Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Terry law is just a clarifying apparatus under the law;
Wanna try that again? In English this time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
an officer absolutely has probable cause to verify whether a person is carrying a weapon lawfully,
Prove it. In the same way an officer cannot legally pull someone over just to verify whether they're driving legally (there has to be some sort of probable cause for that), he cannot stop someone just to check if their gun is legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Failure to comply with an officer's request in this situation, even if it does not explicitly contradict a Terry law, can still be construed as obstructing a peace officer, or some other variant thereof. You don't know the law, and neither does the man in the video. He shouldn't be practicing law anytime soon.
I looked it up! From the link I posted earlier...
Quote:
Consensual
At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts” that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time. Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business;however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, “Am I free to go?”
Evidently, the stop fell under this category, because A) the officer could not give any specific and articulable facts that would justify a detention or an arrest, and B) when asked "Am I free to go?", the officer (eventually) said "Yes".
But just for the sake of argument, let's assume this (somehow) falls under the next category.
Quote:
Detention
A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.
Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority; in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established it in all jurisdictions, regardless of explicit mention in state or local laws. Police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a “frisk”) if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous. Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer. However, many states have “stop and identify” laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.
So in general, the person is not required to answer any questions. Now, many states have "stop and identify" laws that require a person to identify themselves. However, if you scroll down from there, under "Obligation to Identify" and find the list to the side titled "States with 'stop and identify' laws", you will NOT find Maine on there. Therefore, even if we were to call this a detention (which we cannot, because the police officer clearly had no reasonable suspicion that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime), no, this law student you've been saying doesn't know the law was not required by the law in his state to answer any questions.
Yes, and every state or local law against open carry is an infringement and therefore un-constitutional. One by one these laws should be challenged and brought before the Supreme Court. It needs to happen sooner rather than later.
I doubt the courts overturn a states right to ban open carry. They have ruled that you have a right to own guns, not that a state can't impose any regulations on that at all. Actually, and I would have to look it back up, I believe they ruled that they could.
In the context of the time, well regulated meant well trained and equipped. It had nothing to do with the power to enact gun control.
Absolute b.s. If that were the case, why do states and cities have different laws? Rights aren't subject to change. New York City can't pass one free speech law while the state of New Jersey passes another, but they can do that with guns.
And apparently, this "jerk" didn't deserve to be stopped. So let's see. One was getting paid for every second of conversating (and learning a little something in the process), and the other got absolutely no reimbursement for his time, unless you count the video which doesn't even give his name so no one can say "Way to go, Fred Fredderson!". One gets paid while making a mistake; the other gets nothing for correcting it, hmmm.
I'm sorry. When you accept a job, you should meet all of the criteria for that job or expect unpleasant consequences. I consider part of the criteria for a job requiring you to enforce the law is knowledge of the law.
If I screw up at my job, I get a lot more than someone saying "Sir... sir... sir... you're wrong... thank you", I'll tell ya that much
Asking for an I.D. is not screwing up. He is absolutely within the law to ask you. The thing is, you have to know that you are under no obligation to provide it.
In this case he was wasting his time in asking as any charges would have been tossed if the officer had found something, but he can ask.
Thta guys is just being a ass;plainly.He has every reason to be stopped because the the public called reporting suspcious activity. That actually gives the police offficer reason to stop and identify and determine if the public was right.Of course for his own safety the office has the right to unarm and decide if the weapon is a danger in that stop.I don't thnik that law student is goig every far in his career ;really.
This was covered once. If the officer was within his rights to demand the I.D. he would have. Acting in a lawful manner is not a suspicious activity.
Asking for an I.D. is not screwing up. He is absolutely within the law to ask you. The thing is, you have to know that you are under no obligation to provide it.
In this case he was wasting his time in asking as any charges would have been tossed if the officer had found something, but he can ask.
What was so difficult to understand? Is English not your first language?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Prove it. In the same way an officer cannot legally pull someone over just to verify whether they're driving legally (there has to be some sort of probable cause for that), he cannot stop someone just to check if their gun is legal.
If he's responding to a citizen's complaint, an on-duty officer acting under the law absolutely can stop the person in question, and he can ask to inspect his firearm for the purposes of determining whether it is a legal firearm, and whether he is allowed to own the firearm. If you try this stunt in any number of jurisdictions, you'll be arrested.
Those videos that tell you not to talk to police...that's in reference to protecting your fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. You're not required to incriminate yourself, which means you do not have to say anything to an officer or anyone else that might be used to incriminate yourself in criminal proceedings. However, identification is something that a police officer can ask for in response to a legitimate public safety concern. It is not entirely clear what happens in any and all cases if you fail to provide information, since there is actually no legal requirement that I know of that compels people to carry identification. Furthermore, you're also not obligated to assist an officer in searching your property -- he generally needs a warrant unless there is a clear and compelling danger that can be explained later. However, guns are a bit different. They're not just property; they're firearms and as such have tons of applicable federal and local laws that regulate their manufacture, distribution, and possession. Moreover, rights against incrimination and seizure aside, you cannot interfere with his duties as an officer. Doing so will get you lawfully arrested.
If he's responding to a citizen's complaint, an on-duty officer acting under the law absolutely can stop the person in question, and he can ask to inspect his firearm for the purposes of determining whether it is a legal firearm, and whether he is allowed to own the firearm. If you try this stunt in any number of jurisdictions, you'll be arrested.
For the third time. If that was true he would have. You will be arrested in many places. You will be released though. You can then sue and win for having your Constitutional Rights trampled on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
