Walking wrong is probable cause?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by richard, Apr 9, 2010.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    Ok so you're walking down the street and unbeknownst to you, a cop sees
    that you are walking a little strangely. You get stopped and the cop thinks
    you're up to no good.

    Uh no sorry officer, but that's not probable cause. Before you go mouthin
    off evan, you don't know jack shit about the law. Where in the law does it
    say an officer can stop you just because you're walking down the street?
    The rules say no, loud and clear. That is what the decision in "Terry Vs
    Ohio" was all about.

    Before the cruiser stopped, the officer said she was "going to find out
    what this kid was up to.". Kid? He was around 30. Nowhere in the law does
    it require to have an ID on your person. Except for driving. Yet,
    practically every cop always ask for one and when they don't get it, get
    pissed off and the attitude that you are hiding something.

    What are the two types of search of a person? Frisk and "pat down". The law
    allows the latter. This simply allows an officer to place his hands over
    the outside of your clothing to determine if you might have anything
    unusual such as a weapon. Practically every officer I see on TV always puts
    their hands in the person's pockets. A violation of search and seizure
    laws. Yet, the courts seem to allow this.

    Eventually, they come to find out this guy has a warrant for his arrest. Oh
    how convenient. Now they have a kosher bust. And all because the dude
    wasn't walking a straight line in the broad daylight.
     
    richard, Apr 9, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    richard Guest

    On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:03:14 -0700, richard wrote:

    > Ok so you're walking down the street and unbeknownst to you, a cop sees
    > that you are walking a little strangely. You get stopped and the cop thinks
    > you're up to no good.
    >
    > Uh no sorry officer, but that's not probable cause. Before you go mouthin
    > off evan, you don't know jack shit about the law. Where in the law does it
    > say an officer can stop you just because you're walking down the street?
    > The rules say no, loud and clear. That is what the decision in "Terry Vs
    > Ohio" was all about.
    >
    > Before the cruiser stopped, the officer said she was "going to find out
    > what this kid was up to.". Kid? He was around 30. Nowhere in the law does
    > it require to have an ID on your person. Except for driving. Yet,
    > practically every cop always ask for one and when they don't get it, get
    > pissed off and the attitude that you are hiding something.
    >
    > What are the two types of search of a person? Frisk and "pat down". The law
    > allows the latter. This simply allows an officer to place his hands over
    > the outside of your clothing to determine if you might have anything
    > unusual such as a weapon. Practically every officer I see on TV always puts
    > their hands in the person's pockets. A violation of search and seizure
    > laws. Yet, the courts seem to allow this.
    >
    > Eventually, they come to find out this guy has a warrant for his arrest. Oh
    > how convenient. Now they have a kosher bust. And all because the dude
    > wasn't walking a straight line in the broad daylight.


    Something for you to think about Mr. Platt.

    http://paralegalpages.com/2006/10/09/probable-cause-reasonable-suspicion/

    <quote>
    Probable cause: more than bare suspicion it exists when ´the facts and
    circumstances within the officers knowledge and of which they have
    reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant
    a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offence has been or is
    being committed¡. In search and seizures ( in contrast to arrest) the
    issue of probable cause focuses on whether the probable cause focuses on
    whether the property to seized Is connected with criminal activity and
    whether it can be found in the place to be searched.

    Reasonable suspicion: that ´quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an
    ordinarily prudent and cautious man under similar circumstances to believe
    criminal activity is at hand. It must be based on specific and articulable
    facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts
    reasonably warrant intrusion.¡ A degree of proof that is less than probable
    cause but more than suspicion it is sufficient to enable a police officer
    to conduct a stop and frisk. Reasonable suspicion must be anchored in
    specific, objective facts and logical conclusions based on officers
    experience. It represents a degree of certainty that the crime has been or
    will be committed and that the suspect is involved in it.
    </quote>

    In the scenario I gave above, what exactly was the crime "about to be" or
    "had been" committed?
    Walking erratically is not a known criminal offense. There could be any
    number of explanations for it. That's like being pulled over by a cop
    because your car has plates on it from a different state. Or because you're
    a white man in a black neighborhood.

