statesrightser

Kuna, ID

#20009 Feb 28, 2013
mikeelam wrote:
<quoted text> Skates, you lack of objectivity is showing again. Buford was a bully. You generalize people as being "low-lifes and criminals". How about those six young men who Pusser bullied and beat up at Moore's Place. Have you spoken with Paul Moore or any of those six about what really happened? Probably not. Paul referred to them as kids and college students. When Pusser arrived at Moore's place they were drinking and having a little fun. Moore had not addressed any problems them but when Pusser arrived he he took exception to their noise. According to Moore, Buford DID NOT make it known that he was the sheriff when he told them to keep quiet.. Moore explained to me that Buford often failed to identify himself which was a big part of the problem.
Not knowing who Buford was the six ignored his instructions to keep the noise down so Buford took action. As far as those six were concerned Pusser was simply an overgrown bully.
Both Moore and Oneal Moffett agree in there stories that Buford took them all on that night, sending three to the hospital and three to jail.
When I spoke to the one that was said to have had his leg broken when Buford threw him up in the rafters, I learned that stories was not exactly true. Yes, the building had very low ceiling, however, the man told me that his leg was broken, not by being thrown into the rafters, but by Buford jumping on it as he lay on the floor.(more legend building).
Moore indicated the whole thing could have been avoided had Pusser only identified himself as a LEO when he asked them to keep the noise down. There is a little more to the story which you will see in the book.
Skates, these were not "low-lifes or criminals", yet Buford bullied them even according to Moore..., Pusser's friend. All you have to do is watch a couple of the old video to hear Moore tell how fights would start because Buford would not properly identify himself.
You state your opinions as facts and generalize people far to much to fit your agenda. Sorry to hit you again.
I made a general observation that WHOEVER the low-lifes were back then, as now, have the habit of thinking of LEOs as bullies, as they are tyupically the ones denying low-life criminals their liberty from time to time. If you bother reading the brief post again through non-Hathcock spectacles, you'd see you jumped the gun in your desire to demonstrate to all of us how many interviews you may or may not have conducted and missed the obvious and simple point: criminals think of LEOs as bullies in general.

I'm sure the people going in and out of the hathcocks' gin joints probably thought of him as a bully as he enforced the law there. of course, they could have filed a complaint with him anytime they wanted by going down to Pusser's private room, right on 45 (with sheriff's car parked in plain view), and giving him what's for!

Funny how you and yours seem REAL comfortable in this LEO bully mindset; almost like you are feeling someone else's pain from years ago. Just a thought.

Since: Jul 09

Springdale, AR

#20010 Feb 28, 2013
statesrightser wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Elam now returns to the tried and failed method of claiming that unless one has a research tent pitched in McN County, you can't have an opinion different than his and be anything but dead wrong. This assumes on Elam's part that decisions and rulings reached back in the 1960s were somehow flawed and incomplete and, 1/2 a century later, we have all (or at least the hathcocks) been blessed by his amateur sleuthing claring up all those conspiracies and errors from way back then when everyone was either stupid or terrified top to bottom by mean ole Buford.
If I had claimed to be a researcher on this topic, this would be a valid question. I'm still waiting on you to produce real proof to punch real holes into the findings that 1) led to self-defense ruling and 2) no charge on Pusser on NHR and Warren Jones' following the Nix-Tow lead for years after Pusser admitted he couldn't say for sure it was Nix.
I'm taking what is obvious to researchers and all other literate people and pointing out your "research" doesn't change what has already been found and used by the authorities to reach decisions decades ago on these shooting incidents. No amount of smears and he said-she said and Hathcock revisionism can change it.
Oh once again skates, you have been caught twisting things as it was NSS, not I that was making a big deal out of being there in the seventies and making a point of it that I was not there until 2005. Why didn't you address NSS when he posted that? Its because he is your buddy. When I did the same to you, well you are all over me. That shows your bias here..., your double standards.

I don't give a rats ass about your opinions that you so freely post. You avoided answering my question about you being in McNairy County yourself. Whats the problem, did the truth finally hit home that you have nothing to show..., but your opinions? Does it show that your opinions lack actual research? Is that why you attack when you have nothing? Is that the reason for the distractions?

