TGF Master Political Thread

[Gmcarroll33]

13 minutes ago, Bigrunner said:

Gmcarroll33 spinning that facts again.  It's getting very old.

"The only people that plead the 5th are criminals and mob bosses". Benedict Donald 

You just hate the truth is all and like to invent things to enjoy living in your lunatic narrative.  This Kentanji woman is a Supreme Court justice but can't define a woman.  That is a fact on record.  Every dummycrat nominee that Obama and Biden recommended was a somebody that had no business ever being on the Supreme Court.

[WVU]

8 hours ago, Bigrunner said:

WVU is usually misinformed.  And usually misinforming others. Sad!

I am 100% correct about this.  Tell me more about the plain view doctrine.  Lol

[redstripe]

6 minutes ago, WVU said:

I am 100% correct about this.  Tell me more about the plain view doctrine.  Lol

Crickets ...... that is blunderscums motto . He will now deflect on some other point and ignore this. 

Typical biden libtard..... 

[FISHHEAD]

6 minutes ago, redstripe said:

Crickets ...... that is blunderscums motto . He will now deflect on some other point and ignore this. 

Typical biden libtard..... 

AXL finally has a friend with fewer bolts than him in his toolbox.

[Bigrunner]

12 minutes ago, WVU said:

I am 100% correct about this.  Tell me more about the plain view doctrine.  Lol

The Plain View Doctrine applies to search warrants also. If you are granted permission to enter a home to search for classified documents and once in the home in plain view you see evidence of another crime, like a freshly decapitated body, or hundreds of bags of cocaine,  that would be admissible evidence when investigating those crimes. 

[WVU]

5 minutes ago, Bigrunner said:

The Plain View Doctrine applies to search warrants also. If you are granted permission to enter a home to search for classified documents and once in the home in plain view you see evidence of another crime, like a freshly decapitated body, or hundreds of bags of cocaine,  that would be admissible evidence when investigating those crimes. 

Wrong.  Again.  It isn’t in plain view inside a house unless you can see it through the door or window. And again, it does not involve a warrant.  Lmao keep trying though.  You need educated on search warrants.

[WVU]

Runner is frantically searching google and can’t understand why it won’t back his incorrect statement.  Wonder how many articles he has already dismissed?

[Gmcarroll33]

3 minutes ago, WVU said:

Runner is frantically searching google and can’t understand why it won’t back his incorrect statement.  Wonder how many articles he has already dismissed?

He's an expert on everything and we're all conspiracy theorists and delusional until he runs out of copy/pastes and just moves on to the next subject that he's wrong about.  It's a freak show just like this administration but it's kind of entertaining at the same time.

[redstripe]

 

[joeybagadonuts]

16 minutes ago, WVU said:

Runner is frantically searching google and can’t understand why it won’t back his incorrect statement.  Wonder how many articles he has already dismissed?

runner needs serious help 

[FISHHEAD]

Imagine sitting in a bar.......................and a guy like AXL or RUNNER sits next to you and orders a drink and starts a conversation.

[Gmcarroll33]

4 minutes ago, FISHHEAD said:

Imagine sitting in a bar.......................and a guy like AXL or RUNNER sits next to you and orders a drink and starts a conversation.

"Vodka tonic huh?  You must be a PooTin lover.  Let me tell you about Donald Trump being a puppet to Russia and PooTin.  Did you know he was pee'd on in a hotel?  Did you know the Russians are the only reason Hillary didn't win the election.  Joy Reid had it on her broadcast you nazi scum."

Sounds like a blast of a bar companion.  I prefer a chick who just wants to flirt.

[FISHHEAD]

Just now, Gmcarroll33 said:

"Vodka tonic huh?  You must be a PooTin lover.  Let me tell you about Donald Trump being a puppet to Russia and PooTin.  Did you know he was pee'd on in a hotel?  Did you know the Russians are the only reason Hillary didn't win the election.  Joy Reid had it on her broadcast you nazi scum."

🤣

[Bigrunner]

24 minutes ago, WVU said:

Wrong.  Again.  It isn’t in plain view inside a house unless you can see it through the door or window. And again, it does not involve a warrant.  Lmao keep trying though.  You need educated on search warrants.

 

17 minutes ago, WVU said:

Runner is frantically searching google and can’t understand why it won’t back his incorrect statement.  Wonder how many articles he has already dismissed?

