|
|
|
ISTR that most states have laws prohibiting the drinking of alcohol in
public, which is why people often drink from bottles wrapped in brown
paper ... is this on the basis that the police would not be allowed to
inspect the bottle, due to having no probable cause for a search ?
TIA
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:25:04 -0700 (PDT), Jethro
<jethro_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
ISTR that most states have laws prohibiting the drinking of alcohol in
public, which is why people often drink from bottles wrapped in brown
paper ... is this on the basis that the police would not be allowed to
inspect the bottle, due to having no probable cause for a search ?
TIA
Actually, you can legally drink in public. To a certain extent. What
you cannot do is drive while drinking. Ergo the brown paper bag which
makes it impossible for the officer to see what you're drinking.
Contrary to popular belief, if the officer suspsects you are consuming
impairing liquids while driving that is his probable cause to stop.
I was going to into one of my favorite stores and saw two guys ahead
of me. Some guy was coming out with a brown paper bag. I see this huge
badge being shown suddenly and the one guy is taking a peek inside the
paper bag. I quickly found the manager and told him the two guys were
from AT&F. The two guys quickly exited the store.
I asked a friend of mine who was a deputy sheriff at the time about
that. He told me then that AT&F doesn't have the authority to look in
brown paper bags like that. But times have changed and so may have the
laws and rules. So it's best to check with local authority people to
know for sure who can do what and when.
|
| |
| |
ISTR that most states have laws prohibiting the drinking of alcohol in
public, which is why people often drink from bottles wrapped in brown
paper ... is this on the basis that the police would not be allowed to
inspect the bottle, due to having no probable cause for a search ?
My suspicion is that people often drink from bottles wrapped in
brown paper because (a) if they've got any GOOD stuff to drink,
they don't want it stolen (by police or their peers drinking out
of bottles wrapped in brown paper), and (b) they attract less
attention if they don't make it obvious to any cop across the street,
but force him to ask to see it. This is one of the reasons criminals
try not to drive a stolen car with the alarm still going off, pass
counterfeit USA money with Britney Spears' picture on it, approach
cops in uniform to sell them drugs inside the police station, or
bring a live TV crew along on a burglary. (Granted, particularly
stupid criminals have probably done all these.)
I suspect a cop could GET probable cause to inspect the bottle by
starting up a conversation with the guy and smelling his breath,
observing his behavior, or perhaps asking the guy what he's drinking
(he doesn't have to answer, but he may not know that).
|
| |
| |
In article <j4sdv35isq0pmevnchpmq5mutsmfe7pujd@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:25:04 -0700 (PDT), Jethro
<jethro_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Actually, you can legally drink in public.
Goodness, Richard, are you ever right?
In many places you cannot drink in public. New York City, for example,
has a law prohibiting open containers of alcohol.
To a certain extent. What
you cannot do is drive while drinking.
That's an entirely different crime.
Ergo the brown paper bag which
makes it impossible for the officer to see what you're drinking.
Contrary to popular belief, if the officer suspsects you are consuming
impairing liquids while driving that is his probable cause to stop.
What "popular belief" are you referring to? I imagine the popular
belief is that if the officer sees you drinking and driving - in other
words, committing a crime - he can stop you.
I was going to into one of my favorite stores and saw two guys ahead
of me. Some guy was coming out with a brown paper bag. I see this huge
badge being shown suddenly and the one guy is taking a peek inside the
paper bag. I quickly found the manager and told him the two guys were
from AT&F. The two guys quickly exited the store.
I asked a friend of mine who was a deputy sheriff at the time about
that. He told me then that AT&F doesn't have the authority to look in
brown paper bags like that. But times have changed and so may have the
laws and rules. So it's best to check with local authority people to
know for sure who can do what and when.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:56:54 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <j4sdv35isq0pmevnchpmq5mutsmfe7pujd@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
Goodness, Richard, are you ever right?
In many places you cannot drink in public. New York City, for example,
has a law prohibiting open containers of alcohol.
Hey larry? you ever been outside of NYC? You ever been to a real home
that has that green stuff around it we call grass? Most states,
probably including new york, allows consumption of alcohol on private
property even though that private property is in the public view.
You ever been to one of them outdoor sidewalk cafe things where they
serve beer? Why aren't they violating the law? Oh maybe it has to do
with a little piece of paper called a permit.
