2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: kevlar on August 11, 2013, 04:07:50 AM
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1376135775 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1376135775)
Wow. Police state much?
I love how that asshole says "you people" in reference to pro-2A open carriers.
-
Redacted. My information was incorrect.
See topic Reply # 36
:oops:
Terry, 230RN
-
I love how that asshole says "you people" in reference to pro-2A open carriers.
Those people are not friends of 2A if you ask me. Now I am not talking about people who open carry legally but "those types" that you generally see on youtube. They are not there for 2A rights. Most have little knowledge, or in depth interest in firearms, but are more focused on the attention that they get. The terms "attention whore" and "idiot" comes to mind.
-
Those people are not friends of 2A if you ask me. Now I am not talking about people who open carry legally but "those types" that you generally see on youtube. They are not there for 2A rights. Most have little knowledge, or in depth interest in firearms, but are more focused on the attention that they get. The terms "attention whore" and "idiot" comes to mind.
+1
I can't stand these idiots.
I wish there was once a month "pimp slap" that LEO's were allowed to give without repercussions.
-
+1
I can't stand these idiots.
I wish there was once a month "pimp slap" that LEO's were allowed to give without repercussions.
Haha first thing I thought about when I saw "pimp slap"
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TLkmcOpXNvY (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TLkmcOpXNvY)
-
What this guy is doing really does not have much to do with the 2nd amendment but more-so our rights in general. I applaud him for doing this. Also I was happy to see that the officers did not forcefully disarm him after stating he does not submit to any search or surrender.
To say it is illegal to take a photo from the street. Of anything. Is a bullshit law, and you all know it. Was he out just to make a video to post on youtube? clearly. But if you are not using your rights you might as well kiss them goodbye.
-
I gots news for you.
1. The Federal Protective Service does not fuck around.
2. It actually is illegal to take a picture of a federal building without a permit.
Can you post your source for that?
Everything i know of says it's NOT illegal and protected under the Constitution. Only IF you are recording audio (depending on jurisdiction) or interfering in the performance of security personnel duties are you in the wrong.
Please correct me if that is inaccurate.
Thanks.
-
Wow. Did someone actually saw it's illegal to take a picture of a federal building? That's 100% horsecrap. I can go down to Alakea Street and take photo after photo of the courthouse, and it's absolutely legal for me to do so. The man was on a PUBLIC street snapping photos, which is NOT against the law. Now, if you had said it's illegal to snap pics of a place like Area 51, then you'd have a point.
Here's an article which proves my point: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/you-can-photograph-that-federal-building/?_r=0 (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/you-can-photograph-that-federal-building/?_r=0)
The right of photographers to stand in a public place and take pictures of federal buildings has been upheld by a legal settlement reached in New York.
In the ever-escalating skirmishes between photographers and security agencies, the most significant battlefield is probably the public way — streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas — which has customarily been regarded as a vantage from which photography cannot and should not be barred.
Under the settlement, announced Monday by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Federal Protective Service said that it would inform its officers and employees in writing of the “public’s general right to photograph the exterior of federal courthouses from publicly accessible spaces” and remind them that “there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography by individuals from publicly accessible spaces, absent a written local rule, regulation or order.”
-
.
-
All the guy was doing was asking why he was taking pictures of the building
Which is something they have no right asking. What he did isn't illegal. And they did more than simply asking him questions, they detained him with no probable cause. Take the open carry out of the equation, and they surrounded him over taking photos/video of a federal building - something even the FPS under the DHS as explicitly stated is 100% LEGAL.
Look, I'm all for a secure homeland, but not at the price of individual liberties and rights and in exchange for a quasi-authoritarian police apparatus.
Open carriers do what they do in order to normalize the behavior, so people won't react in panic every time they see an exposed firearm. As others have stated on this forum, areas that embrace open/concealed carry tend to have lower crime stats. That is a fact. An armed society is a polite society.
-
.
-
I'm absolutely not a big fan of the ACLU, but since the pendulum of civil liberties has swung to the other side (a Democrat administration ignoring the laws and Constitution), conservatives can use all the help it can get!
Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right –
and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials
carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement
officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and
arresting those who fail to comply.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers)
-
It isn't illegal to film someone's house either. Are you telling me if someone parked in front of your house and just sat there taking pictures of it you wouldn't say anything?
The problem is that these people are actively seeking out altercations with the police by doing things that they know will garner attention. I carry a knife with me, but you don't see me standing outside of HPD headquarters, filming the building with a machete attached to my belt just because its legal.
I'd call the police and let them check on the individual. For all we know, it could be a realtor doing market research or a homeowner getting ideas for upgrades or landscaping. I've actually done that myself ... taking pictures of vinyl fences in several locations for comparison.
If the individual is known to you (former love-interest of a family member, etc.) and is harassing or stalking someone, there are restraining orders and other LEGAL means of preventing their invasion of your privacy.
Confronting the individual on public property or roadways might be the macho way to handle it, but it will in all probability work against you in the long run.
-
I gots news for you.
1. The Federal Protective Service does not fuck around.
2. It actually is illegal to take a picture of a federal building without a permit.
Here's the closest thing I can find that roughly supports your "NEWS" to a small degree:
It is illegal to take pictures of federal buildings and military bases.
That is incorrect. It is illegal, and posted as such, to photograph CERTAIN federal installations without a permit - Los Alamos, parts of Livermore Labs, parts of Oak Ridge, etc etc. Also, they're probably a little skittish at places like NORAD in Colorado. But I can walk up to any federal courthouse, or the US Congress, or a post offfice, and take as many pictures as I like. You can not make a blanket statement saying it's illegal to photograph federal buildings.
-
Are you telling me if someone parked in front of your house and just sat there taking pictures of it you wouldn't say anything?
I'm not telling you that. I would ask them what they were doing. However, they have no legal obligation to answer me, nor do I have the right to detain them. Both of those things were done by over zealous police and/or the feds in the building - contrary to what the FPS has been instructed to do by the DHS, per my linked article. My link clearly shows the DHS KNOWS this activity is protected under the 1A. Yet they send out helicopters and squad cars to harass a man that they KNOW is doing something 100% LEGAL. That is the issue. Why does the Federal government think it's alright to badger and harangue a man - they've already admitted is well within his rights - over it? It's about damn time the feds realize we're the BOSSES. They work for us, not the other way around. If people want to behave like serfs, that's their right. I'm not going to oblige.
You may think open carriers are simply doing it to get a response, and you're probably right in some instances. But a right not exercised is a right lost. The more openly accepted it becomes, the greater the chance we see it spread across the nation. Who knows. Maybe one day even here in the People's Republic of Hawaii.
-
.
-
I think where most people have their hang-up, and I see it in the comments here ... Americans have been conditioned to wrap themselves in their rights, to play the victim when something they don't like happens to them. However, few have been schooled in what their duties and responsibilities are as citizens.
Many people think they are living in an episode of Law & Order, where the legal system is all they need to understand. Unfortunately, having legal rights is only half the equation. You, as a citizen, also have a duty to assist law enforcement. That's why certain laws like citizen's arrest exist, and why lying to an investigator is unlawful.
The problem is how LE and the legal system uses and abuses their powers too often to bully and intimidate and wrongly convict innocent people. That creates an environment where people are reluctant to get involved or even cooperate with the authorities for fear of retaliation by the actual perps or unwarranted arrest caused by volunteering information. This problem comes around full circle, causing LE to be frustrated when people refuse to give them the time of day when all they are trying to do is ensure they and the public at large are safe.
I don't see a solution, and continuing to choose sides, LE versus law abiding citizen, will not get us any further along in these debates.
Those are my observations. Maybe I'm off base?
-
We can sit here and argue about what is constitutionally allowed and so on, but the fact of the matter is that if some clown was outside filming your house, I'm pretty sure you would have done something; especially if you have a family with children. The same can be said about providing personal security for other individuals or structures; if you perceive a threat, you inquire and verify if it is or is not a threat. It can range from calling the police, to openly confronting the individual. Fact of the matter is you still responded, the same way these police officers responded to someone filming one of their assets, which would be their building and when he was confronted about it, instead of act in a professional manner, he wanted to act like a dumb ass. This is why people think 2a supporters are a bunch of attention whores, because people like him provoke situations just to prove a point.
To me, he was not stopped because he was open carrying; he was stopped because he was standing outside, at night, filming a building for no reason. I have a disability placard and have been stopped on multiple occasions to provide documentation proving I was entitled to such a placard. Was I pissed? Yes; because I shouldn't have to explain my disability or provide proof of my disability. However, I understand that there are people who abuse the system, so I can see it from another stand point as well. Did I freak the hell out and cause a scene? No; I conducted myself in a professional manner and with tact, and still got the result I wanted without causing a scene.
Its not the fact that its his right to carry; its how he handles the situation to garner the response he hopes will get 1,000,000 youtube views. I can guarantee this situation would have never happened if he had simply just been walking down the street, minding his own business. If it did, then yes; a response like this would be totally justified. But in this light, he might as well strap a big ass neon sine to his back that flashes 'COME QUESTION ME BECAUSE I HAVE A GUN.'
Whether I would do something about a person filming my home is irrelevant. I can ask him what he's doing and he doesn't have to tell me jackshit. And I can't detain him for doing that. These LEOs were conducting that stop under the authority of their badges. Big difference. As a LEO, they're supposed to enforce the law, not skirt and brush it aside when it suits them. The law has ALREADY been established that this activity is LEGAL and protected under the 1A. They have no legal recourse to stop and ask him for ID or detain him for one second, as they did.
he was stopped because he was standing outside, at night, filming a building for no reason.
And as I've already shown via the linked article, his behavior is protected free speech and THEIR actions VIOLATE the rule of law. You can side with the law breaking police, I'll side with the constitution and the rights guaranteed therein.
Its not the fact that its his right to carry; its how he handles the situation to garner the response
Handles the situation? In what way? He did nothing illegal. In fact, it's the police that were violating HIS rights.
Are you saying we, as a nation, should only act in a way that LEO will approve of? Regardless if it infringes on your rights?
No, thank you, sir.
