"In the theater incident the police did not know who committed the domestic violence when they arrived at the scene and began questioning the father as a suspect. "

He can't be suspect then.

"If the guy arguing with his wife fits the description of the bank robber then the police have reasonable grounds to stop him and question him."

They did not have a description of the father so that makes no sense.

"After all, they don't know that the woman he is arguing with is his wife and what they are arguing about. "

And a couple of easy questions would have led to answers and a man not dead.

"The police could reasonably suspect that she is an accomplice in the crime arguing with the bank robber because he won't give her any of the money"

Makes no sense again as there is no reason to believe these two are the bank robbers in your very bad analogy.

This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 1:56 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by SettleDown

Everywhere

Member since Nov 2013

1333 posts

Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:56 pm to goatmilker

quote:
In the theater incident the police did not know who committed the domestic violence when they arrived at the scene and began questioning the father as a suspect.

He can't be suspect if as you say

That's my question. So cops show up to a theater after hearing of a domestic dispute but they don't know who did it and they can question this guy as a "suspect"? frick. They obviously didn't even have a description cause the perp was a WOMAN.

I mean frick. If that's this guy's definition of "reasonable suspicion" and that's his idea of a good suspect ID, then yeah........bull shite.

quote:
They did not have a description of the father so that makes no sense.

Yeah. He appears to be saying that no description = no problem. EVERYONE"S a suspect then!!!

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by DawgfaninCa

San Francisco, California

Member since Sep 2012

20092 posts

Posted on 3/6/14 at 4:41 pm to goatmilker

quote:
"In the theater incident the police did not know who committed the domestic violence when they arrived at the scene and began questioning the father as a suspect. "

He can't be suspect then.

Why not?

I'm certain one of you will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe someone pointed out to the police the family that was involved in the domestic violence incident which included the father, mother and daughter.

quote:
"If the guy arguing with his wife fits the description of the bank robber then the police have reasonable grounds to stop him and question him."

They did not have a description of the father so that makes no sense.

You're mixing apples and oranges again.

The example I gave and the specific incident have nothing to do with each other.

I just explained that the father, mother and daughter were pointed out by an eyewitness as being the family that had the domestic violence incident.

quote:
"After all, they don't know that the woman he is arguing with is his wife and what they are arguing about. "

And a couple of easy questions would have led to answers and a man not dead.

Apples and oranges.

The police were in the process of asking the father some questions and he responded that it's "none of your business".

Then when he was asked to identify himself he refused and tried to walk away even after the police ordered him to stop.

If he had stopped when the police ordered him to stop and fully cooperated with the police by answering the questions about what happened then he would still be alive.

quote:
"The police could reasonably suspect that she is an accomplice in the crime arguing with the bank robber because he won't give her any of the money"

Makes no sense again as there is no reason to believe these two are the bank robbers in your very bad analogy.

Of course it makes sense but you will deny, deny, deny it because it destroys your irrational core belief that the cops are stupid, evil and always the bad guys.

This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 4:43 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board