I had to laugh at this:

He was detained, not arrested. And he provides the reason why he was detained in his next tweet.

It was a private gathering, he was not in the list, he refused to go and was trespassed.  TOTAL FASCISM!

But the part I want to address is in the video. I believe we are all tired of seeing people being arrested demanding to be explained why they are being arrested and expecting chapter and verse quote from the law and including relevant jurisprudence that apply to their specific case. Then supposedly it is your turn to present your full argument to the cops and prove they are misguided and must set you free because of whatever they think the law is, should be or wanted it to be, mostly 100% in his/her favor.

That is not how it works.

If the cops determined you broke the law and tell you are under arrest, they will mention why you are being arrested, put some nice shinny steel bracelets and put you in the back of a patrol vehicle. The charges will be explained to you once you have been processed in the local pokey and given orange rompers and flipflops. At that time, you will allowed to call your significant other for bail money and then you get to wait for court where the legal arguments will begin. If you are smart enough, you will get yourself a lawyer and try not to argue your case yourself.

What I find hilarious is that the same people that accuse cops of being judge, jury and executioners also complain why cops do not behave like judges and juries when they arrest them.

Hat Tip @VoteDemOutFL

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

12 thoughts on “Everybody is a frigging lawyer and they suck at it”
  1. Watching too many CSI and SVU shows I think. They do not realize the screenwriter is just as clueless about the law as they are.

  2. Respectfully, I disagree. If the police cannot articulate to you why you are stopped/detained/arrested or what the reasonable suspicion or probably cause was, I am skeptical that it existed to begin with.

    Getting arrested and being told why possibly long after the fact is a wide open go ahead for a fishing expedition and sounds about one step away from resolving the issue right there on the road side with a couple of Benjamins. Detention for similar reasons I am also extremely skeptical of.

    This is of course only applicable if the other half of the interaction, the person being stopped or whatever, is being reasonable and not violent. I get it that you can only make so much progress explaining why you are doing something to a person who is yelling and screaming at you and doesn’t want to hear it. That doesn’t mean well ok free reign on those people then, I don’t really know what the answer is.

    1. As I said, you will be told what you are being arrested for at the time the cuffs go click. The full wherefores, quoting the relevant codes and the such do not have to be told on the spot nor they are required.
      And if the cops screw up, against that ain’t the place to get argumentative. Later at the civil lawsuit against the county or city is where you can go hog wild for ammo money..

      1. I’m not even saying quote the relevant statute. I’m say articulate to me a reason before slapping the bracelets on. If you can’t even manage to blurt out a catch all I smell pot or alcohol, you really have no reason to arrest, detain, search etc.

        I’ve seen videos of many interactions and I’ve had interactions where the simple question of why is asked and it is not answered for whatever reason. Why? Why should we accept that police don’t answer that question? Why should interaction favor police any more than it already does? Why should we allow such a large hole in our rights you can sail a carrier group through it?

        What you are describing is effectively a stop and frisk where we stop you for an unspecified reason then go fishing to find something substantial to keep you. An incredible violation of your rights and extreme latitude for police to do what they want.

        I’m honestly shocked you’d be in favor of such a thing since it sounds like typical socialist hell hole police activity and not what should be happening in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

        Again, I’m even talking about those who are argumentative, belligerent, irrational, and violent. I’m talking about a person calmly asking why and getting threatened with resisting or simply ignored.

        1. “I’m not even saying quote the relevant statute. I’m say articulate to me a reason before slapping the bracelets on. ”

          Then change the law. Being told you are under arrest with or without giving you a reason is a Lawful Order and you legally cannot resist.

          “If you can’t even manage to blurt out a catch all I smell pot or alcohol, you really have no reason to arrest, detain, search etc.”

          Maybe they will tell you once you have dropped the bloody baseball bat you used to get rid of the nosy neighbor. It is up to them to tell you before or after the arrest has been made.

          “What you are describing is effectively a stop and frisk where we stop you for an unspecified reason then go fishing to find something substantial to keep you”

          No, I am talking about arrests made for cause. You have broken the law and their first duty is to make sure you do not skirt town and responsibility. You are saying cops cannot make an arrest till they have explained why one is needed which is dumb, specially in crimes of violence.