Oh lookie here!  WVU continues to post lies and spread misinformation. No apology needed.

Once law enforcement has legally entered a house and they observe evidence of other crimes in plain view that evidence may be searched and seized.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Somewhat similar in rationale is the rule that objects falling in the “plain view” of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant1 or that, if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize, his lawful observation will provide grounds therefor.2 The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them.3

The Court has analogized from the plain view doctrine to hold that, once officers have lawfully observed contraband, “the owner’s privacy interest in that item is lost,” and officers may reseal a container, trace its path through a controlled delivery, and seize and reopen the container without a warrant.4

Footnotes

1

Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (1982) (officer lawfully in dorm room may seize marijuana seeds and pipe in open view); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) ( “plain view” justification for officers to enter home to arrest after observing defendant standing in open doorway); Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (1968) (officer who opened door of impounded automobile and saw evidence in plain view properly seized it); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963) (officers entered premises without warrant to make arrest because of exigent circumstances seized evidence in plain sight). Cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464–73 (1971), and id. at 510 (Justice White dissenting). Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (items seized in plain view during protective sweep of home incident to arrest); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (contraband on car seat in plain view of officer who had stopped car and asked for driver’s license); New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (evidence seen while looking for vehicle identification number). There is no requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view must be “inadvertent.” See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (in spite of Amendment’s particularity requirement, officers with warrant to search for proceeds of robbery may seize weapons of robbery in plain view). 

 

Again, the plain view doctrine can apply when searching a suspects home. Once again I must emphasize WVU is 100% wrong!

[HurryUpAndDrink]

the copy paste retard strikes back

[WVU]

9 minutes ago, Bigrunner said:

 

Oh lookie here!  WVU continues to post lies and spread misinformation. No apology needed.

Once law enforcement has legally entered a house and they observe evidence of other crimes in plain view that evidence may be searched and seized.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Somewhat similar in rationale is the rule that objects falling in the “plain view” of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant1 or that, if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize, his lawful observation will provide grounds therefor.2 The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them.3

The Court has analogized from the plain view doctrine to hold that, once officers have lawfully observed contraband, “the owner’s privacy interest in that item is lost,” and officers may reseal a container, trace its path through a controlled delivery, and seize and reopen the container without a warrant.4

Footnotes

1

Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (1982) (officer lawfully in dorm room may seize marijuana seeds and pipe in open view); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) ( “plain view” justification for officers to enter home to arrest after observing defendant standing in open doorway); Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (1968) (officer who opened door of impounded automobile and saw evidence in plain view properly seized it); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963) (officers entered premises without warrant to make arrest because of exigent circumstances seized evidence in plain sight). Cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464–73 (1971), and id. at 510 (Justice White dissenting). Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (items seized in plain view during protective sweep of home incident to arrest); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (contraband on car seat in plain view of officer who had stopped car and asked for driver’s license); New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (evidence seen while looking for vehicle identification number). There is no requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view must be “inadvertent.” See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (in spite of Amendment’s particularity requirement, officers with warrant to search for proceeds of robbery may seize weapons of robbery in plain view). 

 

Again, the plain view doctrine can apply when searching a suspects home. Once again I must emphasize WVU is 100% wrong!

lol still wrong.  Google search warrant pal

[mikeman]

17 minutes ago, FISHHEAD said:

Imagine sitting in a bar.......................and a guy like AXL or RUNNER sits next to you and orders a drink and starts a conversation.

I've lived that, at one place there was a guy named "carter" who would just never shut up, if you said a single thing to him he would glom onto you and engage in his one sided conversation.

People would watch for him and when they saw him pull in they'd run to a spot where he couldn't engage them.

[Bigrunner]

4 hours ago, Gmcarroll33 said:

Lol you sure love to name call and hate it when your own party calls your side out.

Yeah I'm sure they had hardcore evidence to be searching Trump's house. 

Who died other than Ashli Babbitt from anything other than natural causes at January 6th btw?

Only a Trumpist aka right wing extremist would claim getting attacked by the Trump mob didn't cause the death of Brian Sicknik. 

And to claim the Department of Justice didn't have probable cause to conduct a lawful search of Benedict Donald's house is very extreme. Explain why Benedict Donald announced his house was raided by the FBI but he hasn't announced what they were legally looking for and what they found? 

