18280 pts · November 14, 2017
The new terminal or the old ones?
Fun
I’m not saying how it should be, I’m saying how it is
Whatever you need to do to avoid admitting you were wrong.
yoink
Guess you reread the post and realized how wrong you were.
You can feel however you want about it. That doesn’t change that a crime has to be suspected
We’d have to look at the case law on it, but I’d assume it’s a fact intensive process.
Again I’m not sure what property has been seized in this example
Any you can go to court and get it back
Or maybe your just not a very good linguist.
(A-I)** and read**
I rad it and every single item that can be seized has to be suspected to relate to a crime. See sections (a)(1)(A-F)
Explain how my interpretation is wrong. That should be easy for a linguist.
I’m understanding the words exactly as they are written. You’re the one changing the clear meaning of the words.
Show me one “boot licking” comment that I’ve made
Right, a crime is suspected. Exactly like I said.
No. I was making the point that the “all” cops “routinely” is completely false as all it would take is one cope to not routinely
But that doesn’t mean that every instance is unconstitutional or that even the law its self is unconstitutional.
Okay so you sent me a link for the aclu fighting against unreasonable seizures. The aclu protects against all constitutional violations /1
The constitution just requires reasonableness
So what assets were seized? I’m not sure what your point is other than cops can lie. Anyway if you don’t have any drugs fight the charges
Cops are saints who are incapable of fault.
Never licked a boot once in my life. Just because I disagree with the preposterous idea that all cops are evil does not mean I think all /1
Sure. I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m disagreeing with the idea that 100% are bad and routinely violate the constitution
The new terminal or the old ones?
I’m not saying how it should be, I’m saying how it is
Whatever you need to do to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Guess you reread the post and realized how wrong you were.
You can feel however you want about it. That doesn’t change that a crime has to be suspected
We’d have to look at the case law on it, but I’d assume it’s a fact intensive process.
Again I’m not sure what property has been seized in this example
Any you can go to court and get it back
Or maybe your just not a very good linguist.
(A-I)** and read**
I rad it and every single item that can be seized has to be suspected to relate to a crime. See sections (a)(1)(A-F)
Explain how my interpretation is wrong. That should be easy for a linguist.
Explain how my interpretation is wrong. That should be easy for a linguist.
I’m understanding the words exactly as they are written. You’re the one changing the clear meaning of the words.
Show me one “boot licking” comment that I’ve made
Right, a crime is suspected. Exactly like I said.
No. I was making the point that the “all” cops “routinely” is completely false as all it would take is one cope to not routinely
But that doesn’t mean that every instance is unconstitutional or that even the law its self is unconstitutional.
Okay so you sent me a link for the aclu fighting against unreasonable seizures. The aclu protects against all constitutional violations /1
The constitution just requires reasonableness
So what assets were seized? I’m not sure what your point is other than cops can lie. Anyway if you don’t have any drugs fight the charges
Cops are saints who are incapable of fault.
Never licked a boot once in my life. Just because I disagree with the preposterous idea that all cops are evil does not mean I think all /1
Sure. I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m disagreeing with the idea that 100% are bad and routinely violate the constitution