Author Topic: Arrest mistake (Read 5472 times)

Lazerus · « **Reply #180 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:16:08 PM »

I am the link. I was in the courtroom. That's all I got. It was in the City Of Charleston, SC in '93.

It made an impression on me. I still remember the color of the girls hair, the lawyers suit, the embarrassment of the officer when the judge explained what was happening. It was one of things in life that make you sit up and pay attention, and stay with you forever.

Chairboy · « **Reply #181 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:22:07 PM »

So.... you're saying you CAN'T post a link to it? I see....

Martlet · « **Reply #182 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:23:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
I am the link. I was in the courtroom. That's all I got. It was in the City Of Charleston, SC in '93.

It made an impression on me. I still remember the color of the girls hair, the lawyers suit, the embarrassment of the officer when the judge explained what was happening. It was one of things in life that make you sit up and pay attention, and stay with you forever.

Ahhh.

I was in a courtroom once, back when I was Director of the CIA, and distinctly remember a case where the judge declared you made it up.

Lazerus · « **Reply #183 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:30:26 PM »

Well, I told you from the start that I wouldn't. It's just a personal experience of mine that I was posting here. If you think I have a motive to return to this thread 4 days after my last response to post a fabricated story, then so be it.

Martlet · « **Reply #184 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:34:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
Well, I told you from the start that I wouldn't. It's just a personal experience of mine that I was posting here. If you think I have a motive to return to this thread 4 days after my last response to post a fabricated story, then so be it.

Who said I thought that? I'm only repeating what a Judge factually stated.

Lazerus · « **Reply #185 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:53:53 PM »

for martlet only

Tell ya what. If you can find a site that I can reference court transcripts from the City of Charleston in 1993, post it here and I will reference my name to find the date, then I'll search for the trial that I saw. That's the best I can offer you. Other than that,

Quote

The argument here is only a matter of semantics. "Arrest" as defined by procedure is not the same as "arrest" as defined by the liberties granted to all Americans

this is all that really matters. A pissing contest over my integrity doesn't take the discussion anywhere.

Martlet · « **Reply #186 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:58:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
for martlet only

this is all that really matters. A pissing contest over my integrity doesn't take the discussion anywhere.

Neither does arguing a point, then when unable to come up with a single case to bolster it, making one up.

Chairboy · « **Reply #187 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:34:17 PM »

C'mon, Martlett, is your argument really that shaky that you'd seriously accuse him of making it up?

When you first posted the CIA thing, I thought it was a funny joke that Lazerus was just being too serious about, but your subsequent responses make me doubt my original read.

Lazerus · « **Reply #188 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:39:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
A pissing contest over my integrity doesn't take the discussion anywhere.

........again.

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet then when unable to come up with a single case to bolster it

But I did. It's your choice to call me a liar. If that is what you choose to believe, then so be it, but...

Quote

The argument here is only a matter of semantics. "Arrest" as defined by procedure is not the same as "arrest" as defined by the liberties granted to all Americans

...you can choose to continue the discussion with the mutual understanding that my account of what happened in that courtroom is held invalid by yourself because you question my integrity, or continue to harp on the fact that you question my integrity.

I do not argue the fact that there are statutory procedures to legaly place a person under arrest. I am arguing that these procedures are superceded by an individuals constitutional rights, that detaining a person deprives that person of their freedom, and this in fact places them in a state of 'arrest'.

You obviously don't agree. Explain to me why.

Martlet · « **Reply #189 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:41:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
C'mon, Martlett, is your argument really that shaky that you'd seriously accuse him of making it up?

When you first posted the CIA thing, I thought it was a funny joke that Lazerus was just being too serious about, but your subsequent responses make me doubt my original read.

Nah, I don't think he'd make it up. I do, however, question the accuracy of a 12 year old story when the facts are unverifiable and I can't find any other instances of similar judgements to back it up.

I think he just has his facts wrong, and since they can't be verified won't accept it.

Chairboy · « **Reply #190 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:49:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Nah, I don't think he'd make it up. I do, however, question the accuracy of a 12 year old story when the facts are unverifiable and I can't find any other instances of similar judgements to back it up.

I think he just has his facts wrong, and since they can't be verified won't accept it.

Why don't you just call everyone who disagrees with you a poopy head and take your ball home?

At its most basic level, that's what your current argument sounds like. Classical schoolyard debate tactic. If you can't respond to something with a fact that disproves it, attack the source.

"...I'm just saying, it's obvious that he should piss fuel all over the cave entrance to the Decepticon lair and light it on fire. That'll take care of them, episode 22 showed clearly that they can't take flame heat. Any moron can see this is the obvious way to deal with them."
"Interesting idea, but according to the Transformers fan club book, Optimus Prime runs on atomic batteries, not diesel."
"Yeah? Well, your haircut makes you look like a homo. How 'bout THEM fumes?"

Lazerus · « **Reply #191 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:58:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
I do, however, question the accuracy of a 12 year old story when the facts are unverifiable and I can't find any other instances of similar judgements to back it up.

I think he just has his facts wrong, and since they can't be verified won't accept it.

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus It made an impression on me. I still remember the color of the girls hair, the lawyers suit, the embarrassment of the officer when the judge explained what was happening. It was one of things in life that make you sit up and pay attention, and stay with you forever.

If I was unsure or 'hazy' on any of the facts, I would have included that originally.

But none of this matters. There's a question up there a few posts ago for ya. I'll check back in a few minutes.

Martlet · « **Reply #192 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:03:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy

At its most basic level, that's what your current argument sounds like. Classical schoolyard debate tactic. If you can't respond to something with a fact that disproves it, attack the source.

Actually, you're quite wrong on this are in fact the one looking stupid. I did post facts that proved my case, and he cited a personal story with no ability to verify it as contrary evidence.

Try going back and reading the thread again, then saying something remotely accurate.

Martlet · « **Reply #193 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:10:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
If I was unsure or 'hazy' on any of the facts, I would have included that originally.

But none of this matters. There's a question up there a few posts ago for ya. I'll check back in a few minutes.

It all matters. I've cited actual code to support my statement. It's verifiable. To prove me wrong, you recall an unverifiable personal experience. Since it directly contradicts my verifiable facts, the only conclusion I can draw is that a: you're lying, or b: you're memory isn't accurate. I've never had any dealings in the past with you that would lead me to believe you're anything but honest, so I'll follow the assumption that you are just mistaken.

Quote

I do not argue the fact that there are statutory procedures to legaly place a person under arrest. I am arguing that these procedures are superceded by an individuals constitutional rights, that detaining a person deprives that person of their freedom, and this in fact places them in a state of 'arrest'.

You obviously don't agree. Explain to me why.

That's a completely different context. If I understanding your statement correctly, you are arguing that by definition she was "arrested". That is completely different from what I was arguing, which was a legal definition. The two aren't always synonymous. The discussion you entered was based on the legal definition.

Gunthr · « **Reply #194 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:23:04 PM »

Respectfully, there is some dumb stuff here.

Lets all do some self-examination.

That said, FU everybody who disagees!