The "smirk"

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The "smirk"  (Read 83616 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #91 on: December 05, 2019, 04:01:55 PM »
Police in the south used to routinely beat up black people too. Something isn’t automatically legal just because it hasn’t yet been challenged in court. The US Constitution is clear about probable cause.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #92 on: December 05, 2019, 04:05:34 PM »
Police in the south used to routinely beat up black people too. Something isn’t automatically legal just because it hasn’t yet been challenged in court. The US Constitution is clear about probable cause.


The US Constitution is clear about probable cause.

How so? And if so, why then did the supreme court rule otherwise?

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #93 on: December 05, 2019, 04:47:43 PM »
How interesting. And utterly irrelevant.

Who gives a damn what constitutes a “smirk”?

It seems to matter on a thread named the 'smirk'

Several witnesses thought LHO's trait of pursing his lips with upturned ends was a smile, grin, or smirk:
-- Charles Collins OP



It seems to matter to the usual CT Snarling Attack Dogs who started all this by piling on yours truly as to what the above image represents according to the OP.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 06:20:36 PM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #94 on: December 05, 2019, 05:42:32 PM »
Police in the south used to routinely beat up black people too. Something isn’t automatically legal just because it hasn’t yet been challenged in court. The US Constitution is clear about probable cause.

Pretty sure Dallas is in Texas. The Texas Penal Code does not provide a clear definition of probable cause.

brettpodolsky.com
"Probable cause is an abstract concept of law. The finite definition of probable cause is evasive. Courts must determine whether sufficient probable cause was available for an arrest on a case by case basis."  - Brett Podolsky
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 06:21:07 PM by Bill Chapman »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #95 on: December 05, 2019, 09:20:13 PM »
How so? And if so, why then did the supreme court rule otherwise?

Well, if you’re really interested you should read the Terry v. Ohio decision.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #96 on: December 05, 2019, 09:32:34 PM »
Pretty sure Dallas is in Texas. The Texas Penal Code does not provide a clear definition of probable cause.

“Pretty sure” the US bill of rights supersedes any state law, Canuck.

Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
Re: The "smirk"
« Reply #97 on: December 05, 2019, 10:26:23 PM »
Revisit the OP

And? I've seen that exact same smirk before, which I'm coining the "patsy smirk". Oswald is thinking to himself, those SOBs sold me out! And I'm not even a mind-reading psychologist illustrator, like you.