That's an entirely different crime.
What "popular belief" are you referring to? I imagine the popular
belief is that if the officer sees you drinking and driving - in other
words, committing a crime - he can stop you.
Ah but only if he can "CLEARLY" see the labeling.
So he passes me, and he sees me holding a brown paper bag up to my
mouth. Is that alone probable cause? What if the content of the bottle
I'm drinking from is water?
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:56:54 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Hey larry? you ever been outside of NYC? You ever been to a real home
that has that green stuff around it we call grass? Most states,
probably including new york, allows consumption of alcohol on private
property even though that private property is in the public view.
So you think that when the OP asked about " laws prohibiting the drinking of
alcohol in public" by "in public" he was referring to people drinking on
their front porch or in their back yard? Jesus @$#* a tree but you're a
utter @$#*ing retard.
You ever been to one of them outdoor sidewalk cafe things where they
serve beer? Why aren't they violating the law? Oh maybe it has to do
with a little piece of paper called a permit.
If it were legal to drink in public, why would a cafe need a permit to serve
beer outside? Take your time you completely stupid @$#*ing moron, it's a
trick question.
Ah but only if he can "CLEARLY" see the labeling.
So he passes me, and he sees me holding a brown paper bag up to my
mouth. Is that alone probable cause? What if the content of the bottle
I'm drinking from is water?
|
| |
| |
In article <8i2ev3hpbffme2qa4ic001egjcejpcc4k3@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:56:54 -0400, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Hey larry? you ever been outside of NYC?
Yes, many times.
You ever been to a real home
that has that green stuff around it we call grass? Most states,
probably including new york, allows consumption of alcohol on private
property even though that private property is in the public view.
That's not "drinking in public" then. It's drinking on private property.
You ever been to one of them outdoor sidewalk cafe things where they
serve beer? Why aren't they violating the law? Oh maybe it has to do
with a little piece of paper called a permit.
Right. Without the permit, they would be violating laws about serving
alcohol, and the patrons would be violating laws about consuming alcohol
in public.
You DO realize you just proved yourself wrong and made my point? The
reason these places get the permits is because without them, it is
against the law!
To a certain extent. What
you cannot do is drive while drinking.
That's an entirely different crime.
Ergo the brown paper bag which
makes it impossible for the officer to see what you're drinking.
Contrary to popular belief, if the officer suspsects you are consuming
impairing liquids while driving that is his probable cause to stop.
What "popular belief" are you referring to? I imagine the popular
belief is that if the officer sees you drinking and driving - in other
words, committing a crime - he can stop you.
Ah but only if he can "CLEARLY" see the labeling.
Not at all. In fact, most drunk drivers are not actually drinking while
they drive. Drunk drivers are caught most commonly either at
checkpoints or after being pulled over for some erratic driving or
traffic infraction. Then the officer sees indications they've been
drinking - we all know what they are, we've all been around drunk people
- so they're arrested for DWI.
So he passes me, and he sees me holding a brown paper bag up to my
mouth. Is that alone probable cause? What if the content of the bottle
I'm drinking from is water?
Why does "probable cause" matter? Probable cause is needed to arrest
you - not for the police to walk up to you and ask a question or two.
I was going to into one of my favorite stores and saw two guys ahead
of me. Some guy was coming out with a brown paper bag. I see this huge
badge being shown suddenly and the one guy is taking a peek inside the
paper bag. I quickly found the manager and told him the two guys were
from AT&F. The two guys quickly exited the store.
I asked a friend of mine who was a deputy sheriff at the time about
that. He told me then that AT&F doesn't have the authority to look in
brown paper bags like that. But times have changed and so may have the
laws and rules. So it's best to check with local authority people to
know for sure who can do what and when.
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
In article <8i2ev3hpbffme2qa4ic001egjcejpcc4k3@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
Yes, many times.
That's not "drinking in public" then. It's drinking on private
property.
Right. Without the permit, they would be violating laws about serving
alcohol, and the patrons would be violating laws about consuming
alcohol in public.
You DO realize you just proved yourself wrong and made my point? The
reason these places get the permits is because without them, it is
against the law!
To a certain extent. What
you cannot do is drive while drinking.
That's an entirely different crime.
Ergo the brown paper bag which
makes it impossible for the officer to see what you're drinking.
Contrary to popular belief, if the officer suspsects you are
consuming impairing liquids while driving that is his probable
cause to stop.