    In order for the officer to stop the dude, there would have had to been
    some form of communication about a crime that had taken place and the man
    fit the description. An officer can not stop you simply because they want
    to know what you're doing.
     
    richard, Apr 9, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard wrote:

    > Practically every officer I see on TV


    TV. St00pid, you've *got* to stop watching these reality shows.

    They ain't real. It's entertainment.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 9, 2010
    #3
  4. richard

    Mara Guest

    On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:32:26 -0700, Evan Platt
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 20:09:21 -0700, richard <> wrote:
    >
    >>Something for you to think about Mr. Platt.

    >
    >Does it matter what I answer with?
    >
    >You obviously know the legal system better than everyone. You've been
    >told the same thing over and over, and it obviously doesn't sink into
    >whatever the hell is in your head where most people have a brain.


    Mould.

    --
    The sysadmin has graciously deigned not to cast you headlong into a
    pit of rabid wombats. Please bear this in mind when composing your
    message or request. --asr
     
    Mara, Apr 9, 2010
    #4
  5. richard

    Kent Wills Guest

    At one time, not so long ago, Evan Platt
    <> wrote:


    Whereas I missed the original post, I shall have to piggyback my reply
    to Richard.


    >On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:03:14 -0700, richard <> wrote:
    >
    >>Ok so you're walking down the street and unbeknownst to you, a cop sees
    >>that you are walking a little strangely. You get stopped and the cop thinks
    >>you're up to no good.
    >>
    >>Uh no sorry officer, but that's not probable cause.


    You are correct in the terminology, since it's not probable
    cause. However, probable cause isn't needed.
    Reasonable belief is needed.

    >>Before you go mouthin
    >>off evan, you don't know jack shit about the law.

    >
    >And you do?
    >


    He doesn't.
    I don't mean to imply I am an expert. However, I do have an
    understanding of Terry V. Ohio, the case Richard cites.

    >No, you don't, as you've proved multiple times, ie "if you rent an
    >apartment, the door is your property. You can do whatever you want to
    >it."
    >


    One doesn't own that which they are renting. The law does limit
    what the actual owner can do with the property once rented, but that
    doesn't mean the renter owns it.

    >>Where in the law does it say an officer can stop you just because you're walking down the street?
    >>The rules say no, loud and clear. That is what the decision in "Terry Vs
    >>Ohio" was all about.


    No it doesn't. Do you really understand Terry V. Ohio?
    Again, if the officer has reason to believe a person has
    committed a crime, is in the act of committing a crime, or will commit
    a crime (presumably within a reasonable amount of time), the officer
    is allowed to detain the person.

    >>
    >>Before the cruiser stopped, the officer said she was "going to find out
    >>what this kid was up to.". Kid? He was around 30. Nowhere in the law does
    >>it require to have an ID on your person.


    This depends on the state. In Illinois, the law was, and maybe
    is, anyone over the age of 16 must have a photo ID on their person
    when in public. Said ID does not have to be a driver's license. A
    state issued photo ID is more than acceptable.
    There may be a similar law in whatever state this was to have
    occurred in.

    >>Except for driving. Yet,
    >>practically every cop always ask for one and when they don't get it, get
    >>pissed off and the attitude that you are hiding something.
    >>
    >>What are the two types of search of a person? Frisk and "pat down". The law
    >>allows the latter. This simply allows an officer to place his hands over
    >>the outside of your clothing to determine if you might have anything
    >>unusual such as a weapon. Practically every officer I see on TV always puts
    >>their hands in the person's pockets. A violation of search and seizure
    >>laws. Yet, the courts seem to allow this.


    It's not a violation, Richard. They do the full search only when
    they've placed the person under arrest.
    And checking for weapons is not unreasonable. Note that it's
    UNREASONABLE search and seizure that is prohibited.

    >>
    >>Eventually, they come to find out this guy has a warrant for his arrest. Oh
    >>how convenient. Now they have a kosher bust. And all because the dude
    >>wasn't walking a straight line in the broad daylight.


    If the person has a medical condition that makes walking a fairly
    straight line difficult or impossible, the walk could be ground to
    suspect public intoxication.
    Terry V. Ohio plays in well in such a case, since the officer(s)
    will have reason to believe a crime is being committed. If it's a
    medical condition, the person will be allowed to leave, and, I hope,
    other officers will be made aware.

