Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


VeraCaUSA last won the day on June 11

VeraCaUSA had the most liked content!

About VeraCaUSA

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,199 profile views
  1. LOL, I imagine that one will sting when the bright line comes around.
  2. You are talking about Florida v. Bostick where as part of a drug interdiction effort, Broward County Sheriff's Department officers routinely board buses at scheduled stops and ask passengers for permission to search their luggage. Two officers boarded respondent Bostick's bus and, without articulable suspicion, questioned him and requested his consent to search his luggage for drugs, advising him of his right to refuse. [ Note: whether or not Bostick gave his consent is a matter in dispute.] In fact the dissenting opinion of the Court stated the facts of the case "exhibit all of the elements of coercion associated with a typical bus sweep." The officers wore jackets displaying the logo of the Broward County Sheriff's Department and brandished their badges. One of them carried a gun. They cornered Bostick at the back of the bus, blocking the aisle so that Bostick could not leave. While Justice O'Connor relies on the fact that the officers reminded Bostick he could refuse consent to the search, Justice Marshall points out that if Bostick had been unreasonably seized before they posed that question to Bostick, his consent was irrelevant. The principle of the 4th Amendment has not changed, so you need to look into what unreasonably seized represents as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Brown v. Texas. The US Supreme Court held "The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." IMO anyone who doesn't have a problem with the State asking its citizens to voluntarily surrender their U.S. Constitutional Rights obviously wouldn't have a problem with the State asking it citizens to voluntarily surrender all of their U.S. Constitutional rights. No need to be your written consent, your word is sufficient.
  3. I bet you say that to everyone who is accused but at least you believe a 'druggie' as you put it is is a credible person. I guess that summarizes your position on the issue of presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you don't believe a 'druggie' is a credible person, then what basis do you claim she is a druggie and was in possession of illegal drugs except for what she states in her post? Just asking since I always found it to be incredible to claim another person is not credible yet affirm those things they said to be credible when it affirms what they believe. Kinda like what one learns in sunday school, Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
  4. A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: (1) Compel another to engage in sexual activity for hire; (2) Induce, procure, encourage, solicit, request, or otherwise facilitate either of the following: a) A minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the offender knows the age of the minor; (b) A person the offender believes to be a minor to engage in sexual activity for hire, whether or not the person is a minor. Black's law dictionary defines solicit as: 1. To seek or to plead, to entreat and ask. 2. To lure or tempt a person.
  5. Solicitation according to Black's Law dictionary is the asking; enticing; urgent request.. If it is your opinion that a person can walk up and ask someone to have sex for money is legal then of course you are right. But if you can't then you are wrong. You can twist it any way you want but you asked for a example where a person couldn't walk up and start a conversation and I gave you one.
  6. Please cite such a law. If you are unable to cite such a law, on what basis do you make this claim? Let's start with solicitation of prostitution for one, (Ohio Rev. Code ยง 2907.21). While the communication to compel might not have to be verbal, it still would not give a person a right to walk up to someone and bring up that conversation subject. So yes, a person, even a police officer does not have a right to simply walk up to someone and start any conversation they want therefore in conclusion, the subject matter of the conversation does matter.
  7. Your statement that anyone else could have done the same thing that the poster described happened to him is totally bogus. For one, the poster's statement was that the police officers parked their cars in front of and behind his vehicle while he was sitting in their vehicle in and of itself would indicate that either officer, or both officers were knowingly restraining the liberty of the poster. So in my opinion a person doesn't' have a privilege to block your vehicle in so they can strike up a conversation with you. Neither did the police officers have the privilege to restraint the poster unless they had probable cause that a crime had been committed, or was about to be committed prior to detaining him. If you going to give your advice to somebody then at least give it in context of the question being asked. ๐Ÿ˜ And yes there are laws which prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process.
  8. Only if the person is free to walk away, or in this case would be to drive off without having any to respond to any of the questions being asked by the officers. However, if accurate then the above quote would clearly demonstrates that he was being detained by the officers. That would depend upon whether you had to identify yourself to them or not I would think, but I am not a lawyer so your best bet is to consult with one that is.
  9. If not mistaken, I think the Judge told Bundy that he would have been a brilliant lawyer during his sentencing.
  10. While I think it is obvious the intent of your comment yet since the question had absolutely nothing to do with the 'documentary' or the 'person' but what the OP stated to be a violation of a defendant's right; being the memorializing (which means to preserve a record). So in the context of the posted question, the term 'memorializing' obviously refers to the video recording which the OP was referring unto in the comment that was quoted. "I found it very odd and a violation of his rights to parade him out in front of the cameras to read him his indictment." .
  11. So why did you watch it if you thought that the memorializing was a violation of his rights? Just asking What aspect of a fair trial do you believe they infringe upon?
  12. My bad, I thought I had tagged Texas. It is a home-rule municipality.
  13. Can a individual claim to be a peace officer simply because they are employed as a Animal Control Officer?
  14. Is an Animal Control Officer considered a peace officer by virtue of their employment as a ACO? If not, can they represent to the public that they are? CHAPTER 829. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER TRAINING Sec. 829.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Animal control officer" means a person who: (A) is employed, appointed, or otherwise engaged primarily to enforce laws relating to animal control; and (B) is not a peace officer.
  15. Well, if they buy title insurance they could get there money back like I did ๐Ÿ‘€ But I really am not interested in selling it but was thinking of maybe using it for a reverse mortgage or something like that when the time comes. Plus, I wouldn't think a Bank would finance it without the lot being platted and such.
  • Create New...