-
Which is something they have no right asking. What he did isn't illegal. And they did more than simply asking him questions, they detained him with no probable cause. Take the open carry out of the equation, and they surrounded him over taking photos/video of a federal building - something even the FPS under the DHS as explicitly stated is 100% LEGAL.
Look, I'm all for a secure homeland, but not at the price of individual liberties and rights and in exchange for a quasi-authoritarian police apparatus.
Open carriers do what they do in order to normalize the behavior, so people won't react in panic every time they see an exposed firearm. As others have stated on this forum, areas that embrace open/concealed carry tend to have lower crime stats. That is a fact. An armed society is a polite society.
You and I know that he wasn't detained for taking pictures.
This guy opened carried a firearm while taking pictures of a federal building.
What he did, he did to illicit a response.
He knew he would have police questioning his actions.
I'm going on record and saying that I'm glad the police questioned this idiot.
I'm glad they detained him until they realized that he was not a threat and simply someone trying to make a point, at which point they let him go.
I'm so tired of the double standard that the sheeple of America live by. Out of one side of their mouth they say "police have no business questioning me and out of the other side of their mouth they say "America had knowledge of terrorist activity and did not arrest the terrorists that committed the 9/11 atrocity."
-
You and I know that he wasn't detained for taking pictures.
Huh? You know what I know? Sounds like you're projecting.
No offense, but you don't know what I think about this issue. I've stated I THINK he was stopped exactly for the reason(s) the police said he was stopped: for taking pictures.
This guy opened carried a firearm while taking pictures of a federal building.
Which is 100% legal
What he did, he did to illicit a response.
No one has ever stated otherwise.
He knew he would have police questioning his actions.
To prove the police and/or feds refuse to obey the very laws they've sworn to uphold.
I'm going on record and saying that I'm glad the police questioned this idiot.
Good for you.
I'm glad they detained him until they realized that he was not a threat and simply someone trying to make a point, at which point they let him go.
If you're glad they're violating the 1A, more power to you, I guess.
I'm so tired of the double standard that the sheeple of America live by. Out of one side of their mouth they say "police have no business questioning me and out of the other side of their mouth they say "America had knowledge of terrorist activity and did not arrest the terrorists that committed the 9/11 atrocity."
There should be constraints and limits on what the federal government can and can't do. Violating a federal judge's ruling on the legality of this behavior is cause for concern. If the feds can continue to violate the rule of law, then what good is the rule of law?
-
Kevlar, your anti police attitude has blinded you to the facts.
1) Private citizens called the police and voiced their concern for their safety when they saw an armed man taking pictures on the side of the road.
2) The police responded to the call.
3) The policè asked simple questions in an attempt to ascertain his intentions.
4) Once they realized there was no threat, they let him go.
These are the facts.
Anything else you say is simply your opinion.
-
.
-
Kevlar, your anti police attitude has blinded you to the facts.
Anti-police attitude? My brother's a cop. I have immense respect for the job. But doesn't mean I'm going to turn a blind eye to illegal behavior on their part.
1) Private citizens called the police and voiced their concern for their safety when they saw an armed man taking pictures on the side of the road.
Really? Private citizens? Where did you get that? I heard the officers say they responded because he was taking photos of a federal building. If you're going to intuit or guess who called, wouldn't it be someone in the building, i.e., a fed?
2) The police responded to the call.
Agreed.
3) The policè asked simple questions in an attempt to ascertain his intentions.
Actions they're not legally able to do as per the federal court ruling in the NYC case.
4) Once they realized there was no threat, they let him go.
Yeah, that's self apparent.
These are the facts.
Some facts with your opinions mixed in, but close enough.
Anything else you say is simply your opinion.
Actually, I'm the only one who's cited court rulings, i.e., facts.
-
They have never enforced the law, or had to protect any important assets in their life; naturally, they won't understand.
My brother is in HPD. I have the utmost respect for their profession - shit hours for decent to shit pay, all while having to deal with the worst criminal scum in society. They're the proverbial wolf hound guarding us against the predators. I get it.
That being said, I don't excuse behavior that violates the rule of law. Their detention of this man was illegal. A federal court ruling as made that explicitly clear.
Everyone can cry about how we don't support the constitution because we agree with what the cops did. Unless you have actually had to assist, protect and/or defend actual VIPs and/or assets, and understand just what those duties entail, your opinion is just an assumption.
So, because I've never gone to culinary school means I can't critique a meal?
And if you think its a free country and you can photograph whatever the hell you want, go stand outside of Schofield and photograph the gate all day long; see what happens.
This is a strawman argument. Earlier in this thread, I stated that you couldn't pull this crap at an instillation like Area 51. So, I've made the distinction between sensitive military and/or federal compounds and those located on PUBLIC streets.
Look, at the end of the day we're never going to agree, but I think you would agree with me that our rights have been incrementally chipped away, right? Just read the NDAA and their ability to detain someone indefinitely w/out charges under military control. Posse Comitatus, Habeas Corpus, and maybe even the 4th Amendment have been shredded by this law.
-
.
-
1. Just because your brother is in HPD doesn't mean you have any concept of what it is to conduct LE activities, defend an asset or VIP, or the responsibilities or actions necessary to complete thos roles. That is like saying 'I know what its like to deploy, because I play COD and I watched Hurt Locker'.
I never said it did. It was just a response to your allegations that I don't get it. Or perhaps I don't have respect for the profession. Nothing can be further from the truth.
P.S. He wasn't detained. The officers did not place him in hand irons, nor did they incarcerate him or forcibly prevent him from leaving.
Yeah, he was. Re-watch the video. The man asks the officer if he was being detained and the officer said "yes". Being detained isn't contingent on being handcuffed. And we'll never know if they would've used force to keep him there if he simply started walking away after being told he was being detained. I'm guessing they wouldn't just stand there.
2. You are free to critique any meal you wish, but I can guarantee that unless you are a seasoned professional in the meal critiquing business, people would generally dismiss your recommendations compared to someone who has experience in that field; the same applies to law enforcement tactics. Unless you have conducted LEO operations, you will never know what it is like, nor what one might have to do in those situations.
You're missing the point. Having an opinion on something isn't restricted to having to practice in the field you're referencing. That's like saying I can't say a steak hasn't been cooked properly (it's raw) when I asked for well done all because I never went to culinary school.
I've stated a fact: a federal ruling has stated his actions are 100% legal. Ergo, the police have absolutely NO REASON OR LEGAL RECOURSE to approach or speak to him over said actions. None. Zero. Nada. No one in this thread has been able to refute that point. Unless you can show a reason - legally speaking - their actions are NOT countering the aforementioned NYC case, then my assessment remains unchallenged and correct: the police were in the wrong.
3. The streets outside of Schofield are not federal; they are state/county controlled areas. I never said 'go on to base and film'; I meant stand on the public streets outside of the gate, and film the TCP. I can guarantee you would be in for a magical surprise.
Which is still a strawman, because I've already stated their are certain instances where you can't film facilities. I don't know about the legalities of your scenario, but the one mentioned here has been addressed in a previous case per my link, and it's been determined that the police CANNOT do what this video shows them doing.
But you are right; our rights are being eroded away slowly. But this situation is not a proper demonstration of such events, as the officers in this video are clearly ensuring the safety of their building and themselves by inquiring why an armed individual is recording their building for no specific reason other than 'it is his right to do so.'
And based on the prior ruling in NYC - in a federal court, no less - their actions are ILLEGAL. Anytime the 'authorities' violate the rule of law, I consider that a violation of our rights. You don't see it that way, I do.
-
I've stated a fact: a federal ruling has stated his actions are 100% legal. Ergo, the police have absolutely NO REASON OR LEGAL RECOURSE to approach or speak to him over said actions. None. Zero. Nada. No one in this thread has been able to refute that point. Unless you can show a reason - legally speaking - their actions are NOT countering the aforementioned NYC case, then my assessment remains unchallenged and correct: the police were in the wrong.
This is absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
It's called probable cause.
To contend that a police officer has no right to question anyone is absolutely ludicrous.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about a police officer questioning someone exhibiting suspicious behavior.
Until you can prove that a court ruling has stated that no police officers can question suspicious people then YOU ARE WRONG.
-
This is absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Then you haven't re-read your earlier posts in this thread. I don't know how you can "hear" written words.
It's called probable cause.
The federal ruling in the NYC has ALREADY stated that taking photos of a federal building does NOT constitute probable cause.
To contend that a police officer has no right to question anyone is absolutely ludicrous.
And there you go off into strawman territory. I never stated that a police officer has no right to question anyone. You have constructed a false premise of my points and have argued against that falsely constructed narrative - a strawman fallacy.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about a police officer questioning someone exhibiting suspicious behavior.
It has already been determined that video tapping/photographing a fed building from a public street is 100% legal. It's protected under the 1st Amendment. LEOs swear an oath to protect the constitution. So, when they intervene and question you practicing said right, they're violating their oaths as well as a federal court's ruling, i.e., it's against the law. One should be able to exercise their unalienable rights w/out interference, you seem to think otherwise.
Until you can prove that a court ruling has stated that no police officers can question suspicious people then YOU ARE WRONG.
The court ruling stated that video tapping and/or snapping pics of federal buildings is protected free speech. Whether you think what he's doing is suspicious or not is IRRELEVANT. His actions are PROTECTED under the 1A. His behavior in and of itself does NOT meet the legal criteria to be stopped and detained, no matter how short the duration. It isn't probable cause under the LEGAL jurisprudence/ruling of the federal court in NYC. LEO must have a LEGIT REASON to stop, harass, and detain you. The legal precedent has already been set that that behavior isn't enough.
Just like the other open carry videos, you see time and time again LEO stopping people precisely because of their firearm, when they know darn well that is not reason enough to stop and temporarily detain them. The 4th circuit court has already ruled that a open carry weapon isn't probable cause to stop someone, but how many times have you seen videos of LEOs stopping people for it? If we have to live under the law, so should the law keepers. They're not exempt from it.
-
.
-
I'm sorry, allow me to apologize; I had no idea that LEO were not allowed to conduct inquiries based on on questionable behavior, which essentially equates the probable cause to inquire what the hell that guy was doing, even though I did it for several years. I guess all that training I received as an LEO was bullshit, right?
Man + filming federal building + at night + who happens to be carrying firearm = not suspicious to you?
Give me a break man; you are just talking out of your ass if you think this behavior is acceptable and shouldn't draw any suspicion.
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I LEO (although I worked with Fed agents at USPACOM/JIATFW).
Q, can you tell me what the difference is between "probable cause" and "looking suspicious"? My understanding (limited) is that PC exists when you have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by the individual you are questioning. Someone acting suspicious might cause the little hairs on the back of your neck to stand up, but I dodn't think it rises to the level of PC. PC, if not mistaken, is needed to detain, but you can question someone for any reason. The questions are voluntary, and the individual can decline to answert.
It seems kevlar is hung up on whether a cop can ever approach you and ask what you're doing without PC. Like if a cop sees a guy "looking suspicious" in his car, I believe the cop can't execute a stop unless he has probable cause (tail light out, driver matches the description of a wanted criminal, car reported stolen, blood trail oozing from the trunk) ...
How is it a cop requires PC to stop your car, but it's not that way if he approaches you on a street to satisfy his "suspicion" that you might be up to something?
I understand if a dispatcher says there is a report of someone taking pictures or carrying a holstered gun. That requires the cop to investigate -- that report could be as simple as "individual was walking in public and doing nothing illegal." That's different than the cop initiate the encounter with no 911 call to investigate.
Anyway, these two situations, probable cause versus "looking suspicious," seem a bit confusing.
-
I'm sorry, allow me to apologize; I had no idea that LEO were not allowed to conduct inquiries based on on questionable behavior, which essentially equates the probable cause to inquire what the hell that guy was doing, even though I did it for several years. I guess all that training I received as an LEO was bullshit, right?
I don't care about any training you may or may not have had. This man's actions in and of itself isn't probable cause for a stop. The federal ruling has stated that. You want to argue that, take it up with the courts. Just like the open carry videos we've all seen, LEOs routinely stop people for open carry weapons, even stating that is the sole reason for the temporary detainment, questioning, etc., and yet, they're not supposed to stop them because it's legal jurisprudence that an exposed firearm is not reason enough to warrant that type of response. Does that stop LEOs from continuing to do this? No. But they do it anyway - in clear VIOLATION of the 4th circuit ruling amongst others. You seem to think the police should be allowed to flaunt the rule of law and continue behavior that violates their oaths when they do this.
Man + filming federal building + at night + who happens to be carrying firearm = not suspicious to you?
Whether it's suspicious to me or not is irrelevant. This a matter of legal jurisprudence/precedent. The courts have ruled that behavior is protected under the 1A. When a LEO interferes w/ someone exercising a constitutional right, they're behaving unlawfully. i.e., they themselves are breaking the laws they're supposed to defend. Just because a LEO thinks a home is suspicious, it doesn't give him the justification to kick in a door and search the premises w/out a warrant or REAL probable cause like screaming from within. I don't think you'd be in favor of police violating the 4th Amendment due solely to suspicion. Yet, that is what you're arguing in favor of - police acting outside their proscribed powers.
Give me a break man; you are just talking out of your ass if you think this behavior is acceptable and shouldn't draw any suspicion.
It's protected free speech. LEO can have their suspicion. I don't give a damn. It's when it veers from suspicion into a violation of the constitution, and then it's serious. Also, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. One is a feeling, the other is a legal justification. You, as a former LEO, should know this. Unless, of course, you're just talking out of your ass.
If you have this attitude, then I presume you're okay w/ LEO stopping open carriers based on fact they're open carriers and nothing else, right? Or, let's say a low rider pulls up alongside your squad car and it's full of black males dressed all gangsta, listening to rap music and they begin to mean mug you (stare you down intently). Is that suspicious behavior? Yeah. Is it probable cause to stop their car and search it? Nope. You seem to be arguing it is, though.
-
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I LEO (although I worked with Fed agents at USPACOM/JIATFW).
Q, can you tell me what the difference is between "probable cause" and "looking suspicious"? My understanding (limited) is that PC exists when you have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by the individual you are questioning. Someone acting suspicious might cause the little hairs on the back of your neck to stand up, but I dodn't think it rises to the level of PC. PC, if not mistaken, is needed to detain, but you can question someone for any reason. The questions are voluntary, and the individual can decline to answert.
It seems kevlar is hung up on whether a cop can ever approach you and ask what you're doing without PC. Like if a cop sees a guy "looking suspicious" in his car, I believe the cop can't execute a stop unless he has probable cause (tail light out, driver matches the description of a wanted criminal, car reported stolen, blood trail oozing from the trunk) ...
How is it a cop requires PC to stop your car, but it's not that way if he approaches you on a street to satisfy his "suspicion" that you might be up to something?
I understand if a dispatcher says there is a report of someone taking pictures or carrying a holstered gun. That requires the cop to investigate -- that report could be as simple as "individual was walking in public and doing nothing illegal." That's different than the cop initiate the encounter with no 911 call to investigate.
Anyway, these two situations, probable cause versus "looking suspicious," seem a bit confusing.
Therein lies the problem, as you've stated. Q is conflating PC with suspicion. They're two different things and yet he tries to use them interchangeably.
-
And here is a recent example of LEO acting OUTSIDE of their proscribed powers and arresting a man for open carrying a weapon, and what's their reason for this behavior? Suspicion, not probable cause.
And what gems did these geniuses drop? "We're exempt from the law." "They don't care what the law is." "You're under arrest for resisting arrest [for a non-crime]"
This type of police action is what Q and KK seem to be for.
Active Duty Soldier Illegally Disarmed and Arrested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8r4MK3R4PI#ws)
-
Brother, your not adapted to this police controlled country yet? It's over! They won! Unless someone with power steps up and restore what was United States or we start a revolution... Don't worry and calm down, this is just only the beginning of our troubles.... So I suggest you arm up or shut up! The fight is still on for our freedom!!! :thumbsup:
-
.
-
Its obvious you got a chip on your shoulder about cops, so I will continue to assert that unless you have experience in the LE field, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Go ahead and quote the same 4th circuit quote you have for the 17th time; fact remains that you are attempting to act like an expert in a field you have no experience in.
Aww. Look at that. Poor little Q has to resort to an Appeal to Authority argument - a logical fallacy. Your lame response is a simple obfuscation from the legal facts I've cited. You can't refute that so you resort to an Appeal to Authority argument.
Now if you will excuse me, I will need to go play some call of duty and read some books on special operations so I can come back and tell everyone exactly what its like to be a navy seal and how they should be doing things.
And now an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. Hilarious.
-
Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra
Kevlar
Q
All
I have redacted my Reply #1 in this thread and I apologize. My post said:
I gots news for you.
1. The Federal Protective Service does not fuck around.
2. It actually is illegal to take a picture of a federal building without a permit.
This was told to me by a person "in the know" on the subject several years ago, whom I regarded as a knowledgable source, and the federal building he worked at had a sign prominently posted to this effect, with the federal code citations.
Apparently, this has changed.
I am one who is constantly bellyaching about "fact-checking" in our news media reports on firearms, and here I am falling victim to the same error.
My apologies.
Terry, 230RN
-
.
-
I don't care about any training you may or may not have had. This man's actions in and of itself isn't probable cause for a stop. The federal ruling has stated that. You want to argue that, take it up with the courts. Just like the open carry videos we've all seen, LEOs routinely stop people for open carry weapons, even stating that is the sole reason for the temporary detainment, questioning, etc., and yet, they're not supposed to stop them because it's legal jurisprudence that an exposed firearm is not reason enough to warrant that type of response. Does that stop LEOs from continuing to do this? No. But they do it anyway - in clear VIOLATION of the 4th circuit ruling amongst others. You seem to think the police should be allowed to flaunt the rule of law and continue behavior that violates their oaths when they do this.Whether it's suspicious to me or not is irrelevant. This a matter of legal jurisprudence/precedent. The courts have ruled that behavior is protected under the 1A. When a LEO interferes w/ someone exercising a constitutional right, they're behaving unlawfully. i.e., they themselves are breaking the laws they're supposed to defend. Just because a LEO thinks a home is suspicious, it doesn't give him the justification to kick in a door and search the premises w/out a warrant or REAL probable cause like screaming from within. I don't think you'd be in favor of police violating the 4th Amendment due solely to suspicion. Yet, that is what you're arguing in favor of - police acting outside their proscribed powers. It's protected free speech. LEO can have their suspicion. I don't give a damn. It's when it veers from suspicion into a violation of the constitution, and then it's serious. Also, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. One is a feeling, the other is a legal justification. You, as a former LEO, should know this. Unless, of course, you're just talking out of your ass.