    >
    >Not even going to waste my time giving you the same answer I've given
    >you and a dozen other people have given you a dozen other times,
    >because it doesn't sink into your head, and never will.
    >
    >The gray matter that normally exists in peoples heads? In your head, I
    >don't know what's in there, but it's broken. Mark return to sender on
    >it and get a refund.


    Richard has a problem in that he thinks the law should be as he
    wants it to be. Sometimes it will be so, but not always.

    --
    Don't marry the person you want to live with, marry the one you cannot
    live without.
     
    Kent Wills, Apr 9, 2010
    #5
  6. richard

    Jordon Guest

    richard wrote:
    > Ok so you're walking down the street and unbeknownst to you, a cop sees
    > that you are walking a little strangely. You get stopped and the cop thinks
    > you're up to no good.
    >
    > Uh no sorry officer, but that's not probable cause. Before you go mouthin
    > off evan, you don't know jack shit about the law. Where in the law does it
    > say an officer can stop you just because you're walking down the street?
    > The rules say no, loud and clear. That is what the decision in "Terry Vs
    > Ohio" was all about.
    >
    > Before the cruiser stopped, the officer said she was "going to find out
    > what this kid was up to.". Kid? He was around 30. Nowhere in the law does
    > it require to have an ID on your person. Except for driving. Yet,
    > practically every cop always ask for one and when they don't get it, get
    > pissed off and the attitude that you are hiding something.
    >
    > What are the two types of search of a person? Frisk and "pat down". The law
    > allows the latter. This simply allows an officer to place his hands over
    > the outside of your clothing to determine if you might have anything
    > unusual such as a weapon. Practically every officer I see on TV always puts
    > their hands in the person's pockets. A violation of search and seizure
    > laws. Yet, the courts seem to allow this.
    >
    > Eventually, they come to find out this guy has a warrant for his arrest. Oh
    > how convenient. Now they have a kosher bust. And all because the dude
    > wasn't walking a straight line in the broad daylight.


    Is he just making this stuff up? No link to the story (that probably
    says something like "suspicion of being drunk in public")?
     
    Jordon, Apr 9, 2010
    #6
  7. richard

    richard Guest

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:14:14 -0500, Kent Wills wrote:

    > At one time, not so long ago, Evan Platt
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Whereas I missed the original post, I shall have to piggyback my reply
    > to Richard.
    >
    >
    >>On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:03:14 -0700, richard <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Ok so you're walking down the street and unbeknownst to you, a cop sees
    >>>that you are walking a little strangely. You get stopped and the cop thinks
    >>>you're up to no good.
    >>>
    >>>Uh no sorry officer, but that's not probable cause.

    >
    > You are correct in the terminology, since it's not probable
    > cause. However, probable cause isn't needed.
    > Reasonable belief is needed.
    >


    Yes. Except that the officer has to know, in some way, that a crime "has
    been", or "is about to be" committed. Just because an officer sees a person
    walking down the street does not give the officer the right to detain and
    question. In Terry, the officer noticed the suspect was walking back and
    forth in front of the bank as if "casing the joint". Experience tells the
    officer this ain't no good and is probable cause to detain.

    If you are walking down the street and an officer stops you, what are your
    rights? The courts have said you have everly legal right to continue at
    will. If the officer tells you, you will be arrested for moving, that is
    illegal detention.

    What is a test for illegal detention? You are in a room with an officer who
    is asking you questions. On each wall is a door, 3 doors are locked. The
    4th is open. You are told you may leave through that door at anytime, but
    if you do, you will be arrested. That is illegal detention.

    >>>Before you go mouthin
    >>>off evan, you don't know jack shit about the law.

    >>
    >>And you do?
    >>

    >
    > He doesn't.
    > I don't mean to imply I am an expert. However, I do have an
    > understanding of Terry V. Ohio, the case Richard cites.
    >
    >>No, you don't, as you've proved multiple times, ie "if you rent an
    >>apartment, the door is your property. You can do whatever you want to
    >>it."
    >>

    >
    > One doesn't own that which they are renting. The law does limit
    > what the actual owner can do with the property once rented, but that
    > doesn't mean the renter owns it.


    Contraire mon ami. That "apartment" is the same thing as a standard home to
    which nothing else is attached. The landlord may own the building, but once
    he rents out a unit, he loses control. Most states have laws that limit
    what the landlord can do inside the occupied unit. Just because he has a
    key, does not give him permission to access the unit at will.

