Police Brutality.

[ElFenix]

i don't think miranda rights have to be read anymore

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Read a few posts up, Einstein. It's right there.

Shall we continue? I'll need to get my high heels, my foot is getting way too far up your ass.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: HBalzer
How do you figure? You think I didn't realize he was most likely a cop? I wanted him to say that so I could school a cop on Miranda rights.

:laugh:

Yeah, and you sure did that.

Miranda rights were and yes I was right. I thought the guy was in hand cuffs and was mistaken but I explained the rights as they are. Even without handcuffs a good lawyer could get his statements dismissed.

A good lawyer got OJ off. That doesn't mean he's innocent.

Amen to that.

Yea do to mistakes by the cops.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't think miranda rights have to be read anymore

From what I hear, they try to get 'em in during the deep cavity searches.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't think miranda rights have to be read anymore

From what I hear, they try to get 'em in during the deep cavity searches.

Maybe HBalzer will comment - he seems to be familiar with that process as well.

 

[Tremulant]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't think miranda rights have to be read anymore

From what I hear, they try to get 'em in during the deep cavity searches.

Kinky.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Sure, he didn't explicitly correct you on your silly mistake, but you implied incorrectly, and Bradruth implied that you were wrong.

One of us doesn't understand Miranda...guess which one it is.






Hint: It's not me.

Hmm, well, that comment was made to you by Bradruth. So lets see

You
Bradruth

Now.... if Bradruth is not the one that doesn't understand the Miranda rights that leaves one person...

who could it be?







Take a wild guess!









The answer is just below!











YOU YA FRIGGIN' IDIOT!

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Read a few posts up, Einstein. It's right there.

Shall we continue? I'll need to get my high heels, my foot is getting way too far up your ass.

Okay then where in the definition was I wrong? I said and I quote ?If a person is not just a witness therefore not free to leave and therefore in custody, they need to be read their rights at which point do I have this wrong??

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Read a few posts up, Einstein. It's right there.

Shall we continue? I'll need to get my high heels, my foot is getting way too far up your ass.

Okay then where in the definition was I wrong? I said and I quote ?If a person is not just a witness therefore not free to leave and therefore in custody, they need to be read their rights at which point do I have this wrong??

Your definition of in custody is incorrect, young grasshopper.

 

[Cattlegod]

I feel special, someone used some stuff in a thread I started to make a totally new thread

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

I ignore post count, but a join date of 15 days ago says something . . . .

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I feel special, someone used some stuff in a thread I started to make a totally new thread

I hope they give you the death penalty.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Sure, he didn't explicitly correct you on your silly mistake, but you implied incorrectly, and Bradruth implied that you were wrong.

One of us doesn't understand Miranda...guess which one it is.






Hint: It's not me.

Hmm, well, that comment was made to you by Bradruth. So lets see

You
Bradruth

Now.... if Bradruth is not the one that doesn't understand the Miranda rights that leaves one person...

who could it be?







Take a wild guess!









The answer is just below!











YOU YA FRIGGIN' IDIOT!

He implied that I didn?t know the Miranda rights which I did. I see you are resorting to just childish name calling running out of bullsh!t are we?

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Sure, he didn't explicitly correct you on your silly mistake, but you implied incorrectly, and Bradruth implied that you were wrong.

One of us doesn't understand Miranda...guess which one it is.






Hint: It's not me.

Hmm, well, that comment was made to you by Bradruth. So lets see

You
Bradruth

Now.... if Bradruth is not the one that doesn't understand the Miranda rights that leaves one person...

who could it be?







Take a wild guess!









The answer is just below!











YOU YA FRIGGIN' IDIOT!

He implied that I didn?t know the Miranda rights which I did. I see you are resorting to just childish name calling running out of bullsh!t are we?

Err... uhh, you obviously didn't understand the intricacies of it considering you don't know the proper definition of "in custody."

