The fact that you call these "good art" is more hilarious than the fact that someone would create them to begin with.

You are still completely off; the arrest was because she was behaving suspiciously in regards to loitering for the purpose of solicitation, and her history was taken into consideration. The clothes were added as additional reason for probable cause, but did not fit the typical description of clothing that would…

Oh, my history of pointing out completely misleading stories on jezebel? Not sure that makes me the troll so much as the writers. I also love when idiotic commenters on this site are called out for their idiotic comments, and their only defense is "you are a troll".

I never said the rights shouldn't exist, and have no idea why you think I did.

No, they tried to use it as additional reason for probable cause, not the sole reason. Keep in mind, the judge did indicate that clothing can be "relied upon as circumstantial proof of loitering for purposes of prostitution" - so using a suspect's outfit is a reasonable approach (in the eyes of the court), but it…

Correct - we all have the same rights to a lawyer and using the Law for our defense. Your original post seemed to indicate that you think only cops have those rights, and they are therefore evil.

MY point was that they did not "rest it all" on what she was wearing.

and, if you read the source article, it was not the reason she was arrested.

Yes - we can all be arrested in whatever attire we are wearing at the time if we are behaving in a suspicious manner that appears to be criminal, as was the case here. Read the source article, idiot.

We don't necessarily know she was never convicted based on the source article. By your logic, if any known criminal has evaded conviction multiple times, they should be left alone. Now apply that to rapists, murderers, child pornographers... And either way, it is irresponsible to present the story as it was presented…

"if they try to nail you when you're on your way home from the dry-cleaners & rest it all on "she was dressed like a hooker" " - that was not the case here.

But it is a valid reason for suspicion of illegal activity when it appears the person is engaging in illegal activity.

Yes - an arrest based on activity that looked like solicitation by a person with a long rap sheet for... solicitation. Adding in her attire as an additional reason they thought she was actively soliciting was stupid - but it wasn't the reason they arrested her.

If you have a long rap sheet of prostitution in multiple states, and are doing something that looks like solicitation, yes - you can be arrested (regardless of what you are wearing). The cops were stupid for adding her attire to the list of reasons for the arrest, but that is not why they arrested her, as the article…

Any person being prosecuted is able to make use of every procedural protection their lawyer can "twist into knots to keep from being held accountable" - or, you know, defend themselves in court. It's not just the police.

Hah! Yeah, totally - there's definitely quite a few years of my young adulthood I'm not exactly proud of.. never been an issue of addiction, but rather indulgence.

As expected, it literally took me less than 30 seconds to find your ridiculous, self-contradictory comment on another story (it was "archived" yesterday - pretty close to the top of that barrel), so yeah - not much time or effort.

As a kid, I always loved the taste of booze (especially bourbon) as well as coffee. Not that I was chugging booze, but would sneak sips of my dad's Manhattan when he wasn't looking. Didn't try cigarettes till I was maybe 14 - and loved them from the start as well.

Yet again, another jezebel story that leaves out some inportant information (from the source story it links to, as usual):

You are a fucking moron.