DEALERSHIP ACCIDENTALLY SELLS VA. MAN AN SUV FOR $5K LESS THAN IT COSTS — THEN TELLS POLICE HE STOLE IT AND HAS HIM ARRESTED

Perceptive, but my animosity for Romney is that I recognize a sociopath. Some of the sociopaths I know are good family men, and actually try to live a good christian life. They have deep seated personality disorders which make them very successful in making money, but rules are not meant for these individuals....they cheat. If you went back to my early postings about the republican primary, I made no secret I preferred Newt, but I was complimentary to Romney on his first four debates. I went nuclear not because I am sick, but because this man had 100 million in a qualified plan....it is impossible....the man's entire life is a lie, and he is the most dangerous presidential candidate this country has ever had. Your hate of Obama blinds you to the truth. I am a Republican. You call me a liar because I do not hate Obama. I agree with some of his policies. I agree with some of Romney's policies, but President Obama is a good man, Mitt Romney in my opinion is a dangerous and sick man.....America has never been more at risk.

Rogue wrote:

2seaoat wrote:At least Seaoat can write and spell well. It really makes a difference when debating someone who you know is a worthy opponent.

Some of the most intelligent people I have met in my life cannot spell, and they are clumsy with writing. I have met brilliant people who if they had to go back and forth on issues in our format, we would all prejudge.

I think you are often too harsh with Chrissy. I think she is rude with you. However, you certainly do not like it when we are discussing issues for me to be patronizing or questioning your intelligence. I think you can listen to what she is trying to say, and try to ignore spelling errors. In my case, you have never been rude with me, and I respect your tenacity, but you often are like a dog on a good bone....it is difficult to separate you from that bone.......it does not make you wrong always.....but often too determined to make a self assessment. I wish both of you would be more civil, and take the time to focus on the issues and facts....not the personalities. Chrissy thinks I am a liar, you think I do not know what I am talking about......there are ways to say what both of you are saying, it requires facts and concepts....not conclusions.

I do not think you are a liar. I think you are emotionally driven due to life circumstances to which you are in a internal fight with yourself in order to set some self realization you obviously have had about your life. And in doing so, you are hasty and ready to toss the whole concept that made you who are are today out to the wind.

and i am rude to dreams. she has belittled me for years. I simply do not take shit from anyone. I have faults, Im not perfect. I dont know everything. I like you have learned a lot on these forums and have said so many occasions. I respect a lot of people here, you are one of them, she is not.

You have equally belittled me so I don't know where you get off. I don't respect you because you are vulgar and trashy not because you can't spell or write. You deliberately try to push people's buttons as you have previously stated and go off on tantrums when you don't get your way.You don't act like an adult.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:Here is what I believe Seaoat to be saying:

False Arrest:

The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime, the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

"To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed."

Exactly,Ghost. This what I'm talking about.Seaoat is trying to say the guy could be arrested because they had the title ignoring the fact he had a contract and legal agreement to have the car. A reasonable person could see the guy did not steal the car but they had a contract disagreement which voided any theft charge. There was no probable cause to concede the car was stolen.

2seaoat wrote:At least Seaoat can write and spell well. It really makes a difference when debating someone who you know is a worthy opponent.

Some of the most intelligent people I have met in my life cannot spell, and they are clumsy with writing. I have met brilliant people who if they had to go back and forth on issues in our format, we would all prejudge.

I think you are often too harsh with Chrissy. I think she is rude with you. However, you certainly do not like it when we are discussing issues for me to be patronizing or questioning your intelligence. I think you can listen to what she is trying to say, and try to ignore spelling errors. In my case, you have never been rude with me, and I respect your tenacity, but you often are like a dog on a good bone....it is difficult to separate you from that bone.......it does not make you wrong always.....but often too determined to make a self assessment. I wish both of you would be more civil, and take the time to focus on the issues and facts....not the personalities. Chrissy thinks I am a liar, you think I do not know what I am talking about......there are ways to say what both of you are saying, it requires facts and concepts....not conclusions.

She is more than rude and this goes way back to the PNJ forums where she was threatening to beat me up and trying to meet at a donut shop to fight. Is more than spelling errors. She calls people stupid and says FU when she can't write a coherent sentence and posts nasty,filthy things to provoke people.

You both can still be tenacious without being mean spirited. You will find out some day that when you argue on these forums, or in life generally you are the one who is being harmed. Chrissy, Dreams thinks I am an idiot for supporting Newt, but she has never called me a liar.....she just implies that I may have difficulty justifying my support.

Chrissy is intelligent, but when someone is constantly making fun of spelling errors, it does nothing for the substance of the discussion, and it results in personal attacks. On a boring day....a few jabs are fun....we all like to do it, but sometimes the mean spirited stuff just takes the fun away from the forum. I am a big boy and if Dreams wants to call me an idiot, and Chrissy wants to call me a liar.......well you will not see me respond in kind....not because I am better, or correct.....but because I feel good about myself.....I really do not care if somebody says something bad about me.....I just do not take it personally. Start appreciating your self worth and do not let any of us on this forum take the same away by disrespect.

Having said all this.....I am not a liar....except in Poker.....I am not an idiot....unless I am talking to my kids.....and now a very perceptive almost 4 year old granddaughter, and by the way all my positions on this thread are absolutely correct.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:Here is what I believe Seaoat to be saying:

False Arrest:

The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime, the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

"To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed."

Exactly,Ghost. This what I'm talking about.Seaoat is trying to say the guy could be arrested because they had the title ignoring the fact he had a contract and legal agreement to have the car. A reasonable person could see the guy did not steal the car but they had a contract disagreement which voided any theft charge. There was no probable cause to concede the car was stolen.

I think that Seaoat was saying that the officer was immune from prosecution because he believed that the information he had been provided at the beginning was accurate. And according to the law, he would be immune.

According to the vehicles legitimate owner by title and the ones that stated the vehicle had been stolen there was probable cause and after all was said and done, the charges were dropped because of lack of evidence, nothing was said about there being a lack of probable cause and all the officer had to go by was the information as provided by the complainant.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:Here is what I believe Seaoat to be saying:

False Arrest:

The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime, the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

"To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed."

Exactly,Ghost. This what I'm talking about.Seaoat is trying to say the guy could be arrested because they had the title ignoring the fact he had a contract and legal agreement to have the car. A reasonable person could see the guy did not steal the car but they had a contract disagreement which voided any theft charge. There was no probable cause to concede the car was stolen.

I think that Seaoat was saying that the officer was immune from prosecution because he believed that the information he had been provided at the beginning was accurate. And according to the law, he would be immune.

According to the vehicles legitimate owner by title and the ones that stated the vehicle had been stolen there was probable cause and after all was said and done, the charges were dropped because of lack of evidence, nothing was said about there being a lack of probable cause and all the officer had to go by was the information as provided by the complainant.

You've missed the whole point of this discussion. Nobody was talking about prosecuting the officer. We were talking about being sued for false arrest. You're not understanding probable cause in arrest. Let's just forget it.

You are correct that prosecution of the officer was not in play, and I think that this was a typo.....but you are correct that probable cause is the threshold question...and the officer had probable cause.......and I agree we probably have beaten this dead horse......but it was a good thread and I enjoyed the discussions.