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.
YOu all realize of course the behavior you are supporting is virtually anti-American? Jefferson is turning in his grave. We do not kowtow to the authorities unless they have the right to the action.
The law of a "Terry stop" is quite clear. The cop needs an articulable and reasonable reason for stopping you. He further needs an articulable and reasonable cause to believed you are armed and dangerous to search you. And he has no right whatsoever to handcuff you or make you go down without that articulable and reasonable cause to believe you are armed and dangerous. That is a high standard. And it is doubtful it is met in either of the cases presently under discussion.
You RW milquetoasts are advocating a sellout of that which has been defended by the right over the decades. And most of you don't realize what you are doing. The second is so you have the armament to kill the cops if it becomes necessary. Not to protect you from Black neighbors.
Let us take the Crutcher case. A 911 call reported Crutcher was smoking something and behaving irrationally. His vehicle is parked mostly on the wrong side of the road. It is quite logical to assume he is publicly intoxicated to say the least.
From USlegal.com
When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him or her to reasonably suspect criminal activity may be occurring and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. If after initial investigation the officer still has a reasonable fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her.
Let us take the Crutcher case. A 911 call reported Crutcher was smoking something and behaving irrationally. His vehicle is parked mostly on the wrong side of the road. It is quite logical to assume he is publicly intoxicated to say the least.
From USlegal.com
When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him or her to reasonably suspect criminal activity may be occurring and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. If after initial investigation the officer still has a reasonable fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her.
And exactly what reasonable and articulable view caused this officer to want to search this guy?
None of course. I would agree she has grounds to suspect something remiss may have occurred. But she does not even know he was driving so the normal ability to demand ID is not present. She has a right to his name and that is about it.
She is utterly out of school even if the guy is smashed. She needs to know why she thinks he is armed and dangerous. She has no such data.
And you folk are hopelessly on the wrong side of this issue. The RW opposes expansion of the right of government to interfere with the rights of citizens. You guys appear to be joining the left in helping the government make us better.
Last edited by CaseyB; 09-25-2016 at 04:28 AM..
Reason: rude
Listen to the 2nd video (dash cam) at the link- Scott was not told to put his hands up.
He was sitting in his SUV when police suddenly surrounded him and yelled to put the gun down. His windows were up. Where was the gun?
He was co-operating, got out the truck and was walking backwards, hands loose at his sides, no gun visible, no threatening gestures, when he was executed.
Police now say he had a gun in an ankle holster - but there was no move by him to reach for it.
No wonder police didn't want to release the video. It is damning on them.
Why did the police surround him in the first place? He was doing nothing wrong and was not being sought by the police.
YOu all realize of course the behavior you are supporting is virtually anti-American? Jefferson is turning in his grave. We do not kowtow to the authorities unless they have the right to the action.
Quote:
The law of a "Terry stop" is quite clear. The cop needs an articulable and reasonable reason for stopping you. He further needs an articulable and reasonable cause to believed you are armed and dangerous to search you. And he has no right whatsoever to handcuff you or make you go down without that articulable and reasonable cause to believe you are armed and dangerous. That is a high standard. And it is doubtful it is met in either of the cases presently under discussion.
You RW milquetoasts are advocating a sellout of that which has been defended by the right over the decades. And most of you don't realize what you are doing. The second is so you have the armament to kill the cops if it becomes necessary. Not to protect you from Black neighbors.
What do you mean by "articulable?"
Quote:
Under the Terry ruling, a police officer may stop and detain a person based on reasonable suspicion. And, if the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may also frisk him or her for weapons.
Listen to the 2nd video (dash cam) at the link- Scott was not told to put his hands up.
He was sitting in his SUV when police suddenly surrounded him and yelled to put the gun down. His windows were up. Where was the gun?
He was co-operating, got out the truck and was walking backwards, hands loose at his sides, no gun visible, no threatening gestures, when he was executed.
Police now say he had a gun in an ankle holster - but there was no move by him to reach for it.
No wonder police didn't want to release the video. It is damning on them.
Why did the police surround him in the first place? He was doing nothing wrong and was not being sought by the police.
How do you know that? Certainly not from that video....that shows us nothing of the shooting.
Some shootings are determined to be justified at the moment they occur without being judged as undeniably "necessary" in hindsight. No one who is not sitting in the courtroom where all evidence will be presented is in a position to pound a gavel with a verdict today.
The DA's office found probable cause to arrest her. I trust they know better than either of us. Btw, these are posts, not verdicts. Of course, the jury makes the final decision unless a deal/plea bargain is negotiated prior to trial. She was the only officer that used deadly force at the scene. Even the defense attorneys don't dispute that. They will be trying to get her acquitted based on her so called "fear" of an unarmed man. Who knows? It may work for them. I just hope the jury considers the facts as more important than her being an officer.
This thread is supposed to be about what happened in Tulsa.
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.
