Another "What's the RAS for stopping someone carrying?" thread... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Another "What's the RAS for stopping someone carrying?" thread...


holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 13:40
Say I pull a guy over 0 dark thirty for a minor offense( rolled a STOP), but he's coming out of a neighborhood, a check of his licence shows he lives no where near the area he's coming from coincidentally it has had a rash of car break ins.

I see a GPS unit and a laptop in his backseat.

When I ask him where he's coming from and he says"AM I BEING DETAINED"

He may have just madE his night a little longer....

He could be coming from his GF house after a booty call or any number of reasonable explanations OR he's a crook....
If I get him out of the car to talk, he says nothing about his firearm after I ask and I make the connection I WILL TERRY FRISK HIM...

What is your RAS? Was it:

Time of night?

Him asking if he's being detained?

The presence of a GPS unit?

The presence of a laptop?

Him not volunteering about his carry status (which may or may not be required in your state, I'd guess it is NOT)?

How exactly do you "make his night longer?"

How will you "get him our of his car" if he is making it clear he does not wish to be "detained?" A trick? A lie? Emotional appeal? Direct verbal pressure? (all of which are allowed by law afaik)

How exactly can you legally justify a Terry Frisk in that situation, without being a liar or infringing on his rights?

If he had politely said "I will accept the citation, anything beyond that please speak to my attorney, Mr. XYZ at 555-555-5555" would that had made his night longer too? In our Constitutional Republic, how can that sort of request legitimately raise a red flag?

~Genuinely curious.

I assume you will say the RAS is 1) recent vehicle break ins. 2) He does not live in the area. Well, that would extend RAS to a whole metric crap load of people driving down various roads in America. I can't envision a court upholding that benchmark as establishing RAS.

And did the break ins occur that very night? Or did they occur last week? Last month? Last year? The temporal relationship between the break ins and your stop could likely be very important (just a WAG)

Regarding those break ins? Is there a suspect description? A vehicle description? Anything at all that would potentially link THIS specific peaceful drive to THOSE crimes? A lack of suspect description would likely be VERY important in your inability to establish legitimate RAS if you're trying to use that as the basis (this might depend a lot on state case law though).

Now if you saw a crowbar, a slim jim, a screw driver, etc in his back seat... then you'd have a reasonable suspicion. But a lap top and GPS in the year 2012 are both ordinary contents of a average vehicle -- imho. I think you would need to have an active report for a stolen lap top and gps, for a car prowl that occurred in that neighborhood, to use those items to get RAS.

And no I would not argue that with you, personally I'd just say talk to my attorney.

BTW in MY state, the mere presence of a legally carried firearm, without any other escalating factors, would NOT give you RAS or grounds for a Terry Stop. But... should I be fearful of pointing that out an officer, in case he might "make my night longer?" It's also not lawful for an officer to seize a lawfully carried firearm in my state, assuming no other (real) suspicious activity. (ok, this paragraph is a little tease but it's also true) ;)

This is the sort of neat stuff one learns about on www.opencarry.org (http://www.opencarry.org) :) Almost always with links to case law, or state law that clearly spell things out.

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 14:03
He could be coming from his GF house after a booty call or any number of reasonable explanations OR he's a crook....
If I get him out of the car to talk, he says nothing about his firearm after I ask and I make the connection I WILL TERRY FRISK HIM...

Just an FYI, that's is exactly the sort of information he is not required to tell you. And not telling you, does not create RAS. Not telling you also does not make him a crook or a bad guy.

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 14:34
What is your RAS? Was it:

Time of night?

Him asking if he's being detained?

The presence of a GPS unit?

The presence of a laptop?

Him not volunteering about his carry status (which may or may not be required in your state, I'd guess it is NOT)?

How exactly do you "make his night longer?"

How will you "get him our of his car" if he is making it clear he does not wish to be "detained?" A trick? A lie? Emotional appeal? Direct verbal pressure? (all of which are allowed by law afaik)

How exactly can you legally justify a Terry Frisk in that situation, without being a liar or infringing on his rights?

If he had politely said "I will accept the citation, anything beyond that please speak to my attorney, Mr. XYZ at 555-555-5555" would that had made his night longer too? In our Constitutional Republic, how can that sort of request legitimately raise a red flag?

~Genuinely curious.

I assume you will say the RAS is 1) recent vehicle break ins. 2) He does not live in the area. Well, that would extend RAS to a whole metric crap load of people driving down various roads in America. I can't envision a court upholding that benchmark as establishing RAS.

And did the break ins occur that very night? Or did they occur last week? Last month? Last year? The temporal relationship between the break ins and your stop could likely be very important (just a WAG)

Regarding those break ins? Is there a suspect description? A vehicle description? Anything at all that would potentially link THIS specific peaceful drive to THOSE crimes? A lack of suspect description would likely be VERY important in your inability to establish legitimate RAS if you're trying to use that as the basis (this might depend a lot on state case law though).

Now if you saw a crowbar, a slim jim, a screw driver, etc in his back seat... then you'd have a reasonable suspicion. But a lap top and GPS in the year 2012 are both ordinary contents of a average vehicle -- imho. I think you would need to have an active report for a stolen lap top and gps, for a car prowl that occurred in that neighborhood, to use those items to get RAS.

And no I would not argue that with you, personally I'd just say talk to my attorney.

