apartment manager the girls didn't live there, nor did they have a friend who did, perhaps you'd find your proof of this "crime". But they didn't. You guys always, always take the easiest way, the path of least resistance, you pick and choose which laws you THINK apply, forgetting that other laws may supersede. BTW, Butthead, you have no morals. Full stop.

    Sheriff's about to get a comeuppance if he doesn't do the right thing here, and in other pending matters. Not a threat, a statement of pure fact.

  3. #13
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Yawn big talk. But nothing ever happens to the sheriff from you

  4. #14
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    You're "pretty sure" probably cause existed for trespassing? Really? Zero evidence of trespassing was available when your boys started playing their escalation game. Now if they'd tried to find the pedophile who allegedly filmed the girls, and look at the tape, then verify with the apartment manager the girls didn't live there, nor did they have a friend who did, perhaps you'd find your proof of this "crime". But they didn't. You guys always, always take the easiest way, the path of least resistance, you pick and choose which laws you THINK apply, forgetting that other laws may supersede. BTW, Butthead, you have no morals. Full stop.

    Sheriff's about to get a comeuppance if he doesn't do the right thing here, and in other pending matters. Not a threat, a statement of pure fact.
    Nothing you just said resembled a rational thought. What law supersedes another? Where is that written? You offer free range uneducated opinions and insults as a counter to a well thought out and articulate rebuttal. Then you end a paragraph with “full stop”. That’s the period’s job, but whatever. And then you write more, even though you said “full stop”. You should have said “pause for effect”. Good luck storming the castle! So stupid.

  5. #15
    Unregistered
    Guest
    So what do you want police to do nothing??

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •