I was assured no one is above the law

[mspart]

11 hours ago, scourge165 said:

I really don't see what the guy did wrong. You need a Warrant to just take someone. Asking for the Warrant is... pretty standard. We're not just going to accept Govt' agencies coming and rounding us up now without a warrant, right? 

The agent saying, 'oh, we've got it.' Well...then provide it!

Why would they need to show him the warrant.   He is not the one that is the subject of the warrant.  Wrong guy asking for the warrant.

mspart

[Caveira]

35 minutes ago, mspart said:

Why would they need to show him the warrant.   He is not the one that is the subject of the warrant.  Wrong guy asking for the warrant.

mspart

Wait.  Some joker not being detained was the one that asked for the warrant?

[mspart]

Yah, that NYC mayoral candidate escorting an illegal.  Wanted to see the warrant.   I'm wondering what basis does he have to demand to see a warrant?  He is not the target.   But he became a target as he kept trying to keep officials from his "friend".    He did not try to stop the arrest, but would not let go of his illegal buddy, and demanded the warrant.  He got arrested after he would not stop trying to hang onto the illegal.   But I did not see him attack an agent or anything and I'm guessing that is why the charges were not filed.  If he hd pushed or shoved or hit, he would be in deeper trouble.  

mspart

[scourge165]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

Why would they need to show him the warrant.   He is not the one that is the subject of the warrant.  Wrong guy asking for the warrant.

mspart

...they didn't show ANYONE the warrant and that's where you're splitting hairs?

Probably to make sure ICE didn't ONCE AGAIN detain the wrong person. Why wouldn't the federal agents simply DISPLAY the warrant instead of repeatedly saying, "I have a warrant." 

We don't normally do "trust me bro," when it comes to things like that and I'm kinda shocked conservatives are suddenly cool with it(I'm actually never shocked when conservatives are...insanely hypercritical). 

[scourge165]

5 hours ago, Caveira said:

Wait.  Some joker not being detained was the one that asked for the warrant?

You're turning more and more into a Jimmy and Scouts Kool-Aid type caricature of the right... just busting into a thread, totally clueless of the facts and then just repeating in a less articulate way what someone else has said. 

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

You're turning more and more into a Jimmy and Scouts Kool-Aid type caricature of the right... just busting into a thread, totally clueless of the facts and then just repeating in a less articulate way what someone else has said. 

But was the one asking for a warrant some rando person not part of this?   He wasn’t being detained or arrested was he?

its a simple yes or no 

Edited Wednesday at 11:30 PM by Caveira

[mspart]

27 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

...they didn't show ANYONE the warrant and that's where you're splitting hairs?

Probably to make sure ICE didn't ONCE AGAIN detain the wrong person. Why wouldn't the federal agents simply DISPLAY the warrant instead of repeatedly saying, "I have a warrant." 

We don't normally do "trust me bro," when it comes to things like that and I'm kinda shocked conservatives are suddenly cool with it(I'm actually never shocked when conservatives are...insanely hypercritical). 

But does an officer need to show you the warrant if he is arresting your neighbor?   No,.   If the neighbor asks to see it then yes.   It is the same thing as standing in a court case.  

mspart

[scourge165]

24 minutes ago, mspart said:

But does an officer need to show you the warrant if he is arresting your neighbor?   No,.   If the neighbor asks to see it then yes.   It is the same thing as standing in a court case.  

mspart

mspart, you're not dumb, so don't play dumb. 

They need to present a warrant. It's a simple concept. One of the top officials in NYC was there trying to ensure they had a warrant and presented one and they refused. 

 

It's the MOST basic rights you are guaranteed in this country irrespective of your citizen status. So why the hell wouldn't they just...present it? Because they don't have to and they're not going to listen to anyone else, they've been given a ridiculous amount of authority. As such, they've arrested numerous American Citizens as it stands. Jesus Christ, they picked up Native American's because they were brown and looked Mexican. 