Officer Sicknick suffered strokes and died of natural causes, DC medical examiner says

But Diaz in an interview with The Washington Post noted Sicknick’s role in confronting the rioters hours before his collapse, saying, “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

The medical examiner’s office said in its report that “an unprecedented incident of civil insurrection at the United States Capitol resulted in the deaths of five individuals.” 

Diaz told the Post that Sicknick suffered two strokes at the base of his brain stem, which were caused by a clot in an artery that provides blood to that part of the body. Diaz, however, could not comment on if Sicknick had preexisting medical conditions citing privacy laws.

Capitol Police said in a statement Monday that it accepts the medical examiner’s findings and that it did not “change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol.”

“The Department continues to mourn the loss of our beloved colleague. The attack on our officers, including Brian, was an attack on our democracy,” the department said. 

 

Gmcarroll, why do you keep emphasizing that Brian Sicknick died of natural causes and not the result of being attacked by a Trump mob. You actually think Officer Sicknick would have had 2 strokes on Jan. 6th if he wasn't attacked by a Trump mob using bear spray and blunt force objects?

Only a cancerous extreme right winger would think that.

 

 

[rdalert447]

5 hours ago, Bigrunner said:

It's a cancer that needs to be exterminated.

Yikes. Nazi’s alive and well at TGF.

[Bigrunner]

26 minutes ago, WVU said:

lol still wrong.  Google search warrant pal

lol, I just proved you are wrong on multiple counts. 

Firstoff, contrary to your baseless claim, the plain view doctrine can be used when searching the residence of the target. 

Secondly, contrary to your baseless claim that evidence of another crime during a lawful search can be searched and seized. If the officer believes the evidence in plain view is proof of another crime the officer has inherent probable cause to search and seize that evidence. 

WVU, you have a defense but it's baseless. Just like the 60 lawsuits supporting Trumps claims that the election was stolen. Not one of those lawsuits provided evidence of theft. They were all baseless allegations. 

[Gmcarroll33]

14 minutes ago, Bigrunner said:

Only a Trumpist aka right wing extremist would claim getting attacked by the Trump mob didn't cause the death of Brian Sicknik. 

And to claim the Department of Justice didn't have probable cause to conduct a lawful search of Benedict Donald's house is very extreme. Explain why Benedict Donald announced his house was raided by the FBI but he hasn't announced what they were legally looking for and what they found? 

Officer Sicknick suffered strokes and died of natural causes, DC medical examiner says

But Diaz in an interview with The Washington Post noted Sicknick’s role in confronting the rioters hours before his collapse, saying, “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

The medical examiner’s office said in its report that “an unprecedented incident of civil insurrection at the United States Capitol resulted in the deaths of five individuals.” 

Diaz told the Post that Sicknick suffered two strokes at the base of his brain stem, which were caused by a clot in an artery that provides blood to that part of the body. Diaz, however, could not comment on if Sicknick had preexisting medical conditions citing privacy laws.

Capitol Police said in a statement Monday that it accepts the medical examiner’s findings and that it did not “change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol.”

“The Department continues to mourn the loss of our beloved colleague. The attack on our officers, including Brian, was an attack on our democracy,” the department said. 

 

Gmcarroll, why do you keep emphasizing that Brian Sicknick died of natural causes and not the result of being attacked by a Trump mob. You actually think Officer Sicknick would have had 2 strokes on Jan. 6th if he wasn't attacked by a Trump mob using bear spray and blunt force objects?

Only a cancerous extreme right winger would think that.

 

 

Hahahaha you're quoting this article as proof and it specifically mentions that he suffered strokes from blood clots in his brain.  Are you for real?  The only person that died from anything other than natural causes was Ashli Babbitt.  Move along this is embarrassing.

[WVU]

Runner getting destroyed in this thread.  Still wrong about plain view doctrine 

[sugardaddy]

Great picture posted on homepage of drudgereport...

[Bigrunner]

15 minutes ago, WVU said:

Runner getting destroyed in this thread.  Still wrong about plain view doctrine 

I keep proving you wrong. Only reason I'm getting destroyed is because I'm not liked and I'm always right. I proved you wrong AGAIN. This time on 2 counts. 

I will repeat, contrary to what you claim if law enforcement sees evidence of other crimes in plain view during a lawful search that evidence can be searched and seized. WVU, I have proved your claims to be false and fall into the category of misinformation. Par for the course.  Nice try thou. One of these days. 

[Jimmy Hoffa]

25 minutes ago, Bigrunner said:

I'm getting destroyed

Clearly.