    >
    >>>Where in the law does it say an officer can stop you just because you're walking down the street?
    >>>The rules say no, loud and clear. That is what the decision in "Terry Vs
    >>>Ohio" was all about.

    >
    > No it doesn't. Do you really understand Terry V. Ohio?
    > Again, if the officer has reason to believe a person has
    > committed a crime, is in the act of committing a crime, or will commit
    > a crime (presumably within a reasonable amount of time), the officer
    > is allowed to detain the person.
    >


    And what are the keywords here? In my scenario, no known crime or
    reasonable suspicion of a crime had happened. The officer just assumed the
    guy was publicly intoxicated. Even that wasn't mentioned before the stop.
    She just wanted to find out why he was walking that way. That is not
    probable cause.

    >>>
    >>>Before the cruiser stopped, the officer said she was "going to find out
    >>>what this kid was up to.". Kid? He was around 30. Nowhere in the law does
    >>>it require to have an ID on your person.

    >
    > This depends on the state. In Illinois, the law was, and maybe
    > is, anyone over the age of 16 must have a photo ID on their person
    > when in public. Said ID does not have to be a driver's license. A
    > state issued photo ID is more than acceptable.
    > There may be a similar law in whatever state this was to have
    > occurred in.
    >
    >>>Except for driving. Yet,
    >>>practically every cop always ask for one and when they don't get it, get
    >>>pissed off and the attitude that you are hiding something.
    >>>
    >>>What are the two types of search of a person? Frisk and "pat down". The law
    >>>allows the latter. This simply allows an officer to place his hands over
    >>>the outside of your clothing to determine if you might have anything
    >>>unusual such as a weapon. Practically every officer I see on TV always puts
    >>>their hands in the person's pockets. A violation of search and seizure
    >>>laws. Yet, the courts seem to allow this.

    >
    > It's not a violation, Richard. They do the full search only when
    > they've placed the person under arrest.
    > And checking for weapons is not unreasonable. Note that it's
    > UNREASONABLE search and seizure that is prohibited.


    When is the arrest in place? When the cuffs go on or when "Rights" are
    read?

    >
    >>>
    >>>Eventually, they come to find out this guy has a warrant for his arrest. Oh
    >>>how convenient. Now they have a kosher bust. And all because the dude
    >>>wasn't walking a straight line in the broad daylight.

    >
    > If the person has a medical condition that makes walking a fairly
    > straight line difficult or impossible, the walk could be ground to
    > suspect public intoxication.
    > Terry V. Ohio plays in well in such a case, since the officer(s)
    > will have reason to believe a crime is being committed. If it's a
    > medical condition, the person will be allowed to leave, and, I hope,
    > other officers will be made aware.
    >
    >>
    >>Not even going to waste my time giving you the same answer I've given
    >>you and a dozen other people have given you a dozen other times,
    >>because it doesn't sink into your head, and never will.
    >>
    >>The gray matter that normally exists in peoples heads? In your head, I
    >>don't know what's in there, but it's broken. Mark return to sender on
    >>it and get a refund.

    >
    > Richard has a problem in that he thinks the law should be as he
    > wants it to be. Sometimes it will be so, but not always.


    Evan is the ultimate answer for everything. Always go with what he says.
     
    richard, Apr 9, 2010
    #7
  8. richard

    Kent Wills Guest

    At one time, not so long ago, Evan Platt
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:14:14 -0500, Kent Wills <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>At one time, not so long ago, Evan Platt
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>Whereas I missed the original post, I shall have to piggyback my reply
    >>to Richard.

    >
    >He only posted it to 24hoursupport.helpdesk.


    That explains it.

    >Message-ID: <1l155um2n4df0.3qfjomt1yb5c$>
    >He knew if he posted it here, he'd get his dumb ass laughed at even
    >more than he already is getting over there.


    I don't laugh at him myself, though I am often tempted.
    Richard thinks the law should and must be as he wants it.
    Sometimes his views will match the law perfectly. Often they will
    clash.

    --
    Death: Weight doesn't come into it. My steed has carried armies. My
    steed has carried cities. Yea, he hath carried all things in their due
    time. But he's not going to carry you three.

    War: Why not?

    Death: It's a matter of the look of the thing.