You say about yourself "I'm still waiting on you to produce real proof to punch real holes into the findings that 1) led to self-defense ruling and 2) no charge on Pusser on NHR and Warren Jones' following the Nix-Tow lead for years after Pusser admitted he couldn't say for sure it was Nix".

1) you don't want to recognize evidence as a legal loophole was used to keep it from being submitted. You have seen the information and it is real whether you agree with it or not.

2) I said Jones was doing his job and following leads all the way to Oklahoma. Is Jones at fault because Buford could not make identification of Nix? Jones felt there was more to the story and more evidence (information as you would call it since it wasn't submitted...LOL) to show that Pusser may have killed Pauline. Look and see just how many times Pusser changed his story! So pleeeze don't say I haven't answered your questions.

I find your following comment to be ridiculous: "This assumes on Elam's part that decisions and rulings reached back in the 1960s were somehow flawed and incomplete and, 1/2 a century later",.

Are you suggesting that cases are better solved when pertinent evidence is NOT submitted when there is no legitimate reason for it not to be included? You want to make the fact that the autopsy report not known until a half century later a problem. How is it a problem? PLEEZE tell us how this diminished the original findings of the report. Isn't old information either discovered or rediscovered the very thing that solves a lot of "Cold Cases"?

Talk about amateur... what have you shown us? What have YOU done?

Sorry to hit you again.

Mike

Since: Jul 09

Springdale, AR

#20011 Feb 28, 2013
statesrightser wrote:
<quoted text>
I made a general observation that WHOEVER the low-lifes were back then, as now, have the habit of thinking of LEOs as bullies, as they are tyupically the ones denying low-life criminals their liberty from time to time. If you bother reading the brief post again through non-Hathcock spectacles, you'd see you jumped the gun in your desire to demonstrate to all of us how many interviews you may or may not have conducted and missed the obvious and simple point: criminals think of LEOs as bullies in general.
I'm sure the people going in and out of the hathcocks' gin joints probably thought of him as a bully as he enforced the law there. of course, they could have filed a complaint with him anytime they wanted by going down to Pusser's private room, right on 45 (with sheriff's car parked in plain view), and giving him what's for!
Funny how you and yours seem REAL comfortable in this LEO bully mindset; almost like you are feeling someone else's pain from years ago. Just a thought.
Hathcock's gin joints??? Even as I give you an example from Paul Moore's Place you turn the subject back to the Hathcocks. More distractions as you can't argue the point of Pusser being a bully? Again, Moore was Pusser's friend and he has shown FAR MORE credibility than you have on this matter.

Once again, you attack me for finding people and trying to learn the truth. Such empty and pointless attacks are what one does when they have no hard information to offer themselves. They resort to the aimless ridicule of those who do.

Kind of makes you a panty waist bully yourself.

Mike
McNairy

Henderson, TN

#20012 Feb 28, 2013
40-6-205. Issuance of warrant.

(a) If the magistrate is satisfied from the written examination that there is probable cause to believe the offense complained of has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe the defendant has committed it, then the magistrate shall issue an arrest warrant. The finding of probable cause shall be based on evidence, which may be hearsay in whole or in part; provided, however, that there is a substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished. Except as provided in subsection (b), if the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, as defined by 39-11-106, or if none of the affiants in the case of multiple-affiants is a law enforcement officer, as defined by 39-11-106, then a criminal summons as provided in 40-6-215 shall issue instead of a warrant of arrest.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the magistrate may issue a warrant of arrest instead of a criminal summons if:

(1) The offense complained of is a felony, as defined in 39-11-110, or the offense of stalking, as defined in 39-17-315;

(2) There are multiple-affiants and one (1) or more of the affiants is a law enforcement officer as defined in 39-11-106;

(3) After examination of the affiant and the affidavit of complaint, the magistrate has probable cause to believe that the issuance of an arrest warrant rather than a criminal summons is necessary to prevent an immediate danger of domestic abuse to a victim as defined in 36-3-601;

(4) The affiant has a written police report concerning the incident for which the arrest warrant is sought or it can be verified that the written report is on file with the appropriate law enforcement agency;

(5) A reasonable likelihood exists that the person will fail to appear in court;

(6) There are one (1) or more outstanding warrants or criminal summons for the person; or

(7) The person cannot, has not or will not offer satisfactory evidence of identification.

