The "smirk"

[Charles Collins]

. . . 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.

[Charles Collins]

. . . 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.

[Jerry Freeman]

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

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Then what is your evidence that Oswald was arrested for any other reason?

What is the purpose of a written arrest report in the first place?

[Charles Collins]

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.

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.


In 1958 the Cincinnati Police Department implemented one of the first field interrogation campaigns. … One week into the campaign, the Cincinnati branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) complained to the city manager. Jim Paradise, the branch president, criticized the “dragnet-like campaign of indiscriminate accosting and interrogation of the citizens.”

The ACLU had never heard of a program whereby the police “place an entire community under its control in this fashion,” and indeed, the constitutionality of the field interrogation was an open question. Until that point, no court had directly addressed the legal standard governing stop-and-frisk. Police simply did it, and all the time. What shocked the ACLU was the deliberate, systematic, and coercive nature of the campaign.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/stop-and-frisk-dragnet-ferguson-baltimore/

[Bill Chapman]

LOL. Are you a professional mind-reading psychologist illustrator?

Revisit the OP