It's high time for a video of a great cop

[J.P.]

The officer requires reasonable suspicion NOT probable cause. Probable cause is required to ARREST not to detain and possibly pat down.

One of the downsides of internet lawyering is that not everyone really understands the rules even if they are otherwise intelligent.

I consider myself reasonably intelligent and read a bit about anatomy, but I'm not presumptuous enough to tell a medical doctor about the human body on the internet.

YMMV.

Michael Brown

Dude....why?
If you're gonna' sit there and throw sound reason at every erroneous post then I guess I'll have to find another place to post.
I mean, obviously it's the only way I'm gonna' get away with passing off BS as nice shiny facts....and I've got plenty to move!

 

[LightningCrash]

Really?? I'll make sure GC informs his LT of that when he gets back to work.

Sarcasm discounted -- See `Castle Rock v Gonzales`.

Mrs. Gonzales called the police and said her psycho husband (whom she was divorcing and had a restraining order against) had taken her kids. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. The husband called the police station and acknowledged that he had the kids in violation of the restraining order. The police did not assign any personnel to address the issue. Her husband killed all of her children and stuffed them into the trunk of his vehicle.
She sued. The court sided with the police department, saying the PD had no requirement to respond.

I don't assume anyone with a gun is a criminal either. Nobody said anyone with a gun is a criminal and should be "shaken down and booked into jail". Talk about running on emotion ... sheesh ...

You agreed with someone who planned to "shake down" everyone he saw carrying a firearm on the assumption that they are a criminal because "it is unlawful to open carry a firearm in Oklahoma."
That was just summarization. You indicated that you preferred this approach to the officer in the video. If my interpretation is a mistake then I apologize for mis-characterizing your position.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Sarcasm discounted -- See `Castle Rock v Gonzales`.

Mrs. Gonzales called the police and said her psycho husband (whom she was divorcing and had a restraining order against) had taken her kids. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. The husband called the police station and acknowledged that he had the kids in violation of the restraining order. The police did not assign any personnel to address the issue. Her husband killed all of her children and stuffed them into the trunk of his vehicle.
She sued. The court sided with the police department, saying the PD had no requirement to respond.


You agreed with someone who planned to "shake down" everyone he saw carrying a firearm on the assumption that they are a criminal because "it is unlawful to open carry a firearm in Oklahoma."
That was just summarization. You indicated that you preferred this approach to the officer in the video. If my interpretation is a mistake then I apologize for mis-characterizing your position.

Gotta love the armchair lawyers. You'd think after all these years you guys would learn that posting ONE case does not make it "The LAW" ... Do your research, Shepardize, compose a well-thought out, reasoned opinion and then get back with me. Until you can do that, you are wasting my time and mis-informing folks who don't know any better. (And to save you the trouble, you might just read Michael's posts above.)

Apology accepted. Thanks!

 

[LightningCrash]

Gotta love the armchair lawyers. You'd think after all these years you guys would learn that posting ONE case does not make it "The LAW" ... Do your research, Shepardize, compose a well-thought out, reasoned opinion and then get back with me. Until you can do that, you are wasting my time and mis-informing folks who don't know any better. (And to save you the trouble, you might just read Michael's posts above.)

Apology accepted. Thanks!

That was a SCOTUS case, it *is* the law.

In law, case law is the set of reported judicial decisions of selected appellate courts and other courts of first instance which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis.

Michael Brown's posts are great in this thread and address the specific posts he responded to.

What's most interesting to me is this common attitude that someone in possession of a gun should, by default, be viewed as a criminal. This is an attitude that was expressed earlier in this thread. I disagree with that assertion.

I'm used to libs and pacifists having a hangup with guns. Many of them view gun owners as dangerous, scary, mentally unstable. You tell someone who's not a super pro-gun person that you have 11 guns and their eyes light up. "Why do you need that many guns?" Their wheels start spinning. They begin to express apprehension, sometimes fear.
It's curious to see elements of that interaction being expressed by groups of gun owners themselves.

Near where I live guys park in the driveway of their farm land and walk about 30 minutes down the side of the road to get to the wooded area of their land that they hunt in (there's a deep creek in the way about 1/3 mile between the two and they don't have access from the other side). They're just carrying 22 pistols, and it's perfectly legal.

But back to where this started.
I don't "feel" that the words "man with gun" alone are RS any more than "man with car" or "man with house" or "man with dark skin".
Like I said, though, the phone bank is going to have the ability to add to that. If "man with gun" is instead "man with gun on school campus", holy hell, let's go trooper-punt that guy right in his mountain oysters. But it's just a matter of opinion. GTG disagrees without making personal attacks. A good example to follow.

 

[ShurShot]

Some in this thread suggested the guy in the video should be "slapped". Can you show me in case law or the Constitution where cops should go around slapping and shaking down law abiding US Veterans?

 

[spd67]

Your buddy GED entered this thread agreeing with Pumpkin who suggested the guy in the video should be "slapped". Can you show me in case law, GED's "oath" or the Constitution where cops should go around slapping and shaking down law abiding US Veterans?

Well...you asked for it....:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

392 U.S. 1

Terry v. Ohio

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

No. 67 Argued: December 12, 1967 --- Decided: June 10, 1968
A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying [p2] concealed weapons. The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.

Held:

1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9.

2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 12.

3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 13-15.

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.

Affirmed. [p4]

 

[spd67]

So as long as I can articulate something suspicious I can stop...detain...frisk...I don't make the law I just enforce the law and play by the law...you don't have to like it but thats the way it is...

 

[BadgeBunny]

That was a SCOTUS case, it *is* the law.

Good for you ... You know a Supreme Court case when you see one. I'm impressed.

Because it is obvious you can only see what you want to see when you read, here, let me help you:

The officer requires reasonable suspicion NOT probable cause. Probable cause is required to ARREST not to detain and possibly pat down.

One of the downsides of internet lawyering is that not everyone really understands the rules even if they are otherwise intelligent.

I consider myself reasonably intelligent and read a bit about anatomy, but I'm not presumptuous enough to tell a medical doctor about the human body on the internet.

YMMV.

Michael Brown

But back to where this started.
I don't "feel" that the words "man with gun" alone are RS any more than "man with car" or "man with house" or "man with dark skin".

Here we simply have a difference of opinion. That is all. And ON THE NOES! GTG is a better person than me ... *sigh* I'll take notes ...

 

[BadgeBunny]

So as long as I can articulate something suspicious I can stop...detain...frisk...I don't make the law I just enforce the law and play by the law...you don't have to like it but thats the way it is...

And that pretty much sums it up much to the chargrin of many ...

 

[ShurShot]

In that case, he had reasonable suspicion, investigated it and discovered they had concealed weapons and were trying to hide it from him. I have no problem with that.

In the case we are discussing, they were investigating a call, the guy complied to the extent that he was required by law and it was then suggested that he be slapped along with all kinds of other names and accusations then +1'd and agreed to by another poster. I have to apologize to GED and BadgeBunny, I went back to check my facts and now see that it wasn't him, it was another poster, sorry about that GED.

That's the part I was offended by.