(c) Notwithstanding this section, if the affiant to an affidavit of complaint for an arrest warrant is the parent or legal guardian of a child who is the victim of alleged criminal conduct, no arrest warrant shall issue to the affiant without the written approval of the district attorney general in the district in which the conduct occurred if:

(1) The person the affiant seeks to have arrested was an employee of a local education agency (LEA) at the time of the alleged offense; and

(2) The affiant alleges that the LEA employee engaged in conduct that harmed the child of the affiant parent or legal guardian and, at the time of the conduct, the LEA employee had supervisory or disciplinary power over the child.

HISTORY: Code 1858, 5022; Shan., 6981; Code 1932, 11520; T.C.A.(orig. ed.), 40-704; Acts 2003, ch. 366, 3; 2004, ch. 889, 1; 2005, ch. 482, 3; 2009, ch. 390, 1.





States i don't have time to paint you a colorful picture of how the procedure of warrants actually operate. Should you need more codes please let me know.

Since: Jul 09

Springdale, AR

#20013 Feb 28, 2013
statesrightser wrote:
Please bear with me while I attempt to clear up mass confusion about warrantless arrests brought on by some recent posts.
Probable cause (in law: "a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been committed" and was committed by a certain person) is the legal standard for making an arrest. Having a warrant signed (in hand or not) by a magistrate is NOT a requirement at either fed or state level, though today at least it's preferred if possible, especially at the fed level.
We see 22 y.o. police officers make necessary warrantless arrests hourly in this country on DUIs, No Ops, assault, domestics, hookers, druggies, etc. They make the arrest when they have a reasonable basis to believe the driver, hooker, assailant has committed a crime and obtaining a warrant and returning to the scene is deemed impractical. The next day (or later the same day) the arresting officer has to file a criminal complaint supporting the warrantless arrest. If this affidavit is indequate, the arrest can be challenged and tossed.
In Louise's case, she was dead, but the arrest could have still been challenged by realtives or third parties. If found to be made without probable cause (and the arrest was technically effected on her from the moment Pusser told her she was under arrest and from the moment it was obvious to the average person that they were not free to leave), then Pusser could have been found liable for false arrest and wrongful death, at least. You laugh and say that would never happen in that county at that time. Whatever. I don't think you know that and it's too conveient to say that as an excuse as to why your people back then didn't do squat upon her sudden and violent death.
"Reasonable basis" has been described by writers as something less than a 50-50 test ("more likely than not"); that is, even if an arresting officer's certainty on the arrestee being guilty is less than even, a reasonable basis can exist. This same probable cause (pc) standard was in effect at the '66 GJ when due to lack of pc, the GJ found self-defense existed in LH's death.
Local officers tend to not worry as much about having paper in hand before an arrest than the feds, then or now. Federal agency policy (NOT a legal requirement) requires paper in hand, reviewed by USAO and signed by fed magistrate, before the arrest can be made. Of course, the feds, by the nature of their investigations, tend to have more time to get all in order before having to move. Locals don't usually have that luxury, except perhaps for larger, longer term investigations.
Search warrant (re McNairy's recent post) vs arrest warrant. Critical difference. Rarely is searching without a warrant justified (lives usually not in jeopardy in waiting for search warrant to be obtained), unlike warrantless arrests. The only time a warrantless arrest is allowed is when waiting for a warrant would, 1) endanger the public (aka, the public safety exception), 2) critical evidence likely will be destroyed (as in at a drug dealer's residence when he knows you are there or on the way), or, 3) fleeing felon (aka, hot pursuit exception) who runs into home of another and you must break down door to get him. Of course, automobile exceptions exist that are somewhat lenient given the mobile nature of autos but that doesn't need to be detailed here.
To many, including me, it is a big deal that part of the legend states that Pusser had two warrants when he arrived at the Shamrock? When did he get the one for robbery signed if he had not even investigated the alleged robbery yet?
You want to talk about anything that is not directly related to this matter. You rattle on to hear your self talk.
Pocket warrants? Just low legal would it have been for judges to sign such warrants and allow Sheriffs or other LEO's to fill in the blanks later? That is exactly how corrupt LEOs could abuse the system and protect themselves.
Mike
McNairy