If you have this attitude, then I presume you're okay w/ LEO stopping open carriers based on fact they're open carriers and nothing else, right? Or, let's say a low rider pulls up alongside your squad car and it's full of black males dressed all gangsta, listening to rap music and they begin to mean mug you (stare you down intently). Is that suspicious behavior? Yeah. Is it probable cause to stop their car and search it? Nope. You seem to be arguing it is, though. Then you haven't re-read your earlier posts in this thread. I don't know how you can "hear" written words. The federal ruling in the NYC has ALREADY stated that taking photos of a federal building does NOT constitute probable cause. And there you go off into strawman territory. I never stated that a police officer has no right to question anyone. You have constructed a false premise of my points and have argued against that falsely constructed narrative - a strawman fallacy. It has already been determined that video tapping/photographing a fed building from a public street is 100% legal. It's protected under the 1st Amendment. LEOs swear an oath to protect the constitution. So, when they intervene and question you practicing said right, they're violating their oaths as well as a federal court's ruling, i.e., it's against the law. One should be able to exercise their unalienable rights w/out interference, you seem to think otherwise. The court ruling stated that video tapping and/or snapping pics of federal buildings is protected free speech. Whether you think what he's doing is suspicious or not is IRRELEVANT. His actions are PROTECTED under the 1A. His behavior in and of itself does NOT meet the legal criteria to be stopped and detained, no matter how short the duration. It isn't probable cause under the LEGAL jurisprudence/ruling of the federal court in NYC. LEO must have a LEGIT REASON to stop, harass, and detain you. The legal precedent has already been set that that behavior isn't enough. Just like the other open carry videos, you see time and time again LEO stopping people precisely because of their firearm, when they know darn well that is not reason enough to stop and temporarily detain them. The 4th circuit court has already ruled that a open carry weapon isn't probable cause to stop someone, but how many times have you seen videos of LEOs stopping people for it? I'm an annoying know it all with no real life law enforcement experience so ill just keep babbling the same crap until someone agrees with me. If we have to live under the law, so should the law keepers. They're not exempt from it. I don't care about any training you may or may not have had. This man's actions in and of itself isn't probable cause for a stop. The federal ruling has stated that. You want to argue that, take it up with the courts. Just like the open carry videos we've all seen, LEOs routinely stop people for open carry weapons, even stating that is the sole reason for the temporary detainment, questioning, etc., and yet, they're not supposed to stop them because it's legal jurisprudence that an exposed firearm is not reason enough to warrant that type of response. Does that stop LEOs from continuing to do this? No. But they do it anyway - in clear VIOLATION of the 4th circuit ruling amongst others. You seem to think the police should be allowed to flaunt the rule of law and continue behavior that violates their oaths when they do this. Whether it's suspicious to me or not is irrelevant. This a matter of legal jurisprudence/precedent. The courts have ruled that behavior is protected under the 1A. When a LEO interferes w/ someone exercising a constitutional right, they're behaving unlawfully. i.e., they themselves are breaking the laws they're supposed to defend. Just because a LEO thinks a home is suspicious, it doesn't give him the justification to kick in a door and search the premises w/out a warrant or REAL probable cause like screaming from within. I don't think you'd be in favor of police violating the 4th Amendment due solely to suspicion. Yet, that is what you're arguing in favor of - police acting outside their proscribed powers. It's protected free speech. LEO can have their suspicion. I don't give a damn. It's when it veers from suspicion into a violation of the constitution, and then it's serious. Also, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. One is a feeling, the other is a legal justification. You, as a former LEO, should know this. Unless, of course, you're just talking out of your ass. If you have this attitude, then I presume you're okay w/ LEO stopping open carriers based on fact they're open carriers and nothing else, right? Or, let's say a low rider pulls up alongside your squad car and it's full of black males dressed all gangsta, listening to rap music and they begin to mean mug you (stare you down intently). Is that suspicious behavior? Yeah. Is it probable cause to stop their car and search it? Nope. You seem to be arguing it is, though.
And yet after hours of typing and retyping the exact same things over and over, you've still failed to cite any specific Supreme Court ruling to back up your ramblings.
-
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Kevlar has facts, logic, and real-world examples on his side.
Q appears to have run out of arguments. He has resorted to the "Whatever! :| " tactic ... attempting to shutdown the debate after he clearly demonstrated he only has personal opinion to back up his position.
This debate goes to KEVLAR! I think a LEO/former LEO will always have the opinion they must follow what they see as common sense tactics in spite of what is legal. That's why there are so many videos around demonstrating too many cops don't have a clue what the law says. In their minds, they ARE the law (Judge Dredd attitude).
The LE community has been more and more militarized and is less of a citizen protection organization. In fact, the courts ruled cops have no responsibility to protect individuals, just to ensure the safety of the public at large. Hence the argument for acquiring firearms ... police are not there to protect you, merely to investigate afterward and make an arrest.
:geekdanc: :shaka:
-
And yet after hours of typing and restyling the exact same things over and over, you've still failed to cite any specific Supreme Court ruling to back up your ramblings.
I'll help kevlar out on this one:
The New York Civil Liberties Union has encountered several cases of people who were unjustly harassed, detained and arrested by federal agents while photographing or videotaping federal buildings from public plazas and sidewalks.
Last year, we sued the U.S Department of Homeland Security in federal court to end this practice. In October, a judge signed a settlement in which the government agreed that no federal statutes or regulations bar people from photographing the exterior of federal buildings. It also agreed to issue a directive to members of the Federal Protective Service (the agency responsible for all government buildings) on photographers’ rights.
The settlement did not require the feds to disclose the directive, but at our request they recently provided us with a copy of it.
The three-page document plainly states that “absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause” security personnel must allow individuals to “photograph the exterior of federally owned or leased facilities from publicly accessible spaces.”
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/you-have-every-right-snap-picture (http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/you-have-every-right-snap-picture)
-
I'll help kevlar out on this one:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/you-have-every-right-snap-picture (http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/you-have-every-right-snap-picture)
There is absolutely nothing illegal about a police officer questioning someone exhibiting suspicious behavior.
Until you can prove that a court ruling has stated that no police officers can question suspicious people then YOU ARE WRONG.
Try again.
Kevlar contended that a police officer has no right to question a person engaged in behavior which can be construed as suspicious, yet has provided no evidence to substantiate that.
-
Try again.
Kevlar contended that a police officer has no right to question a person engaged in behavior which can be construed as suspicious, yet has provided no evidence to substantiate that.
Based on REASONABLE suspicion. Now you need to figure out what is reasonable. Simply walking down the street late at night taking pictures to me may not be reasonable enough to approach someone.
-
Based on REASONABLE suspicion. Now you need to figure out what is reasonable. Simply walking down the street late at night taking pictures to me may not be reasonable enough to approach someone.
Remember that they were responding to a 911 call of a suspicious armed person taking pictures.
-
Remember that they were responding to a 911 call of a suspicious armed person taking pictures.
So, if I'm walking down the street, doing nothing illegal, and a cop decides to stop me for questioning, all they have to do is say I looked suspicious? Or does he need to back up that assessment with a fact or two?
-
So, if I'm walking down the street, doing nothing illegal, and a cop decides to stop me for questioning, all they have to do is say I looked suspicious? Or does he need to back up that assessment with a fact or two?
Lets look at your question this way.
A) You are robbing houses and a concerned citizen sees you robbing houses.
The police are called and when they arrive, you are all done robbing houses and are walking back to your van full of loot, at the time they arrive you are doing nothing illegal. All you're doing is walking back to your van.
Yet you fit the description of the person that was suspiciously removing items from a home where you don't live.
Do the police have the right to question you?
B) you are moving things out of your friends house because they had to work but today is the last day for them to get their stuff out. (They're moving)
A concerned citizen thinks you are robbing a house and calls the police.
The police arrive and you are walking back to the van full of your friends stuff. At the time they arrive you are doing nothing illegal.
All you're doing is walking back to your van.
Yet you fit the description of the person that was suspiciously removing items from a home where you don't live.
Do the police have a right to question you?
The point here is that police officers are employed to deter crime, investigate suspicious activity, keep the peace, report and investigate crimes and violations of laws.
I don't believe a police officer responding to a 911 call of suspicious behavior is a violation of your rights.
In the case in question, a man with a firearm is video taping or taking pictures of a federal building at night.
Something about it seemed strange to a civilian and they called 911 to report it.
The police officers responded to the call and ascertained that the person involved was not committing any crime nor did he intend to commit a crime there that night.
They let him go peacefully after that.
I am a firm believer in the constitution and the rights of American citizens.
I do not believe that as Americans we should be oppressed by a tyrannical government at any level.
I do however believe that we should be careful not to declaw and detooth our guard dog, lest he be unable to assist us in our moment of need.
-
.
-
..........Many people think they are living in an episode of Law & Order, where the legal system is all they need to understand. Unfortunately, having legal rights is only half the equation. You, as a citizen, also have a duty to assist law enforcement. That's why certain laws like citizen's arrest exist, and why lying to an investigator is unlawful.
The problem is how LE and the legal system uses and abuses their powers too often to bully and intimidate and wrongly convict innocent people. That creates an environment where people are reluctant to get involved or even cooperate with the authorities for fear of retaliation by the actual perps or unwarranted arrest caused by volunteering information. This problem comes around full circle, causing LE to be frustrated when people refuse to give them the time of day when all they are trying to do is ensure they and the public at large are safe.
I don't see a solution, and continuing to choose sides, LE versus law abiding citizen, will not get us any further along in these debates.
Those are my observations. Maybe I'm off base?
I disagree that the citizen has a duty to assist law enforcement. Duty to me means this cannot be passed to someone else. On the contrary I think that most law enforcement to some extent or another does not want you to become involved. As with everything else this is not black and white, but muted shades of gray.
Do they want physical involvement? Nope. Do they want your cooperation when investigating or litigating? Yup.
I do get what you are getting at though. The trouble is we are dealing with humans and there will always be differing points of view and conflict. There will always be greed and corruption. I do not think our version is perfect, but it's still much better than a lot of the alternatives.
-
.
-
Kevlar contended that a police officer has no right to question a person engaged in behavior which can be construed as suspicious, yet has provided no evidence to substantiate that.
You need to stop constructing strawmen arguments. I know you love to create a false narrative of my posts and then argue against said narrative, but it's disingenuous and petty.
What I've written is whether you think photographing a federal building is suspicious or not is irrelevant. The NYC federal court ruling has stated that that action, in and of itself, is NOT reason enough to stop someone and behave as these guys did - helicopter searchlights and the works. It does NOT meet the criteria for probable cause. You two have been CONFLATING probable cause and suspicion and using them interchangeably.
-
And yet after hours of typing and retyping the exact same things over and over, you've still failed to cite any specific Supreme Court ruling to back up your ramblings.
LOL. I've already stated that the matter was adjudicated in a FEDERAL court over and over. And now you say the criteria must be a SC ruling. Heh. Move the goal post much?
How can I provide evidence of a court ruling that doesn't exist? I've given legal jurisprudence and case law, and you and Q have given, well, nothing.
Tell you what, go fetch a court case that deals with this situation (photographing a federal building) and sides with your argument and then we'll see. So far, all you and Q have provided are Appeals to Authority and Appeals to Ridicule fallacies, amongst the name calling.
-
I would like to respond to this one, because I was associated with a case exactly like it.
A) Woman call us because man is supposedly standing outside her window, trying to break in and rip the screen.
B) Man runs into the hills behind her house when she turns on the light
C) We investigate, and discover evidence that someone was outside the window, trying to get in.
