Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

I can see you arn't reading what he wrote, or refuse to acknoledge it.


No you can't.

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
authorities is _not_ under arrest. And even in detaining somebody
there are specific legal rules that must be followed - or else the
detention turns into the felony of 'false arrest.'

Back when I was doing roving patrols with a pickaxe handle, torch and
PRC-349 we couldn't arrest any burglars or other miscreants we caught.
We _could_ detain them and wait for the civil police. (But never had
opportunity or cause to do so).

When the alert state rose and we had rifles, we still weren't allowed to
formally arrest intruders, though subject to ROE we would have been
allowed to shoot them.



In different circumstances, one base I was at had guard patrols of an
armed soldier and a policeman... presumably to keep all options open.
(Intruder threatens violence, intruder gets shot: intruder is detained,
intruder can immediately be arrested.)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Well, according to Colin Campbell, who spent a year pulling 'Military Police
Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at Ft Lewis not long ago and got to be an expert
on jurisdictional issues, he won't be arrested. I guess that leaves
"nothing" or "he/she will be shot" as the only alternatives.

I think that Mr. Campbell mentioned the word "detained." Perhaps the
MPs would choose to detain the kid rather than shoot him.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
means!

Not really. You're word-chopping. I can detain a burgler until the
cops arrive. That's not an arrest as it is understood in law
enforcement.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Did you read what I posted?


Yup.

He read it. He just didn't understand it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Not really.


Yes, really.



You're word-chopping.


What's "word-chopping"?



I can detain a burgler until the cops arrive.


We're talking about military cops doing the detaining.

What's a "burgler"?



That's not an arrest as it is understood in law
enforcement.


See definition two:


ar·rest Pronunciation Key (-rst)
v. ar·rest·ed, ar·rest·ing, ar·rests
v. tr.
1.. To stop; check: a brake that automatically arrests motion; arrested
the growth of the tumor.
2.. To seize and hold under the authority of law.
3.. To capture and hold briefly (the attention, for example); engage.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
means!

Not really. You're word-chopping. I can detain a burgler until the
cops arrive. That's not an arrest as it is understood in law
enforcement.


"Citizen's arrest?"

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:06:11 +1100, "The Raven"
wrote:


Here's a hypothetical. Foreign teenager caught at nuclear storage
facility
doing nothing more than shooting rats at the facility rubbish dump (not a
specifically "secure" area). What's going to happen to him/her?

Your hypothetical does not work. First of all, an armed person
attempting to improperly gain entry into a 'Level A' security site
would be shot without warning.

NATO procedure (25 years ago at least) required several warnings, THEN you
shoot them. Of course, that was while you were between the first fence and
the second. Once you touched the second fence, I think it was just "shoot to
kill," regardless of how many warnings you managed to make.

"RTO Trainer" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote
in
message ...

Actually, no.

The military does not have arrest powers for any persons not under the
UCMJ.

What happens in real life is that - for minor offenses - the subject
is cited with a mandatory court appearance before a US Magistrate.
For serious offenses the subject is detained pending the arrival of
the US Marshals or FBI (who conduct the arrest).

(I spent a year pulling 'Military Police Duty Officer' 3-4x a month at
Ft Lewis not long ago and I got to be an expert on jurisdictional
issues.)


So if a civilian commits an offense on a military installation the
military
police have no power to seize and hold him?

Of course they do. They just don't have the power to arrest him.

"Arrest" as in "formally charge him with a crime," right?

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

He read it. He just didn't understand it.


I read and understood. Perhaps if you open a dictionary you too will
understand.