Henderson, TN

#20014 Feb 28, 2013
40-6-215. Summons instead of arrest warrant.
(a)(1) As an alternative to an arrest warrant as provided in 40-6-201 -- 40-6-214, the magistrate or clerk may issue a criminal summons instead of an arrest warrant except when an affiant is not a law enforcement officer as defined by 39-11-106, or none of the affiants in the case of multiple-affiants is a law enforcement officer as defined by 39-11-106, in which instance the magistrate or clerk shall issue a summons.
(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (a)(1), the magistrate may issue an arrest warrant instead of a criminal summons if:
(A) The offense complained of is a felony, as defined in 39-11-110, or the offense of stalking, as defined in 39-17-315;
(B) There are multiple-affiants and one or more of the affiants is a law enforcement officer as defined in 39-11-106;
(C) After examination of the affiant and the affidavit of complaint, the magistrate has probable cause to believe that the issuance of a warrant of arrest rather than a criminal summons is necessary to prevent an immediate danger of domestic abuse to a victim as defined in 36-3-601;
(D) The affiant has a written police report concerning the incident for which the arrest warrant is sought or it can be verified that the written report is on file with the appropriate law enforcement agency;
(E) A reasonable likelihood exists that the person will fail to appear in court;
(F) There are one (1) or more outstanding warrants or criminal summons for the person; or
(G) The person cannot, has not or will not offer satisfactory evidence of identification.
(b) The criminal summons shall be in substantially the same form as an arrest warrant except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before the magistrate or court at a stated time and place. It shall give notice to the person summoned that:
(1) The defendant is being charged with a state criminal offense;
(2) The summons is being issued in lieu of an arrest warrant;
(3) The failure to appear in court on the date and time specified is a separate criminal offense regardless of the disposition of the charge for which the person is originally summoned;
(4) Failure to appear for booking and processing is a separate criminal offense;
(5) An arrest warrant will issue for failure to appear for court or failure to appear for booking and processing;
(6) The failure to appear for court or failure to appear for booking and processing shall be punished as provided in 39-16-609; and
(7) The defendant is encouraged to consult with an attorney about the summons.
(c) The summons shall be executed in triplicate and shall include a copy of the affidavit of complaint. When the summons is served, the original is to be returned to the court specified in the summons, one (1) copy, including a copy of the affidavit of complaint, given to the person summoned, and one (1) copy to be sent to the sheriff or other law enforcement agency in the county responsible for booking procedures.
(d) By accepting the summons, the defendant agrees to appear at the sheriff's department, or other law enforcement agency in the county responsible for booking procedures, to be booked and processed as directed by the sheriff's department or other responsible law enforcement agency. If the defendant fails to appear for booking and processing as directed, the court shall issue a bench warrant for that person's arrest. Failure to appear for booking and processing is a separate criminal offense and shall be punished as provided in 39-16-609.
(e) The sheriff or other law enforcement agency in the county responsible for serving the summons shall provide the defendant with notice of a court time and date the defendant is to appear. The notice shall be given either at the time the summons is served or at the time the defendant is booked and processed, if booking and processing is ordered to occur prior to the first court date. The court date so assigned shall be not less than ten (10) calendar days
McNairy

Henderson, TN

#20015 Feb 28, 2013
Please bear with me while I attempt to clear up mass confusion about warrantless arrests brought on by some recent posts. State==
==========

States you may be the one confused. I posted TCA Code as to state procedure, you posted B/S. he fact we don't know exactly what happened that morning other than the fact LH was killed.