What "popular belief" are you referring to? I imagine the popular
belief is that if the officer sees you drinking and driving - in
other words, committing a crime - he can stop you.
Not at all. In fact, most drunk drivers are not actually drinking
while they drive. Drunk drivers are caught most commonly either at
checkpoints or after being pulled over for some erratic driving or
traffic infraction. Then the officer sees indications they've been
drinking - we all know what they are, we've all been around drunk
people - so they're arrested for DWI.
Why does "probable cause" matter? Probable cause is needed to arrest
you - not for the police to walk up to you and ask a question or two.
Does the suspect have a right to remain silent?
|
| |
| |
In article <65pnv3F2hem2bU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Larry wrote:
Does the suspect have a right to remain silent?
It depends.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 4, 5:25=A0pm, Jethro <jethro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
ISTR
"ISTR"?? Whatsit?
that most states have laws prohibiting the drinking of alcohol in
public,
Umm... *In All The States* that *I've* been in, The Prohibition
against "*Consuming Alcohol In Public*" has been a Function Of
MUNICIPAL Code... State Law *Ordinarily* being SILENT on the Matter...
which is why people often drink from bottles wrapped in brown
paper ...
Got No Idea what The Actual Motivation is for Brown Paper Bag
Imbibers to employ said Disguise, but I'll Pretty Nearly Guarantee
that That Threadbare Deception offers NO PROTECTION against being
Charged with the Relevant Offense...
is this on the basis that the police would not be allowed to
inspect the bottle, due to having no probable cause for a search ?
Suck-Ass Pigs don't need "Probable Cause" in this Circumstance, AND
I Doubt that the "UNobtrusive [BRIEF] Detention" Effected to [ATTEMPT
TO] Determine what's In THE BAG/Container rises to the Level of a Full-
Blown "Search".. SAPs would have, *seeing only* a Person Carrying/
Drinking From a Container inside a Paper Bag, the REQUISITE
"Reasonable Suspicion" to effect a "Terry Encounter" to Determine
whether their *REASONABLE* Suspicions are Well-Founded and from that,
whether they can "Boot Strap" the Encounter, Asking Questions & Making
Observations which would provide The REQUISITE *Probable Cause* to
proceed to the Next Level, which could Very Well Include a "Custodial
Arrest"... AND... The Odds are in SAP's Favor at this point since Mr
BrownBagger likely SMELLS of Jack Daniels, Slurs his Speech, [Oyy Don
Amfer Kestshuns...BWAAAUUUURRRRP...] is UNsteady, has Blood-Shot Eyes,
Ad Nauseam... OR Any Combination thereof...
TIA
Naughtius "I'm Not As Thimk As You Drunk Am I" Maximus
|
| |
| |
In article <65pnv3F2hem2bU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
It depends.
Then is really isn't much of a "right" is it, Larry ?
|
| |
| |
naughtius@netscape.net wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:25 pm, Jethro <jethro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"ISTR"?? Whatsit?
Umm... *In All The States* that *I've* been in, The Prohibition
against "*Consuming Alcohol In Public*" has been a Function Of
MUNICIPAL Code... State Law *Ordinarily* being SILENT on the Matter...
Got No Idea what The Actual Motivation is for Brown Paper Bag
Imbibers to employ said Disguise, but I'll Pretty Nearly Guarantee
that That Threadbare Deception offers NO PROTECTION against being
Charged with the Relevant Offense...
Suck-Ass Pigs don't need "Probable Cause" in this Circumstance, AND
I Doubt that the "UNobtrusive [BRIEF] Detention" Effected to [ATTEMPT
TO] Determine what's In THE BAG/Container rises to the Level of a
Full- Blown "Search".. SAPs would have, *seeing only* a Person
Carrying/ Drinking From a Container inside a Paper Bag, the REQUISITE
"Reasonable Suspicion"
So how is drinking soda or juice from a container inside a Paper Bag
"suspicious" ?
to effect a "Terry Encounter" to Determine
whether their *REASONABLE* Suspicions are Well-Founded and from that,
whether they can "Boot Strap" the Encounter, Asking Questions & Making
Observations which would provide The REQUISITE *Probable Cause* to
proceed to the Next Level, which could Very Well Include a "Custodial
Arrest"... AND... The Odds are in SAP's Favor at this point since Mr
BrownBagger likely SMELLS of Jack Daniels, Slurs his Speech, [Oyy Don
Amfer Kestshuns...BWAAAUUUURRRRP...] is UNsteady, has Blood-Shot Eyes,
Ad Nauseam... OR Any Combination thereof...