D) Man comes walking down the street, in the middle of the night, asking us what's going on and if someone was trying to break in. Why would a random person walk up to a house, in the middle of the night, asking if someone had just attempted to break into a house that just had an attempted break in? I guess its his constitutional right?
E) Based on the suspicious nature of the man, we ask him further questions and for ID (just like in the video), and he plays the stupid game that you both are playing about how he is so much more knowledgeable about his rights and the constitution.
F) When he is unable to provide accurate information about who he is or where he was staying in the premises, we detain him.
Guess what? Dude turns out to be the 37 year old 'boyfriend' of the 15 year old girl living in the house, and he was just trying to break in to see her, and had no plans to have sex with a minor even though he had handcuffs, dildos, condoms and psychotropic drugs in his back pack. Oh and yes, and the investigating officials determined that nothing done on our part was illegal, given that we, as law enforcement officers, were conducting law enforcement operations and were justified in acting on our reasonable suspicions.
Its because of clowns like you that more good cops stop giving a shit and turn into the bad cops you guys cry about. Personally, I was happy that my Judge Dredd interpretation of the law prevented a 15 year old girl and her mother from being raped by some psycho, so you can bitch and moan all you want but the fact remains the same: Unless you have been properly instructed in LE operations and/or understand how they work, all the shit you read and all the videos you watch on the internet is just assumptions.
Other than this being a long Appeal to Authority spiel, you've once again conflated suspicion with probable cause.
Your scenario has noting to do with the situation we're discussing.
First, an ILLEGAL act was committed (B and E), which is why you were called to that house. Since illegality has been established per the phone call and the window you looked at, you ALREADY have PC to give this man the scrutiny you did.
Second, snapping photos of a building - which neither one of you has disputed - is 100% LEGAL. Open carry in that state is 100% legal. This man did NOT commit a crime or engage in ANY behavior to would rise to the level of illegality. Since the criteria of illegality has NOT been meet, the LEOs have NO PC to do what they did. All they have is suspicion, which isn't even enough, legally speaking, to warrant their actions. Stop conflating suspicion and PC. One is a feeling, the other is legal threshold.
If you're representative of active LEOs and their attitudes, no wonder we video after video of police stopping open carriers when they have NO LEGAL justification to do so.
Now if you will excuse me, I once again need to become a subject matter expert on the AK platform by reading a user manual and watching some videos of Travis Haley.
KK, I'm coming for your AK knowledge crown!
And you're back to using an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.
-
Some comments from the other OC thread:
Stop and ID was declared unconstitutional in the Kolender case in the 1980's and stopping someone to see if they are "legal" violates Delaware v Prouse.
Hawaii gun owners are so use to being beat in the ground that I can almost understand why they view sterile carry as dangerous and scary.
We had a guy who was nice and showed ID in Michigan, the police mailed him a disorderly conduct misdemeanor court summons that he had to spend $$$$$ to beat, where if he simply kept his mouth shut and did not show ID, the police would have had no way to entrap him and make up a bogus charge on him.
If showing an ID was ok and acceptable upon request then how would these people feel if I ID'ed them envy time they walked with their child, because they could be a pedophile who abducted the kid for all I know :)
You are 100% required to identify yourself if they have PC to stop you for a crime. If you fail to identify yourself, they can arrest you and hold you until they figure out who you are.
One of my recent bails was a female who refused to ID herself for a citation, so she got arrested and got a few more citations as well lol.
-- Why stop with I.D.? Why not run the serial number of your gun, check some fingerprints, swab some DNA? This way, we can find out if you have committed a crime we don't know about! (Or don't have a 'named' suspect).
What's the difference? Many of you are trying to use the name to "catch criminals" so why not go all the way?
Bottom line fellas for me on this and I think about it everyday when all said and done you cannot not sort between the things on the constitution that you like or dont like its either you support your right or dont! Cant pick and choose. You have to live with the good and bad, the lesser of 2evils for me and my rights is the lesser evil for me.
-
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Its obvious you got a chip on your shoulder about cops, so I will continue to assert that unless you have experience in the LE field, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Go ahead and quote the same 4th circuit quote you have for the 17th time; fact remains that you are attempting to act like an expert in a field you have no experience in.
Now if you will excuse me, I will need to go play some call of duty and read some books on special operations so I can come back and tell everyone exactly what its like to be a navy seal and how they should be doing things.
Q many of us here don't have direct LE experience. IMHO however that doesn't mean our opinions are any less valid. Keep in mind that the general duty is to us the people.
So, if I'm walking down the street, doing nothing illegal, and a cop decides to stop me for questioning, all they have to do is say I looked suspicious? Or does he need to back up that assessment with a fact or two?
Yup, pretty much. It's what happens in New York.............but wait..................check this out:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/12/nypd-stop-frisk/2642313/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/12/nypd-stop-frisk/2642313/)
-
..............Its because of clowns like you that more good cops stop giving a shit and turn into the bad cops you guys cry about. Personally, I was happy that my Judge Dredd interpretation of the law prevented a 15 year old girl and her mother from being raped by some psycho, so you can bitch and moan all you want but the fact remains the same: Unless you have been properly instructed in LE operations and/or understand how they work, all the shit you read and all the videos you watch on the internet is just assumptions.
Now if you will excuse me, I once again need to become a subject matter expert on the AK platform by reading a user manual and watching some videos of Travis Haley.
KK, I'm coming for your AK knowledge crown!
Q if you truly believe this you should not be a LEO. There are reasons why the Founding Fathers & Framers put controls into the Constitution. Balance for those who rule, those who enforce, and those who make the rules. When this balance is upset there can be much more serious issues that arise.
FWIW you didn't do a Judge Dredd. Dredd would have shot the BG in the nutz.
-
Q many of us here don't have direct LE experience. IMHO however that doesn't mean our opinions are any less valid. Keep in mind that the general duty is to us the people.
GZ, Q simply doesn't get it. He keeps using this silly Appeal to Authority argument over and over. He doesn't realize he's basing his entire argument over a logical fallacy.
Like the example I gave earlier - Q's line of thinking works like this: I go to restaurant and order a steak well done. It comes out bloody and with ice crystals on the edges. Since I never went to culinary school or worked in a kitchen, I'm unqualified to declare the steak undercooked. And my opinion is irrelevant. That's how silly his argument is.
-
All of the examples being used by KK and Q involve suspicion that someone is a perp after a crime is noted or reported.
This topic involves being stop when no crime is or has been committed. The act of photographing a building is not a crime. It is a Constitutionally protected activity, and can not be seen as suspicious.
-
All of the examples being used by KK and Q involve suspicion that someone is a perp after a crime is noted or reported.
This topic involves being stop when no crime is or has been committed. The act of photographing a building is not a crime. It is a Constitutionally protected activity, and can not be seen as suspicious.
Which is EXACTLY what I've stated over and over. They continue to conflate suspicion and probable cause. Oh, and they also like to throw around terms like 'stupid' or 'clowns' when referring to us and to use logical fallacies - a sure sign they can't debate the issue on its merits.
-
why don't you guys all agree to disagree?
Which is EXACTLY what I've stated over and over. They continue to conflate suspicion and probable cause. Oh, and they also like to throw around terms like 'stupid' or 'clowns' when referring to us and to use logical fallacies - a sure sign they can't debate the issue on its merits.
-
I Agree to disagree.
Now that's a quote. :shaka:
-
A police officer may stop anyone at any time to talk with them. That person has the right to either talk to the police or not. It is called a consensual encounter. A refusal to talk to the police, or to provide information, such as ID, cannot then be used to create a "reasonable suspicion" used to then turn the consensual encounter into an involuntary one. Likewise, without suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed, the police, absent any other probable cause, may not search you.
There may be some rare exceptions (I can't think of any...) that entirely legal activity may generate reasonable suspicion, but the vast majority of the time, it cannot be used as a basis for a involuntary police encounter.
You Tube is replete with many, many examples of police illegally detaining people who are either open carrying or photographing (sometimes both...) from a public place. We should, IMHO, applaud those that are willing to resist these intrusions on our Constitutional rights. And while some of those engaged in this type of "civil disobedience" (I use that term loosely since those activities engaged in are entirely legal...) may be perceived as "trouble makers" or just looking to "provoke" the police, and have a bit of a defiant attitude, I personally tend to give them a pass. Rosa Parks, stood up (or rather sat down) for her rights and was seen by many as just making trouble; Martin Luther was definitely a "trouble maker" and was, coincidentally, well armed during his campaign. The point being, is that those folks we admire for standing up for their rights are often view from their contemporaries as trouble makers.
I am very far from a "cop hater" but that doesn't mean that I will allow anyone to disregard my rights, nor that I will just assume that police have nothing but good intentions. I don't assume all cops think I am a criminal and will treat me as such, but I know from personal experience that some will. So, like a cop who assumes everyone they stop is potentially armed and dangerous, why is it so denigrated when a citizen takes a similar stance and assumes that all police are, at least initially, a danger to the free expression of their Constitutional rights and exercises those rights during such an interaction? It amazes me that there are some that will just seethe at the mouth when discussing Mayor Bloomberg's attempts to run roughshod over their Second Amendment rights, but will grant him all sorts of leeway over NYPD's use of the "Stop and Frisk" tactics Bloomie uses to trample the Fourth Amendment. Which, by the way, was recently rejected by a Judge. Per the New York Times:
The judge found that for much of the last decade, patrol officers had stopped innocent people without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. But her criticism went beyond the conduct of police officers.
“I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,”
She also, again, IMHO, correctly identified why it was so important to address these types of unwarranted stops, and that is the gradual acceptance of the American public to these types of activities that will, much like demonizing gun rights and gun owners do, (and for which many here would rightly agree that we need to "stand up" and resist the "camel's nose under the tent...") create a public who becomes more and more accepting of these encroachments.
Judge Scheindlin’s decision grapples with the legacy of Terry v. Ohio, a 1968 ruling by the Supreme Court, which held that stopping and frisking was constitutionally permissible under certain conditions. But she said that changes to the way the New York Police Department employed the practice were needed to ensure that the street stops were carried out in a manner that “protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.”
The judge found that the New York police were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior what was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop.....
