Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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"?

In my case, it would be the guy with a 0.45 inch hole in his forehead.

In Dan's case, it might be a citizen's arrest.

On 17 Jan 2004 00:49:33 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:


I suggest you check into that further. "Arrest" may be a precise legal term
but field application of "arrest" may not be. If anyone is "held" (prevented
from moving at their disgression) then it can be succussfully argued that
they have been arrested. The question to ask is "Am I free to leave or am I
being detained?" If the answer is detained then you have been "arrested" and
are due the protections of that status.

Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.' This
is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the authority
to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:01:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"charles krin" wrote in message
.. .

Chuckle...Colin didn't say that...he said that usually a summons to
appear before a federal magistrate was issued for minor problems...and
if the problem wasn't minor, then the offender was held pending arrest
by either the FBI or the US Marshals.


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

Wrong. For instance - any arrest creates a permanent NCIC entry for
the arrestee. An arrest also requires that the subject be charged
with an offense.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
Customs of War.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:04:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...

'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.'


You are mistaken. I suggest you look up the word "arrest".

Why should I? I had this all explained to me in a class taught by a
JAG lawyer.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest?

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...

Wrong. Using this rule - anybody has the authority to 'arrest.' This
is why there is such a clear legal distinction between the authority
to 'arrest' and the authority to 'detain.'


Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...

Wrong. For instance - any arrest creates a permanent NCIC entry for
the arrestee. An arrest also requires that the subject be charged
with an offense.


Look up the damn word.

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...

Why should I?


So that you might gain an understanding of what it means.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:



The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest?

They're the luckiest *******s this side of the International Date
Line.

THey should be bench-pressing six feet of pig ****.