[Mrs. Tink]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Sure, case law is case law. But you asked why dissenters don't cite case law. Dissenters don't have personal vested interest like you do so expecting people whose livelihoods don't depend on knowing case law to provide it to counter someone whose livelihood does depend on it is lame. Dissenters don't know case law. They just know messed up situations when they see them.

Originally Posted by seanmac45

A very verbose way of saying you don't know what you're talking about.

Thanks for admitting that.

Originally Posted by seanmac45

Thanks but I won't spend 48 minutes of my life trying to see if you have a clue.

You've already proven that you don't.

Originally Posted by TBO

I believe it is lame to speak with firmness on things you don't know about.

Originally Posted by seanmac45

Isn't the arrogance of the ignorant amazing?

I see G19G20's point--people who are not familiar with "case law" or whatever else your hat is hung on are not going to know this out of the box. That said, although perhaps we ordinary people "don't have a clue", doesn't mean that we're "arrogant" about being "ignorant." I for one come on here because I like to learn new perspectives and information. I freely admit that I have no clue. I would rather appreciate being educated or being informed.

I know that some folks on here choose not to speak to police as a general rule; I am not one. But when it comes to things like "stop & frisk" or whatever the seemingly-outrageous policy of the day is, it would be nice to hear about case law or other background information--even if some people are belligerent about challenging you LEOs on this, there are plenty of others who just want to know more. THEN we can all draw our own conclusions and discuss it.