Kavanaugh hearing once again in question as Christine Ford raises new concerns

[f7ben]

Just now, racer254 said:

You know you are off the res on your opinion about Kavanaugh and the 4th.  But keep up the good fight. 

 

Read his fucking words you stupid fucking cunt

[f7ben]

I'm totally shocked that Highmark has zero issue with "stop , frisk AND SEARCH" without warrant or probable cause.

[racer254]

17 minutes ago, f7ben said:

I'm totally shocked that Highmark has zero issue with "stop , frisk AND SEARCH" without warrant or probable cause.

Probably because he knows Kavanaugh's stance on the 2nd amendment as well.

[f7ben]

18 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Probably because he knows Kavanaugh's stance on the 2nd amendment as well.

Shut the fuck up you moron

[Highmark]

1 hour ago, f7ben said:

I'm totally shocked that Highmark has zero issue with "stop , frisk AND SEARCH" without warrant or probable cause.

I absolutely do have issue without probable cause however in the case in question I felt probable cause was established.  He fit a general description of a robbery suspect that occured in the immediate area and was a convicted felon.  I stand extremely strong on rights of citizens who are not criminals.   Once you are a felon some of that goes out the window in my book.     

 

   

[f7ben]

Just now, Highmark said:

I absolutely do have issue without probable cause however in the case in question I felt probable cause was established.  He fit a general description of a robbery suspect that occured in the immediate area and was a convicted felon.  I stand extremely strong on rights of citizens who are not criminals.   Once you are a felon some of that goes out the window in my book.     

 

   

They stopped him , frisked him and checked his ID. They then proceeded to disrobe him and search him after establishing he was not the subject they were looking for. Its garbage.

[Highmark]

Just now, f7ben said:

They stopped him , frisked him and checked his ID. They then proceeded to disrobe him and search him after establishing he was not the subject they were looking for. Its garbage.

Not according to case documents.

On the evening of December 19, 2003, police officers received a broadcast “lookout” for an armed robber.   Appellant Paul Askew, who wore clothing similar, but not identical to that described in the lookout, was stopped.   The police then conducted a Terry “frisk” which produced nothing.   Some time after the frisk was completed, the police moved appellant to a place where he could be seen by the complaining witness.   The officers' purpose was to determine whether the complainant could identify appellant as her assailant.   The District Court's findings of fact indicate that appellant complied during the stop and was not handcuffed during the identification show-up.   Preparatory to the show-up, but without appellant's consent, one of the officers attempted to unzip appellant's outer jacket to reveal to the complainant what appellant had on under the jacket.   The officer's unfastening of the jacket was interrupted when the zipper hit a hard object at appellant's waist.   Appellant then pushed the officer's hand away from his jacket.   These latter events aroused the officer's suspicion, but the officer did nothing and the show-up continued.   Although appellant was not implicated by the complaining witness, the police officers continued to detain him, walked him backwards towards a police vehicle, placed him on the hood of the car, and then fully unzipped his jacket.   The officers found a gun in an open waist pouch and arrested appellant.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1335162.html

 

[Highmark]

You also have to understand what was being reviewed.   The right of the first frisk and unzipping to ensure the witness could or could not properly identify him because the jacket could cover what he was wearing.   If you want to argue whether or not the call for a lookout of a suspect fitting this description was probable cause I would likely side with you on that.   However that is not what is being debated here.   If probable cause was established I think the police were justified in 1. frisking for everyone's safety.  2. Ensuring a proper witness identification could occur.  

 The order granting en banc review instructed the parties to address the following issue:

[W]hether during a Terry stop police officers may unzip a suspect's jacket solely to facilitate a show-up.   In addressing this question, the parties should consider whether the officers' action was a lawful search under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and its progeny.

United States v. Askew, No. 04-3092, Order Granting En Banc Review (D.C.Cir. July 12, 2007).   The order made clear that the only issue before the en banc court was whether the first, partial unzipping was unlawful.   There is no dispute that if the partial unzipping was unlawful, the discovery of the hard object at appellant's waist during that unzipping cannot justify the second full unzipping that yielded the gun.

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Highmark

[f7ben]

So they searched him after he was cleared by the witness....that is without a warrant or probable cause. 

Garbage

 

And thus was not the case I have the most issue with and you know it. You gleefully gloss over the mans own words on mass surveillance because you are a bootlicking hack 

[f7ben]

“In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”

Those are his words....defending government abuse and illegal search and seizure. He is an advocate for police abuse as well. There is a reason they are hiding everything the man did during the Bush years.

[racer254]

17 minutes ago, f7ben said:

“In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”

Those are his words....defending government abuse and illegal search and seizure. He is an advocate for police abuse as well. There is a reason they are hiding everything the man did during the Bush years.

You don't want to look at any case details, all you want to do is go by one sentence and form an opinion.....then you deem it appropriate to tell lies just so he won't be appointed.  That's something that makes you look like a real class act.  Thank god, we have people like you to make sure true people get on the SC rather than guys like Kavanaugh.  Maybe you should STFU and keep your lying ass to your self.

