Caveira

The article says 66% boss

Read this slowly the elected official is entitled to jack shyte nothing. His ask is bubkus. The police can lie to him all day and twice on Sunday. The only person that matters is the person named in the warrant. read it twice before posting. Have a cheese sandwich. Read it one more time. Then post your reaction. Put a shyte emoji on this response when you’re done with the sandwich. Use artisan cheese. It’s better.

Man. It’s 66 now lol https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/majority-americans-support-deporting-immigrants-who-are-us-illegally

Stop debating facts and resort to name calling when you realize you aren’t right. booooot lickers!!!!!!!! i thought y’all wanted due process. Now your getting it and booooooottttttt licker lol.

“Cheese Sandwich” Scenario & Arrest Law Let’s say federal officers are arresting “illegal alien A” and a local senator storms in, demanding to see the warrant. The officers wave a literal cheese sandwich at him and say, “Here—here’s your warrant!” Meanwhile, they proceed to arrest “illegal alien A”, who actually is named in the real warrant. How does the law view that? Who has the right to the warrant? Only the person named in the warrant (here, “illegal alien A”) has the legal right to: Be informed of the existence of a warrant and the offense, and See the physical warrant when requested A random bystander—even a senator—has no legal standing to demand or view it . Lying to the senator / waving a cheese sandwich The warrant belongs to Illegal alien A; it doesn’t need to be shown to anyone else. Officers aren’t obliged to satisfy the senator’s demand, nor validate his demand with anything real. Waving a cheese sandwich instead of a warrant is not legally required or disallowed—but it plays no role in complying with the law. Could that be illegal? Officers can deceive bystanders — but twisting the truth about having a warrant or to manipulate consent can lead to Fourth Amendment violations (e.g., Bumper v. North Carolina, Hadley v. Williams) Here, they aren’t lying to person A—they’re simply not responding to the senator’s non-existent legal right. Is there any potential harm? The arrest itself is lawful so long as the real warrant is valid and person A is properly informed . Deceiving the senator doesn’t void the arrest or its legality. However, if they had used the sandwich trick to enter a home or gain consent, that could trigger suppression of evidence—especially if it was used to bypass legal protections .

It says above. Several times. They’re not required to show some random dude anything. They could have waved a cheese sandwich in his face. I don’t think that it is relevant.

62% of all Americans want every single illegal alien deported. Seems like you can’t handle it happening And want to resist every single attempt. i would have preferred that rando elected guy get charged too. That would be the right thing to do imo.

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 .

Here is a good one: Legal Framework: Federal Rule 4 (Arrest Warrants) Rule 4(c)(3)(A) states that upon arrest, an officer must: Inform the defendant that a warrant exists and specify the offense, and Show the physical warrant to the defendant, at the defendant’s request, as soon as practicable — not to anyone else

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.

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.

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.

I didn’t argue that boss. I pasted like 10 ish articles in this here post.

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.

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

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.

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

Guess I was close A sexual or gender minority refers to individuals whose sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or reproductive development differs from the majority. Here's a clear breakdown: 1. Sexual Minorities People whose attractions are not heterosexual—such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, asexual, and “men who have sex with men (MSM)” en.wikipedia.org+14verywellmind.com+14grants.nih.gov+14. ⚧ 2. Gender Minorities Individuals whose gender identity or expression differs from the sex assigned at birth. This includes: Transgender people (trans women, trans men), Non-binary, genderqueer, agender individuals, Gender nonconforming people 

They them Zi zirs zippity do da?

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

So are all repubs back to being racist again. ?

Fair I guess. Back to there is no requirement to wear a uniform while arresting peeps. Carry on ?

Have you produced said videos ? I’ve not seen one and it appears the one people have been complaining about is nonsense. There were uniforms everywhere in this one. I even saw a badge on one B.

And the guy with the mask on has in the biggest font ever. A freaking giant police uniform. Saying in giant letters. POLICE! so what is the left whining about here ? I saw at least 3 people with police vests / uniforms on. I heard comparisons on this thread to the gestapo lol