She noted that officers routinely stopped people partly on the basis of “furtive movements,” a category that officers have testified might encompass any of the following: being fidgety, changing directions, walking in a certain way, grabbing at a pocket or looking over one’s shoulder.
“If officers believe that the behavior described above constitutes furtive movement that justifies a stop, then it is no surprise that stops so rarely produce evidence of criminal activity,” Judge Scheindlin wrote.
She found that in their zeal to identify concealed weapons, officers sometimes stopped people on the grounds that the officer observed a bulge in the person’s pocket; often it turned out that the bulge was caused not by a gun but by a wallet.
“The outline of a commonly carried object such as a wallet or cellphone does not justify a stop or frisk, nor does feeling such an object during a frisk justify a search,” she ruled.
But the stops were not the end of the problem, Judge Scheindlin found. After officers stopped people, they often conducted frisks for weapons, or searched the subjects’ pockets for contraband, like drugs, without any legal grounds for doing so.
And to further illustrate a point made earlier in this thread, here is Bloomie's response to the decision:
The mayor said the judge did “not understand how policing works” and had misinterpreted what the Constitution allowed.
I guess that because she was a Judge and not a police officer, Bloomie thinks she doesn't understand how the police should perform their job either....sound familiar?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp)
Edited to add link to NY Times story
-
GZ, Q simply doesn't get it. He keeps using this silly Appeal to Authority argument over and over. He doesn't realize he's basing his entire argument over a logical fallacy.
Like the example I gave earlier - Q's line of thinking works like this: I go to restaurant and order a steak well done. It comes out bloody and with ice crystals on the edges. Since I never went to culinary school or worked in a kitchen, I'm unqualified to declare the steak undercooked. And my opinion is irrelevant. That's how silly his argument is.
I think both sides make valid points, however I think emotion is starting to rule. People need to calm down and think before they hit reply.
All of the examples being used by KK and Q involve suspicion that someone is a perp after a crime is noted or reported.
This topic involves being stop when no crime is or has been committed. The act of photographing a building is not a crime. It is a Constitutionally protected activity, and can not be seen as suspicious.
Crime reported or not, these guys do the job long enough and a lot of the time their intuition has some basis in good fact. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but typically it's very effective.
With regards to legality........very difficult. Freedom comes with a price as does security. In some cases people want both, but IMHO they can be quite mutually exclusive. Everyone likes the freedom until the SHTF, then they want security which has an affect on your indiviual freedoms.
-
BTW for the record I don't think Q really thinks that guys who don't agree with LEOs cause the destruction of the LEOs moral character. I think we need to calm down, have a beer, and oggle SpeedTek's daughter.
-
Crime reported or not, these guys do the job long enough and a lot of the time their intuition has some basis in good fact. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but typically it's very effective.
With regards to legality........very difficult. Freedom comes with a price as does security. In some cases people want both, but IMHO they can be quite mutually exclusive. Everyone likes the freedom until the SHTF, then they want security which has an affect on your indiviual freedoms.
I'm not sure anything you've written contributes to the discussion.
Maybe right, or maybe wrong? Intuition based on fact? Freedom and security both have a price and are mutually exclusive? People shift from freedom to security when the SHTF?
I'm not trying to insult you, but what you said makes almost no sense! :wtf:
Maybe there's actually a hidden point that I missed, but my impression is you are waxing philosophically with no real point in mind?
-
I'm not sure anything you've written contributes to the discussion.
Maybe right, or maybe wrong? Intuition based on fact? Freedom and security both have a price and are mutually exclusive? People shift from freedom to security when the SHTF?
I'm not trying to insult you, but what you said makes almost no sense! :wtf:
Maybe there's actually a hidden point that I missed, but my impression is you are waxing philosophically with no real point in mind?
take the video posted and add the following changes
you work @ this building
no one stops him to ask this guy a questions(why hes walking late @nite armed taking pictures of fed building)
he is a convicted felon with a stolen firearm
he walks to your house
murders your family
would you not have wanted no why nobody even bothered to see what this guy was up to? or would you be fine with"we didnt bother him because we didnt want to impose on his rights"
BTW,now he can be questioned now that he HAS committed a crime
-
Found this transcript interesting. Goes over Terry Stop from a Federal Law Enforcement perspective.
Some of the more interesting things are that "they" consider any "hard" object a weapon and describe keys and a pen as potential weapons. They also correctly point out that while they can stop you on reasonable suspicion, that stop alone is not justification for a frisk. That is a separate issue and requires additional articulation of a reasonable suspicion that the detained person might be armed.
http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/4th-amendment-roadmap-podcasts/4th-amendment-transcripts/terry-stop-frisk.html (http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/4th-amendment-roadmap-podcasts/4th-amendment-transcripts/terry-stop-frisk.html)
-
take the video posted and add the following changes
you work @ this building
no one stops him to ask this guy a questions(why hes walking late @nite armed taking pictures of fed building)
he is a convicted felon with a stolen firearm
he walks to your house
murders your family
would you not have wanted no why nobody even bothered to see what this guy was up to? or would you be fine with"we didnt bother him because we didnt want to impose on his rights"
BTW,now he can be questioned now that he HAS committed a crime
Take your scenario and add this:
The cops would have STILL let the felon with the illegal gun continue on his way to kill your family after talking to him.
The cops had no reason to stop him,
he was within his rights to not produce ID (therefore no way for the cops to know he's a felon),
and my emotional response to "why didn't the cops do something" is the exact same thing as "we need more gun control to prevent another Sandy Hook shooting."
Emotional appeal in place of logic and reasoning ... always the best approach at problem solving? Sure it is, as long as it's "for the children!".
-
take the video posted and add the following changes
you work @ this building
no one stops him to ask this guy a questions(why hes walking late @nite armed taking pictures of fed building)
he is a convicted felon with a stolen firearm
he walks to your house
murders your family
would you not have wanted no why nobody even bothered to see what this guy was up to? or would you be fine with"we didnt bother him because we didnt want to impose on his rights"
BTW,now he can be questioned now that he HAS committed a crime
If you are in a State that allows open carry, the mere fact that you open carry cannot be used as a reason to stop you. Same with photography.
With your logic all drivers should be stopped because they could be under the influence, all adults walking with children should be stopped because they could be pedophiles, and all vehicles exiting Kokohead Shooting Complex should be stopped and searched because they could be transporting guns illegally, or have illegal guns.
Those that give up liberty for safety deserve neither.....
-
If you are in a State that allows open carry, the mere fact that you open carry cannot be used as a reason to stop you. Same with photography.
With your logic all drivers should be stopped because they could be under the influence, all adults walking with children should be stopped because they could be pedophiles, and all vehicles exiting Kokohead Shooting Complex should be stopped and searched because they could be transporting guns illegally, or have illegal guns.
Those that give up liberty for freedom deserve neither.....
I think "security" belongs there somewhere :)
-
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).
Mine was based on Franklin's but not a quote....but I did screw even that up....thanks....
-
I'm not sure anything you've written contributes to the discussion.
Maybe right, or maybe wrong? Intuition based on fact? Freedom and security both have a price and are mutually exclusive? People shift from freedom to security when the SHTF?
I'm not trying to insult you, but what you said makes almost no sense! :wtf:
Maybe there's actually a hidden point that I missed, but my impression is you are waxing philosophically with no real point in mind?
OK let me explain better.
Freedom to act how you will. IMHO it is inherently going to end with chaos especially in crowded urban environments. No laws, no enforcement, etc. will lead to this fact.
On the opposite end you have security from other things; terroristic acts, robbery, etc. You get this under control by putting your thumb on the population and reducing their inherent rights. You restrict free speech, you put in place and enforce curfews, unlawful search & seizure, etc. You deal with criminals severely and immediately.
Both of these have problems that you get into when you push too far one way or the other. Many people now hate TSA with a vengence. I sure do. I hate that these guys are supposed to man their lines at 04:15AM every morning but due to varying briefings sometimes take longer than that (when GZ has to get a 04:30AM boarding time). I hate that idiots who stand in line cannot figure out to take off their shoes, watches, belts, computers, etc. ahead of time. I hate that I a person who flies the same flight for weeks on end has to be searched with the guys who take trips infrequently. I hate all of that, but I understand it is a price of security. My personal freedoms are impacted. Some people think it's too much and some not enough, but it is what it is because we are human and humans will always have that differing point of view.
Intuition based on fact.............if you are a beat guy and have seen things time and time again you will get a feeling about people and situations. These are rooted in your experience and that basically being fact. With this respect Q & KK are 100% accurate that we don't (always) know this day to day stuff. As I have said however it has to be tempered and our voice is still importantly something that has to be heard.
Finally I am disappointed that you are getting angry. You want people to take your side and if they don't you get frustrated and angry. I can handle that, it's your right to do so. However it doesn't make me think of you more highly than Q if this is what you resort to when people don't agree with you. HiCarry and I have got a bit into it before on the Rail/Mayor issue, but I respect what he has to say no matter if I don't agree with it or if I later find out I'm wrong. I certainly hope/think he feels the same about me.
-
Whether it's suspicious to me or not is irrelevant. This a matter of legal jurisprudence/precedent. The courts have ruled that behavior is protected under the 1A. When a LEO interferes w/ someone exercising a constitutional right, they're behaving unlawfully. i.e., they themselves are breaking the laws they're supposed to defend. Just because a LEO thinks a home is suspicious, it doesn't give him the justification to kick in a door and search the premises w/out a warrant or REAL probable cause like screaming from within. I don't think you'd be in favor of police violating the 4th Amendment due solely to suspicion. Yet, that is what you're arguing in favor of - police acting outside their proscribed powers.
It's protected free speech. LEO can have their suspicion. I don't give a damn. It's when it veers from suspicion into a violation of the constitution, and then it's serious. Also, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. One is a feeling, the other is a legal justification. You, as a former LEO, should know this. Unless, of course, you're just talking out of your ass.
If you have this attitude, then I presume you're okay w/ LEO stopping open carriers based on fact they're open carriers and nothing else, right? Or, let's say a low rider pulls up alongside your squad car and it's full of black males dressed all gangsta, listening to rap music and they begin to mean mug you (stare you down intently). Is that suspicious behavior? Yeah. Is it probable cause to stop their car and search it? Nope. You seem to be arguing it is, though.