[f7ben]

5 minutes ago, racer254 said:

You don't want to look at any case details, all you want to do is go by one sentence and form an opinion.....then you deem it appropriate to tell lies just so he won't be appointed.  That's something that makes you look like a real class act.  Thank god, we have people like you to make sure true people get on the SC rather than guys like Kavanaugh.  Maybe you should STFU and keep your lying ass to your self.

Read his words you retard fucking sheep. That is his opinion and it should discount him from ever sitting on any bench anywhere ever again. 

Kill yourself 

Edited September 26, 2018 by f7ben

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

21 minutes ago, racer254 said:

You don't want to look at any case details, all you want to do is go by one sentence and form an opinion.....then you deem it appropriate to tell lies just so he won't be appointed.  That's something that makes you look like a real class act.  Thank god, we have people like you to make sure true people get on the SC rather than guys like Kavanaugh.  Maybe you should STFU and keep your lying ass to your self.

Anyone or anything that determines that the rights granted by the Constitution can be halted due to security does not deserve the Constitution or security. Take that to the bank. The only thing that matters are those rights. I’d rather see 1,000,000 people die because the govt refused to breach our rights than lose those rights for even a second. Those people lost would be a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction left in the wake of our Constitution no longer being followed.

[racer254]

6 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Anyone or anything that determines that the rights granted by the Constitution can be halted due to security does not deserve the Constitution or security. Take that to the bank. The only thing that matters are those rights. I’d rather see 1,000,000 people die because the govt refused to breach our rights than lose those rights for even a second. Those people lost would be a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction left in the wake of our Constitution no longer being followed.

X100.  I am not a big fan of what Kavanaugh wrote about it, but I also look at his rulings in other cases and realize that he seems to stick up for the rights of the people just as much or more than the government.  Everyone has an opinion, but I have not seen him rule in favor of the government for security reasons yet.  IMO he is looking at it more to protect the security of the people of this country rather than to undermine the 4th.

Edited September 26, 2018 by racer254

[Snake]

Ben, do you think you'd get frisked if you were open carrying an AR15 in public?

Assume open carry is legal there...

[f7ben]

1 hour ago, Snake said:

Ben, do you think you'd get frisked if you were open carrying an AR15 in public?

Assume open carry is legal there...

I would hope not.....because I would not be in violation of any law

Edited September 26, 2018 by f7ben

[f7ben]

1 hour ago, racer254 said:

X100.  I am not a big fan of what Kavanaugh wrote about it, but I also look at his rulings in other cases and realize that he seems to stick up for the rights of the people just as much or more than the government.  Everyone has an opinion, but I have not seen him rule in favor of the government for security reasons yet.  IMO he is looking at it more to protect the security of the people of this country rather than to undermine the 4th.

Just shut up.....you're too dumb to comprehend the means opinions or their potential bearing on our rights

[racer254]

14 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Just shut up.....you're too dumb to comprehend the means opinions or their potential bearing on our rights

Fuck off, go back to minnesota and try to figure out why you wanted to leave in the first place.  Your so caught up on one issue that you can't see the bigger fucking picture and in fact want to lie about someone just so you he doesn't get in.  Seems just as disingenuous as the fucking very politicians doing the same thing and the very ones that implemented the laws that you don't like. 

[f7ben]

15 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Fuck off, go back to minnesota and try to figure out why you wanted to leave in the first place.  Your so caught up on one issue that you can't see the bigger fucking picture and in fact want to lie about someone just so you he doesn't get in.  Seems just as disingenuous as the fucking very politicians doing the same thing and the very ones that implemented the laws that you don't like. 

Derp derp derp.....deep

Fucking retard

[ActionfigureJoe]

2 hours ago, racer254 said:

Fuck off, go back to minnesota and try to figure out why you wanted to leave in the first place.  Your so caught up on one issue that you can't see the bigger fucking picture and in fact want to lie about someone just so you he doesn't get in.  Seems just as disingenuous as the fucking very politicians doing the same thing and the very ones that implemented the laws that you don't like. 

Is Scott walker going to win? 

[SnowRider]

2 hours ago, racer254 said:

Fuck off, go back to minnesota and try to figure out why you wanted to leave in the first place.  Your so caught up on one issue that you can't see the bigger fucking picture and in fact want to lie about someone just so you he doesn't get in.  Seems just as disingenuous as the fucking very politicians doing the same thing and the very ones that implemented the laws that you don't like. 

 Literally everyone on this site - even the Repugs - realize how fucking stupid you are......you’re dumber than a box of rocks.....and the best part is......you think you have a clue   Doe Dumber or Retard Racer.....which do you prefer?    

[ActionfigureJoe]

On 9/25/2018 at 3:35 PM, Mainecat said:

Perfect.