Now you can ramble all you wish, would love to see you post publish some of your rules of court/law to back up your colorful description of your legal process.
McNairy

Henderson, TN

#20016 Feb 28, 2013
States is hung in the 60s. He probably still getting his hair cut to match buford. well maybe not. but we know they like to be like their hero.
McNairy

Milan, TN

#20017 Feb 28, 2013
We see 22 y.o. police officers make necessary warrantless arrests hourly in this country on DUIs, No Ops, assault, domestics, hookers, druggies, etc. They make the arrest when they have a reasonable basis to believe the driver, hooker, assailant has committed a crime and obtaining a warrant and returning to the scene is deemed impractical. The next day (or later the same day) the arresting officer has to file a criminal complaint supporting the warrantless arrest. If this affidavit is indequate, the arrest can be challenged and tossed.(States)
==========

Here is how States operates. We are talking about warrants being served on Louise Hathcock at the Shamrock.
Look what states wants to describe, something a 22 year old police officer is confronted with out on the streets. do you see the smoke and screen. WHO IS CONFUSED????? Skates this is not bcycle,nss,ca.
mikeelam

Springdale, AR

#20018 Feb 28, 2013
McNairy wrote:
States is hung in the 60s. He probably still getting his hair cut to match buford. well maybe not. but we know they like to be like their hero.
Yes he does, but when you are a panty waist you can't really bully people effectively.

Mike
statesrightser

Kuna, ID

#20019 Feb 28, 2013
mikeelam wrote:
<quoted text> Oh once again skates, you have been caught twisting things as it was NSS, not I that was making a big deal out of being there in the seventies and making a point of it that I was not there until 2005. Why didn't you address NSS when he posted that? Its because he is your buddy. When I did the same to you, well you are all over me. That shows your bias here..., your double standards.
I don't give a rats ass about your opinions that you so freely post. You avoided answering my question about you being in McNairy County yourself. Whats the problem, did the truth finally hit home that you have nothing to show..., but your opinions? Does it show that your opinions lack actual research? Is that why you attack when you have nothing? Is that the reason for the distractions?
You say about yourself "I'm still waiting on you to produce real proof to punch real holes into the findings that 1) led to self-defense ruling and 2) no charge on Pusser on NHR and Warren Jones' following the Nix-Tow lead for years after Pusser admitted he couldn't say for sure it was Nix".
1) you don't want to recognize evidence as a legal loophole was used to keep it from being submitted. You have seen the information and it is real whether you agree with it or not.
2) I said Jones was doing his job and following leads all the way to Oklahoma. Is Jones at fault because Buford could not make identification of Nix? Jones felt there was more to the story and more evidence (information as you would call it since it wasn't submitted...LOL) to show that Pusser may have killed Pauline. Look and see just how many times Pusser changed his story! So pleeeze don't say I haven't answered your questions.
I find your following comment to be ridiculous: "This assumes on Elam's part that decisions and rulings reached back in the 1960s were somehow flawed and incomplete and, 1/2 a century later",.
Are you suggesting that cases are better solved when pertinent evidence is NOT submitted when there is no legitimate reason for it not to be included? You want to make the fact that the autopsy report not known until a half century later a problem. How is it a problem? PLEEZE tell us how this diminished the original findings of the report. Isn't old information either discovered or rediscovered the very thing that solves a lot of "Cold Cases"?
Talk about amateur... what have you shown us? What have YOU done?
Sorry to hit you again.
Mike
Bbecause the issue I have with you Elam isn't your research, it's your conclusions. I've seen nothing from that supports double murder conspiracy. NSS has made no such outlandish claims and has no such site dedicated to those claims (whether you want to admit it or not, that's what your effort here stands for), therefore, I have no issue with him.

I''ve said more times than I can count on here that I've not been to McN County. I've also said that there's plenty of evidence available to anyone with a keyboard and an 8th grade education to see you are full of it, and that all your he said, she said misdirection and red herrings don't even come close to altering the reality of those findings back then. Don't even move the needle. Chasing people with recorders and loading up folks on buses from now till doomsday ain't gonna change that.

As for my opinions that you don't like, I'm not posting for your benefit, since you are a lost cause pursuing some agenda or psychosis you won't own up to.

