Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

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

No he does not.


He indicated that he does.



'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
authority over civilians.


"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize and
hold under the authority of law." If you don't think military police have
the power to seize and hold civilians on a military installation then you
know nothing of military police.

Clark wrote:
|| Colin Campbell (remove underscore)
|| wrote in :
||
||| 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.'
|||
|||
|| You are mistaken. Read the case law and look up the source of
|| authority to arrest including citizens arrest. Anyone does have the
|| authority to arrest.

But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties - parties
being civilian or security officer, police - there are limitations. Ever
hear the term, "full police power or authority"? I read someplace (forget
where) that a "detainment becomes an arrest when the arresting individual
performs any act that indicates an intention to take the person into custody
and subjects the person arrested to the actual control and will of the
person making the arrest. The specific determination is highly fact based."
Perhaps the distinction would be on how it is clarified in definition in
each State? But, the military is still bound by the Comitatus Act and US
Code in regards to levels of power afforded. They don't actually 'arrest'
but hold until the appropriate agency with the appropriate level of power
can do the actual arrest. Well, that's my input, however accurate or
inaccurate it may be, and take on the issue of whether or not the military
can arrest civilians. It's a matter of definition of the word 'arrest' and
the limitations, and the powers of arrest afforded.

As far as military jurisdiction, as in arrest, over civilians:
"All members of the military have the ordinary right of private citizens to
assist in maintenance of the peace. This includes the right to apprehend
offenders. Citizen's arrest power is defined by local law. In exercising
this power, care should be taken not to exceed the right granted by law.
Service members also must be familiar with the limits imposed upon military
personnel by the Posse Comitatus Act."
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...19-10/Ch10.htm

"Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy
by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78)
clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement
agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling
into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive
and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft,
intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting
direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search,
seizure, and arrests)."
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/f...Comitatus.html

Furthermore, Title 10, Chapter 18, Section 375: "The Secretary of Defense
shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any
activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the
assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include
or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or
Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless
participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by
law." Section 378 "The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the
provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any
personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct
participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a
search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in
such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIch18.html

Section 378 below is wrong, here is the correct entry for Section 378:
"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the
executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian
law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before December 1,
1981"

~Nins~ wrote:
|| Clark wrote:
|||| Colin Campbell (remove underscore)
|||| wrote in :
||||
||||| 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.'
|||||
|||||
|||| You are mistaken. Read the case law and look up the source of
|||| authority to arrest including citizens arrest. Anyone does have the
|||| authority to arrest.
||
|| But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties -
|| parties being civilian or security officer, police - there are
|| limitations. Ever hear the term, "full police power or authority"?
|| I read someplace (forget where) that a "detainment becomes an arrest
|| when the arresting individual performs any act that indicates an
|| intention to take the person into custody and subjects the person
|| arrested to the actual control and will of the person making the
|| arrest. The specific determination is highly fact based." Perhaps
|| the distinction would be on how it is clarified in definition in
|| each State? But, the military is still bound by the Comitatus Act
|| and US Code in regards to levels of power afforded. They don't
|| actually 'arrest' but hold until the appropriate agency with the
|| appropriate level of power can do the actual arrest. Well, that's
|| my input, however accurate or inaccurate it may be, and take on the
|| issue of whether or not the military can arrest civilians. It's a
|| matter of definition of the word 'arrest' and the limitations, and
|| the powers of arrest afforded.
||
|| As far as military jurisdiction, as in arrest, over civilians:
|| "All members of the military have the ordinary right of private
|| citizens to assist in maintenance of the peace. This includes the
|| right to apprehend offenders. Citizen's arrest power is defined by
|| local law. In exercising this power, care should be taken not to
|| exceed the right granted by law. Service members also must be
|| familiar with the limits imposed upon military personnel by the
|| Posse Comitatus Act."
|| http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...19-10/Ch10.htm
||
|| "Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies
|| to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted
|| (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance
|| to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast
|| Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United
|| States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and
|| technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft,
|| intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally
|| prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement
|| (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests)."
|| http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/f...Comitatus.html
||
|| Furthermore, Title 10, Chapter 18, Section 375: "The Secretary of
|| Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to
|| ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment
|| or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this
|| chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member
|| of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure,
|| arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such
|| activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law." Section
|| 378 "The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as
|| may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the
|| provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail
|| of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit
|| direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or
|| Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity
|| unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise
|| authorized by law."
|| http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIch18.html

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
~Nins~ http://www.churchbulletin.com
In the forest be a clearing where trueness of color and truth dwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

"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.



Where? The legal definition is what is being used in this thread, or so I
thought. What is the LEGAL defintion of the word, as applied to military
personnel?

"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.

I don't think so.

On 17 Jan 2004 03:42:50 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:

Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote in
:


You are mistaken. Read the case law and look up the source of authority to
arrest including citizens arrest. Anyone does have the authority to arrest.

A 'citizen's arrest' can only be performed in the presence of a law
enforcement officer who has jurisdiction.



"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

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 1/16/2004 4:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"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!


It is possible to handcuff someone, put them in a vehicle and transport them to
the station without arrest. It's called detention. Detaining an individual for
questioning or identification while awaiting charges for example.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:57:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"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.

I don't have to 'look it up.' I have dealt with these situations in
the real world and got my training from a better source than
'Websters.'



"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 Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:07:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
authority over civilians.


"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize and
hold under the authority of law." If you don't think military police have
the power to seize and hold civilians on a military installation then you
know nothing of military police.

And I am using 'arrest' in the manner I have been trained to use it.

As I stated 'arrest' is a specific legal status. I am not using the
'everyday' term because doing so give the impression that the military
has law enforcement powers over civilians.


"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 Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:58:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"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.

I am not playing your game.

Since when does your dictionary trump my real world experience and
training?



"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