patrick.net

Strategist says

People who harm others don't deserve their liberties.

WTF does that have to do with people who DON'T harm others like the woman in the article that you referenced in the original post.

By the way, I completely agree that "people who harm others don't deserve their liberties" and should be locked up. And "people" includes cops. Cops who harm others don't deserve their liberty and should be locked up just like any other criminal would be.

I'm not sure you truly believe that "people who harm others don't deserve their liberties" because you make an exception for cops who commit crimes, even first degree felonies.

The thing that you and I keep arguing about is that you think having a police badge is a get-out-of-jail-free card that can be used an indefinite number of times. In contrast, I say that using a badge to commit the crime makes the crime worse because you are using the power of the state, breaching the trust of the public, and corrupting the government and the judicial system.

Sometimes it seems to me that people who attract attention of the police have some sort of karma or malady that attracts such acts, similar to people who gravitate towards alcoholics or batterers in relationships without "meaning to."

When I was poor the police paid me a lot more attention than they do now, when they largely ignore me.

When I was poor and drove a 20 year old dented beater, they would follow me for miles waiting for me to change a lane without signaling or go over the speed limit. Sometimes they would ride my ass on purpose to try to get me to speed up.

That's why I believe in income based fines like Finland. Cops would be more diverse in traffic stops.

Dan8267 says

Placing a person in handcuffs against his will is, by definition, both "a forcible restraint" and "an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty" and is "the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority".

The amusing aspect of this is you are bolstering my point and you are not aware of it. Notice how many times the word "custody" comes up in all your citations? Now look back at how many times I mentioned "custodial" (versus merely "investigative") as being essential to determining arrest. Again, this would not happen if you had a better understanding of the fourth amendment.

Dan8267 says

I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest

I am not sure what you mean by "form of" arrest, but I guess this an improvement over your earlier statement:

Dan8267 says

Regardless of what you call it, placing a civilian in handcuffs is by definition arrest.

Either way, the point is, you are (or were) arguing that it was a matter of black and white while knee deep in a world of grey, and I think you see that now. If you really want to understand why what the cop did in LA was legal, I encourage you to go back and read, not just the citations, but the actual cases themselves on your cite: http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/45

Your zeal is admirable, but it truly would be so much better served if you understood the 4th amendment underpinnings that affect police procedure.

CDon says

Your zeal is admirable, but it truly would be so much better served if you understood the 4th amendment underpinnings that affect police procedure.

That's not a counter-argument. That's like insert counter-argument here.

Unless you present an counter-argument, I've got nothing more to add.

Dan8267 says

CDon says

Your zeal is admirable, but it truly would be so much better served if you understood the 4th amendment underpinnings that affect police procedure.

That's not a counter-argument. That's like insert counter-argument here.

Unless you present an counter-argument, I've got nothing more to add.

it isn't meant to be one. As to my points of law, specifically what it says about detention vs custody, do you have anything to add?

Dan8267 says

Yep I made a mistake. I meant to say the police would have booked her rather than arrest her. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect. Occasionally, I err.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't one need to be first arrested in order to be booked?

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/booking.html

CDon says

doesn't one need to be first arrested in order to be booked

Yes, although I don't see what point you are trying to make.

My only stances in this thread have been
1. The woman did not break any laws.
2. The cop did break California law by illegally using arrest and the threat of imprisonment to force the woman to show her ID.
3. The cop should face prosecution the crimes he committed.

Nothing you said conflicts with any of those points.

Dan8267 says

CDon says

doesn't one need to be first arrested in order to be booked

Yes, although I don't see what point you are trying to make.

My only stances in this thread have been

1. The woman did not break any laws.

2. The cop did break California law by illegally using arrest and the threat of imprisonment to force the woman to show her ID.

3. The cop should face prosecution the crimes he committed.

Nothing you said conflicts with any of those points.

1 is correct.
2 and 3 hinge upon whether this was an investigative detention or a custodial interrogation, based on the particular facts and circumstances. I have laid out why 2 (and hence 3) are nowhere near as clear cut, black and white as you claim them to be.