Jones worked Pusser's ID lead because Jones knew Pusser was right but Jones couldn't prove it.

DA decided not to bring autopsy in. His discretion. Since we can't ask him, we have to assume one of two things: 1) mass conspiracy existed (no evidence of one), 2) he decided the evidence for self-defense was overwhelming. We can't ask him more about his decision now.

I understand concept of cold case just fine Elam. You ain't got one at Shamrock, though. It's a mummy.
statesrightser

Kuna, ID

#20020 Feb 28, 2013
McNairy wrote:
We see 22 y.o. police officers make necessary warrantless arrests hourly in this country on DUIs, No Ops, assault, domestics, hookers, druggies, etc. They make the arrest when they have a reasonable basis to believe the driver, hooker, assailant has committed a crime and obtaining a warrant and returning to the scene is deemed impractical. The next day (or later the same day) the arresting officer has to file a criminal complaint supporting the warrantless arrest. If this affidavit is indequate, the arrest can be challenged and tossed.(States)
==========
Here is how States operates. We are talking about warrants being served on Louise Hathcock at the Shamrock.
Look what states wants to describe, something a 22 year old police officer is confronted with out on the streets. do you see the smoke and screen. WHO IS CONFUSED????? Skates this is not bcycle,nss,ca.
Then stay ignorant dumb ass. I tried to explain that a warrant IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE AN ARREST. Got it? or do I need to go slower and use more caps? But again it wasn't for you malingering asses but for whoever has scheisse for brains out there. Try again when you put down your medicine.
mikeelam

Springdale, AR

#20021 Feb 28, 2013
statesrightser wrote:
<quoted text>
Bbecause the issue I have with you Elam isn't your research, it's your conclusions. I've seen nothing from that supports double murder conspiracy. NSS has made no such outlandish claims and has no such site dedicated to those claims (whether you want to admit it or not, that's what your effort here stands for), therefore, I have no issue with him.
I''ve said more times than I can count on here that I've not been to McN County. I've also said that there's plenty of evidence available to anyone with a keyboard and an 8th grade education to see you are full of it, and that all your he said, she said misdirection and red herrings don't even come close to altering the reality of those findings back then. Don't even move the needle. Chasing people with recorders and loading up folks on buses from now till doomsday ain't gonna change that.
As for my opinions that you don't like, I'm not posting for your benefit, since you are a lost cause pursuing some agenda or psychosis you won't own up to.
Jones worked Pusser's ID lead because Jones knew Pusser was right but Jones couldn't prove it.
DA decided not to bring autopsy in. His discretion. Since we can't ask him, we have to assume one of two things: 1) mass conspiracy existed (no evidence of one), 2) he decided the evidence for self-defense was overwhelming. We can't ask him more about his decision now.
I understand concept of cold case just fine Elam. You ain't got one at Shamrock, though. It's a mummy.
. NSS has made no such claims? How about being attacked head on in the ambush? WOW, Where is the rest of your answer about why you don't attack NSS FOR THE SAME THINGS YOU ATTACK ME FOR?. Still twisting on the DA and the Hathcock shooting I see.ZAny do you wish to keep the autopsy report? It is what blows you out of the water.
statesrightser

Kuna, ID

#20022 Feb 28, 2013
McNairy: you posting half the TN code on summons in lieu of arrest warrant is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the issue of what it takes to make a legal arrest. You don't know your ass from a bread pan and are proud of it. I'm sure your alter ego will join in on what a great posting this is. Here goes:

A SUMMONS is what is executed when it has been decided to notify someone (in lieu of physical arrest) of a need to appear for a criminal charge and it has been decided that it's a reasonable risk that so-and-so will show up as ordered.
Typically summons are not issued in cases of violent or otherwise serious crimes.

Summons had nothing to do with what happened at the Shamrock. The question there that some of you have tried to turn into some sort of issue (unsuccessfully, of course) is whether Pusser could arrest Aunt Lou without paper-in-hand. The answer is yes and the real issue is did he have PROBABLE CAUSE (detailed in previous post which you ignored) to a) believe a crime had been committed and b) to believe that Aunt Lou was the one who had committed it. That is the ONLY question as to whether that arrest was legal or not. Pusser had pc on both questions and he announced her arrest; the rest is history - except in ElamLand where he continues to pursue "the investigation!"

