|
Termyn8or -> RE: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust By: Alex2245 Tags: * 911 For Dr. Niels Harrit, nan (2/8/2011 8:34:30 PM)
|
Removing all assumption these are the facts the best I can ascertain.
There was an accident in Iowa.
He called saying he needs bail.
Later he called and said he didn't need bail.
I actually did look and the letter is lomg gone, but it did exist.
He said verbatim, after the parties were identified "He told him 'If you try to arrest him, I will arrest you'".
I wll admit when I am wrong, but some so and so's say so doesn't cut it. (try saying that five times real fast). I must admit though, that I seemingly assumed they had mandatory insurance, otherwise how could this happen ? From my perspective it seemed so, but perhaps it wasn't. Such a scenario doesn't depend on the existence of a prima facie criminal law. And don't kid yourself, anything for which they can fine you, they can imprison you. That is for another time though.
In this instance I made an assumption, but it is totally possible that there were stricter laws having to do with such liability, not just in the state, where it wouldn't be listed among traffic laws at the time, but a criminal extension of tort law. And it could be a county or a city within that state. Remember that this was a state official preventing a local official from performing the arrest. That is where it boiled down to jurisdiction, which is not to be rehashed now, just this point.
Thinking about these oficers' relative positions, also remember that this happened on a federal highway.
So, in all fairness I must admit to a possible incorrect conclusion, in fact probable. But the bearing on the rest of that argument is not affected. And again I just don't feel like playing that broken record now, do you ? If so start a thread.
I am admitting that I can make a mistake. That it is possible for me to make an incorrect assumption. Can you do the same ?
T^T
|
|
|
|
