It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
I don't know that 'Flee' or 'Run' would be at all accurate here. He's a free man with a full acquittal of all charges.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The fact he was handed his gun back confirms that beyond any question. Even Texas isn't handing a gun back to a criminal like that. Whatever we each think of him, either way, he's as free to go anywhere he likes as we are.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Why Mexico though? That hadn't even crossed my mind? Mexico is only safe haven for people the U.S. chooses to ignore, not people they actually want back, so if Holder filed charges that wouldn't stop anything. He's Hispanic but does he even speak Spanish? I never heard anyone say either way. It doesn't seem logical to leave the country. Just Florida.
Seriously people, the entire trial, witnesses and all, is readily available on YouTube. Before making a fool of yourself by displaying your ignorance, at least try to view as much of the testimony as you can beforehand.
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by conspiracy nut
So, you are saying that someone that is going nowhere in particular is suspicious enough to cite just cause for a search?
edit on 2-8-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)
Going around blind dark corners to re acquire the "suspect" would go against Georges authority (because he might force a confrontation... which he did).
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
That man, totally aside from Obama or even politics in every way, is a walking disaster of a public official from his toes to his eyebrows.
You are digging a really deep hole.
Originally posted by intrptr
The whole edict is to keep distance.
Going around blind dark corners to re acquire the "suspect" would go against Georges authority (because he might force a confrontation... which he did).
Which is why the dispatch advised against waaay back. Of course George already knew this and shouldn't have to be reminded of that (or the posted speed limit).
You cite trial "evidence" but should bear in mind Georges testimony about all these details is the only evidence. The only other corroborating witness is unavailable for comment because George killed him.