Page 4 of 12
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:30 am
by jmra
EEllis wrote:jmra wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.
And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted? Checking in if there were calls made isn't unreasonable so if as the officers may have approached, him tensing up or his reaction could easily made them suspicious and warrant further investigation.
We are not talking probable cause here but rather reasonable suspicion. Probable cause would be needed if they saw him and decided before approach to arrest. I see no sign that was the case here. Here it would be that
a person (not every person or most people just that
a person ) in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. There is absolutely no way you could say with certainty that, with as little we know, the officers couldn't have reasonable suspicion on approach. They then can ask questions, secure firearms, require your presence, etc. Now you don't have to answer and after a brief encounter if you don't want to stay they must decide if they feel there is probable cause to arrest to continue to hold you but they can do things like checking to see if a gun has been fired or investigate for other evidence.
Again, SCOTUS disagrees with you. There never should have been an opportunity for the officer to gauge attitude because there never should have been a stop.
Or maybe you don't have have a problem with "let me see your papers".
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:31 am
by jmra
EEllis wrote:SewTexas wrote: but the officer shouldn't have stopped the guy to begin with.
Is it really so bad that the cop stopped someone walking with a rifle in an area where people don't normally carry?
Yes, if you value the constitution in the very least.
Are you ready for your cavity search?
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:14 am
by Purplehood
EEllis wrote:jmra wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.
And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted? Checking in if there were calls made isn't unreasonable so if as the officers may have approached, him tensing up or his reaction could easily made them suspicious and warrant further investigation.
We are not talking probable cause here but rather reasonable suspicion. Probable cause would be needed if they saw him and decided before approach to arrest. I see no sign that was the case here. Here it would be that
a person (not every person or most people just that
a person ) in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. There is absolutely no way you could say with certainty that, with as little we know, the officers couldn't have reasonable suspicion on approach. They then can ask questions, secure firearms, require your presence, etc. Now you don't have to answer and after a brief encounter if you don't want to stay they must decide if they feel there is probable cause to arrest to continue to hold you but they can do things like checking to see if a gun has been fired or investigate for other evidence.
As I understand your post it is really completely irrelevant that a Peace Officer needs to respect any particular right as they can simply decide that they have an overriding concern and can follow-up with questions from there. Am I reading this wrong?
I am one of those persons that has to think twice before I would say 'No' to a Peace Officer. It has been ingrained in me since childhood. But too far is too far.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:28 am
by Originalist
jmra wrote:EEllis wrote:jmra wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.
And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted? Checking in if there were calls made isn't unreasonable so if as the officers may have approached, him tensing up or his reaction could easily made them suspicious and warrant further investigation.
We are not talking probable cause here but rather reasonable suspicion. Probable cause would be needed if they saw him and decided before approach to arrest. I see no sign that was the case here. Here it would be that
a person (not every person or most people just that
a person ) in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. There is absolutely no way you could say with certainty that, with as little we know, the officers couldn't have reasonable suspicion on approach. They then can ask questions, secure firearms, require your presence, etc. Now you don't have to answer and after a brief encounter if you don't want to stay they must decide if they feel there is probable cause to arrest to continue to hold you but they can do things like checking to see if a gun has been fired or investigate for other evidence.
Again, SCOTUS disagrees with you. There never should have been an opportunity for the officer to gauge attitude because there never should have been a stop.
Or maybe you don't have have a problem with "let me see your papers".
Probable cause is the legal definition of sufficiency to affect an arrest. Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has been, is being or will be committed is what LEOs need in order to lawfully detain someone (Terry v. Ohio), also known as a Terry Stop. Absent RS and a lawful detention, I can ask you if I am free to go and leave, I don't have to answer any questions and because you lack RS, you do not (as a LEO) have the right to unlawfully detain me, seize my property or conduct any search of my person or property (to include running SNs).
Could this guy handled things better, sure... Especially since he was recording... I personally am a big fan of "Am I being detained"... If they say yes, I ask "what crime am I suspected of committing," if they say no, I ask "am I free to leave" if they say yes.. I leave, if they say no, we restart the process. I always stress that I do not consent to any consensual encounter and I do not consent to any search or seizure.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:31 am
by baldeagle
Originalist wrote:Could this guy handled things better, sure... Especially since he was recording... I personally am a big fan of "Am I being detained"... If they say yes, I ask "what crime am I suspected of committing," if they say no, I ask "am I free to leave" if they say yes.. I leave, if they say no, we restart the process. I always stress that I do not consent to any consensual encounter and I do not consent to any search or seizure.
He wasn't recording. His son was. And his son was recording because he asked his son to record everything to AFTER the police officers began harassing him.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:34 am
by jimlongley
baldeagle wrote:Originalist wrote:Could this guy handled things better, sure... Especially since he was recording... I personally am a big fan of "Am I being detained"... If they say yes, I ask "what crime am I suspected of committing," if they say no, I ask "am I free to leave" if they say yes.. I leave, if they say no, we restart the process. I always stress that I do not consent to any consensual encounter and I do not consent to any search or seizure.