Naughtius "I'm Not As Thimk As You Drunk Am I" Maximus
|
| |
| |
In article <65r9nkF2g58cdU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
Then is really isn't much of a "right" is it, Larry ?
It is, it just isn't an absolute right.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 6, 10:04=A0am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
naught...@netscape.net wrote:
that most states have laws prohibiting the drinking of alcohol in
public,
which is why people often drink from bottles wrapped in brown
paper ...
is this on the basis that the police would not be allowed to
inspect the bottle, due to having no probable cause for a search ?
So how is drinking soda or juice from a container inside a Paper Bag
"suspicious" ?
[Snip]
Well, Of Course, it's NOT the Actus Reus of *drinking* an UNknown
Substance, which *could be* INNOCENT Soda or Juice... OR NOT So
Innocent Barley Pop, Joy Juice, Bluhhdy Grog, Warm Piss, or Sterno...
It Is the *Concealing* of One's Beverage - Which *could very well
be* the aforementioned Barley Pop/Joy Juice/Etc - in the Brown Paper
Bag of a Size and Shape which could ONLY accomodate a Single, Usually
Cylindrical Container, customarily distributed by Package Liquor
Stores, that gives rise to the Ordinary Suck-Ass Pig's *Reasonable*
Suspicion that CRIME [Public Consumption of Alcohol] is Afoot...
ANNnnnd... As We ALL Know... Swear And Affirm... Suck-Ass Pigs,
WHEN They Possess the REQUISITE, MANDATORY, Articulable _FACTS_
amounting to REASONABLE Suspicion, - The MINIMUM STANDARD of "Cause"
SAPs MUST Have in order to LAWFULLY Hinder a Citizen's Liberty to Move
About Freely - SAPs are then *Authorized* to make a *BRIEF*,
UNobtrusive, **Detention** in order To Investigate Further their
Suspicions of CRIME Afoot...
Per Terry v Ohio...
ANNnnnd... AS ALWAYS, NO Citizen can be Compelled To Cooperate
with, i.e., Answering Questions/Permitting a Search, a SAP's
Investigation Based On "Reasonable Suspicion," OTHER THAN he/she MUST
NOT "Break" or Use Force Against the SAP's BRIEF, UNobtrusive
Detention... Which IS a Separate CRIME, In & Of Itself...
Naughtius "Better To Reuse A BIG GULP" Maximus
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
In article <65r9nkF2g58cdU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
It is, it just isn't an absolute right.
Sounds more like a gov't granted privilege then ...
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
Does the suspect have a right to remain silent?
Anything you fail to say now could affect you when in court.
Thus you should have your case prepared.
|
| |
| |
naughtius@netscape.net wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:04 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
[Snip]
Well, Of Course, it's NOT the Actus Reus of *drinking* an UNknown
Substance, which *could be* INNOCENT Soda or Juice... OR NOT So
Innocent Barley Pop, Joy Juice, Bluhhdy Grog, Warm Piss, or Sterno...
It Is the *Concealing* of One's Beverage - Which *could very well
be* the aforementioned Barley Pop/Joy Juice/Etc - in the Brown Paper
Bag
So if it's another color, and not paper it wouldn't be suspicious, eh?
of a Size and Shape which could ONLY accomodate a Single, Usually
Cylindrical Container, customarily distributed by Package Liquor
Stores, that gives rise to the Ordinary Suck-Ass Pig's *Reasonable*
Suspicion that CRIME [Public Consumption of Alcohol] is Afoot...
So if the drunkards poured their alcohol beverage into a soda or juice
container, and proceeded to drink openly from that, the suspicion would
be severely mitigated, eh?
ANNnnnd... As We ALL Know... Swear And Affirm... Suck-Ass Pigs,
WHEN They Possess the REQUISITE, MANDATORY, Articulable _FACTS_
amounting to REASONABLE Suspicion, - The MINIMUM STANDARD of "Cause"
SAPs MUST Have in order to LAWFULLY Hinder a Citizen's Liberty to Move
About Freely - SAPs are then *Authorized* to make a *BRIEF*,
UNobtrusive, **Detention** in order To Investigate Further their
Suspicions of CRIME Afoot...
