Defiant:
To add to my earlier post to you...Here is where we may have some separation.
It looks like you are assigning some sort of PERCEIVED wrong-doing on Mr. Eckert while giving a pass to LEO.
Now, in this report, we have no statement from LEO about probable cause. Your insinuation, in essence, is to give protection to the State by insisting, “if you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?”
That concept is contrary to Amendment 4 and 5 of the US Constitution.
That is your error. Nothing I said so indicates.
Your insinuation, in essence, is to give protection to the State by insisting, “if you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?”
I made no such insinuation. Your misreading of words that are not ambiguous does not give rise in me of a need to defend them. I have not defended law enforcement in this case. I simply observed that the only explanation that makes sense is that they believed he was carrying, and I was curious why. Had they received an anonymous tip, had they been following the poor guy, or was he simply a random guy who rolled through a stop sign? I would like to know, because the implications for each scenario are different, although all are disturbing. If it is the third scenario, it is most horrific, although all are terrible. I have been through Deming on my trips east on I-8, and it could well have been me pulling out of that Walmart.
You need to read the words that I said and tell me where your nonsensical interpretation derives from. I speak English as a native, and I don't see where you come up with this crap. And, I am quite familiar with the 4th Amendment, as our Criminal Law professor made us memorize it in the first week of class. Its destruction by the NSA and this government is quite disturbing, as is your defensiveness to things unsaid.