So why was he arrested?

Larry Gude

Strung Out
As I have said numerous times, there is a myriad of different evidence the officers can have to develop and articulate probable cause to this person having the intent to distribute narcotics. (This is a separate element of the crime annotated prior to section I, that you seem to ignore. What that evidence is, I don't know because I was not there.
And, again, I have NO doubt the officers knew damn well this guy was up to no good but, the fault, the defect, the critical hindrance to justice does not, can not, in a free society, lie in absence of laws prohibiting what one MIGHT do.
 

kom526

They call me ... Sarcasmo
AS for your last sentence... Oppressiveness?? :killingme Did you really type that?? :killingme

OMFG!!! :cds: Ohioians cannot build secret compartments in their vehicles!! :cds: Oh the humanity!! :cds:

We all know there's a line around the corner to do this....
And in Maryland you cannot put fertilizer on your lawn after 15 NOV. :ohwell:
 

itsrequired

New Member
And, again, I have NO doubt the officers knew damn well this guy was up to no good but, the fault, the defect, the critical hindrance to justice does not, can not, in a free society, lie in absence of laws prohibiting what one MIGHT do.
So conspiracy to commit laws are out the window?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
As I have said numerous times, there is a myriad of different evidence the officers can have to develop and articulate probable cause to this person having the intent to distribute narcotics. (This is a separate element of the crime annotated prior to section I, that you seem to ignore. What that evidence is, I don't know because I was not there.
I'm not ignoring anything. They are arresting him for the compartment. nothing more, nothing less.

Section"I" says, expicitly that the section does not apply if the box was empty and didn't have residue.

How on earth can you justify this guy being arrested, no matter what probable cause they have, based soley on the fact that he had a secret compartment?

The probable cause used to determine he's a drug mule is null and void for his arrest, if you consider the statute they arrested him under, since the compartment was empty.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I threw out a handful and then ran and hid. I think its OK to come out now....
Oh, really? So, you got your run of the mill tow-able leaf blower, eh? Rolling around the lawn, all innocent like. "Look at me! Just blowing leaves! Mulching! Nothing to see here!" all the while flipping that little switch that seems so innocent yet, no one is quite sure what it does, eh? Well, now we know why that thing seems to sit so low to the ground and never seems to hold as many leaves as it looks like it should...

:evil:
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Oh, really? So, you got your run of the mill tow-able leaf blower, eh? Rolling around the lawn, all innocent like. "Look at me! Just blowing leaves! Mulching! Nothing to see here!" all the while flipping that little switch that seems so innocent yet, no one is quite sure what it does, eh? Well, now we know why that thing seems to sit so low to the ground and never seems to hold as many leaves as it looks like it should...

:evil:

Crap. I thought nobody saw me....


Might as well just go turn myself in now and get it over with. Music..meet face.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
So conspiracy to commit laws are out the window?
Do people who are arrested for conspiracy to commit crimes generally arrested under such broad prenteses of the law??

For example, can one be arrested for conspiracy to commit burglary if they own bolt cutters? Or does it take in the totallity of details of the event? Such as them hanging around the back of a jewelry store at 2am with said bolt cutters?

Can one be arrested for conspricay to commit murder if they own a gun, or do totalltiy of circumstances play into that as well?
 

itsrequired

New Member
I'm not ignoring anything. They are arresting him for the compartment. nothing more, nothing less.

Section"I" says, expicitly that the section does not apply if the box was empty and didn't have residue.

Section I is about exemptions. It is telling who is exempt, however that exemption doesn't count if there is residue found in the compartment. Please read it again.


How on earth can you justify this guy being arrested, no matter what probable cause they have, based soley on the fact that he had a secret compartment?

I never said he could. What I have said all along is the secret compartment is only one part of the element of the crime. The other element is that it is there for the intent to distribute narcotics.

The probable cause used to determine he's a drug mule is null and void for his arrest, if you consider the statute they arrested him under, since the compartment was empty.
Did you read the first part of the statute? Does it say anywhere in the first part of the statute that there has to be residue? No, it does not. It does say however that the box, compartment etc is intended to be used for drug transport.
 

itsrequired

New Member
He's one of those "any arrest is a good arrest" guys.:whistle:
That isn't true. I have said there are bad arrests on here. Just last week a cop arrested a guy for disorderly conduct and I thought that was a bad arrest. I thought the Duke rape investigation and arrests were bad after more information came out.

Maybe this is a bad arrest. Maybe it's a good arrest. As I have said from the beginning, we don't have the information those officers on the scene have, and we are relying on news reports to adequately fill us in. That's not the best idea in the world.
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
And in Maryland you cannot put fertilizer on your lawn after 15 NOV. :ohwell:
Oh yea?? Like Gilligan, I have a secret compartment in my riding mower and Larry's Hubbell telescope spy glass satellite can't see what I do in my garage. :evil:

And just be thankful you don't have that rain tax pal (yet).
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Did you read the first part of the statute? Does it say anywhere in the first part of the statute that there has to be residue? No, it does not. It does say however that the box, compartment etc is intended to be used for drug transport.
*sigh*

Me:
Section"I" says, expicitly that the section does not apply if the box was empty and didn't have residue.
You:
Section I is about exemptions. It is telling who is exempt, however that exemption doesn't count if there is residue found in the compartment. Please read it again.
Section I says the statute doesn't apply if residue is found. We're on the same page.

Are you saying residue was found? Afterall, outside of priors, that would be the only reason they would arrest him.

The other element is that it is there for the intent to distribute narcotics.
How do you prove that?
 

Caution

New Member
I have some respect for most of the views presented here as well as those presenting them. But DAYUM people. Go find something to do.

Edit And Baja you should be fishing!!!!:killingme
 
Last edited:

PsyOps

Pixelated
So it was none of your business when you asked me the same question. :lol:
Again............. :lol: ......................... :ohwell: ........................ It was a rhetorical question. Meaning, IF this had happened to you, where would you stand on this? You seem to be okay with someone’s life being turned upside down for the sake of a really stupid law, as long as it’s not you, you have no concern for this. It’s like cancer… most folks don’t care one hoot about cancer, until they get it. Then suddenly they become advocates to fight against it. That seems to be the world we live in, if it doesn’t affect us personally, who cares. I think this is a selfish attitude. We should care about everyone’s liberties. Is it simply not enough to say ‘I have mine, screw everyone else”?

I'll answer that. Yes I have and I got my day in court. That's why we have a legal system. You know, that CONSTITUTION thing and all. Imagine that! :jet:

You are assuming that the cops are lying about smelling Mary Jane. Pretty big leap there if you ask me.

If he goes through all you described, loses his job etc, etc, etc... he can use the same legal system to pursue damages. My money says he has prior convictions. :whistle:
Yes he can, costing him even more time, money, and stress; when he should have never had to go through this in first place. You seem to think the system is there for the sake of the system rather than for the sake of the people. The constitution doesn't demand laws be created to oppress the people; it's designed to PROTECT us; and that means protect us from an oppressive government. If someone gets falsely accused of a crime, or if someone is accused of a stupid crime (like this one) your attitude is “All he has to do is _______” ; the system is doing its job. The system is NOT doing its job when it is punishing decent law-abiding citizens for simply going from point A to point B, not harming anyone. This had nothing more than an empty hidden compartment; he was harming no one.

Let’s put this on another level… if MD passes a law requiring you turn in your guns or they will come to your house and confiscate them and charge you with a crime, you will………….. ?????????
 
Last edited:
Top