Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probable cause is the standard for a lawful arrest and charge. Reasonable suspicion is the (lower) standard to justify temporary detention and investigation.
There are good and bad aspects of "old" policing and of "new" policing. One of the bad aspects of "old" policing was that officers could use deadly force to arrest fleeing felons. That is now considered unconstitutional.
While the probable cause standard has been in place for ages, there is no doubt that police practices have changed. Those changes have been driven by: 1) changing constitutional standards, 2) the drug war, 3) tough on crime politics, 4) community policing politics, 5) police special interest influence, 6) the War on Terror, 7) prison special interest influence, 8) the subsidization of defense contractors that produce weapons and other gear, and 9) a whole host of other factors. These factors are not evenly distributed across the United States.
This thread has nothing to do with temporary detention and investigation.
Nevertheless, what does "reasonable suspicion" have to do with "true suspicion". The individual who posted about "true suspicion" made no sense because that hasn't been nor should it be the standard.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, it seems to completely disconnected from the topic.
Yeah, murder the man's son, get his murderer off and now continue to the decimation of his family.
Talking to you is like talking to a climate change denier. They either can't understand the facts or they have an agenda they won't admit to that prevents them from acknowledging them. Ignorance or dishonesty ... choose one.
Decimation of his family? The family has decimated itself and it's fair for us to take note of that. Shall we recap said self-decimation that is the Brown family?
- The son was a criminal (theft). Note that I'm generously leaving out his undeniable assault of a cop.
- The mother is being charged for beating up the grandmother over some very classy squabble about hawking Michael Brown swag.
- The stepfather has a criminal record as long as your arm. Note that once again I am generously overlooking his disgusting animalistic encitement to riot ... thus anticipating and cutting your apologistic response off at the pass.
Are you suggesting that we exercise some kid glove double standard for this pack of lowlifes who have done everything they can to thrust themselves into the public eye? ... Including going to the UN to plead their case? If you scream and bawl for worldwide attention you are going to get it and they are fair game for having their scummy dealings noticed and judged.
I think it's hilarious to watch you all squirm as you try to make a sainted martyr out of this little thug and his dirtbag tribe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marilyn220
Of course, this won't create MORE chaos in the city.
Sure let's pander to extortion and not pursue the rule of law because we're afraid that a witless irrational mob will riot again.
When I saw this on TV I was floored, why aren't they arresting this guy.
Michael Brown’s step father Louis Head could be in serious trouble today after the Missouri Lt. Governor said he should be arrested and charged with inciting a riot.
Lt. Governor Peter Kinder said this after a video of Head screaming “burn this b*tch down” to an angry Ferguson crowd went viral this week.
The clip was played during Kinder’s recent appearance on The Laura Ingraham Show, and the host asked what his reaction was.
“That he should be arrested and charged with inciting to riot,” Kinder responded.
Head’s arrest would come as a major blow to Brown’s family, as he serves as a patriarchal figure to them all.
Married only four months,wife said he was just getting to know him,as bad as rest,troublemaker like Sharpton.
When I saw this on TV I was floored, why aren't they arresting this guy.
Michael Brown’s step father Louis Head could be in serious trouble today after the Missouri Lt. Governor said he should be arrested and charged with inciting a riot.
Lt. Governor Peter Kinder said this after a video of Head screaming “burn this b*tch down” to an angry Ferguson crowd went viral this week.
The clip was played during Kinder’s recent appearance on The Laura Ingraham Show, and the host asked what his reaction was.
“That he should be arrested and charged with inciting to riot,” Kinder responded. Head’s arrest would come as a major blow to Brown’s family, as he serves as a patriarchal figure to them all.
Patriarchal figure huh? His rap sheet is a mile long. I see him as no patriarchal figure but a textbook on how to be a career criminal.
Lying is not a crime.....unless you are under oath.
That is why so many had their stories change.
A lot of bad info gets posted on this thread.
Lying CAN be a crime if the lie is told to a law enforcement agent, if they are investigating a crime. It is called obstruction of justice. People have been charged and convicted because they told lies even if they weren't under oath. While they aren't charged with lying the charge is based on the lie and what the lie accomplished.
The constitution provides a mechanism through a constitutional right not to speak and therefore not incriminate yourself. When you speak, you in effect give up that right if you know you have the right to remain silent and therefore lying can be a crime if it obstructs a criminal investigation. A police officer asking you what you saw is part of a criminal investigation if a felony is involved. You can say nothing and be protected by your rights under the constitution. However, if you open your mouth and say something you knew to be a lie, then you can be charged with a crime. The charge won't be lying of course but that is what led to the charge, it is included.
Related to this topic, Brown could have remained silent and not said a word. He could have refused to move and instead made the officer carry him off the street and still not been in violation of any law except perhaps a misdemeanor class that would probably never see the light of day.
The "witnesses" who offered untrue stories also had the right to remain silent because it is presumed that anything you say can and/or will be used against you, regardless of what you are promised unless you have a written agreement of immunity from prosecution. Even if they only saw something and didn't actively participate, the right to remain silent still exists. When they told untrue stories (lied) they opened themselves up to obstruction of justice charges. While such charges won't be pursued it changes nothing.
The standard to prove a lie is high, especially when talking about witness recollections because it is nearly impossible to prove what someone saw, real or imagined. It is possible though to prove what someone could not see and that happens all the time. During an investigation it often is left alone but in court it becomes perjury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