[scourge165]

42 minutes ago, Caveira said:

But was the one asking for a warrant some rando person not part of this?   He wasn’t being detained or arrested was he?

its a simple yes or no 

No. He wasn't "some rando." He was an elected official.

 

But...to clarify, two conservatives are fine with the authorities just doing the 'trust me bro' before taking people into custody.

Not really conservatives anymore I guess...not sure what ideology that falls under. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

mspart, you're not dumb, so don't play dumb. 

They need to present a warrant. It's a simple concept. One of the top officials in NYC was there trying to ensure they had a warrant and presented one and they refused. 

 

It's the MOST basic rights you are guaranteed in this country irrespective of your citizen status. So why the hell wouldn't they just...present it? Because they don't have to and they're not going to listen to anyone else, they've been given a ridiculous amount of authority. As such, they've arrested numerous American Citizens as it stands. Jesus Christ, they picked up Native American's because they were brown and looked Mexican. 

1. Must inform the arrestee that a warrant exists

• If they have the warrant, they must inform the defendant of the offense charged and the fact that an arrest warrant exists 

• If the warrant is not physically on hand, they must still verbally inform the person of the warrant's existence and the offense charged, and—if the arrestee requests it—show it as soon as possible 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, scourge165 said:

No. He wasn't "some rando." He was an elected official.

Elected officials are literally some rando.  He had no business involving himself in this.  Law enforcement does not have to comply with any of his requests.   

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, Caveira said:

 

1. Must inform the arrestee that a warrant exists

• If they have the warrant, they must inform the defendant of the offense charged and the fact that an arrest warrant exists 

• If the warrant is not physically on hand, they must still verbally inform the person of the warrant's existence and the offense charged

Did they do this?  

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

Did they do this?  

I didn’t hear screaming I have a warrant 50 times in most of the vids I saw.  I swear I did. 
 

Shyte I believe some of y’all complained all they did was scream I have a warrant 

Edited Thursday at 12:23 AM by Caveira

[1032004]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

I didn’t hear screaming I have a warrant 50 times in most of the vids I saw.  I swear I did. 
 

Shyte I believe some of y’all complained all they did was scream I have a warrant 

Did they inform him of the offense charged?

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Did they inform him of the offense charged?

For officer safety.  Should you detain the dude first or let the mob attack everyone.   Also I dunno there was a lot of commotion.  
 

During a struggle:

• Officers may delay physically showing the warrant until they have control of the person—reasonably so for safety .

• Informing someone of the warrant before cuffs is vital, but reading the full warrant or charges isn't required at that dangerous moment.

• Once the subject is secure (handcuffed/detained), officers may then recap the offense more formally, and read the warrant if requested.

this feels like checkmate.   Once you add the …. Struggle / danger law enforcement wins this argument 10 out of 10 times.  

Edited Thursday at 12:30 AM by Caveira

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, Caveira said:

For officer safety.  Should you detain the dude first or let the mob attack everyone.   Also I dunno there was a lot of commotion.  
 

During a struggle:

• Officers may delay physically showing the warrant until they have control of the person—reasonably so for safety .

• Informing someone of the warrant before cuffs is vital, but reading the full warrant or charges isn't required at that dangerous moment.

• Once the subject is secure (handcuffed/detained), officers may then recap the offense more formally, and read the warrant if requested.

this feels like checkmate.   Once you add the …. Struggle / danger law enforcement wins this argument 10 out of 10 times.  

Seems to me it only got “dangerous” because they didn’t show the warrant.

[ionel]

20 minutes ago, Caveira said:

 

1. Must inform the arrestee that a warrant exists

• If they have the warrant, they must inform the defendant of the offense charged and the fact that an arrest warrant exists 

• If the warrant is not physically on hand, they must still verbally inform the person of the warrant's existence and the offense charged, and—if the arrestee requests it—show it as soon as possible 

I think all scrourge is trying to say is that elected officials are above the law. 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

Seems to me it only got “dangerous” because they didn’t show the warrant.