But again, this is based upon my reading and understading of the 4th amendment, specifically as modified by Terry. If you read the 4th and Terry differently as applied to this instance, please explain how this is the clear cut slam dunk case of 2 and 3 you claim it to be.

CDon says

4th amendment

The Fourth Amendment is irrelevant. The woman was handcuff and threatened with imprisonment for not giving her ID when she was not legally bound to do so. This is a violation of California Law. As the LA Times article says, the police cannot arrest or threaten a person with arrest for "merely for refusing to provide ID".

Some states require you to identify yourself to the police and some states do not. California is one of the states that does not. Therefore, the actions of the cop were indeed illegal.

Furthermore, it is transparently obvious that the cop was not asking for ID in order to investigate whether or not a crime had happened. As the video shows, the cop explicitly said,

"I do have more power than you," says Sgt. Jim Parker. "When I tell you to do something you have to do it, ma'am, that's the law."

Aside from the obvious fact that a cop telling you to do something does not make it the law -- a cop could tell you to suck his dick -- this statement does indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that the cop was only interested in exercising his authority, humiliating the woman, and getting her to submit to him. This is the quintessential example of an ego trip. The cop was using his power not to uphold the law but to enjoy having power over another human being.

If you don't think that should be illegal -- and by the way, it is -- then what kind of a world do you want to live in?

Police authority should never be used to dehumanize another person or to gratify a person's desire to get off by dominating another person against his or her will. It's basically the psychological equivalent of rape and what people mean when they say "rape isn't about sex; it's about power". This cop is no different than a rapist. Same mindset.

Rape is a particularly difficult crime because it's about both power and violence. Rapists use sex organs as the locus of their violence, but rape isn't about sex, at least not in the sense of being motivated by sexual attraction or an uncontrollable sexual urge. Rape is about sex in the sense that rapists not only commit acts of sexual violence, but that the pervasive threat of sexual assault is used to limit women's sovereignty and justify sexual assault itself.

Rapists don't rape because they can't "get" sex elsewhere. Rapists don't rape because they're uncontrollably turned on by the sight of some cleavage, or a midriff, or red lipstick, or an ankle. They rape because they're misogynist sadists, and they flourish in places where misogyny is justified as tradition and maleness comes with a presumption of violence.

Sounds like police culture.

What mental disorder do these retards have that leaves them to defend The State/LEO , at every turn.

These people can't possibly be Americans.

Oh wait a minute , was the victim black (or at least non- white)?

Dan, for the record, my only point here is an extremely limited one, which starts and stops on what the law is. As to your zeal of what "should be" or as to whats "right" or whats not, if you must know, I agree with you on a decent portion of what you said.

Ok, so with that out of the way, lets unpack the portion of your response that had to do with my extremely limited point:

Dan8267 says

The Fourth Amendment is irrelevant. The woman was handcuff and threatened with imprisonment for not giving her ID when she was not legally bound to do so. This is a violation of California Law. As the LA Times article says, the police cannot arrest or threaten a person with arrest for "merely for refusing to provide ID".

Some states require you to identify yourself to the police and some states do not. California is one of the states that does not. Therefore, the actions of the cop were indeed illegal.

The fourth amendment is both the beginning and the end for what myself, the guys over at the ACLU, or anyone who makes their living based in part on the bad behavior of cops in these sort of situations. Now as to the ID question, your citation over at the ACLU said it best:

"If you really haven't done anything wrong, knowing your identity could help police resolve their investigation in your favor, and refusing to provide identification could prolong it.

For example, suppose a neighbor reports a burglary at your house and police arrive at the moment you happen to be carrying a computer out of the house. They would have a reason to detain you to investigate the burglary call, but you might be able to clear up the situation by showing your ID to prove you live there. In that case, refusing to show ID could make their investigation take longer even though it's not illegal to refuse.

Providing identification can also just help an interaction with police go more smoothly. Police may want to check for warrants so they can be sure you aren't a dangerous, wanted criminal. They may be less nervous if they feel they know who they're dealing with. "

As part of the police investigative powers, they can ascertain who you are. This is in no way requires her to provide her ID (which would violate CA law), but as I said way upthhread, not everyone has an ID, so the police can investigate by other means if necessary.

Now, what are those means? US v. Terry indicates that placing someone in handcuffs is indeed legal if (and only if) it is part of an investigative detention. Hence, myself, the guy at the ACLU (which per my emphasis also focused on the investigative nature of this Terry stop) see it the same way. To wit, this is the case of a passive aggressive, snarky, power tripping cop who probably did nothing illegal

So once, again, you keep saying this is "indeed illegal" as if this is a black and white matter. If so, please cite specifically why my reading of the 4th, as applied to this situation is incorrect.

Dan8267 says

I'm not sure you truly believe that "people who harm others don't deserve their liberties" because you make an exception for cops who commit crimes, even first degree felonies.

The thing that you and I keep arguing about is that you think having a police badge is a get-out-of-jail-free card that can be used an indefinite number of times. In contrast, I say that using a badge to commit the crime makes the crime worse because you are using the power of the state, breaching the trust of the public, and corrupting the government and the judicial system.

For the record........No one is above the law. Cops should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us because of the trust we bestow on them.
You have stated most cops are criminals. That is just plain silly.

thunderlips11 says

When I was poor the police paid me a lot more attention than they do now, when they largely ignore me.

When I was poor and drove a 20 year old dented beater, they would follow me for miles waiting for me to change a lane without signaling or go over the speed limit. Sometimes they would ride my ass on purpose to try to get me to speed up.

That's why I believe in income based fines like Finland. Cops would be more diverse in traffic stops.

That's because when you were poor, you were younger, drove beat up old cars, lived in not the best neighborhood, which is why they followed you. You had met the profile of a potential criminal.

Policemen have instincts. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are not. When they sense a "wrong" picture they may pay more attention.

There is already something like an income-based fine. It is called a lawsuit.

This is why rich people should not drive.

sbh says

Superfluous punctuation

At least it is not in ALL CAPS. :-)

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

. The woman did not break any laws.

Hmmm, "lewd conduct in public" isn't illegal in California...

Talk about a liberal state!!

It is a crime.

Except as provided in subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

(a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/2/s647#sthash.AQN7GWq0.dpuf

From the photos released and witness accounts of the event, she did commit a crime, as well as a littering infraction. However....under California law I believe she could not have been arrested for a misdemeanor by the police officer, because he did not witness the event, unless the office manager who confronted her or another witness made a citizen's arrest against the couple in the cop's presence.

Strategist says

You had met the profile of a potential criminal.

Yet, I did not cause a financial crisis nor misrepresent trash securities as AAA+ safe.

The princess was charged yesterday with lewd acts in public. Cop had a trump card, he's gay and made it very publicly known he has a husband after the incident. Gay card beats race card every day of the week here in California.

So her sympathy eroded and the cops are going to make her pay for causing such a headache over being asked for ID. Like the cop stated, this would have all been over in 5 minutes if she had just shown ID

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/django-unchained-actress-charged-lewd-act-alleged-sex-public-article-1.1982154

Ha Ha Ha
So all the bullshit about rights that Dan doled out to us was just that....Bullshit.
Dan, we used common sense while looking at the incident, while you used emotion.
Are you sorry?

Oh, no. The cops, trying to cover their illegal actions, submitted false charges against their victims. That's never happened before.

Too bad almost all cases don't go to trial. People cop a plea because they are threaten with "six months in jail" if they don't and just a fine if they do. I'd like to see the evidence in this case.

Oh, and witness testimony ain't evidence. Let's see those phone camera videos. So far they only allegedly have a few pictures showing "her straddling her boyfriend", which isn't a sexual act.

