• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Murdered in the middle of the day while jogging.

vegas giants said:
Dude read it. Pursuit requires a felony. They chased him in a car and cut him off twice. That is pursuit with intent to detain.
Click to expand...
That is not what it says. I already explained the two separate things that are contained in the law (knowledge of and reasonable suspicion).

Stop lying. It does not say pursuit requires a felony.
 
The murderers had a gun stolen from an unlocked truck or the open bed of one, I forget exactly. The murderers claimed people were upset about burglaries. Records show there was only one burglary reported during the time frame claimed by the murderers. That burglary was the gun from the murderers' truck.

The third murderer is on video saying "I never accused him of stealing anything". This is in reference to video of the victim in the home under construction. The third murderer owns that home under construction.

That's all in the video in my previous post.

Here's an idea. Just speculating, why not. When the guy that owns the home under construction says "I want to be clear. I never accused him of stealin' nothin'", maybe he's not only talking about the trespass (so to speak). Maybe he's kinda also talking about the gun. Maybe the murderers thought the victim stole the gun. Maybe the construction owner knows the victim didn't steal it because he knows who did. Maybe he's covering his ass against a conspiracy charge in being able to say, "I didn't think the victim stole the gun, I never said he stole anything."

To be clear, the victim did not steal a gun from the murderers' vehicle. But maybe they thought he did and maybe the construction owner knows the victim didn't.
 
Excon said:
That is not what it says. I already explained the two separate things that are contained in the law (knowledge of and reasonable suspicion).

Stop lying. It does not say pursuit requires a felony.
Click to expand...

Dude. Both elements must be met. Its black letter law. Sorry....you're wong
 
Excon said:
1. This is a debate forum. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

It is you and your dogmatic approach that turning a debate into a holiday pantomime


2. Yes it is either which the other person apparently wants to lie about, so why do not you correct him on his lie? Is it your bias that causes you not to?
Click to expand...

So substitute "crime" and there's goes your pantomime

There, I've shot your fox.
 
vegas giants said:
Dude. Both elements must be met. Its black letter law. Sorry....you're wong
Click to expand...
Black letter? Both elements?
****ing hilarious. :lamo


While you are wrong as usual, you are again showing you have no clue as to what you speak.
And what is really sad is you posted the law (without quoting it), and even had it explained to you, yet you still do not get it.

So you clearly need it explained to you again
This time it will be more in depth.


The body of the following is what you provided in post #1220 without actually properly quoting or linking to it. You didn't even distinguish it from your own (maniacal laughter).

17-4-60. Grounds for arrest


A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. ​

Do you see that period preceding the "If" in there? Those two separate and distinguish between the two different standards for a citizens arrest.

1. "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge."
That is the minimum standard of arrest by a citizen. In the presence of or within the person's immediate knowledge. That covers both felonies and misdemeanors. And as the provided case law shows, being aware of the crime satisfies the requirement.

2. "If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."
This establishes the lower standard of reasonable suspicion for arrest if the crime is a felony and the person is or is attempting to flee.
This standard has not a damn thing to do with the first and is separate and distinct from it.

The first - (immediate knowledge of a crime) does not require any fleeing or attempt to flee to make the arrest. It requires knowledge of an actual crime, regardless if it is a misdemeanor or felony.
The second is a lower standard put in place in regards to a felony only. If a person has "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that another committed a felony and that other person was fleeing or attempting to flee, you could then arrest them. Which is totally different from the first standard.

If you are still have a problem understanding the difference between the two standards, then you seriously need to have whatever it is you are using to think checked out.




Rich2018 said:
It is you and your dogmatic approach that turning a debate into a holiday pantomime


So substitute "crime" and there's goes your pantomime

There, I've shot your fox.
Click to expand...

Wrong as usual you are.
 
Excon said:
Black letter? Both elements?
****ing hilarious. :lamo


While you are wrong as usual, you are again showing you have no clue as to what you speak.
And what is really sad is you posted the law (without quoting it), and even had it explained to you, yet you still do not get it.

So you clearly need it explained to you again
This time it will be more in depth.


The body of the following is what you provided in post #1220 without actually properly quoting or linking to it. You didn't even distinguish it from your own (maniacal laughter).

17-4-60. Grounds for arrest


A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. ​

Do you see that period preceding the "If" in there? Those two separate and distinguish between the two different standards for a citizens arrest.

1. "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge."
That is the minimum standard of arrest by a citizen. In the presence of or within the person's immediate knowledge. That covers both felonies and misdemeanors. And as the provided case law shows, being aware of the crime satisfies the requirement.

2. "If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."
This establishes the lower standard of reasonable suspicion for arrest if the crime is a felony and the person is or is attempting to flee.
This standard has not a damn thing to do with the first and is separate and distinct from it.

The first - (immediate knowledge of a crime) does not require any fleeing or attempt to flee to make the arrest. It requires knowledge of an actual crime, regardless if it is a misdemeanor or felony.
The second is a lower standard put in place in regards to a felony only. If a person has "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that another committed a felony and that other person was fleeing or attempting to flee, you could then arrest them. Which is totally different from the first standard.

If you are still have a problem understanding the difference between the two standards, then you seriously need to have whatever it is you are using to think checked out.






Wrong as usual you are.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. Why create a lower standard for a fleeing suspect? That is laughable. This was put in place to stop people from engaging in dangerous pursuits over minor crimes.


This is such basic black letter law.
 
Excon said:
Wrong as usual you are.
Click to expand...

What a come back

Let's see if I can match your wit
.
.
.
.
I think I have it:

Well I think you're wrong as usual.


There, a stunning riposte, cutting through the heart of your argument.
 
Rich2018 said:
[SUP]What a come back

Let's see if I can match your wit
.
.
.
.
I think I have it:

Well I think you're wrong as usual.


There, a stunning riposte, cutting through the heart of your argument.[/SUP]
Click to expand...
You can play all the games you want in deflecting.
That will not change the fact that you were still wrong as usual.
 
vegas giants said:
That makes no sense at all. Why create a lower standard for a fleeing suspect? That is laughable. This was put in place to stop people from engaging in dangerous pursuits over minor crimes.


This is such basic black letter law.
Click to expand...
So, you really do not understand.
Figures.
 
Excon said:
You can play all the games you want in deflecting.
That will not change the fact that you were still wrong as usual.
Click to expand...

Let me think...

I know:

I think you can also play all the games you want in deflecting, but it won't change the fact that you're wrong as usual


There that response took half a millisecond to compose. Of course if you could compose a more articulate argument, I would give it the respect it deserved.
 
Rich2018 said:
Let me think...

I know:

I think you can also play all the games you want in deflecting, but it won't change the fact that you're wrong as usual


There that response took half a millisecond to compose. Of course if you could compose a more articulate argument, I would give it the respect it deserved.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual.
 
Excon said:
Same response in regards to different things.
So you are wrong again, as usual.
Click to expand...


It's like talking to a machine.

I already told you that you can substitute "crime" and there's goes your pantomime back and forth argument. So what is "wrong"


Why do you have to be like this ?
 
Rich2018 said:
A typical RW attitude, they never feel like they need to justify their slander.
Click to expand...
You really like posting delusional bs.
Would you like me to call you a whambulance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom