I didn't rewrite what Brewer said. It's all verbatim from his testimony. Could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?
Stringing together pieces of phrases from different statements made at different times is rewriting
The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald.
Of course an arrest report is written after an arrest. What’s your point? And I made no argument regarding their exact intentions before the scuffle.
Who said that the gun didn't leave Oswald's waistband?
McDonald did. In his report to Curry:
“With his right hand, he reached to his waist and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. he both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. At this time I yelled, "I've got him." Three uniformed officers came to my aid immediately. One on the suspect's left, one to the rear in the row behind and one to the front in the row directly in front of the suspect and I. I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol.
I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left cheek, causing a four inch scratch.”
So McDonald says Oswald was pulling a gun from his waistband during the first exchange of blows, and said Oswald did indeed manage to pull it out of the waistband during the kerfluffle.
No, McDonald jerked the pistol causing it to come out.
Brewer, John Gibson, and Applin saw Oswald holding a pistol in his hand during the fight.
Again, Applin saw a gun in the hand of somebody wearing a short sleeved shirt. Oswald wasn’t.
Many hands were on the gun at some point during the scuffle. It doesn’t just follow that holding a gun means you pulled it out.
Look at the photos take at the scene and tell me how many of the DPD officers were wearing short sleeves that day. So far, I count....zero. Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked to be a size or two too large for him, which could allow the cuff to be pulled back up the arm. Plus it had a big hole in the right elbow. Either could account for Applin seeing what appeared to him to be a short sleeve.
Wow, that wins the prize for lamest LN excuse. If you look at photos of the arrest shirt, you can see that the hole is not “big”. If you look at the photos of Oswald being dragged out of the theater, you can see that his sleeves are not rolled up.
The Federal exclusionary rule was codified by Supreme Court in the the Weeks decision of 1914
I made no reference to the exclusionary rule. It’s not even relevant to the argument.
Initially, it only applied to the Federal courts, while state and local courts retained exclusive purview over exclusion within their own jurisdictions. This included stop-and-frisk, which was generally allowed.
Generally allowed by whom, and says who?
In 1961, this all changed when the Supremes decided in Mapp v Ohio that the Federal exclusionary rule extended into the state and local jurisdictions via the 14th amendment. This led to a flood of exclusionary rule cases entering the federal appellate courts that would have previously stopped at the state supreme court level. The Miranda case was the most famous of these. Terry v Ohio was another. In the Terry case, the Supreme Court essentially left the bar where the state courts had it.
Cite any such Texas adjudication prior to 1963. Particularly one that articulates the “reasonable suspicion” standard the Supreme Court imposed with Terry. The 4th amendment says “probable cause”.
P.S. there was no reasonable suspicion by the Terry standard anyway that the man Brewer pointed out had committed a crime or was armed.