Also, my childish name calling goes hand in hand with my facts. It's the sprinkling on my well baked cake!

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Also, my childish name calling goes hand in hand with my facts. It's the sprinkling on my well baked cake!

LMAO

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

I ignore post count, but a join date of 15 days ago says something . . . .

What that I had a life beyond ATOT? Don't hate me because I?m new and smarter than the majority of you. Blame God.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Read a few posts up, Einstein. It's right there.

Shall we continue? I'll need to get my high heels, my foot is getting way too far up your ass.

Okay then where in the definition was I wrong? I said and I quote ?If a person is not just a witness therefore not free to leave and therefore in custody, they need to be read their rights at which point do I have this wrong??

Your definition of in custody is incorrect, young grasshopper.

Please define custody?

 

[Tremulant]

Originally posted by: Qosis
Err... uhh, you obviously didn't understand the intricacies of it considering you don't know the proper definition of "in custody."

Also, my childish name calling goes hand in hand with my facts. It's the sprinkling on my well baked cake!

I want to try some of that 'chocolate lava cake' cause it looks damn good.

I saw how to make some the other day (on How To Boil Water), but I probably won't.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

I ignore post count, but a join date of 15 days ago says something . . . .

What that I had a life beyond ATOT? Don't hate me because I?m new and smarter than the majority of you. Blame God.

Oh man... as soon as the "I have a life" argument is used, you know someone is really grabbing at straws.

Err, wait.. let me bring something to light.

YOU HAVE 34 POSTS PER DAY!!! HOLY SHAT!!!

How in gods name can you say you have a life? We post casually, here and there about interesting topics. You've been sittin ghere for the last 2 weeks workign your ass off to get your post count high.

Has life really gotten so uninteresting?

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Sure, he didn't explicitly correct you on your silly mistake, but you implied incorrectly, and Bradruth implied that you were wrong.

One of us doesn't understand Miranda...guess which one it is.






Hint: It's not me.

Hmm, well, that comment was made to you by Bradruth. So lets see

You
Bradruth

Now.... if Bradruth is not the one that doesn't understand the Miranda rights that leaves one person...

who could it be?







Take a wild guess!









The answer is just below!











YOU YA FRIGGIN' IDIOT!

He implied that I didn?t know the Miranda rights which I did. I see you are resorting to just childish name calling running out of bullsh!t are we?

Err... uhh, you obviously didn't understand the intricacies of it considering you don't know the proper definition of "in custody."

Also, my childish name calling goes hand in hand with my facts. It's the sprinkling on my well baked cake!

Where are the facts? The only fact is that you have been here longer and have more friends to back you in your err.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Read a few posts up, Einstein. It's right there.

Shall we continue? I'll need to get my high heels, my foot is getting way too far up your ass.

Okay then where in the definition was I wrong? I said and I quote ?If a person is not just a witness therefore not free to leave and therefore in custody, they need to be read their rights at which point do I have this wrong??

Your definition of in custody is incorrect, young grasshopper.

Please define custody?

# The state of being detained or held under guard, especially by the police: took the robbery suspect into custody.

Source

And considering how dismal your vocabulary is, here's the link to the definition of detained.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

I ignore post count, but a join date of 15 days ago says something . . . .

What that I had a life beyond ATOT? Don't hate me because I?m new and smarter than the majority of you. Blame God.

Oh man... as soon as the "I have a life" argument is used, you know someone is really grabbing at straws.

Err, wait.. let me bring something to light.

YOU HAVE 34 POSTS PER DAY!!! HOLY SHAT!!!

How in gods name can you say you have a life? We post casually, here and there about interesting topics. You've been sittin ghere for the last 2 weeks workign your ass off to get your post count high.

Has life really gotten so uninteresting?

Note I said had a life not have I know how you children think and was again one up on you. I have my reasons for having no life at the moment however don?t worry soon I will be gone.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

I ignore post count, but a join date of 15 days ago says something . . . .

