The only source I used was Brewer's WC testimony. Not "different statements made at different times." Again, 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?
Different parts of his testimony are different statements made at different times. Stringing parts of sentences together to invent continuous statements that he never actually made is dishonest.
I said it explicitly: "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."
Then your point is irrelevant, because I said nothing about DPD’s intentions before the struggle.
Do you not understand that "as it was clearing the suspect's clothing" means that it left Oswald's waistband?
Yes. Do you not understand “I jerked the pistol and”?
That's not quite what he actually said. He said he "jerked the pistol" but didn't actually say that he "jerked it out" (I'll refrain from any more double entendre than necessary here). Anyone who has tried to remove a tree stump knows that jerking something isn't necessarily going to cause it to move much, if at all. And McDonald's account doesn't preclude Oswald pulling the gun out of his own accord.
How quickly you reverted from “Oswald pulled a gun out” to “does not preclude”.
Applin explicitly identified Oswald as the guy in short sleeves holding the gun. You keep leaving that part out for some strange reason.
Let’s look at what Applin actually testified, shall we?
Mr. BALL - Who pulled the pistol?
Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was Oswald, because--for one reason, that he had on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected to the gun.
He
guessed it was Oswald because he had on a short-sleeved shirt. He didn’t give any other reason beyond this “one reason”, but your attempt to spin this as a positive identification (and what’s more, evidence that Oswald pulled a gun) is once again, highly dishonest.
I only see Oswald and McDonald with their hands on it in the scrum, with Bob Carrol pulling it out of the fight for good. Three guys does not make for "many" hands.
You see?
You see? That’s quite a trick, unless you were there or have video of the event. It was officer C.T. Walker who mentioned all the hands:
“Oswald had ahold of my shirt and he practically pulled off my nameplate by ripping it with his hand. and I was bent over, and I was in an awkward position, and
I could see several hands on the gun. The gun finally got out of his belt, and it was about waist high and pointed out at about a 45 degree angle.”
The exclusionary rule springs directly from the question of, was a search or arrest proper under the 4th amendment? The two are joined at the hip.
The exclusionary rule is what motivates police to respect the 4th amendment. The right itself is not defined by it. Nor does it depend on it for its existence.
You didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia article, did you? If you did, you'd find things like:
So the answer to my “says who” question is vague claims in Wikipedia. Thanks.
"If the right to stop and question a suspect is recognized, then it follows that the officer ought to be allowed to frisk, under some circumstances at least, to insure that the suspect is not possessed of a dangerous weapon which would put the safety of the officer in peril. Certainly it is current practice to frisk some suspects as to whom there are not sufficient grounds for arrest."
"Usually courts which have recognized a privilege to stop and question a suspect have also recognized the right of the officer to frisk the suspect if the officer has reason to believe him dangerous. This is specifically provided for in the Uniform Arrest Act."
[
Note all the qualifiers. “Ought to be”. “Some circumstances”. “Some suspects”. “Usually”. “If the officer has reason to believe”.
You're the person who originally asserted that "the police overstepped." It's up to you to show that they did, in the eyes of the law. Anything else is just another of your attempts to shift the burden of proof.
My evidence is a plain reading of the 4th amendment. This has entered the realm of a philosophical argument. You’re arguing that if the police “commonly” do something (whatever that means) that goes against the constitution, then it’s legal until the Supreme Court says it’s not. I’m arguing that it’s illegal until the Supreme Court says it’s permitted. The Supreme Court doesn’t grant certiorari unless there is a constitutional dispute to be settled.
Quoting from the dissent in Terry v. Ohio:
"In other words, police officers up to today have been permitted to effect arrests or searches without warrants only when the facts within their personal knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. At the time of their "seizure" without a warrant, they must possess facts concerning the person arrested that would have satisfied a magistrate that "probable cause" was indeed present."
This justice, at least, disagrees with you that it was previously permissible merely because police did it.
Yes, and what would constitute "probable cause?" I mean, not by your own definition, but by one generally accepted by the courts.
Quoting from
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/probable-cause.html;
"Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances
known by the police officer [emphasis mine] would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit a criminal offense."
"Police must base probable cause on objective facts; it cannot be based upon a hunch."
"Probable cause to search exists when facts and circumstances
known to the law enforcement officer [emphasis mine] provide the basis for a reasonable person to believe that they committed a crime at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime exists at the location."
There were no facts and circumstances known to any law enforcement officer at the time the Texas Theater was raided that Oswald or anybody else in the theater had committed a violent crime or was likely to be dangerous.
Thus spake the renowned legal scholar, John Iacoletti. Oh, wait, who am I kidding? It's just another unsupported assertion. Thus, LOL. LOL indeed.
So says the "legal scholar" who cites Wikipedia. LOL.
Even though the concept of a Terry frisk had not yet been invented in 1963, let's look at the standard and apply it to Brewer, Oswald, and the two unidentified theater patrons who got frisked.
Quoting from the majority opinion in Terry v. Ohio:
"Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U. S. 642, 645 (1878). [Footnote 23] And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.
IV"
Now let's look at the circumstances. The police received a telephone call from Julia Postal that said, as recounted by Postal in her testimony:
"So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you,""
Keeping in mind, the description that was broadcast over police radio:
"Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). "
There is literally nothing in common between the two descriptions. In addition to that, no police officer observed any crime or any suspicious behavior. Neither Postal or Brewer saw any criminal activity (apart from -- arguably -- theft of service), or saw a weapon of any kind. So what were the "specific reasonable inferences", beyond a hunch, that the man that Brewer pointed out or anybody else in the theater had been involved in a crime for which he should be detained, and, considered potentially armed and dangerous? There are none. What are the facts and circumstances
known to the law enforcement officer that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Oswald committed the crime of murder, justifying the murder arrest? There are none.
The police overstepped.