    War: It's going to look pretty good, then, isn't it, the One Horseman
    and Three Pedestrians of the Apocalypse.

    (from Sourcery, by Terry Pratchett)
     
    Kent Wills, Apr 10, 2010
    #8
  9. richard

    Kent Wills Guest

    At one time, not so long ago, richard <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:14:14 -0500, Kent Wills wrote:
    >
    >> At one time, not so long ago, Evan Platt
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Whereas I missed the original post, I shall have to piggyback my reply
    >> to Richard.
    >>
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:03:14 -0700, richard <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Ok so you're walking down the street and unbeknownst to you, a cop sees
    >>>>that you are walking a little strangely. You get stopped and the cop thinks
    >>>>you're up to no good.
    >>>>
    >>>>Uh no sorry officer, but that's not probable cause.

    >>
    >> You are correct in the terminology, since it's not probable
    >> cause. However, probable cause isn't needed.
    >> Reasonable belief is needed.
    >>

    >
    >Yes. Except that the officer has to know, in some way, that a crime "has
    >been", or "is about to be" committed.


    No, the officer must BELIEVE a crime has been, is being, or will
    be committed.
    Someone walking funny may be due to intoxication. There is
    reasonable belief there.

    >Just because an officer sees a person
    >walking down the street does not give the officer the right to detain and
    >question.


    But, as in your original example, if the person is walking
    strangely, it could be an indication of public intoxication.

    >In Terry, the officer noticed the suspect was walking back and
    >forth in front of the bank as if "casing the joint". Experience tells the
    >officer this ain't no good and is probable cause to detain.


    And it was upheld.

    >
    >If you are walking down the street and an officer stops you, what are your
    >rights? The courts have said you have everly legal right to continue at
    >will. If the officer tells you, you will be arrested for moving, that is
    >illegal detention.


    This depends on why the officer stopped you.

    >
    >What is a test for illegal detention? You are in a room with an officer who
    >is asking you questions. On each wall is a door, 3 doors are locked. The
    >4th is open. You are told you may leave through that door at anytime, but
    >if you do, you will be arrested. That is illegal detention.
    >


    Which has NOTHING to do with your original position about a
    person walking funny being detained.

    >>>>Before you go mouthin
    >>>>off evan, you don't know jack shit about the law.
    >>>
    >>>And you do?
    >>>

    >>
    >> He doesn't.
    >> I don't mean to imply I am an expert. However, I do have an
    >> understanding of Terry V. Ohio, the case Richard cites.
    >>
    >>>No, you don't, as you've proved multiple times, ie "if you rent an
    >>>apartment, the door is your property. You can do whatever you want to
    >>>it."
    >>>

    >>
    >> One doesn't own that which they are renting. The law does limit
    >> what the actual owner can do with the property once rented, but that
    >> doesn't mean the renter owns it.

    >
    >Contraire mon ami. That "apartment" is the same thing as a standard home to
    >which nothing else is attached. The landlord may own the building, but once
    >he rents out a unit, he loses control.


    As I stated, the law limits what the owner can do once the
    property is rented. However, ownership remains with the land lord.

    >Most states have laws that limit
    >what the landlord can do inside the occupied unit. Just because he has a
    >key, does not give him permission to access the unit at will.


    Nor has such a position been presented.

    >
    >>
    >>>>Where in the law does it say an officer can stop you just because you're walking down the street?
    >>>>The rules say no, loud and clear. That is what the decision in "Terry Vs
    >>>>Ohio" was all about.

    >>
    >> No it doesn't. Do you really understand Terry V. Ohio?
    >> Again, if the officer has reason to believe a person has
    >> committed a crime, is in the act of committing a crime, or will commit
    >> a crime (presumably within a reasonable amount of time), the officer
    >> is allowed to detain the person.
    >>

    >
    >And what are the keywords here? In my scenario, no known crime or
    >reasonable suspicion of a crime had happened.


    Reasonable belief, not reasonable suspicion, is the litmus test.

    >The officer just assumed the
    >guy was publicly intoxicated. Even that wasn't mentioned before the stop.


    There was reasonable belief, which is all that is required under
    Terry V. Ohio.

    >She just wanted to find out why he was walking that way. That is not
    >probable cause.


    Again, Terry V. Ohio doesn't require probable cause. Only a
    reasonable belief.
    I can't think of any other way to explain this to you.

