Author Topic: Arrest mistake (Read 5470 times)

Martlet · « **Reply #210 on:** March 10, 2005, 08:27:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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.

HOLY STALKERS BATMAN!

Care to give an example or two of my subject changes?

Lazerus · « **Reply #211 on:** March 10, 2005, 08:34:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
On page 2 I linked a few cases, one of which was a SC decision on detention.

That wasn't a link to code, that was a link to an article about a citizens right of rufusal, or lack of at least. The other link in the same post doesn't work.

Quote

I believe my original stance on public record was inaccurate.

So we agree that police have the authority to detain someone for a limited amount of time for questioning, and that once you are told that you are under arrest it becomes public record. That wasn't all that hard, was it?

Ok, screw the 'code'. Look at the Constitution.

Quote

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, in your opinion, if you are detained by police, is your right to liberty being taken away without due process of law? Your detention is not public record, there is no paperwork records that have to be filed. Where is the due process of law?

Oh, please notice the "in your opinion" part. I don't want someone else's opinion stated in code or case ruling, I want to know what you think.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #212 on:** March 10, 2005, 08:41:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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.

Astute observation Rolex.

Martlet likes to argue even to the point of continually modifying his position and insisting that was what it was all along as well as fabricating someone elses position for them and then accusing them of lying. Sorry Martlet, you seem like a decent guy but I'm sure you will benefit from revisiting your values.

Martlet · « **Reply #213 on:** March 10, 2005, 08:42:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
That wasn't a link to code, that was a link to an article about a citizens right of rufusal, or lack of at least. The other link in the same post doesn't work.

No, that wasn't a link to code. That was a link to the case for detenion I initially pointed out. Then someone said you are able to walk away from detention if you choose, so I reposted the code to show that you couldn't. I reposted it AGAIN for you just now. How many times must I keep posting it?

Quote

Ok, screw the 'code'. Look at the Constitution.

"screw the code"? Why? Because it blatantly disagrees with what you want to be correct?

Quote

So, in your opinion, if you are detained by police, is your right to liberty being taken away without due process of law? Your detention is not public record, there is no paperwork records that have to be filed. Where is the due process of law?

Of course there is due process. The law states you may be detained for varying amounts of time (depending on the state) and under varing conditions (again, depending on the state). If you're detained in accordance with the law, and the Constitution says you MAY be deprived of liberty in accordance with the law, what is your argument?

That you disagree with the law? Challenge it, then. I don't even know what your argument is anymore.

Martlet · « **Reply #214 on:** March 10, 2005, 08:43:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Astute observation Rolex.

Martlet likes to argue even to the point of continually modifying his position and insisting that was what it was all along as well as fabricating someone elses position for them and then accusing them of lying. Sorry Martlet, you seem like a decent guy but I'm sure you will benefit from revisiting your values.

More whining, absent of any examples, though.

Typical.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #215 on:** March 10, 2005, 08:46:44 PM »

might I point you to our Lobster debate? Whats the point? If that was any example you will either ignore the direct quotes, deny they are there despite observable fact or twist the point around. It's your arguement style not your point that folks have issue with.

Martlet · « **Reply #216 on:** March 10, 2005, 08:49:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
might I point you to our Lobster debate? Whats the point? If that was any example you will either ignore the direct quotes, deny they are there despite observable fact or twist the point around. It's your arguement style not your point that folks have issue with.

I give you a 4.5.

Your initial troll was good, your ad homs were a little weak, but your follow through was abysmal.

Lazerus · « **Reply #217 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:05:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
No, that wasn't a link to code. That was a link to the case for detenion I initially pointed out. Then someone said you are able to walk away from detention if you choose, so I reposted the code to show that you couldn't. I reposted it AGAIN for you just now. How many times must I keep posting it?

Well, I hate to tell ya, the only link I've seen in your posts were to an article relating to a persons right to refuse to give information to an officer of the government. And you only posted that link once.

Are you old enough to drink??

Quote

"screw the code"? Why? Because it blatantly disagrees with what you want to be correct?

Because I didn't want your opinion from a law that has been passed, I wanted your opinion of the application of the pertinent part of the Constitution that I posted to the question I asked you. You seem unable to seperate statutes that have been passed from a simple study of the Constitution.

The rest of your post is just more evading and ignoring a simple question.

Quote

I don't even know what your argument is anymore.

That's the problem, I'm not arguing.

Martlet · « **Reply #218 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:18:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
Well, I hate to tell ya, the only link I've seen in your posts were to an article relating to a persons right to refuse to give information to an officer of the government. And you only posted that link once.

Are you old enough to drink??

I'm sorry. Reading obviously isn't your strong point. Here. Let me quote it for you again.

Quote

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.

If you didn't see it that time, let me know. I'll bold it for you. It's only been posted half a dozen times.

Quote

Because I didn't want your opinion from a law that has been passed, I wanted your opinion of the application of the pertinent part of the Constitution that I posted to the question I asked you. You seem unable to seperate statutes that have been passed from a simple study of the Constitution.

Again, I answered it. The problem is becoming obvious. I'm talking over your head. I'll slow it down for you.

The Constitution says you won't be deprived of liberty without due process. Due process of what? Of law. The law states that you may be detained within certain guidelines. If follow those guidelines, are you being deprived of liberty? Yes. Is it with due process? Yes.

Can you understand it now? Let me know if I need to slow it down further.

Quote

The rest of your post is just more evading and ignoring a simple question.

I've answered every question you've put forth. If you feel I've missed one, feel free to toss it out there.

Quote

That's the problem, I'm not arguing.

Then what are you doing?

TweetyBird · « **Reply #219 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:22:50 PM »

>>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.<<

And you have quoted not one. I figure its because you're lieing or you're lazy.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #220 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:23:19 PM »

Laz,

I hope you don't intend to have a legit discussion with Martlet. He'll just troll you along twisting turning insulting and baiting all the way.. It's how he get his jollies.. Kinda makes him feel that special tingly feeling

Lazerus · « **Reply #221 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:30:44 PM »

Naa, I'm just waiting for him to post that code that supported his position.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #222 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:32:25 PM »

Martlet, Maverick et al, you have no conception of the interpretation of the constitution being fluid and not set in stone, making questions of "detainment" almost always left to a judge to decide if they are legal. You just don't get it. You think "well I googled "detainment" and Florida says you can hold someone for 60 minutes etc etc" and you think its set in stone black and white. Well you just keep a thinkin that and telling everyone who doesn't believe it how dumb they are. You're an expert on constitutional law - you've googled "detainment" and have the expertise of "may have been" police officers to fall back on.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #223 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:36:55 PM »

>>I hope you don't intend to have a legit discussion with Martlet. He'll just troll you along twisting turning insulting and baiting all the way.. It's how he get his jollies.. Kinda makes him feel that special tingly feeling
<<

I mostly suspected that but was hoping he was steadfast to the point of ignorance. I just wonder iwhy if he was trolling he plays the consummate conservative isnstead of a peta fanatic or something. He's kinda preaching to the choir here.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #224 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:44:57 PM »

>>Care to give an example or two of my subject changes?<<

I'll give one - when it was proven you were flat out wrong about someone having to be booked to make an arrest public record you began an insult barrage .

But hey - whats new? Thats your MO and it seems others think so as well.