          “I’m honestly shocked you’d be in favor of such a thing since it sounds like typical socialist hell hole police activity”
          Again, no. What they do is to place the barrel of an FN FAL on your forehead and tell you not to move just because you have long hair or they are drunk and want to fuck with you and not because you actually did something wrong. Been there, done that, know the fucking difference.

          1. I agree with Matt. The law SHOULD require an officer to explain why they are arresting you. In fact, I believe the Bill of Rights already requires it – just like it requires Miranda rights being read.

            It’s also for the cops benefits. I have seen many instances of where a person (especially an innocent one) would have been much more cooperative if the reason would be explained. That recent Army soldier who was brutalized by the cops is a great example.

            I think it is ridiculous in a just society that cops can just arrest you without articulating why.

          2. Then change the law is such a weak response given all the legislative and political bullshit you yourself cover here repeatedly. Such a simple and elegant solution, why didn’t I think of that! Yea no shit. Got any great stock picks to go with that? The point of this post was not about changing the law and if it should be changed, it was about it shouldn’t have ever been this way period and to bitch about that fact, both my my perspective and your opposing one.

            “Maybe they will tell you once you have dropped the bloody baseball bat you used to get rid of the nosy neighbor. It is up to them to tell you before or after the arrest has been made.”

            You are taking an extreme event already acknowledged and explicitly covered by myself in both of my prior comments. Why? We agree, if you are in the middle or murdering someone or holding the proverbial smoking gun, that is not the time to sit down and have a nuanced conversation about the nature of man and the philosophy of law and justice. Stop trying to make it seem that way or ignoring that point.

            “No, I am talking about arrests made for cause. You have broken the law and their first duty is to make sure you do not skirt town and responsibility. You are saying cops cannot make an arrest till they have explained why one is needed which is dumb, specially in crimes of violence.”

            No, again, I’m saying respect goes both ways, with a non belligerent and combatant person. If I am stopped for any reason and have no perception of having done anything wrong of course I want to know why I’m being asked to step out of the vehicle etc. A simple answer goes a long way. I have repeatedly excluded violence. Please stop what seems to be willfully ignoring that point that I have repeatedly made and/or acknowledged. I am talking about a normal peaceful interaction where things escalate for an unknown reason to the one party who has almost 0 power in the interaction. “Why” should be the most basic and simple question to ask. Most people who are up to know good know they are up to know good, I’m talking about protecting not those people. I’m talking about scenarios like Joe Blow who gets pulled over and all of a sudden it turns into a federal case because he asked why and challenged an officer’s authority or declined any of a variety of searches and intrusions.

            “Again, no. What they do is to place the barrel of an FN FAL on your forehead and tell you not to move just because you have long hair or they are drunk and want to fuck with you and not because you actually did something wrong. Been there, done that, know the fucking difference.”

            And I’m very glad I haven’t had to experience that level of that shit myself. And having experienced it yourself, I really don’t understand why the “lite” version of that is acceptable to you in any way. As you and many others have chronicled and discussed here many times, we all know that hauled off to jail on trumped up charges, none at al,l and for no cause is something the DOES happen in social hell holes, your experience not withstanding.

            1. “Then change the law is such a weak response given all the legislative and political bullshit you yourself cover here repeatedly.”

              The effective range of whining is zero meters.

              You have the right to say what you want, but I don’t have to take you seriously nor will I.

              1. Effective, articulate response! You could be a police officer conducting spurious stops and searches with that level of acknowledgement and response!

                If it is whining to ask you to not ignore what I’m saying because it is seemingly convenient to your chosen position, so be it.

  3. Sure, but there’s a difference between asking and arguing about it. For the latter, the classic answer is “tell it to the judge”.

    1. And to that end when I ask, I don’t want to hear a bunch of ahhhs and ummms or a I don’t have to tell you shit, all that tells me is the reason has not been manufactured yet.

Login or register to comment.