This is effectively "I don't like what you have said, or, didn't say - so you are banished." If you OBJECTIVELY look at the flagged tweets, there is nothing remotely objectionable about them.
Everyone is innocent until convicted. Yes?
Does that mean no one can be detained or arrested (because they are innocent)? No?
They had RAS (there is absolutely no question about that - they ALREADY WITNESSED FELONIES) and they had someone who they believed committed one of those crimes, I an pretty sure that this qualifies as an investigative detention.
My understanding, from the video's I have seen, is that the word POLICE is plainly visible on their uniforms. Is that not the case? My understanding again, is that this is the minimum requirement for identification as a police officer (with perhaps a badge displayed after an arrest has been affected). My understanding is that the FBI, DHS, CBP, and most federal agencies, do not have identifying numbers on their badges. But again, under powers granted federal agencies post 9/11, you can be snatched off the street, thrown into a dark hole, no habeas corpus, until you rot, under a Presidential declaration of terrorism. Even a sealed Executive Order, which you never get to see. My advice, is not to be anywhere near people who are destroying, or are attempting to destroy, federal buildings.
If the act of whisking the detainee off the street is to PREVENT violence, which would surely happen if the officers stayed with the detainees ON the street, then doesn't that pass constitutional muster?
Further, how do you know what the point of these detentions were? Do you have an inside source you haven't mentioned? Certainly there has been no confirmation from the government agencies...
If the FBI is arresting a bank robber in the act of robbing a bank, and the bank robber says to the FBI - "Hey - IDENTIFY YOURSELF" and the FBI doesn't identify, does that arrest somehow become unlawful? And, further, these are Investigative detentions, weren't they?
If there were reasonable articulable suspicions that a crime had been committed, was being, or was about to be committed, and they had general descriptions that the suspects, and the people who were in the vicinity met those general descriptions, doesn't that meet all the constitutional requirements for the investigative detentions?
I don't believe that the law can require that the images be kept onsite. The solution is to keep images offsite, say, Argentina, or Russia. If they so demand the images, invite them to inspect where they are kept. Furthermore, have a service that prevents remote access to those images, in the name of security.
I don't know about you, but I think that the American pubic has learned plenty already. The American PUBLIC, on the other hand, needs to learn a bit more.
While I don't work for IBM and never have, I can tell you of two things that IBM has done, that has and has and will literally change the world. First, the IBM PC. While you may say that it was "just another microcomputer" in its day, it brought the microcomputer to the corporate desktop, and things have not been the same since. Second, recently, Watson. This is software/hardware that will change the world. Do you remember the Jeopardy shows a couple of years ago? The potential for this product is limitless, and perhaps a little scary (think "SkyNet", "Colossus", etc.) I do believe that your eye-glass prescription need adjustment to remove the shortsightedness that you have seemed to adopt.
By the way, this also means at New York City, all of Long Island, virtually ALL along a 100 mile perimeter around the country falls withing the 100 mile constitutional exclusion zone.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Paul Gregory.
This should worry nearly everyone
This is effectively "I don't like what you have said, or, didn't say - so you are banished." If you OBJECTIVELY look at the flagged tweets, there is nothing remotely objectionable about them.
Re: These were Investigative detentions, weren't they?
They are not required to. If they were required to identify themselves, you know, like legally, for a detention, they would have.
Re: These were Investigative detentions, weren't they?
Everyone is innocent until convicted. Yes?
Does that mean no one can be detained or arrested (because they are innocent)? No? They had RAS (there is absolutely no question about that - they ALREADY WITNESSED FELONIES) and they had someone who they believed committed one of those crimes, I an pretty sure that this qualifies as an investigative detention.
Re: Re: Citizens arrest?
My understanding, from the video's I have seen, is that the word POLICE is plainly visible on their uniforms. Is that not the case? My understanding again, is that this is the minimum requirement for identification as a police officer (with perhaps a badge displayed after an arrest has been affected). My understanding is that the FBI, DHS, CBP, and most federal agencies, do not have identifying numbers on their badges. But again, under powers granted federal agencies post 9/11, you can be snatched off the street, thrown into a dark hole, no habeas corpus, until you rot, under a Presidential declaration of terrorism. Even a sealed Executive Order, which you never get to see. My advice, is not to be anywhere near people who are destroying, or are attempting to destroy, federal buildings.
Re: Re: Re: These were Investigative detentions, weren't they?
TripMN, don't you mean "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion"? Probable Cause is required for an arrest. RAS is a lower threshold to cross.
Re:
If the act of whisking the detainee off the street is to PREVENT violence, which would surely happen if the officers stayed with the detainees ON the street, then doesn't that pass constitutional muster? Further, how do you know what the point of these detentions were? Do you have an inside source you haven't mentioned? Certainly there has been no confirmation from the government agencies...
Re: These were Investigative detentions, weren't they?
If the FBI is arresting a bank robber in the act of robbing a bank, and the bank robber says to the FBI - "Hey - IDENTIFY YOURSELF" and the FBI doesn't identify, does that arrest somehow become unlawful? And, further, these are Investigative detentions, weren't they?
Citizens arrest?
Good luck with that... Not only will this person lose, but, there would be liability for filing a false statement.
Re: Re: These were Investigative detentions, weren't they?
How so?
Re: Re: These were Investigative detentions, weren't they?
Are you sure? Can you point to that in a statute, or affirmed decision?
These were Investigative detentions, weren't they?
If there were reasonable articulable suspicions that a crime had been committed, was being, or was about to be committed, and they had general descriptions that the suspects, and the people who were in the vicinity met those general descriptions, doesn't that meet all the constitutional requirements for the investigative detentions?
A solution
I don't believe that the law can require that the images be kept onsite. The solution is to keep images offsite, say, Argentina, or Russia. If they so demand the images, invite them to inspect where they are kept. Furthermore, have a service that prevents remote access to those images, in the name of security.
I think someone needs to do more proofreading
I don't know about you, but I think that the American pubic has learned plenty already. The American PUBLIC, on the other hand, needs to learn a bit more.
Dear Mike,
While I don't work for IBM and never have, I can tell you of two things that IBM has done, that has and has and will literally change the world. First, the IBM PC. While you may say that it was "just another microcomputer" in its day, it brought the microcomputer to the corporate desktop, and things have not been the same since. Second, recently, Watson. This is software/hardware that will change the world. Do you remember the Jeopardy shows a couple of years ago? The potential for this product is limitless, and perhaps a little scary (think "SkyNet", "Colossus", etc.) I do believe that your eye-glass prescription need adjustment to remove the shortsightedness that you have seemed to adopt.
Paul
Re:
sorry: within not withing
By the way, this also means at New York City, all of Long Island, virtually ALL along a 100 mile perimeter around the country falls withing the 100 mile constitutional exclusion zone.