Oh, and let's not forget that the police were investigating a prostitution call in, not sex in public. So, yes, it's still bullshit. And she WAS arrested for not showing ID, not for public lewdness. So, yes, it's still major bullshit.

I hope she insists on a jury trial and then sues the fuck out of the police department after being acquitted.

Dan8267 says

Oh, and witness testimony ain't evidence. Let's see those phone camera videos. So far they only allegedly have a few pictures showing "her straddling her boyfriend", which isn't a sexual act.

So pictures and multiple witness accounts isn't good enough for you? If they wasted their time and did a DNA test on the sperm stained tissues she used to clean herself with and then tossed out the car, would you still stubbornly defend her? I agree it's a pretty petty thing to charge her with such a minor crime so late after the fact, but lets not act like she's an innocent victim in all this.

lakermania says

So pictures and multiple witness accounts isn't good enough for you?

Pictures are, if they actually show sexual intercourse. Witnesses aren't.

Why are eyewitnesses unreliable?

An eyewitness may not be reliable for several reasons

Eyewitness Misidentification

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in 72% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

Eyewitness Memory is Unreliable

Eyewitness identifications greatly sway both police and juries. As the Thomson example illustrates, an eyewitness identification can even outweigh a strong alibi supported by other testimony. This is sometimes unfortunate because eyewitness memory is highly fallible.

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate

Read all of these references and tell me if you still believe in eye-witness testimony.

lakermania says

she's an innocent victim in all this.

No, actually that is the point. Even if she did commit a crime -- and there is still no reason to believe that -- but just for the sake of argument, let's say she did. Even then, she was arrested, not for having sex in public, but rather for refusing to show ID. So the arrest itself was illegal regardless of any charges made after the fact.

The arrest itself WAS A CRIME. So she is an innocent victim as far as that arrest is concerned.

Remember that in the state of California, where this arrest took place, a person is under NO legal obligation to present ID to the police. Period. That's the bottom line.

The arresting officer should lose his job and be prosecuted for false arrest. If she isn't convicted for lewd behavior, any officer or DA pressing such charges should be arrested as well for filing false charges.

Dan8267 says

No, actually that is the point. Even if she did commit a crime -- and there is still no reason to believe that -- but just for the sake of argument, let's say she did. Even then, she was arrested, not for having sex in public, but rather for refusing to show ID. So the arrest itself was illegal regardless of any charges made after the fact.

This will just get into a debate of whether or not she was arrested or detained. But to date, she has not been taken into custody and booked, although she will eventually have to show up to be booked now. The only reason she was put into a police car and handcuffed in the first place, was because she left the scene and the cop had to call a female officer to bring her back because he wisely knew it wouldn't end up good for anyone, if he tried to restrain her.

You can argue til your blue in the face on whether or not you need to show ID in California, but it's just best for everyone to do what the ACLU of California advises you to do, show your ID or you will likely be arrested.

Dan8267 says

Oh, no. The cops, trying to cover their illegal actions, submitted false charges against their victims. That's never happened before.

It's happened, but not this time.

Dan8267 says

Too bad almost all cases don't go to trial. People cop a plea because they are threaten with "six months in jail" if they don't and just a fine if they do. I'd like to see the evidence in this case.

I hope you get that opportunity, and I hope she goes to jail for having sex in public. His penis was inside her vagina when she was pumping away. I think it's called sex.

Dan8267 says

Oh, and witness testimony ain't evidence. Let's see those phone camera videos. So far they only allegedly have a few pictures showing "her straddling her boyfriend", which isn't a sexual act.

What do you think she was doing?

Dan8267 says

Oh, and let's not forget that the police were investigating a prostitution call in, not sex in public. So, yes, it's still bullshit. And she WAS arrested for not showing ID, not for public lewdness. So, yes, it's still major bullshit.

The callers would not know for sure wether she was a prostitute or not. The cop arrived to find out. She was arrested for walking away from a crime scene.

Dan8267 says

I hope she insists on a jury trial and then sues the fuck out of the police department after being acquitted.

So do I. I would love to see her ass in jail. I'm sure they will pay the fine, and bask in the sunshine of free publicity. :(

Dan8267 says

lakermania says

she's an innocent victim in all this.

No, actually that is the point. Even if she did commit a crime -- and there is still no reason to believe that -- but just for the sake of argument, let's say she did. Even then, she was arrested, not for having sex in public, but rather for refusing to show ID. So the arrest itself was illegal regardless of any charges made after the fact.

The arrest itself WAS A CRIME. So she is an innocent victim as far as that arrest is concerned.

She was arrested for walking away from a crime scene. That's a crime you know. If the arrest was a crime how come she is the one facing a 6 month jail term?

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Too bad almost all cases don't go to trial. People cop a plea because they are threaten with "six months in jail" if they don't and just a fine if they do. I'd like to see the evidence in this case.

I hope you get that opportunity, and I hope she goes to jail for having sex in public. His penis was inside her vagina when she was pumping away. I think it's called sex.

Dan won't acknowledge anything unless he can view the video on Youtube. Then he'll accept the evidence.

Ha ha ha. There can't be no video to show the penis entering her vagina. Therefore, according to Dan, it never happened.
Hello Dan? What do you think happened when you were conceived? No video, therefore you do not exist.

Dan8267 says

Even then, she was arrested, not for having sex in public, but rather for refusing to show ID. So the arrest itself was illegal regardless of any charges made after the fact.

The arrest itself WAS A CRIME. So she is an innocent victim as far as that arrest is concerned.

Remember that in the state of California, where this arrest took place, a person is under NO legal obligation to present ID to the police. Period. That's the bottom line.

The arresting officer should lose his job and be prosecuted for false arrest. If she isn't convicted for lewd behavior, any officer or DA pressing such charges should be arrested as well for filing false charges.

Please don't start this again Dan. You have again turned yourself around here. Go back to post 94 - you yourself admitted she was NOT arrested.

After that, please go back and review the caselaw surrounding Terry vs. Ohio. Understand this, and I promise you, all your misunderstandings about what happened back in September when she was legally detained will become much much clearer.

lakermania says

You can argue til your blue in the face on whether or not you need to show ID in California, but it's just best for everyone to do what the ACLU of California advises you to do, show your ID or you will likely be arrested.

Ah, but that's a damn important point. First off, you aren't required to carry ID. Second, you aren't require to show it to the police in CA even if its convenient to them or to you. It's irrelevant if it's sensible to show ID; it's not illegal not to. Third, the police cannot make up laws on the spot.

If YOU want there to be a law requiring citizens to show ID to the police then you should petition your legislators do pass one. It is not a valid statement that an arrest is legal simply because someone did something you want to be illegal. If that were the case, ever person going to church would be arrested because I want religion to be illegal. My wanting it does not make it law. The same applies to you and to cops.

Strategist says

It's happened, but not this time.

Insert evidence here.

Strategist says

His penis was inside her vagina when she was pumping away. I think it's called sex.

Insert evidence here.

Strategist says

What do you think she was doing?

The same thing I do with your mom, make out vigorously.

Strategist says

The cop arrived to find out. She was arrested for walking away from a crime scene.

That's not true. It wasn't even a crime scene. It was just an anonymous tip.

She was arrested for refusing to show her ID. And although that would be perfectly valid in any state that had a law requiring people to identify themselves to the police, that isn't the case in California. Just because police want such a law doesn't mean they get to make it up on the spot. The police don't pass laws. The legislative body does.

Maybe this video will help you understand. It's about the federal government, but it applies to states as well.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/x5M50xBz1cU

Strategist says

I would love to see her ass in jail.

Ah, but why is that? Is it because she's a threat to society? No. It's because she didn't placate to a cop and you feel that reflects your bad relationship with your son. You don't really want to punish her. You want to punish your son, but you're using her as a proxy for your anger. And that is why you should never be allowed on a jury.

