KaptCrunch Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 389 Group: *** Clan Members Followers: 45 Topic Count: 296 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 4482 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 3644 Achievement Points: 36597 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 40 Joined: 09/14/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: 1 hour ago Birthday: 01/01/1970 Device: Windows Share Posted February 11, 2013 gun vs cop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
BUDMAN Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 800 Group: *** Clan Members Followers: 152 Topic Count: 136 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 6965 Content Per Day: 1.32 Reputation: 4504 Achievement Points: 58427 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 6 Joined: 11/27/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: 26 minutes ago Birthday: 05/29/1957 Device: Windows Share Posted February 11, 2013 W0W ............................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
ENG4INE Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 1717 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 86 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 657 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 610 Achievement Points: 5298 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/19/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 30, 2020 Birthday: 09/24/1984 Share Posted February 11, 2013 This one shows how it's suppose to be done. -cracken- , KaptCrunch and PimpedOutPete 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PimpedOutPete Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 174 Group: +++ COD2 Head Admin Followers: 129 Topic Count: 387 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 14888 Content Per Day: 2.77 Reputation: 7829 Achievement Points: 91105 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 52 Joined: 09/02/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: 3 hours ago Birthday: 04/23/1970 Device: Macintosh Share Posted February 11, 2013 What an asshole. This individual is actively looking to cause trouble, nothing more. He is within his rights but when someone is wandering around with a weapon, it naturally makes people nervous. This jerk couldnt care less. eidolonFIRE and Hemps 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
PimpedOutPete Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 174 Group: +++ COD2 Head Admin Followers: 129 Topic Count: 387 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 14888 Content Per Day: 2.77 Reputation: 7829 Achievement Points: 91105 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 52 Joined: 09/02/09 Status: Offline Last Seen: 3 hours ago Birthday: 04/23/1970 Device: Macintosh Share Posted February 11, 2013 This one shows how it's suppose to be done. Good grief... The cop did a great job. eidolonFIRE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
Coffee4You Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 2617 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 28 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 107 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 89 Achievement Points: 911 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/22/11 Status: Offline Last Seen: June 2, 2016 Birthday: 03/11/1969 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Anything to get a rise out of Law Enforment! SheepDog that guy handled that well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharticus Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 1320 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 7 Topic Count: 37 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 611 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 357 Achievement Points: 4498 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/10/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: August 10, 2020 Birthday: 01/14/1976 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Where's the probable cause? It's not illegal to openly carry a firearm. What crime did he commit? This is a police department policy issue, not a criminal matter. Police officers must walk a fine line between upholding the law and the U.S. and state constitutions. My wife's experience with the local PD is that most officers trample your constitutional rights under the guise of "public safety." I maintain that an officers job is primarily reactive, not proactive. They show up after a crime has been committed. It's the nature of the job. I know they may want to prevent crime, but that's where an individual's rights begin to get violated. As a citizen, you actually have more latitude to search and detain through a citizen's arrest then the police do! So if a police officer desires to be more proactive in preventing crimes he needs to give up his badge and trade his uniform for civilian clothes. A good cop is worth his weight in gold. Edited February 11, 2013 by Pharticus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
ENG4INE Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 1717 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 86 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 657 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 610 Achievement Points: 5298 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/19/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 30, 2020 Birthday: 09/24/1984 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Where's the probable cause? It's not illegal to openly carry a firearm. What crime did he commit? This is a police department policy issue, not a criminal matter. Police officers must walk a fine line between upholding the law and the U.S. and state constitutions. My wife's experience with the local PD is that most officers trample your constitutional rights under the guise of "public safety." I maintain that an officers job is primarily reactive, not proactive. They show up after a crime has been committed. It's the nature of the job. I know they may want to prevent crime, but that's where an individual's rights begin to get violated. As a citizen, you actually have more latitude to search and detain through a citizen's arrest then the police do! So if a police officer desires to be more proactive in preventing crimes he needs to give up his badge and trade his uniform for civilian clothes. A good cop is worth his weight in gold. Only reasonable suspicion is required for a stop (Traffic or Pedestrian). Probable Cause is required for an arrest, warrant or search (Other than a Terry Pat Down or consent search) See Terry vs. Ohio. The man did not commit a crime in the video, and was not arrested. He was stopped based on the reasonable suspicion that was created by the 911 calls. Once the subject is stopped and found not to be breaking the law and is clear of wants and warrants they are free to go. Case law has found that if open carry is legal in a state, charging someone with disorderly conduct for causing alarm to the people that called 911 simply because of the person carrying the firearm does not supercede the second amendment. That is why they are released unless they are violating another law or have warrants. The sixth circuit also found it reasonable for Officers to request ID and run anyone stopped based on reasonable suspicion for wants and warrants. (Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada) Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1(1968)-An officer can briefly detain a person, based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, long enough to dispel the suspicion or to allow it to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. The officer is also permitted to do a limited "frisk" search of the person without a warrant. Before the officer can frisk search the subject, he must: Have articulable facts that the person could be armed with a weapon. Limit the search to pat searching the outer garments of the suspect to feel for objects that might be weapons. Only reach inside the clothing after feeling such objects. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)-A police officer can require a person to identify himself/herself if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Edited February 11, 2013 by Sheepdog45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharticus Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 1320 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 7 Topic Count: 37 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 611 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 357 Achievement Points: 4498 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/10/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: August 10, 2020 Birthday: 01/14/1976 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Dammit man! Don't confuse me with the facts! In both cases, Terry v. Ohio and Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of NV, the argument becomes "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." I would argue that merely openly carrying a firearm isn't reasonable suspicion (in this day and age I might lose). If it is legal to open carry, where is the suspicion? If OC is grounds for reasonable suspicion then can an officer indiscriminately pull someone over to check for DUI (that shows no outward signs of being intoxicated i.e. swerving, erratic speeds)? Also, there have been increasingly more accounts of abuse of "briefly detained". I think 10 minutes or less fits the definition of briefly, but there are incidents where the "suspect" was detained for over an hour. Edited February 11, 2013 by Pharticus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
ENG4INE Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 1717 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 86 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 657 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 610 Achievement Points: 5298 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/19/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 30, 2020 Birthday: 09/24/1984 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Dammit man! Don't confuse me with the facts! In both cases, Terry v. Ohio and Hibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of NV, the argument becomes "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." I would argue that merely openly carrying a firearm isn't reasonable suspicion (in this day and age I might lose). If it is legal to open carry, where is the suspicion? If OC is grounds reasonable suspicion then can an officer indiscriminately pull someone over to check for DUI (that shows no outward signs of being intoxicated i.e. swerving, erratic speeds)? Also, there have been increasingly more accounts of abuse of "briefly detained". I think 10 minutes or less fits the definition of briefly, but there are incidents where the "suspect" was detained for over an hour. This is the case law on the duration of a terry stop (reasonable suspicion) There isn't a set time period. Florida v. Royer, 460 US 491(1983)-An investigative detention must be conducted in a manner that is no more intrusive than necessary to establish or dispel the officer's suspicions. Reasonable Suspicion - A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed. The key to the stops demonstated in the videos of people open carrying is the 911 calls the Officers receive. The 911 call plus the Officer finding the person with the gun creates the reasonable suspicion to investigate what happened. Did the person do something with the gun that broke a law? Did they do nothing at all? Just because a person is stopped based on reasonable suspicion does not mean there must be probable cause that they broke the law. Once Probable Cause is established then an Officer may cite or arrest the person. This same rule applies to all calls for service not just these particular pedestrian stops. (i.e. DV, Assault, Theft, Burglary,DUI) The Officer has to take into account the totality of the circumstances. One more case... Florida v. J.L.,529 US 266 (2000)-An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a concealed weapon is not in and of itself enough to stop and frisk the person. On a side note I support Open Carry as well as Concealed Carry Laws. I think all persons are entitled to self protection under the 2nd amendment, not just in their home. Edited February 11, 2013 by Sheepdog45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharticus Posted February 11, 2013 Member ID: 1320 Group: ***- Inactive Clan Members Followers: 7 Topic Count: 37 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 611 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 357 Achievement Points: 4498 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/10/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: August 10, 2020 Birthday: 01/14/1976 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Reasonable Suspicion - A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed. I think the key here is being able to articulate the suspicion. There are cops that have great instincts, but can't articulate the reasoning behind them. A judge isn't going to let that fly. And there are those that have been on the job too long and suspect everyone of illegal activities. My wife was on stakeout with another officer that saw a guy riding his bicycle down the street. He stops and questions the guy believing him to be a friend of the suspect and thought he was a lookout for him - my wife thought he was an average Joe riding his bike. It turned out they (the police) were not only watching the wrong house, but were also on the wrong street! Edited February 11, 2013 by Pharticus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options... Awards
JACKO:) Posted February 12, 2013 Member ID: 4474 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 25 Topic Count: 162 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1065 Content Per Day: 0.26 Reputation: 374 Achievement Points: 7622 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/24/12 Status: Offline Last Seen: February 3, 2014 Birthday: 09/30/1975 Share Posted February 12, 2013 wow..."good cop"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG4INE Posted February 12, 2013 Member ID: 1717 Group: **- Inactive Registered Users Followers: 86 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 657 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 610 Achievement Points: 5298 Solved Content: 0 Days Won: 3 Joined: 08/19/10 Status: Offline Last Seen: October 30, 2020 Birthday: 09/24/1984 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Reasonable Suspicion - A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed. I think the key here is being able to articulate the suspicion. There are cops that have great instincts, but can't articulate the reasoning behind them. A judge isn't going to let that fly. And there are those that have been on the job too long and suspect everyone of illegal activities. My wife was on stakeout with another officer that saw a guy riding his bicycle down the street. He stops and questions the guy believing him to be a friend of the suspect and thought he was a lookout for him - my wife thought he was an average Joe riding his bike. It turned out they (the police) were not only watching the wrong house, but were also on the wrong street! I agree with the first sentence, ok first two sentences. After that the dynamic of the post being specifically about stopping armed subject's after 911 calls are received changed. I can't speak to any of it as there isn't any specific case law I can reference on anything you posted about what judges let fly, paranoid cops being on the job to long or the specific case your wife experienced. LoL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts