hjmoosejaw
Regular Member
We the People OF the United States...
Last edited:
We the People OF the United States...
I normally don't bother with you,
You're claiming I have no argument because I used a simple link that has references for a person to go and investigate for themselves further? Fine, I provide more above. The fact remains, doing something illegal does not mean you've committed a criminal act.
Untrue, unfortunately. The Terry stop is specifically related to a search of your person without witness of an illegal act. More specifically, it primarily relates to the stopping a suspect of a potential imminent crime (one that has not already occurred) and engaging in a physical pat down of the suspect. In contrast, a traffic infraction (which every traffic violation is in WA, unless other wise specified - more here) is issued either when the infraction has already occurred in the officers presence or in many similar situations. It's not a preemptive stop, but it is still a stop for an infraction .
Even though you get part of it wrong, you get the important part right. *Applause*
There's more to it than that, though. Even some who come here criminally have those offenses become civil due to statutes of limitations. Per the earlier article, the DHS estimates over 90% of illegal immigrants don't even qualify for criminal penalties, regardless of how they came here.
He was brought here by his parents as a kid. Per federal regulations, he doesn't qualify for the criminal penalty based on that fact. The previous article I linked details that.
It also seems traffic “infractions” have been moved to the area of administrative law in Wa. making stops for speeding and such unconstitutional. The citizens of Wa. should be aware of this and take appropriate action.
We the People OF the United States...
You have a good life, now. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who's close to dragging me down to their level.
That's an interesting fiction. You seem to think that after witnessing a violation of the law the police are not allowed to stop a person. Somehow, it seems you draw that from Terry, which relates to stopping someone without witnessing a violation of the law, but suspecting a criminal violation is about to occur. They are totally different.
Fundamentally, the problem here is that jbone and others don't actually know what "crime" and "criminal" mean. They think that they refer to someone who has violated a law. While this is how the term is colloquially used, it is not a legal definition.
SNIP
Back to the specific matter at hand. "Crime" is a legal term, and therefore has a legal (aka unambiguous and incontrovertible) definition. jbone wants to use "criminal" ambiguously, and insist that people know what he means. Unfortunately, all I know is that he doesn't know he's saying, and it doesn't matter what he means.
There is no argument to be had here:
"crime" does not mean "violation of law". Period.
There's a difference between reasonable suspicion and actual observation of an illegal act. That's what you're missing. If an officer here in WA sees me engage in the act of driving above the speed limit, they aren't acting on suspicion. They're acting on knowledge.No fiction. You’re convoluting the issue. The issue is that one can be stopped(seized) reasonably for a CRIME based on reasonable suspicion. If there is no CRIME then there is illegal seizure.
From Terry v Ohio...
"It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person."
Of course this applies to stopping an individual regardless of the manner of conveyance.
From Terry v Ohio…
“One general interest is of course that of effective crime prevention and detection; it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.”
Notice the words “crime” and “criminal”.
You have effectively, with my help, argued that speeding is not a “crime” nor “criminal” in the state of Washington. So, if an officer stops(seizes) someone for speeding(not a crime) then he has made an illegal seizure.
As if my dragging you down to being an American is bad!
Fundamentally, the problem here is that jbone and others don't actually know what "crime" and "criminal" mean. They think that they refer to someone who has violated a law. While this is how the term is colloquially used, it is not a legal definition.
Quick aside to demonstrate just how severely the people arguing with Tawnos fail to understand the relevant issues:
The Constitutional assurance of trial by a jury of peers applies only to criminal trials. If you get sued for breach of contract, you have no guaranteed privilege of a jury trial. Whoops, you didn't know that, did you?
Back to the specific matter at hand. "Crime" is a legal term, and therefore has a legal (aka unambiguous and incontrovertible) definition. jbone wants to use "criminal" ambiguously, and insist that people know what he means. Unfortunately, all I know is that he doesn't know he's saying, and it doesn't matter what he means.
You have a good life, now. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who's close to dragging me down to their level.