Or they could just shoot your ass dead, and claim you caused them
"to fear for their life".
Per Terry v Ohio...
ANNnnnd... AS ALWAYS, NO Citizen can be Compelled To Cooperate
with, i.e., Answering Questions/Permitting a Search, a SAP's
Investigation Based On "Reasonable Suspicion," OTHER THAN he/she MUST
NOT "Break" or Use Force Against the SAP's BRIEF, UNobtrusive
Detention... Which IS a Separate CRIME, In & Of Itself...
You better catch up with SCOTUS decisions, the police can compel
you to identify yourself, or take you into custody for said refusal.
|
| |
| |
In article <x-444459.21565404042008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <j4sdv35isq0pmevnchpmq5mutsmfe7pujd@4ax.com>,
richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
Goodness, Richard, are you ever right?
Actually Richard said "To a certain extent." Which is true. Nice going
Larry, you've been bested by Richard.
In many places you cannot drink in public. New York City, for example,
has a law prohibiting open containers of alcohol.
|
| |
| |
tjab wrote:
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Actually Richard said "To a certain extent." Which is true. Nice going
Larry, you've been bested by Richard.
OMG!
Has Larry reached the bottom yet, or is there no limit to the
depths of his ignorance and stupidity ?
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:ftb4ba$7gg@rac1.wam.umd.edu:
In article <x-444459.21565404042008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Actually Richard said "To a certain extent." Which is true. Nice going
Larry, you've been bested by Richard.
If by "to a certain extent," you think that richard was talking about
drinking water on the sidewalk.
<snip>
|
| |
| |
On Apr 5, 11:27=EF=BF=BDpm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
In article <65pnv3F2hem2...@mid.individual.net>,
=EF=BF=BD"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
It depends.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Do either of you morons realize that you are posting to a UK (as in
UK) legal group?
It must be Spring. The idiots are in bloom!
|
| |
| |
In article <65shrmF2hd5o4U1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Larry wrote:
Sounds more like a gov't granted privilege then ...
Nope. You have the absolute right to remain silent in certain
circumstances, not others.
For example, if you're on your front porch drinking from a container
concealed by a brown paper bag, and an officer asks what is in the bag,
you don't need to answer. If you try to board an aircraft carrying a
liquid concealed in a brown paper bag, and you're asked what it is, you
must either tell or show the TSA officials what it is if you want to
board the plane.
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Nope. You have the absolute right to remain silent in certain
circumstances, not others.
So when a cop asks for your name and/or identification, in what circumstances
does a person have an "absolute right to remain silent" ?
For example,
<snip Larry's stupid off-point examples>
|
| |
| |
In article <65t0dtF2hd4n3U1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Larry wrote:
So when a cop asks for your name and/or identification, in what circumstances
does a person have an "absolute right to remain silent" ?
Why are you asking me? It's not like you'd accept what I tell you.
For example,
<snip Larry's stupid off-point examples>
You mean the "off-point" example that was an example that answers the
question you just asked?
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
In article <65t0dtF2hd4n3U1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Why are you asking me? It's not like you'd accept what I tell you.
Evasion noted ... but with the public bruising you've taken lately
I can understand your fear.
|
| |
| |
In article <65t18nF2hd1vcU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Larry wrote:
Evasion noted ... but with the public bruising you've taken lately
I can understand your fear.
Public bruising? You're too ignorant to realize I've been toying with
you. Except for your lapdog tjab, everyone on usenet knows you're a
pathetic joke.
|
| |
| |
You ever been to a real home
that has that green stuff around it we call grass? Most states,
probably including new york, allows consumption of alcohol on private
property even though that private property is in the public view.
That's not "drinking in public" then. It's drinking on private
property.
At least one small suburban town in my area (Belmont, California) has an
ordinance against drinking within view of the public. A friend of mine was
working on his car, in his garage, with the garage door open, and drinking a
beer. Cop drives by, stops, backs up, exits the cruiser and writes him a
ticket.
|
| |
| |
In article <Rc6dnZWCo7ViF2TanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bo Raxo <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote:
At least one small suburban town in my area (Belmont, California) has an
ordinance against drinking within view of the public. A friend of mine was
working on his car, in his garage, with the garage door open, and drinking a
beer. Cop drives by, stops, backs up, exits the cruiser and writes him a
ticket.