What that I had a life beyond ATOT? Don't hate me because I?m new and smarter than the majority of you. Blame God.

Oh man... as soon as the "I have a life" argument is used, you know someone is really grabbing at straws.

Err, wait.. let me bring something to light.

YOU HAVE 34 POSTS PER DAY!!! HOLY SHAT!!!

How in gods name can you say you have a life? We post casually, here and there about interesting topics. You've been sittin ghere for the last 2 weeks workign your ass off to get your post count high.

Has life really gotten so uninteresting?

I see no definition of custody yet. And note I said had a life not have I know how you children think and was again one up on you. I have my reasons for having no life at the moment however don?t worry soon I will be gone.

I see no definition of custody yet.

Not my fault, Mr. Magoo.

And note I said had a life not have I know how you children think and was again one up on you. I have my reasons for having no life at the moment however don?t worry soon I will be gone.

Ooh, was that a veiled reference to suicide? Or something a little less severe? Either way, good job mate.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Sure, he didn't explicitly correct you on your silly mistake, but you implied incorrectly, and Bradruth implied that you were wrong.

One of us doesn't understand Miranda...guess which one it is.






Hint: It's not me.

Hmm, well, that comment was made to you by Bradruth. So lets see

You
Bradruth

Now.... if Bradruth is not the one that doesn't understand the Miranda rights that leaves one person...

who could it be?







Take a wild guess!









The answer is just below!











YOU YA FRIGGIN' IDIOT!

He implied that I didn?t know the Miranda rights which I did. I see you are resorting to just childish name calling running out of bullsh!t are we?

Err... uhh, you obviously didn't understand the intricacies of it considering you don't know the proper definition of "in custody."

Also, my childish name calling goes hand in hand with my facts. It's the sprinkling on my well baked cake!

Where are the facts? The only fact is that you have been here longer and have more friends to back you in your err.

You haven't responded with a single fact yet, you just sling around unoriginal insults in hopes of disguising your stupidity.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: EyeMNathan
bradruth pwning people is indeed amusing, but not thread-worthy.

I don't believe you have the right to deem what is thread-worthy and not thread-worthy at 671 posts.

You think a man is defined by his post count? That explains a lot.

Is that the best comeback you can come up with?

Let's stay on topic...

In case you forgot what the topic was, let me refresh your memory.

You uttered some crap about Miranda rights.

Bradruth corrected you.

You made some sarcastic remark about how having a cop avatar doesn't make someone an officer. It was done in a condescending fashion, because anyone who pretends they're a member of a certain profession based on their avatar is a friggin douchebag.

Bradruth agreed, and then told you he was actually a cop.

You turned around, when the pwning was brought to light, and painted it all as some headgame. Even though you have no idea what you're talking about.

Shall we continue?

Bradruth didn't correct me on the Miranda rights and please define the Miranda rights for everyone. Then we will see who was right and who was wrong. As for the post count I believe you were the on who used that to your defense.

Read a few posts up, Einstein. It's right there.

Shall we continue? I'll need to get my high heels, my foot is getting way too far up your ass.

Okay then where in the definition was I wrong? I said and I quote ?If a person is not just a witness therefore not free to leave and therefore in custody, they need to be read their rights at which point do I have this wrong??

Your definition of in custody is incorrect, young grasshopper.

Please define custody?

# The state of being detained or held under guard, especially by the police: took the robbery suspect into custody.

Source

And considering how dismal your vocabulary is, here's the link to the definition of detained.

My friend you just sunk your own ship and probably dont even realize it. Now lets start with detained- To keep from proceeding; delay or retard. Now do you think that the young man in question was free to leave, just walk away while the cop was questioning him?

Now custody: The state of being detained or held under guard, especially by the police.

Thank you for all your help in proving me right. If you cannot see it you never will goodnight everyone Im sure there will be another show very soon.