You're an American who doesn't understand freedom, ignores due process, denies the blessings of liberty to others, and does so with a prideful smile. I'm quite happy being better than that, and I certainly don't need to go down to your level of name calling. Good day.
There's a difference between reasonable suspicion and actual observation of an illegal act. That's what you're missing. If an officer here in WA sees me engage in the act of driving above the speed limit, they aren't acting on suspicion. They're acting on knowledge.
Again, Terry dealt with stopping an individual based on suspicion, rather than knowledge. You'd be laughed out of court if you tried to use this argument against an officer writing you a ticket for a civil infraction that he witnessed.
Fundamentally, the problem here is that jbone and others don't actually know what "crime" and "criminal" mean. They think that they refer to someone who has violated a law. While this is how the term is colloquially used, it is not a legal definition.
Quick aside to demonstrate just how severely the people arguing with Tawnos fail to understand the relevant issues:
The Constitutional assurance of trial by a jury of peers applies only to criminal trials. If you get sued for breach of contract, you have no guaranteed privilege of a jury trial. Whoops, you didn't know that, did you?
Back to the specific matter at hand. "Crime" is a legal term, and therefore has a legal (aka unambiguous and incontrovertible) definition. jbone wants to use "criminal" ambiguously, and insist that people know what he means. Unfortunately, all I know is that he doesn't know he's saying, and it doesn't matter what he means.
There is no argument to be had here:
"crime" does not mean "violation of law". Period.
Side topic:
It's laughable that some people still try to pooh-pooh Wikipedia. What a bunch of Luddite nincompoops. Ray LaHood wants to talk to you about your cell phones.
At least you make it easy to know you lie, jbone. You put that handy icon indicating the topic that causes you to lie the most, while alerting the reader that you may be lying elsewhere. Consider, the person in this case is not a criminal, but a civil violator (overstayed a tourist visa). Additionally, he was approved for a visa in 1995. NINETEEN NINETY FIVE! You're arguing people should follow a system that is so broken it's laughable, and that you get so frothy mouthed (love the new signature) about it makes it hilarious. You should get a picture uploaded so you can look as classy as these people when history moves on and leaves you behind.
Mmm, delicious rage from a derptard who doesn't know the difference between illegal and criminal acts.
From the bar's legal document:
The only way I'm "part of the problem we face" is that I dare see people as people, and that I hold the constitution and its values in high regard. You betray those values so easily that it is clear their value to you is only in the "got mine, screw you" sense.
But, like I said, your kind is dying off. Anyone who can see could look at a public opinion chart and see the shift in this country to (in general) embrace freedom, rather than your pathetic tyranny and oppression of groups you don't like.
This is faulty logic. Speeding is not a crime(in Wa.) therefore there is no knowledge of anything criminal. There is no observable crime.
Stopping (seizing) can only be done reasonably if there is suspicion of a crime. Perhaps if the speeding vehicle fit the description of a bank robber's get-a-way vehicle then you would have your "suspicion".
As for your prediction of the outcome of a hypothetical... what court do you speak of... the one where you're a defendant or a plaintiff?
As you can see, violation of the law is reason for a stop.Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
And the reasons for the violation are based on a reasonableness standard (intermediate scrutiny).the permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests
As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam).
Neal Stephenson "The Diamond Age: Or said:Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy... Because they were hypocrites, the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves-they took no moral stances and lived by none.
Isaac Asimov "Foundation" said:Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!
I really do hate bit bulls and would love to put a bullet in every single one of them.
The dude is here somewhat illegally. His petition to get a visa has been granted and he continues to await the visa. Now, does he have to leave the country to wait for his visa? Apparently not. Whether his remaining here is permitted under the statutes is a question that appears to be settled.....he is still here and will be permitted to practice law in California.His father, who was a lawful permanent resident at the time, and who has since gained full citizenship status, filed a petition for an immigrant visa (“Form I-130”) for his son on November 18, 1994. That petition was approved in January of 1995, and Mr. Garcia has been waiting, in an undocumented status, for the past 17 years for the visa to become available.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/SergioGarcia .pdf