I can tell you that taking pictures of a facility, at night, while walking with a gun can certainly be considered reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. The facts of your other case are not similar, it wasn't at night, and he didn't have a gun. Also, the ACLU's settlement only really covers "any rule that results in the arrest of people for exercising their First Amendment rights." No one would agree to not stop and inquire what someone is doing.
You may not know it, and may not care, but doing things at night can really expand the "whole picture" to make your normal activity suspicious.
@HiCarry - in a place where open carry is allowed, that alone may not be used for a stop. Add darkness, and reports of you circling or walking around in the same area taking photographs and the facts don't swing in that individuals favor.
On a similar case in my criminal procedure class, I had a huge debate with one of my professors who is a sitting judge on some cases just similar to this (night time, walking around, taking pictures), but it didn't have a gun. I think we got about 20-30 pages into it :P on there and he was right.
-
I can tell you that taking pictures of a facility, at night, while walking with a gun can certainly be considered reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. The facts of your other case are not similar, it wasn't at night, and he didn't have a gun. Also, the ACLU's settlement only really covers "any rule that results in the arrest of people for exercising their First Amendment rights." No one would agree to not stop and inquire what someone is doing.
Once again, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. They're two distinct things. The similarities of each case are enough to warrant using the former to defend the latter. He was open carrying which is 100% legal in that state. The police had no right to stop him for that activity, as others have pointed out case law on that matter. The NYC federal ruling did not make any distinction between photographing at night or day - the activity's legality is not contingent on the amount of ambient light present. That behavior is 100% legal and protected under the 1A. Neither activity - open carry or photo taking - rose to the level of any illegality that justifies probable cause, which is what LEO needs in order to do what they did in this video. They had NO right to detain him as they did, not matter how short the duration.
You may not know it, and may not care, but doing things at night can really expand the "whole picture" to make your normal activity suspicious.
The NYC ruling doesn't make a distinction whether it's done at night or day. Your argument is illogical. If the original case had occurred during night and it was ruled the same way, would then try this line of reasoning if the open carry video occurred during day? Of course not. You're trying to assign some arbitrary distinction between when the sun is high in the sky and the moon is out. Astrological conditions are irrelevant to the court's findings.
Furthermore, you're once again conflating suspicion with PC.
-
Once again, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. They're two distinct things. The similarities of each case are enough to warrant using the former to defend the latter. He was open carrying which is 100% legal in that state. The police had no right to stop him for that activity, as others have pointed out case law on that matter. The NYC federal ruling did not make any distinction between photographing at night or day - the activity's legality is not contingent on the amount of ambient light present. That behavior is 100% legal and protected under the 1A. Neither activity - open carry or photo taking - rose to the level of any illegality that justifies probable cause, which is what LEO needs in order to do what they did in this video. They had NO right to detain him as they did, not matter how short the duration.
The NYC ruling doesn't make a distinction whether it's done at night or day. Your argument is illogical. If the original case had occurred during night and it was ruled the same way, would then try this line of reasoning if the open carry video occurred during day? Of course not. You're trying to assign some arbitrary distinction between when the sun is high in the sky and the moon is out. Astrological conditions are irrelevant to the court's findings.
Furthermore, you're once again conflating suspicion with PC.
You are demonstrating that you don't really understand the law or what goes into. You can sit and cite your settlement all day long. Things are not taken as a part, it's based on the "totality of the circumstances." SeeUnited States v. Arvizu, 534 US 266 (2002). It's also not based on what you think you know, but what the officer thinks they are seeing because this "process allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them." I.d at 274.
Furthermore, they received a "tip" and if, with a little bit of extra investigatory police work it looks reasonable - they can initiate an investigatory stop. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).
You don't seem to understand much about the fourth amendment, ask any cop if time of day can play into the suspicion. Walking around in a shopping mall or strip mall during business hours would not be a good cause to stop someone, walking around after hours is. The area could also be a "high crime activity" or "drug area", which also leads to sufficient cause for the stop. I'll take the time to teach you something new today: time of day has much to do with reasonable suspicion.
Also, good luck arguing that this individual was even seized without an escalation of force either by touching or a lot more verbal escalation.
Lastly, I'm not sure how you get someone is 'conflating' reasonable suspicion with probable cause, while they are not the same thing - one is just higher up on the scale than the other. It doesn't take much of anything for me to get reasonable suspicion. Hell, in the Terry case, all the guy did was walk back and forth in front of a building and look around with his buddies. You would do good to take a few classes in law, and specifically criminal law, to learn how the Fourth Amendment is really working. There are some attorneys on this board, feel free to figure out who they are and message them.
-
rose to the level of any illegality that justifies probable cause, which is what LEO needs in order to do what they did in this video.
*Sigh* Again, reasonable suspicion is required... not probable cause.
Hunch -> Suspicion -> Reasonable Suspicion -> Probable Cause -> Preponderance of the Evidence
-
Chris - I agree that at night there may be an increase in the "suspicion" quotient, but that is, by and large, part of the "mission creep" that has become the new normal and is what I personally am most concerned with. Is it currently accepted as a significant contributing factor that makes the totality of the circumstances swing toward "reasonable suspicion?" The answer is probably yes. Do I think it should be? I don't. The contributing factor, again IMHO, is that the flexibility of the initial ruling in Terry, there to provide an increased measure of safety for the LEO, has been stretched way beyond the intended scope. Let's look at one of the factors in evaluating suspicion under Terry: Furtive movements. Initially they were meant to allow for movement generally associated with an attempt to hide or conceal a weapon. Per the NY ruling, furtive movement now includes glancing behind you or turning around. That, IMHO, is far too broad. And, as the Judge noted, those actions, erroneously attributed to be furtive in nature, are mostly insensitive toward the goal of determining who may be secreting a weapon. When 90% of the stops, based wholly or in part of these misnamed furtive movements, end up producing nothing, it should be clear that using them as such is ineffective and should fall outside what would be considered "furtive" for the purposes of determining reasonable suspicion.
Kevlar - I don't think Chris (Funtimes) is incorrect. From my personal experiences I believe that the time of day is, and to a limited extent, should be, factored into the totality of the circumstances to determine reasonable suspicion. It should be used, but the time of day (or night) should be weighed in light of the circumstances as a whole. Someone walking back and forth in front of a store at noon is most likely a lot different than doing so at midnight after the store is closed. Which, for those don't know, was in large part what Terry v. Ohio was based on.
I personally hope that the NY ruling starts to curb those actions that have now far exceeded what was originally thought reasonable. For example, in the FLETC transcript, it now appears that keys and pens are now "weapons." I believe that would never have been considered a weapon by the court that decided Terry, because the intent was to provide an extra measure of safety for the officer by allowing them to identify guns. Once a weapon is found, you most likely would have grounds to expand your "frisk: to a "search" and now that initial pat down is a defacto full on search. And now that at least some agencies may consider a pen or keys weapons, does that then allow them to expand their frisk to a search? And, once again the slippery slope appears.......
-
Chris: the gentleman in the video was detained/seized. The officer said so, and in response to the gentleman's question on what grounds he was being detained, the officer replied, "I don't know, you're not telling us anything..."
I'm pretty sure at that point any reasonable person would presume they were being detained. Which, brings up another issue I believe is significant: If, as the law demands, a citizen is allowed to ask if they are "detained" in order to determine if the encounter is consensual or involuntary, any misinformation by the LEO stating that the citizen is detained when in fact there would be no basis to do so, there should be penalties. The citizen must rely on the accurate information provided by the LEO to best make a determination as to his conduct moving forward.
For example: "Am I being detained?" LEO: No, may I see ID. Me: No, good bye have a great day.
"Am I being detained?" LEO: Yes, let me see your ID. ME: Why? If he's going to write me a citation, I provide an ID. If it's an investigatory stop and the state does not mandate providing an ID, I say no. If the state requires providing ID, I give him my ID.
-
Chris: the gentleman in the video was detained/seized. The officer said so, and in response to the gentleman's question on what grounds he was being detained, the officer replied, "I don't know, you're not telling us anything..."
There are quite a few cases that say it's a necessary element that they use some sort of force. Say you go to walk away, I grab your arm... touch your shoulder etc. Or they begin yelling "I SAID STOP!!!!" If the individual submits voluntarily, then it could be a constructive seizure. It just may not be as clear as saying "yes" or "no" to the am I being detained. Stance, body language, threats of force, command voice, multiple officers, proximity to the individual (standing up on you etc.) all seem to be tiny elements that they look at.
After conducting his investigatory stop, the officer should not have said he was being detained.
-
Funtimes, as Hicarry pointed out, the man asks the officer at ~2:34 into the video "...because you have reasonable suspicion I've committed a crime, right?" This is after the officer confirms he's being detained. The officers response: "Well, I'm concerned as to why you're taking photographs." He NEVER confirms reasonable suspicion as the reason for the stop. The REAL reason is obvious: he's armed and taking photos. Their actions (LEO) are a clear violation Us vs Deberry, 1996 and Delaware vs Prouse, 1979. Also, if reasonable suspicion was never cited, the LEOs asking for ID violates Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
And please don't take the whole 'you need to be a lawyer route'. That is a classic Appeal to Authority argument.
Edit: Re-watch the video at the ~4:18 mark. "Listen, the officer told me last time, I don't have to identify shit; I don't have to surrender my weapon [even thought the LEOs did try to disarm him] unless you are stopping me under reasonable suspicion that I've committed a crime, from a Phoenix PD officer's mouth..."
-
There are quite a few cases that say it's a necessary element that they use some sort of force. Say you go to walk away, I grab your arm... touch your shoulder etc. Or they begin yelling "I SAID STOP!!!!" If the individual submits voluntarily, then it could be a constructive seizure. It just may not be as clear as saying "yes" or "no" to the am I being detained. Stance, body language, threats of force, command voice, multiple officers, proximity to the individual (standing up on you etc.) all seem to be tiny elements that they look at.
After conducting his investigatory stop, the officer should not have said he was being detained.