You saw the start of the conflict on the video?  Post plz 

either way.  Seems like law enforcement has a ton of leeway relative to showing first.   And 100% don’t have to show sir elected official rando dude shyte.  

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

I think all scrourge is trying to say is that elected officials are above the law. 

I would argue….. If you or I got in their way we would be charged.  My theory is they didn’t charge him because of his elected privilege.   He should hold a press conference thanking law enforcement for removing another illegal and not charging him with anything.

 

[scourge165]

20 minutes ago, Caveira said:

 

1. Must inform the arrestee that a warrant exists

• If they have the warrant, they must inform the defendant of the offense charged and the fact that an arrest warrant exists 

• If the warrant is not physically on hand, they must still verbally inform the person of the warrant's existence and the offense charged, and—if the arrestee requests it—show it as soon as possible 

Ok...lets play this game where you play the clown again.

You really think for a MISTEMEANOR, you can just claim you have a warrant and not present it?

 

Nonsense. 

 

Quote

 

When a Warrant Is Required

• Entering a private home for an arrest: Generally, police must obtain an arrest warrant to enter a home unless certain urgent exceptions apply legal-info.lawyers.com+5gratlantalaw.com+5freeadvice.com+5justia.com+12colepaschalllaw.com+12legal-info.lawyers.com+12.

• Misdemeanor crimes not witnessed by officers: For lesser offenses not committed in the officer’s presence, most states require a warrant en.wikipedia.org+4colepaschalllaw.com+4legal-info.lawyers.com+4.

 

Want to guess what being undocumented is? It's...NOT a felony. 

But again, just to clarify, the right now believes it's alright for LEOs to come and arrest people and they don't need to show a warrant, they can just promise you it's in their pocket and that's cool. 

 

Got it. I can't FATHOM how that could go bad. 

[scourge165]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

I think all scrourge is trying to say is that elected officials are above the law. 

Eh...if you're illiterate. 

What I'm saying is ICE is NOT. 

 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Ok...lets play this game where you play the clown again.

You really think for a MISTEMEANOR, you can just claim you have a warrant and not present it?

 

Nonsense. 

 

Want to guess what being undocumented is? It's...NOT a felony. 

But again, just to clarify, the right now believes it's alright for LEOs to come and arrest people and they don't need to show a warrant, they can just promise you it's in their pocket and that's cool. 

 

Got it. I can't FATHOM how that could go bad. 

It literally says they don’t even need to have the warrant on them.    Just have to say they have one and post struggle name the charges.  
 

do you think they are required to carry it with them at all times?

 

also.  Did the illegal demand the warrant.   Or some random dude.  You keep not answering that part.  

Edited Thursday at 12:43 AM by Caveira

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Eh...if you're illiterate. 

What I'm saying is ICE is NOT. 

 

Here is a good one:

Legal Framework: Federal Rule 4 (Arrest Warrants)

• Rule 4(c)(3)(A) states that upon arrest, an officer must:

  1. Inform the defendant that a warrant exists and specify the offense, and

  2. Show the physical warrant to the defendant, at the defendant’s request, as soon as practicable — not to anyone else

[scourge165]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Seems to me it only got “dangerous” because they didn’t show the warrant.

It's amazing to me how the right has gone from being suspicious of the Federal Govt' smaller Government to licking the boots of ICE Agents!

 

LOL...it's...amazing. From Ruby Ridge to now, 'nah, they don't actually NEED warrants for Misdemeanor arrests! 

 

[Caveira]

6 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Eh...if you're illiterate. 

What I'm saying is ICE is NOT. 

 

Another good one:

No — even if that random dude is a U.S. Senator, federal agents aren’t required to show or provide the warrant to him, unless he is the subject of that warrant. Here's why:

---

Federal Rule 4 — Who Gets the Warrant?

• Rule 4(c)(3)(A) clearly states officers must inform the defendant that a warrant exists and specify the offense. If the defendant requests to see the physical warrant, it must be shown to that person “as soon as possible” 

• The rule does not require officers to present the warrant to bystanders, even if they’re public figures like senators .