One of the first things you learn as an attorney or a professional criminal investigator, McN and Elam, is TO STICK TO THE ISSUES. You cannot change the issues by reprinting the TN Code Annotated as a smoke screen, unless you were dealing with some imbecilic bumpkin (especially if you don't know the code or how to find your way around in it with both hands). The issue you have raised unsuccessfully was that somehow Pusser made an illegal arrest because he didn't have a signed document when he went to hook her ass up. You, of course, are dead wrong. You are welcome.

Since I know who Elam is (as he loves to remind us all over and over), maybe I should send he and McN (probably same box) a bill for services rendered. Or maybe I'll just write it off to pro bono work for the mentally and morally challenged.

It is what it is.
statesrightser

Kuna, ID

#20023 Feb 28, 2013
McNairy wrote:
Please bear with me while I attempt to clear up mass confusion about warrantless arrests brought on by some recent posts. State==
==========
States you may be the one confused. I posted TCA Code as to state procedure, you posted B/S. he fact we don't know exactly what happened that morning other than the fact LH was killed.
Now you can ramble all you wish, would love to see you post publish some of your rules of court/law to back up your colorful description of your legal process.
The concept of probable cause is a part of basic US criminal law as established in the US Supreme Court many moons ago and IS NOT to be found (or looked for, except by fools and barroom lawyers) in a state or federal code book. Those volumes detail rules of court and procedural rulings. CASE LAW is where such timeless concepts such as Probable Cause can be found. Understanding case law requires some sort of legal education, self taught or otherwise.

You can probably find some articulation of it in one of Elam's deputy dog legal handbooks for guys with brand new handcuffs. Wherever you look to find ammo to joust with me, please don't keep making a fool of yourself pulling out sections of the TCA. Next thing you are going to find is the section that told Pusser he could put the crooked judge's chambers in the men's room...like in the ...(wait for it)...THE MOVIE!!!!! aarrgghhhh

Since: Jul 09

Springdale, AR

#20024 Feb 28, 2013
statesrightser wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stay ignorant dumb ass. I tried to explain that a warrant IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE AN ARREST. Got it? or do I need to go slower and use more caps? But again it wasn't for you malingering asses but for whoever has scheisse for brains out there. Try again when you put down your medicine.
WOW McNairy, the panty waist bully is getting ANGRY!!! Have you notice he continually sidesteps the questions about the two warrants Pusser allegedly had in hand. especially the one regarding the alleged robbery of the Vogels? Hmmm???

He has nothing so he starts trying to bully people. He wants to explain warrants to you McNairy, but he doesn't seem to understand what it takes to get one of for that matter why Pusser had one for robbery, even before he investigated the alleged crime and had established cause. And to think he calls you a dumb ass. This isn't a case of which came first the chicken or the egg as Pusser had the warrant before any investigation was done.

Since: Jul 09

Springdale, AR

#20025 Feb 28, 2013
statesrightser wrote:
McNairy: you posting half the TN code on summons in lieu of arrest warrant is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the issue of what it takes to make a legal arrest. You don't know your ass from a bread pan and are proud of it. I'm sure your alter ego will join in on what a great posting this is. Here goes:
A SUMMONS is what is executed when it has been decided to notify someone (in lieu of physical arrest) of a need to appear for a criminal charge and it has been decided that it's a reasonable risk that so-and-so will show up as ordered.
Typically summons are not issued in cases of violent or otherwise serious crimes.
Summons had nothing to do with what happened at the Shamrock. The question there that some of you have tried to turn into some sort of issue (unsuccessfully, of course) is whether Pusser could arrest Aunt Lou without paper-in-hand. The answer is yes and the real issue is did he have PROBABLE CAUSE (detailed in previous post which you ignored) to a) believe a crime had been committed and b) to believe that Aunt Lou was the one who had committed it. That is the ONLY question as to whether that arrest was legal or not. Pusser had pc on both questions and he announced her arrest; the rest is history - except in ElamLand where he continues to pursue "the investigation!"
One of the first things you learn as an attorney or a professional criminal investigator, McN and Elam, is TO STICK TO THE ISSUES. You cannot change the issues by reprinting the TN Code Annotated as a smoke screen, unless you were dealing with some imbecilic bumpkin (especially if you don't know the code or how to find your way around in it with both hands). The issue you have raised unsuccessfully was that somehow Pusser made an illegal arrest because he didn't have a signed document when he went to hook her ass up. You, of course, are dead wrong. You are welcome.
Since I know who Elam is (as he loves to remind us all over and over), maybe I should send he and McN (probably same box) a bill for services rendered. Or maybe I'll just write it off to pro bono work for the mentally and morally challenged.
It is what it is.
Then stick to the issue Skates Pusser was said to have arrived with two warrants, one for robbery. How did he get it BEFORE he investigated? That is the issue.
Kingfish