But therein lays the problem. If I ask if I am detained and the officer says no, then I am free to leave unmolested. If "yes" then maybe I can leave but I need to "test" the officer's response by physical actions that could easily be interpreted by the officer as a reason to utilize physical force when said force was otherwise unneeded to effect the desired outcome? Where is the logic in that? That's like having an officer come up behind you while driving and use his lights to try to pull you over but you're not quite sure if he really means to pull you over so you try to leave.
If as you suggest, that a plain "yes" or "no" isn't sufficient, then we must get into a discussion of subjective interpretation of what any particular order, command or request an officer makes of us and if indeed the plain language meaning is sufficient or if there is some sort of hidden meaning.
Of course I'm not questioning the case law you infer, but rather what a difficult position those decisions place a citizen in when trying to interpret police actions when such actions should, for the safety of all, be crystal clear.
-
.
-
Change that video title to "Extremely Angry Citizen" and it could well illustrate the feeling that many of us have in regards to the flagrant violations of individual's rights, especially as it pertains to photographing or legal open carry. Add to that the complete lack of accountability of the officers involved in those flagrant violations and you should be able to see why I want there to be penalties for those officers that so easily disregard law-abiding citizen's rights.
This video is a prime example. Not only was the videographer well within his rights, but it was entirely clear that the police had no right to detain him, nor was he even remotely hampering their investigation. This was a prime example of false arrest for contempt of cop because the videographer choose to exercise his Constitutional rights. These two cops should, IMHO, be sanctioned. Either they did not know the law (unlikely, but even if that was so, it is no excuse...) or they choose to ignore the law, press on with their arrest knowing they could do so with impunity.
http://youtu.be/n7-YbdolrwA (http://youtu.be/n7-YbdolrwA)
-
But therein lays the problem. If I ask if I am detained and the officer says no, then I am free to leave unmolested. If "yes" then maybe I can leave but I need to "test" the officer's response by physical actions that could easily be interpreted by the officer as a reason to utilize physical force when said force was otherwise unneeded to effect the desired outcome? Where is the logic in that? That's like having an officer come up behind you while driving and use his lights to try to pull you over but you're not quite sure if he really means to pull you over so you try to leave.
If as you suggest, that a plain "yes" or "no" isn't sufficient, then we must get into a discussion of subjective interpretation of what any particular order, command or request an officer makes of us and if indeed the plain language meaning is sufficient or if there is some sort of hidden meaning.
Of course I'm not questioning the case law you infer, but rather what a difficult position those decisions place a citizen in when trying to interpret police actions when such actions should, for the safety of all, be crystal clear.
You wouldn't like the way my one of my college professors approaches agency administration.
It's literally like "Fuck it. If they have a problem, let them find the resources to sue us. For every ten good people that gets screwed, we get 20 bad apples. At the end of the day, as long as we have gotten rid of more bad apples than we have jacked up good apples - then we are ahead of the curve." They later go to say, out of those 100 good apples, only 1% of them will likely have the balls, courage, resources, or drive to actually do something about it.
While I don't agree with this principle, I can't deny that the theory has some security merit.
-
Of course I'm not questioning the case law you infer, but rather what a difficult position those decisions place a citizen in when trying to interpret police actions when such actions should, for the safety of all, be crystal clear.
And there lies the problem with conservative justices tossing the shit out of the fourth amendment so we can score the conviction on some stupid criminal instead of protecting the greater good.
The Fourth Amendment is a mind field of personal feelings, officer interpretations, and very - very fact specific scenarios.
-
As 2aHawaii's resident LE defender, Q will never concede any impropriety, let alone Constitutional violation, by LE. He is precisely the LE analogue of DC politicians in that they both condescend to anyone with a critical opinion of them, predicated on 'they just don't understand how things work'; that no one but their brethren should be permitted to have an opinion on their matters; that anyone with a critical opinion of them is hubristic to even THINK they could pass judgement; that the masses should kiss their feet in gratitude for their very existence; that we should give thanks they exist to reluctantly care for our undeserving selves. In his posts he bathes is his smug elitism and mocks all the low-life bottom-feeders that dare to question the hallowed halls of LE. Never a substantive explanation as to why LE was justified in their actions. Not even the eloquent, learned rebuttal of his elitism by HiCarry would solicit an intelligent response. He is as implacable as the most pious statist is say on gun control, and as much in complete defiance of reality. What fine LE material he is - what a cliche he is.
-
The membership here, while perhaps having conflicting opinions on certain nuances of the overall topic, still none the less seem to hold the same intrinsic values in regards to the 2A and personal rights. This we should not forget and keeping that in mind perhaps we might temper our comments as getting personal is counter productive in the overall scope of things.
For myself, that guy and others like him can keep their mouths shut and actions to themselves. I don't give a rats ass, what they think they are trying to accomplish. Most if not all of these youtube idiots IMO are not modern day crusaders or Rosa Parks. They are simply attention whores who are looking for their 15 minutes and are detrimental and do not add value to the beliefs that I hold in regards to this topic. They definitely DO NOT speak for me, nor do they have my support.
-
For myself, that guy and others like him can keep their mouths shut and actions to themselves. I don't give a rats ass, what they think they are trying to accomplish. Most if not all of these youtube idiots IMO are not modern day crusaders or Rosa Parks. They are simply attention whores who are looking for their 15 minutes and are detrimental and do not add value to the beliefs that I hold in regards to this topic. They definitely DO NOT speak for me, nor do they have my support.
I bet most of those guys are not even very active in their 2A community (NRA group, politics, training and education and so forth). That is just my experience so far with many of them. They are counterproductive to the collective efforts, especially in bad 'anti-gun' areas.
I can think of dozens of ways to be more productive and have a net benefit greater than stunts like that.
-
OK let me explain better.
Freedom to act how you will. IMHO it is inherently going to end with chaos especially in crowded urban environments. No laws, no enforcement, etc. will lead to this fact.
On the opposite end you have security from other things; terroristic acts, robbery, etc. You get this under control by putting your thumb on the population and reducing their inherent rights. You restrict free speech, you put in place and enforce curfews, unlawful search & seizure, etc. You deal with criminals severely and immediately.
Both of these have problems that you get into when you push too far one way or the other. Many people now hate TSA with a vengence. I sure do. I hate that these guys are supposed to man their lines at 04:15AM every morning but due to varying briefings sometimes take longer than that (when GZ has to get a 04:30AM boarding time). I hate that idiots who stand in line cannot figure out to take off their shoes, watches, belts, computers, etc. ahead of time. I hate that I a person who flies the same flight for weeks on end has to be searched with the guys who take trips infrequently. I hate all of that, but I understand it is a price of security. My personal freedoms are impacted. Some people think it's too much and some not enough, but it is what it is because we are human and humans will always have that differing point of view.
Intuition based on fact.............if you are a beat guy and have seen things time and time again you will get a feeling about people and situations. These are rooted in your experience and that basically being fact. With this respect Q & KK are 100% accurate that we don't (always) know this day to day stuff. As I have said however it has to be tempered and our voice is still importantly something that has to be heard.
Finally I am disappointed that you are getting angry. You want people to take your side and if they don't you get frustrated and angry. I can handle that, it's your right to do so. However it doesn't make me think of you more highly than Q if this is what you resort to when people don't agree with you. HiCarry and I have got a bit into it before on the Rail/Mayor issue, but I respect what he has to say no matter if I don't agree with it or if I later find out I'm wrong. I certainly hope/think he feels the same about me.
Hmmm. Not sure how you arrived at that? I never stated I was angry, I don't think I used words of anger or called insulting names, nor did I use all caps or massive quantities of exclamation marks.
The biggest problem with the digital age of communication ... no visual or verbal cues to provide feedback regarding the emotions or state of mind of the participants. You're reading anger that absolutely doesn't exist. I'm enjoying the debate immensely, and I think we have discovered quite a few useful and interesting things about several members here. Knowledge leads to understanding, which in turn leads to meaningful exchanges and relationships.
If you thought the perceived anger was directed toward you, again the anger was never there. I apologize if what I wrote demonstrated otherwise.
Maybe the overuse of emoticons causes these misunderstandings? Plain text gets boring, so maybe using them too much conveys something which I didn't intend?
Whatever the reason, I just wanted to address the angry impression you got. I hope that helps clear it up!
Thanks! :shaka:
-
^^^Point taken bro. I apologize for mistaking your intent/feelings. I respect your opinion and we'll agree to agree/disagree on points.
-
.
-
.....HiCarry and I have got a bit into it before on the Rail/Mayor issue, but I respect what he has to say no matter if I don't agree with it or if I later find out I'm wrong. I certainly hope/think he feels the same about me.
We can, and should, be able to discuss our views civilly even when we disagree. We can all look at facts and come to different conclusions. It is when the discussion veers off into "you can't understand because..." or "I feel..." but has no factual basis that I think we start running into problems.
Isn't it "us" pro-2A guys who are constantly complaining about the anti's and their pleas to emotional arguments versus facts? We should hold ourselves to the same standard. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree....
GZ - Never a hard feeling after our discussions......"...I love you, man..."
Bud Light "Charlton Heston, I Love You Man" 1995 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeX8W7GgTdE#)
-
I hear some of the folks say they don't think those open carry advocates that end up confronted by the police aren't doing "us" any good. I disagree.
I may agree that some of them come off as too militant, condescending, or disrespectful, although that too is a bit subjective....after all, why should respect is a two way street. But, beyond that issue, I think it is interesting that most of those here would cheer anyone "wronged" to "sue them" for those perceived transgressions. Seemingly, winning a settlement or influencing future enforcement of suspect laws is the measure by which many judge advocacy efforts. Well, if that is truly the case, here is one more example of how open carry advocates, by successfully challenging the officers who didn't know the law and who therefore stopped and detained him illegally, are indeed helping us in our overall 2A advocacy.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/video-washington-open-carrier-awards-15k-settlement-after-cop-drew-gun-on-him/ (http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/video-washington-open-carrier-awards-15k-settlement-after-cop-drew-gun-on-him/)
-
..............GZ - Never a hard feeling after our discussions......"...I love you, man..."
Bud Light "Charlton Heston, I Love You Man" 1995 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeX8W7GgTdE#)
GZ no homo...............not that there's anything wrong with that.