    >
    >>>>
    >>>>Before the cruiser stopped, the officer said she was "going to find out
    >>>>what this kid was up to.". Kid? He was around 30. Nowhere in the law does
    >>>>it require to have an ID on your person.

    >>
    >> This depends on the state. In Illinois, the law was, and maybe
    >> is, anyone over the age of 16 must have a photo ID on their person
    >> when in public. Said ID does not have to be a driver's license. A
    >> state issued photo ID is more than acceptable.
    >> There may be a similar law in whatever state this was to have
    >> occurred in.
    >>
    >>>>Except for driving. Yet,
    >>>>practically every cop always ask for one and when they don't get it, get
    >>>>pissed off and the attitude that you are hiding something.
    >>>>
    >>>>What are the two types of search of a person? Frisk and "pat down". The law
    >>>>allows the latter. This simply allows an officer to place his hands over
    >>>>the outside of your clothing to determine if you might have anything
    >>>>unusual such as a weapon. Practically every officer I see on TV always puts
    >>>>their hands in the person's pockets. A violation of search and seizure
    >>>>laws. Yet, the courts seem to allow this.

    >>
    >> It's not a violation, Richard. They do the full search only when
    >> they've placed the person under arrest.
    >> And checking for weapons is not unreasonable. Note that it's
    >> UNREASONABLE search and seizure that is prohibited.

    >
    >When is the arrest in place? When the cuffs go on or when "Rights" are
    >read?


    Typically, an officer will state the person is under arrest.

    >
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>Eventually, they come to find out this guy has a warrant for his arrest. Oh
    >>>>how convenient. Now they have a kosher bust. And all because the dude
    >>>>wasn't walking a straight line in the broad daylight.

    >>
    >> If the person has a medical condition that makes walking a fairly
    >> straight line difficult or impossible, the walk could be ground to
    >> suspect public intoxication.
    >> Terry V. Ohio plays in well in such a case, since the officer(s)
    >> will have reason to believe a crime is being committed. If it's a
    >> medical condition, the person will be allowed to leave, and, I hope,
    >> other officers will be made aware.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Not even going to waste my time giving you the same answer I've given
    >>>you and a dozen other people have given you a dozen other times,
    >>>because it doesn't sink into your head, and never will.
    >>>
    >>>The gray matter that normally exists in peoples heads? In your head, I
    >>>don't know what's in there, but it's broken. Mark return to sender on
    >>>it and get a refund.

    >>
    >> Richard has a problem in that he thinks the law should be as he
    >> wants it to be. Sometimes it will be so, but not always.

    >
    >Evan is the ultimate answer for everything. Always go with what he says.


    That Evan and I both present the same explanation, though we word
    it differently, doesn't mean either of us is going with what the other
    presents. It only means we have a better understanding of what Terry
    V. Ohio means than you do.

    --
    Aibohphobia: The fear of palindromes.
     
    Kent Wills, Apr 10, 2010
    #9
  10. richard

    gangle Guest

    "The Old Sourdough" wrote
    > Mara mumbled in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
    >
    >> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:32:26 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

    >
    >>>On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 20:09:21 -0700, richard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Something for you to think about Mr. Platt.
    >>>
    >>>Does it matter what I answer with?
    >>>
    >>>You obviously know the legal system better than everyone. You've been
    >>>told the same thing over and over, and it obviously doesn't sink into
    >>>whatever the hell is in your head where most people have a brain.

    >
    >> Mould.

    >
    > And putrescence...


    Pulsating puss?


    --
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOcLkk7nNVc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mx1gflT2NE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNfTkAEoEYY
     
    gangle, Apr 10, 2010
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. systemtool

    (probable) spyware highjack of IE 6.0 - help!

    systemtool, Feb 29, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    631
    H Leboeuf
    Mar 1, 2004
  2. vetro

    walking

    vetro, Apr 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    558
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Apr 14, 2004
  3. Writer R5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,012
    Writer R5
    Jun 29, 2003
  4. JR
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    445
  5. =?Utf-8?B?R2FsZW4=?=

    Wireless USB Adapters: A Probable List Of Supported Brands

    =?Utf-8?B?R2FsZW4=?=, Sep 27, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,704
    Mirko
    Sep 28, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page