Nashville, TN

#20026 Feb 28, 2013
States, sweetheart, I do believe you just bent over and let ole McNairy put one in you without any Vasaline.....And as far as Jones continuing to pursue the Nix connection...it was because he was sure he was almost positive Nix was involved, not as a make believe assailant, but as a Buford Pusser murder accomplice....and was hoping he would roll over on ole Pus under the right circumstances......
statesrightser

Kuna, ID

#20027 Feb 28, 2013
mikeelam wrote:
<quoted text>
Hathcock's gin joints??? Even as I give you an example from Paul Moore's Place you turn the subject back to the Hathcocks. More distractions as you can't argue the point of Pusser being a bully? Again, Moore was Pusser's friend and he has shown FAR MORE credibility than you have on this matter.
Once again, you attack me for finding people and trying to learn the truth. Such empty and pointless attacks are what one does when they have no hard information to offer themselves. They resort to the aimless ridicule of those who do.
Kind of makes you a panty waist bully yourself.
Mike
You lying f'k. You could twist a titanium rod just by being around it. In Pusser's world, I'm sure lots of folks got bullied, good and bad, on both sides. Your bullying was probably his keeping people in line. I seem to remember hearing something about Moore saying as long as you didn't get out of line, Pusser was nice as could be. Pusser probably knew how far he would get going easy on a bunch of low-lifes (oops, don't get offended like before when I used "low-lifes" in a general sort of way Elam; I didn't name any relatives or anything). Your obviously sham positions on the shootings (whatever they exactly are, as your are scared to commit to specifics on the record) deserve ridicule and your real purpose here deserves scorn.

Btw, you bullied little Atoyia pretty good a couple years ago (congrats) on the other forum and you TRY to bully anyone who comes on here and fails to bow down to your bs research. Pot calling the kettle black, as usual.
statesrightser

Kuna, ID

#20028 Feb 28, 2013
You people just make up sh!t as you go. What do you mean 'supposedly' or 'was said' to have two? Did he have two or one guys? If you don't know, why are we talking about it? We know he got a call from the Vogels detailing a crime committed at the Shamrock and they were there when he and the boys got to the motel. That, alone, is probable cause for an arrest (doesn't mean the arrest will stand in court necessarily but Aunt Lou wasn't interested that morning in trusting a McN County jury - she had other ideas). As far as the liquor warrant, we don't know - do we?? He supposedly had one for liquor and supposedly found liquor on the premises that morning. Sheriffs and investigators often have more than it takes (from snitch or whatever) to get an arrest warrant but are not required by law to serve it ASAP. Pusser apparently had held onto it for an opportune time - 2/1/66 was just such an opportunity - and The Legend rolled.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Selmer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Shinicole aka Shinika Miller(Pusser) (May '16) 1 hr I like it 5
White milfs that love black men 1 hr Shawn 8
duck rabbit and or deer hunters 4 hr white tail 7
Beware Ladies 5 hr LLL 17
Dope man shot? Fri Stinkley McRippin... 2
Know about it Fri Stink purple 3
Lady cop Fri Ewww 3

Selmer Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Selmer Mortgages