He wasn't recording. His son was. And his son was recording because he asked his son to record everything to AFTER the police officers began harassing him.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:36 am
by baldeagle
EEllis wrote:jmra wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.
And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted?
There aren't just public hunting areas in Texas, and feral hogs are always in season. When the cops first approached him, before the first word was spoken, they saw a man walking down a road with a rifle slung across his chest, a young boy walking beside him. They had the right to question him to ascertain what he was up to, but unless they found probable cause they had no right to detain him, no right to seize his weapons. Their excuse for detaining him was that he was "rudely carrying a weapon".
What about that stop was lawful?
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:41 am
by Originalist
I watched a video, that was posted by a supposed friend and initially the camera is around his neck. He, with the help from cop, it appears as its hard to tell. He then hands it off to his son and instructs him to keep recording.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:19 am
by Gat0rs
EEllis wrote:
And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs.
I have no clue where you went to law school, but I hope to god you are not a practicing criminal attorney. NO, the police cannot stop you if your actions are total legal and they just think you look suspicious. That is the point of needing reasonable cause, and walking down the road with a firearm in compliance with the law is not reasonable cause any more than walking down the street black is reasonable cause. Maybe you should re read your crim law book.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:42 am
by bdickens
EEllis wrote:bdickens wrote:
It is called the "Bill of Rights," not the "Bill of Needs."
So? There are plenty of things that are absolutely legal and lawful that officers have no right to prevent you from doing that are still suspicious in some circumstances and can cause a lawful stop by police.
So an ostensibly law-abiding citizen walking through an area open to the public simply carrying an object that it is lawful for citizens to possess is not one of them. If you have so little regard for the Constitution, then you deserve what you get.
Bend over, here comes the TSA.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:56 am
by Beiruty
baldeagle wrote:EEllis wrote:jmra wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.
And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted?
There aren't just public hunting areas in Texas, and feral hogs are always in season. When the cops first approached him, before the first word was spoken, they saw a man walking down a road with a rifle slung across his chest, a young boy walking beside him. They had the right to question him to ascertain what he was up to, but unless they found probable cause they had no right to detain him, no right to seize his weapons. Their excuse for detaining him was that he was "rudely carrying a weapon".
What about that stop was lawful?
I emailed Temple police DP and get 0 reply. I asked what was the suspected crime that armed person was accused of? Why he disarmed and arrested? NO RESPONSE!
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:06 am
by Dave2
Beiruty wrote:baldeagle wrote:EEllis wrote:jmra wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.
And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted?
There aren't just public hunting areas in Texas, and feral hogs are always in season. When the cops first approached him, before the first word was spoken, they saw a man walking down a road with a rifle slung across his chest, a young boy walking beside him. They had the right to question him to ascertain what he was up to, but unless they found probable cause they had no right to detain him, no right to seize his weapons. Their excuse for detaining him was that he was "rudely carrying a weapon".
What about that stop was lawful?
I emailed Temple police DP and get 0 reply. I asked what was the suspected crime that armed person was accused of? Why he disarmed and arrested? NO RESPONSE!
I wouldn't expect there to be a response simply because the guy said he was going to file a lawsuit over it. Unless pressure really starts mounting, I wouldn't say anything about a potential pending legal matter, either.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:11 am
by blackgold
What changes with numerous citizen complaints? If multiple people are calling in, they have to investigate, no?
Brian
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:18 am
by baldeagle
Beiruty wrote:I emailed Temple police DP and get 0 reply. I asked what was the suspected crime that armed person was accused of? Why he disarmed and arrested? NO RESPONSE!
That's not surprising. They're staring a lawsuit in the face.
Re: Interesting
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:25 am
by baldeagle
blackgold wrote:What changes with numerous citizen complaints? If multiple people are calling in, they have to investigate, no?
Brian
Hypothetical. 911 calls come in reporting a man walking down the street with a rifle. The 911 operator has a choice. They can ask more questions (is he shooting? Is he doing anything threatening?) Or they can simply dispatch officers.
If they ask more questions, they might determine that the man's actions appear to be lawful and there's no cause to dispatch officers to the scene.
If they dispatch officers, the officers will investigate. (That's their job.) When they arrive in the vicinity they should observe the man. If they don't see him do anything threatening, they can approach, ask his name and what he's doing. So long as his answers and behavior aren't cause for alarm, the officers should then call in to dispatch and tell them the many is acting lawfully. There was a beautiful example of that posted here not that long ago. These officers acted as though they could do anything they want regardless of the law (they even stated that) and they acted as though the man had no rights at all. That's what happens in totalitarian countries. It's not supposed to happen in America.
I've noticed a conspicuous absence of any comments from our LEO's on this forum with regard to this. I find that interesting.