Ritzwatch
Life's a party and I am the guest of honor.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2023
- Messages
- 4,979
- Likes
- 15,318
Ok, wise guy.Following the Constitution would require them to adhere to the 4th Amendment.
You want to cite the federal statute that says US Park police don't need reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop?
U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
www.law.cornell.edu
You posted an original post that tried to get people riled up over Park Police pulling people over without a warrant or probable cause:
I politely stated that they did not need a warrant or probable cause:
You decided to be the smartass bully:
I again gave an accurate statement of the law related to traffic stops:
You must have felt the error of your way, because you and the Google machine made friends and you actually stated the correct legal standard - reasonable articulable suspicion - while asking me to cite to law I never contended exists.
. I know the 4th requires reasonable articulable suspicion, that is why I was certain it didn’t require probable cause or a warrant.Following the Constitution would require them to adhere to the 4th Amendment.
You want to cite the federal statute that says US Park police don't need reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop?
U.S. Code: Table Of Contents
All I was doing was pointing out a wrong standard. Not trying to embarrass you. But you couldn’t take it.
To recap:
Your original post was misleading. I gently corrected it. You doubled down. I corrected it. You did your research and found out you were wrong, but instead of admitting it, you tried to restate your original position and tried to mischaracterize my position.
Goodness Gracious, BV, you don’t have to always be the smartest guy in the room. Just say, “Oops, I was wrong, thanks for the heads-up,” and move on.
It is a message board, not a battlefield.