Dan8267 says

Ah, now we see the reason Strategist has such a hard-on for authority. Whenever he sees cops he thinks of his relationship with his son. Strategist probably has fantasies of being a cop and taking his frustration with his son out on other people as proxies.

You are not a cop and suspects are not your son. The cop-civilian relationship has nothing to do with your relationship with your son. Get over it.

Call it Crazy says

Dan won't acknowledge anything unless he can view the video on Youtube. Then he'll accept the evidence.

Empirically false. Evidence is evidence. You just choose to discard YouTube because there is so much video evidence on that site that you cannot refute. You have yet to show a single reason why any evidence I have ever reference is invalid.

Strategist says

There can't be no video to show the penis entering her vagina. Therefore, according to Dan, it never happened.

And what evidence of any sort is there that she was having sex in public? The photographs shown nothing of the sort. Eyewitness testimony is utterly unreliable and there is no way that eye witnesses could tell the difference between sexual intercourse, dry humping, and simply making out.

Once again, you bigots are left with zero evidence to support your case.

CDon says

Please don't start this again Dan. You have again turned yourself around here. Go back to post 94 - you yourself admitted she was NOT arrested.

You have no problem with bold-face lying, do you? Here's what I actually said...

Dan8267 says

Yep I made a mistake. I meant to say the police would have booked her rather than arrest her. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect. Occasionally, I err.

I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest as defined here. And to back that up, New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.

The fact that conservatives want this woman to be imprisoned without any evidence to support she did anything illegal is a demonstration of how despicable conservative culture is and how the conservatives are indeed fighting a War on Women.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I would love to see her ass in jail.

Ah, but why is that? Is it because she's a threat to society? No. It's because she didn't placate to a cop and you feel that reflects your bad relationship with your son. You don't really want to punish her. You want to punish your son, but you're using her as a proxy for your anger. And that is why you should never be allowed on a jury.

I want to see her ass in jail because she deserves it.
Me having issues with my son is just what every other father has. Nothing out of the ordinary. I am extremely proud of him. At age 18 he achieved junior standing at his University. He got himself a campus job at the gym, the paycheck he will invest. He got his own credit card when he turned 18, and so far has always paid it on time, 2 weeks before due date. I put money in his account, and he pays the tuition and housing cost on his own.
Trust me, I am extremely proud of him, and he knows it. :)

black ppl

Strategist says

I put money in his account,

So he's a freeloader.

Call it Crazy says

Dan, why are you resorting to personal attacks?

You can't tell the difference between a rational judgement and a baseless personal attack? Stop watching Fox News.

Dan8267 says

You have no problem with bold-face lying, do you? Here's what I actually said...

Dan8267 says

Yep I made a mistake. I meant to say the police would have booked her rather than arrest her. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect. Occasionally, I err.

I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest as defined here. And to back that up, New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.

Actually, I have a huge problem with baldface lying so I sincerely apologize if you think I was accusing you of that.

I seriously did not think you were going to rely on Quarles, the landmark Supreme Court public safety case for exceptions to Miranda as being relevant here. That is a pretty extraordinary view.

You also cite US v. Purry. As you know these cases are very fact specific, and Purry involved shotguns, skimasks, getaway vehicles, tear gas, the works! Putting aside this was in the DC circuit so its only persuasive authority for California (9th) - in what way are the facts of Purry relevant to a person being handcuffed in broad daylight in the middle of Studio City?

Put another way, how is a woman being handcuffed for alleged prostitution by an assholeish, snarky, bullying cop a "form of arrest" under the maxims set forth in Purry and especially Quarles??? Really???

I mean, we can get back to the other parts of your view of what happened later, but I simply don't see how someone as anti-law enforcement as you would ever advocate for a case like Quarles as being even persuasive authority. Did you really mean that???

CDon says

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect.

That is another error

indigenous says

CDon says

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect.

That is another error

Contrary to popular belief, Dan thinks he is perfect.

There should be an ID # & a list of all Rep/Con/Tea individuals & businesses that are receiving any form of Big Govt. Socialism.