Arrest mistake

[TweetyBird]

Martlett, do you realize you've insulted every single person who disagreed with you  in this thread?

Just let that hang out there a second -its weighty..

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Martlet
It all matters.  I've cited actual code to support my statement.  It's verifiable.  

Well, I went back and read the thread again. I can't find a single code that you've posted. I did find a link to an article in the Washington Post in reference to a persons right to not talk to government officials. This  link was also in the same post.

The original argument was

Why should they tell anyone that calls who they have in custody?

 The reason stated for withholding this information was privacy. It was assumed that the person in custody had not been arrested, and therefore his detainment was not part of the public record.

The person in question had been handcuffed and transported to the jail. He could very well have agreed to allow the officers to do this, but it is more likely that they told him he was under arrest as they were placing him in handcuffs. It is from this point that he is legaly under arrest, not when the paperwork gets filed down at the station.

The point that a person may be held for questioning without arresting them is valid, but false in the original scenario. He was placed under arrest and taken to the jail.

In most states the officer may legally detain you for investigative purposes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arrest

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=detain

We agree on the fact that it is legal for a law enforcement official to detain you for questioning without formaly placing you under arrest. I believe that you are by definition under arrest if you are being detained.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Lazerus

We agree on the fact that it is legal for a law enforcement official to detain you for questioning without formaly placing you under arrest. I believe that you are by definition under arrest if you are being detained.

Which is fine for you to believe.  However, legally, that is untrue.   We are talking about the law.  At least I am.  If you aren't, then it's a completely different discussion.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Martlett, do you realize you've insulted every single person who disagreed with you  in this thread?

Just let that hang out there a second -its weighty..

You've insulted everyone on here whether they agreed with you or not with your lies and hypocrisy.

THAT'S been hanging out there for a few days now.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Martlet
You've insulted everyone on here whether they agreed with you or not with your lies and hypocrisy.

I can actually HEAR Skuzzy locking the thread.  Pre-emptively, I think we're one step from an accidental realization of Godwin's Law.

Martlet, be sure to wear a nametag to the next con, I think you owe a round of drinks.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Chairboy
I can actually HEAR Skuzzy locking the thread.  Pre-emptively, I think we're one step from an accidental realization of Godwin's Law.

Martlet, be sure to wear a nametag to the next con, I think you owe a round of drinks.

Are you old enough to drink?  I noticed you skipped the acknowledgement that you were completely wrong, and went straight for the ad hom.

good job.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Martlet
We are talking about the law.  At least I am.

I'm talking about both. But I can stick to one.

Originally posted by Lazerus
The point that a person may be held for questioning without arresting them is valid, but false in the original scenario. He was placed under arrest and taken to the jail.

So, legaly, where do you stand on this. Was the fact that he was in custody a matter of public record when he was placed under arrest, or when the paperwork was filed, or when they felt like telling someone?

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Martlet
Are you old enough to drink?  I noticed you skipped the acknowledgement that you were completely wrong, and went straight for the ad hom.

good job.

That's not...  entirely.... accurate.

You discounted his personal experience because it didn't have the weighty presence of a URL.  I think your basic supposition that an internet reference would, by its very nature, automatically trump an eye witness is flawed.

In regards to the ad hominem, I'd like to suggest that you've got that category sewed up.  When you call someone a liar and another person childish as debate techniques, it fits the definition pretty much exactly.  If we were competing, I'd have to concede that title to you immediately.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Lazerus
I'm talking about both. But I can stick to one.

 

So, legaly, where do you stand on this. Was the fact that he was in custody a matter of public record when he was placed under arrest, or when the paperwork was filed, or when they felt like telling someone?

Where I originally stood, or where I stand now?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Chairboy
That's not...  entirely.... accurate.

You discounted his personal experience because it didn't have the weighty presence of a URL.  I think your basic supposition that an internet reference would, by its very nature, automatically trump an eye witness is flawed.

In regards to the ad hominem, I'd like to suggest that you've got that category sewed up.  When you call someone a liar and another person childish as debate techniques, it fits the definition pretty much exactly.  If we were competing, I'd have to concede that title to you immediately.

Actually, it's entirely accurate.  As I stated earlier, and you chose to ignore, you should go back and read the thread.

Code was posted that backed up my claim.  He tried to refute my claim with an unverifiable personal story.  He couldn't even find another case to back up his claim.

If verifiable evidence is presented, it carries more weight than a contradictory tale.

[Lazerus]

Still didn't find that code you posted.

I know where you stood based on what you said earlier, but I was just clarifying some points. Do you not care to answer?

[Chairboy]

Well, I don't have a stake in this either way, so I'm busting out of this thread for now.  In your book, you might count this as a victory, but it's more of a 'whatever'.  With all due respect, this has grown tiresome.

A parting comment, anyone who sets up an absolute is askin' for a beating.  I read your statement as saying 'Lazerus's standard has never been demonstrated in court EVAR".  Your infallibility is limited by the effort others are willing to exercise in finding the exception.  It exists (really, think of how many different judges there are in this country) and may even be the accepted rule.  

At this point, you might start hoping that someone finds it and posts it to counter your statement.  If they don't, it could be argued that nobody finds you important enough to refute.  If they DO post it, then you might smart a little for a moment, but at least you'll know that someone cares.

Regards,

CB

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Still didn't find that code you posted.

I know where you stood based on what you said earlier, but I was just clarifying some points. Do you not care to answer?

On page 2 I linked a few cases, one of which was a SC decision on detention.  Then I requoted this code from Maverick:

State of TEXAS
§ 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows
is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.

It's not that I don't care to answer, I asked a specific clarifying question.  Are you asking me what the original stance I was defending in regards to public record, or my stance is now.  I believe my original stance on public record was inaccurate.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, I don't have a stake in this either way, so I'm busting out of this thread for now.  In your book, you might count this as a victory, but it's more of a 'whatever'.  With all due respect, this has grown tiresome.

A parting comment, anyone who sets up an absolute is askin' for a beating.  I read your statement as saying 'Lazerus's standard has never been demonstrated in court EVAR".  Your infallibility is limited by the effort others are willing to exercise in finding the exception.  It exists (really, think of how many different judges there are in this country) and may even be the accepted rule.  

At this point, you might start hoping that someone finds it and posts it to counter your statement.  If they don't, it could be argued that nobody finds you important enough to refute.  If they DO post it, then you might smart a little for a moment, but at least you'll know that someone cares.

Regards,

CB

Translation:  Oops.  He was right.  My original ad hom was misdirected, and I should have read the thread before making a fool of myself.

[Rolex]

The subjects of this topic has been changed. The subjects were:

1. Tweety's story of his nephew being mistakenly arrested and transported without reasonable identity verification.

2. Tweety having to enlist the aid of the chief and 2 judges to verify his nephew was in custody.

3. The point that those without the benefit of being able to enlist the aid of influential intermediaries may not have gotten the situation resolved as quickly.

Martlet has changed the subject continually to suit his argumentative nature. His 'Dog Snot Diaries' certainly are evidence of an immature, foul-mouthed person. Very disturbing for someone who looks to be in his thirties.