Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The "smirk"  (Read 36429 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #80 on: December 05, 2019, 04:51:35 AM »
Advertisement
The civil rights movement brought about rebellions and challenges:

The street-level challenge to stop-and-search policing made its way to the US Supreme Court in June 1968. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court upheld the principles underlying stop-and-search policing, and determined that the threshold for a “stop-and-frisk” was an officer’s reasonable and articulable suspicion— not probable cause— that a person was involved in crime and was armed.

Warren wrote the majority opinion. Stop-and-frisk became official federal policy and the strategic cornerstone of the “war on crime” that followed.

. . . Which matches what I said. Terry v. Ohio created the reasonable suspicion standard to frisk for weapons. Before that, the standard was probable cause. The problem is that they didn’t even have grounds for any reasonable suspicion that Oswald was involved in a crime and was armed. He didn’t match the description and Brewer didn’t see a weapon.

Quote
The point is that the scuffle and gun were the reasonable cause for the arrest.

Again, he was arrested for murder. In order to do that, they needed probable cause when they made the arrest that he murdered somebody. They had none. The arrest report says nothing about an officer being punched or a trigger being pulled in the theater, or of resisting arrest — which points to those claims being invented after the fact in order to rationalize the police misconduct.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #80 on: December 05, 2019, 04:51:35 AM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #81 on: December 05, 2019, 04:56:30 AM »
No it means that no matter how closely they matched, it would never be good enough for you.

That’s a hypothetical that you couldn’t possibly know for a fact. But your claim was that he “matched the description”. HOW?

Quote
The running into the library by Hamby was mistakenly taken to be running to hide from the police search. LHO's actions aroused the suspicions of Brewer and Postal. They reported it to the police. That was enough for the police to investigate.

Police can investigate whatever they want. To search, detain, beat up, and arrest, they require more than “aroused suspicions”.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #82 on: December 05, 2019, 04:58:29 AM »
As a longtime illustrator specializing in people, and having drawn hundreds of life portraits and figures, I have a professional-level set of skills that qualify my opinion as to people's expressions.

How interesting. And utterly irrelevant.

Who gives a damn what constitutes a “smirk”?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #82 on: December 05, 2019, 04:58:29 AM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #83 on: December 05, 2019, 05:02:20 AM »
I feel really bad about that. I mean, he never ruffles anyone’s feathers.

The only people who are “ruffled” are the people complaining about a “perfect match” standard when there wasn’t a match in any sense of the word.

Which happens to be the same people complaining about an “impossible evidence” standard when they can’t even come up with a reasonable evidence-based argument to begin with.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3880
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #84 on: December 05, 2019, 11:57:55 AM »
. . . Which matches what I said. Terry v. Ohio created the reasonable suspicion standard to frisk for weapons. Before that, the standard was probable cause. The problem is that they didn’t even have grounds for any reasonable suspicion that Oswald was involved in a crime and was armed. He didn’t match the description and Brewer didn’t see a weapon.

Again, he was arrested for murder. In order to do that, they needed probable cause when they made the arrest that he murdered somebody. They had none. The arrest report says nothing about an officer being punched or a trigger being pulled in the theater, or of resisting arrest — which points to those claims being invented after the fact in order to rationalize the police misconduct.

Before that, the standard was probable cause.

Wrong. Before that it was whoever and whenever the police decided to. And some of their practices in certain areas of certain cities were being challenged in court.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #84 on: December 05, 2019, 11:57:55 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3880
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #85 on: December 05, 2019, 12:10:11 PM »
. . . Which matches what I said. Terry v. Ohio created the reasonable suspicion standard to frisk for weapons. Before that, the standard was probable cause. The problem is that they didn’t even have grounds for any reasonable suspicion that Oswald was involved in a crime and was armed. He didn’t match the description and Brewer didn’t see a weapon.

Again, he was arrested for murder. In order to do that, they needed probable cause when they made the arrest that he murdered somebody. They had none. The arrest report says nothing about an officer being punched or a trigger being pulled in the theater, or of resisting arrest — which points to those claims being invented after the fact in order to rationalize the police misconduct.

The arrest report says nothing about an officer being punched or a trigger being pulled in the theater, or of resisting arrest — which points to those claims being invented after the fact in order to rationalize the police misconduct.

Just because they didn’t include those charges in the arrest report, it doesn’t follow that it didn’t happen. Any police misconduct is strictly in your head.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3723
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #86 on: December 05, 2019, 03:43:37 PM »
The police didn't need a perfect match. The running into the library by Hamby was mistakenly taken to be running to hide from the police search. LHO's actions aroused the suspicions of Brewer and Postal. They reported it to the police. That was enough for the police to investigate.
Many many guys have been arrested for ...'suspicion'. The cops can do that. You can scream "I am not resisting arrest" and they would call all that screaming as 'resisting' ::)
   Regarding Postal and Brewer...Did you not read my thread on them? I demonstrate their convoluted and untruthful statements beyond question. 
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2264.0.html

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #87 on: December 05, 2019, 03:45:58 PM »
Before that, the standard was probable cause.

Wrong. Before that it was whoever and whenever the police decided to. And some of their practices in certain areas of certain cities were being challenged in court.

No, you’re wrong. The reason the suit was brought up was because the police were violating the probable cause requirement, at which point the Supreme Court carved out an exception.

Even if police routinely ignore the law, that doesn’t magically make their conduct legal.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #87 on: December 05, 2019, 03:45:58 PM »