What is the thinking behind such laws? Is it to stop delicate
sensibilities from being offended or youth being corrupted? Is
it considered unpatriotic? Is it the same prudery that leads
to men's nipples and stallions' balls being airbrushed out?
Francis
|
| |
| |
Larry wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Public bruising? You're too ignorant to realize I've been toying with
you. Except for your lapdog tjab, everyone on usenet knows you're a
pathetic joke.
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the lying legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the idiot
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
Larry the Imbecile also claims that
0.625 grams is "far more than a gram"
and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster"
when pushed off a cliff.
|
| |
| |
Francis Burton wrote:
In article <Rc6dnZWCo7ViF2TanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Bo Raxo <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the thinking behind such laws? Is it to stop delicate
sensibilities from being offended or youth being corrupted? Is
it considered unpatriotic? Is it the same prudery that leads
to men's nipples and stallions' balls being airbrushed out?
Amerikkkans are prudish cunts.
Francis
|
| |
| |
In article <65uq4kF2glhdbU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Larry wrote:
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the lying legal stooge
How'd I know you'd come back with these stock, out-of-context statements
that do more to show your ignorance of the law than anything about me?
Oh yeah. It's because its all you have.
|
| |
| |
In article <65uq4kF2glhdbU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
How'd I know you'd come back with these stock, out-of-context statements
that do more to show your ignorance of the law than anything about me?
Sure lyin' Larry. Why not ram both feet up your ass now and invent a
"context"
for your absurd assertions?
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the lying legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the
crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in
fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the idiot
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
Larry the Imbecile also claims that
0.625 grams is "far more than a gram"
and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster"
when pushed off a cliff.
|
| |
| |
ISTR that most states have laws prohibiting the drinking of alcohol in
public, which is why people often drink from bottles wrapped in brown
paper ... is this on the basis that the police would not be allowed to
inspect the bottle, due to having no probable cause for a search ?
Yes. A conviction cannot properly be based on evidence gained through a
search that is not based on a warrant or probable cause. So the drinker's
chosen method is based on the assumption that the police won't bother with
an arrest if a conviction should not be obtainable. The fact that as person
has the bottle in a bag is not probable cause. Also, smelling the alcoholic
beverage on the breath of the suspect would not create probable cause if the
reason the officer started the conversation was to gather evidence of the
crime.
This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com . And I am not your attorney.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
On Apr 6, 12:12=A0pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
naught...@netscape.net wrote:
So if it's another color, and not paper it wouldn't be suspicious, eh?
Well... IF by "another color" AND "not paper", you mean Such Things
as a Plastic Slip-On Cover, Designed & Colored to Resemble a Coke/
Pepsi/Mountain Dew/A&W Root Beer Can, Occasionally Sold at Liquor
Stores and Novelty Shops... OR Pouring the entire Bali Hi Bottle into
a Covered/Strawed BIG Gulp... OR a 12-Pak into a Bicycle Hydration
Backpack... then Of Course it would be *LESS* Suspicious... *Not
Necessarily* giving rise to "REASONABLE Suspicion" that CRIME IS
Afoot...
Beyond that, Your Query Here BEGS The Question of "Totality Of
Circumstances"... [A DIShelveled Male, Walking UNsteadily Along the
Sidewalk, Adjacent To a Saint Pat's Day Parade, Clutching & Drinking
=46rom a HEADLESS Chatty Cathy Doll... Singing OFF-KEY, "Bottle of Wine,
Fruit a The Vine, Let me go home an' Get SOBERRrrr... " "99 Boddles a
BEER on th' Wall..." "Star-Spangled Banner"... "In-A-Gadda-Da-
Vida"...]
Whaddaya Think? REASONABLE Suspicion EVEN Tho' NO "Brown Paper Bag"
in sight?
So if the drunkards poured their alcohol beverage into a soda or juice
container, and proceeded to drink openly from that, the suspicion would
be severely mitigated, eh?
Yes.
SEE "Totality Of Circumstances" Above...
Or they could just shoot your ass dead, and claim you caused them
"to fear for their life".
Yeah?? Suck-Ass Pigs Do That ALL The Time... From Latino Teen-Agers
100 Feet Away, RUNNING F | | |
