- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That is a different argument from what we are discussing.
But I am sure you know that and just think you are being funny.
.
I agree, but the riot has a very racial substratum....why is that?
You.Who's being funny? Why would the knife be illegal, and if it is considered illegal, why was it incumbent upon Gray to observe an unconstitutional law?
You.
Again, as you were already told.
That is a different argument from what we are discussing.
That is your assumption.
What isn't an assumption is that a spring loaded knife was found. And a belief that the knife violated the cited City Code is probable cause for arrest.
What also isn't an assumption is that she said it didn't violate Maryland law while totally ignoring that it was a City Code that was Cited as being broken.
And again, I directed you to review the the presentation at Legal Insurrection. There was probable cause.
Who's being funny? Why would the knife be illegal, and if it is considered illegal, why was it incumbent upon Gray to observe an unconstitutional law?
Wrong. It is an assumption on your part.No, it's not an assumtion.
1. That is your assumption.It was spring assisted, which is legal. A switchblade opens at the push of a button. It wasn't a switchblade. She is a prosecuter for the city of Baltimore. She would be disbarred for ignoring Baltimore's laws.
And she would be wrong. As believing it was a violation of the law is probable cause.The prosecutor said, after investigating the incident, that there was not.
The topic of the thread is his arrest being called illegal. If the knife was part of the reason for the arrest, then it most certainly is germane.
How did the cops even know that he had it in his pocket?
That is lame. The knife is not an excuse.It's like I said earlier. Retro-active cause. The police had no reason for the arrest and so have to come up with an excuse after the fact.
Yes it's not an excuse for an arrest at all and yet that's one of the reasons given by the police. I'm glad we're in agreement. The knife accusation is no excuse for an arrest and I'm glad you've matured enough to call out the police for making erroneous statements.That is lame. The knife is not an excuse.
Nice attempt at a play on my words, but no!Yes it's not an excuse for an arrest at all and yet that's one of the reasons given by the police. I'm glad we're in agreement. The knife accusation is no excuse for an arrest and I'm glad you've matured enough to call out the police for making erroneous statements.
How did the cops even know that he had it in his pocket?
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.
You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.
What a lame reply. You are engaged in an off-topic distraction.In other words I've put you in the uncomfortable position of arguing against the police or against the 2nd Amendment.
What a lame reply. You are engaged in an off-topic distraction.
As you were already told:
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.
You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.
This topic is not about the Constitutionality of the law. Do you really not understand that?
:lamo:lamo:lamoSince when do you get to tell people what to do? If the legality of Grey's arrest is the topic, then Constitutional issues are valid. You don't want to talk about it, we get that, but you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Now you are engaged in faux offense. :doh
Again:
What a lame reply. You are engaged in an off-topic distraction.
As you were already told:
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.
You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.
This topic is not about the Constitutionality of the law. Do you really not understand that?
You are engaged in a distraction, nothing more. You know it and I know it.
I just heard some of the press conference by the prosecutor. Very unprofessional, and incompetent. Saying she has heard the call for "no justice, no peace"? Is she supporting the looters and rioters? Is she so foolish to believe these people give a crap about what happened? She didn't sound like an impartial person out for justice. And the charges are a joke.
I can't imagine she was the best person for the job. I don't think this should be an elected position, otherwise you get people like her in the job, instead of someone that knows what they are doing.
"We can't have an election. A Democrat might win!"
In this case, an idiot won. See, you're missing the point. Unless you feel that there are no competent democrats. Are there any competent democrats?
That is your assumption.
What isn't an assumption is that a spring loaded knife was found. And a belief that the knife violated the cited City Code is probable cause for arrest.
What also isn't an assumption is that she said it didn't violate Maryland law while totally ignoring that it was a City Code that was Cited as being broken.
And again, I directed you to review the the presentation at Legal Insurrection. There was probable cause.
Again:Doubling down on the telling me what's acceptable to talk about? You're a trip.
I don't care what you want to talk about. I brought up a germane point that you don't want to talk about. Which you've made abundantly clear. Guess what? The site isn't "discusswhatexconwantstodiscussandnothingelse.com" You don't get to decide what is said.
You've already been told. The thread is about the legality of the arrest. So topics regarding that are germane to the discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?