No Andy there has been enough information out there from the beginning that raised suspicions about this whole operation.
No that’s the point there has not.
There has been speculation and what if. Your entire argument has been based upon that. Please show me any FACTS that you have used. Maybe the warrant was for trafficking and maybe they didn’t find any and maybe that means other crimes they find with that investigation aren’t prosecutable isn’t information or fact, it’s soeculation.
You just refused to believe that it was possible that the cops lied or exaggerated to obtain the sneak and peak warrants.
Yes, I refuse to believe WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that they lied and exaggerated.
See this is the difference between us. I refuse to accept it until there is any proof. You make it up and argue as if it’s fact.
So if they didn’t you are wrong.
If they did, I reconsider my position because now I have information.
Again you have it exactly backward.
I base my judgment on what is known and clearly have always been open to new facts.
You make up things and speak as if they certainly happened.
You claimed there was enough probable cause solely based on what Sheriff said, no other facts, so you didn't know but accepted it anyway.
Of course I did because they took probable cause to the judge and he issued a warrant.
That means they were legally determined to have probable cause to proceed. It’s a fact.
Even as cops started to backtrack with we have to get girls to cooperate, no one is being charged with trafficking, etc. you maintained cops had everything they needed to do what they did.
They did. Because they got a warrant.
Do you actuslly understand how this works? If a police officer conducts a search he needs to justify it with probably cause it his search was not valid. If the police officer wants to eliminate that risk he goes to a judge, gets his probable cause authorized and approved and is given permission to execute the search and seizure. The cops literally did everything they needed to because the only entity that can determine that said they did.
When others raised the theory that the cops may have lied to capture big fish in the act via video you claimed they were idiots and morrons.
Actuslly no one ever raised the theory that they lied to get the warrant at least that I read or responded to so you are wrong here.
Please show where someone suggested that and I said they were an idiot or moron. Never happened.
Had that come up, I would have responded that it’s unlikely and there is nothing available to us to suggest that happened so it’s not a realistic argument until there is anything to back it up.
Honestly trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time because you will either remain obtuse to the issue in question, gloss over questions, or simply change your position as you see fit just so you can't be perceived as being wrong.
Of course, because you are so triggered and don’t even read things that you respond to. You consistently make up and misstate what I say so it evolves into a back and forth where you are just making things up and I have try to redirect you to reality.
Literally everything you have describe about my position in this post is inaccurate. Every single piece of it. If you can’t read a list and understand it because you are so triggered that you can’t even accept that your making up facts and arguing they are proof is going to get disputed, it turns into this.
By the way, no one here is a Kraft fan boy, nobody cares about him.
That’s not true.
This is all about 4th amendment rights, rights to privacy, which you have made it abundantly clear that you don't care about by taking the position you have.
I probably care more about those rights than you do. Which is why I deal with the facts, not some made up what if.
The 4th amendment doesn’t protect against search and seizure by law enforcement investigating crimes, it protects against illegal search and seizure without probable cause of a crime. If you want to extend that protection to protect criminal enterprises where probably cause exists then you are pro-crime.
Again the difference between us.
If police suspect a crime and go through the proper process to investigate it I assume they did it properly until I see proof they did not, then I condemn it.
You on the other hand condemn it on principle before knowing anything was done wrong. That leads to protecting criminals and handcuffing the process of investigating, stopping and punishing actual real crime that is occurring.
I'm out. Let the legal process take its course, I'll just take out the popcorn, it's going to be good theater.
Smartest thing you have said and I suggest you do that, and actually allow facts to be known rather than make them up and toe yourself to a conclusion that is based upon ignorance.