BTW in MY state, the mere presence of a legally carried firearm, without any other escalating factors, would NOT give you RAS or grounds for a Terry Stop. But... should I be fearful of pointing that out an officer, in case he might "make my night longer?" It's also not lawful for an officer to seize a lawfully carried firearm in my state, assuming no other (real) suspicious activity. (ok, this paragraph is a little tease but it's also true) ;)

This is the sort of neat stuff one learns about on www.opencarry.org (http://www.opencarry.org) :) Almost always with links to case law, or state law that clearly spell things out.

Well I will tell you how I get him out of the vehicle I have him stopped for a legitimate reason I may at any time order him from the vehicle.. His "am I being detained "will have no effect on me..
And yes what I just metioned is RAS absent a reasonable explanation... care to roll the dice on it?

If you did what I described and were armed , a Terry frisk would reveal it and YOU would be DISARMED during the stop.

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 14:39
what I just metioned is RAS absent a reasonable explanation

Exactly which part of what you mentioned?

What does HE need a "reasonable explanation" for?

Patchman
05-13-2011, 14:52
What does HE need a "reasonable explanation" for?

Good point. No matter what kind of explaination HE is given, HE's not going to stop whining and crying like a 10 y.o. girl. :rofl:

BailRecoveryAgent
05-13-2011, 15:12
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h420/SBR2340/explanationIdemandone.jpg

Patchman
05-13-2011, 15:18
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h420/SBR2340/explanationIdemandone.jpg
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Damn, forgot what I was going to post. :embarassed:

BailRecoveryAgent
05-13-2011, 15:37
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Damn, forgot what I was going to post. :embarassed:

This thread is still confusing to me, I must have missed the original thread with the disagreement between swatbwanna and holes in paper.

Booker
05-13-2011, 15:41
Simple answer is that the rights of the American citizen have been so diluted by so many court rulings that the American citizen really has no rights!

Japle
05-13-2011, 15:43
I don’t know what state this scenario is taking place in, but I’ve been stopped twice here in Florida, once for speeding and once for a burned out tail light. Both times I gave the officer my DL and CCW permit (I know it’s not required in Florida) and neither cop seemed at all concerned that I was armed.

I don’t understand how a Terry stop is justified on a guy who’s pulled over for a minor traffic violation and is legally armed. Is he suspected of committing a crime? Based on what? Driving through an area where crimes have been committed? Are you kidding?

TBO
05-13-2011, 15:51
Simple answer is that the rights of the American citizen have been so diluted by so many court rulings that the American citizen really has no rights!


Shall Issue is the law of the land.
Stand your ground laws have passed in many states.
Constitutional Carry is gaining ground.

Yet you rail at the loss of rights.

Would you be so kind as to outline what rights have been so diluted?
Please cite court cases/rulings and the effect to those rights before/after.

Thanks in advance.

gunslinger3
05-13-2011, 16:05
:popcorn:

swinokur
05-13-2011, 16:18
We've had this discussion before. IMO refusal to talk to LE is not RAS.. It's the 5th Amendment at work

TBO
05-13-2011, 16:26
"Totality of Circumstances" really is the answer, despite many who always seem to want to focus on one detail/fact/thought out of the entire situation.

Grammy
05-13-2011, 16:37
Shall Issue is the law of the land.
Stand your ground laws have passed in many states.
Constitutional Carry is gaining ground.
Yet you rail at the loss of rights.

Would you be so kind as to outline what rights have been so diluted?
Please cite court cases/rulings and the effect to those rights before/after.

Thanks in advance.


Constitutional, not conceal carry, let the questions begin...

kensteele
05-13-2011, 16:38
The last traffic stop that I had over in MO, I managed to never utter a single word to the officer. Showed my DL and I was on my way. He caught me on radar (just slightly over) but apparently I wasn't what he was looking for. I'm serious, I never even said a single word and the traffic stop was over in under 3 minutes. Not sure what that was all about. BTW, I never have anything in plain sight and because state law doesn't require it (I try not to lead in or mention a firearm within the first few minutes until I can better under the situation).

Just had to get that in, back to this thread: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Patchman
05-13-2011, 17:13
This thread is still confusing to me, I must have missed the original thread with the disagreement between swatbwanna and holes in paper.

Every once in a while Russ will run a special train out of GT Station. It's called the 23:59 Twilight Zone Special. Many passengers get on without realizing it. Whatever you do, DO NOT get off at the Willoughby station.

Trust me on this one. :whistling:

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 17:13
"Totality of Circumstances" really is the answer, despite many who always seem to want to focus on one detail/fact/thought out of the entire situation.

This the totality of the circumstances would give me RAS for a Terry frisk if I saw and outline and suspected he was armed.
Remember he is already pulled over for a traffic violation, he is leaving an area with a rash of recent car burglaries, he is not from that neighborhood, evasive in his answers, I ask if he's armed he says no I see a bulge of a weapon I HAVE RAS TO FRISK.

Japle
05-13-2011, 17:41
Remember he is already pulled over for a traffic violation, he is leaving an area with a rash of recent car burglaries, he is not from that neighborhood, evasive in his answers, I ask if he's armed he says no I see a bulge of a weapon I HAVE RAS TO FRISK.

Is that what happened? Was he evasive? Did he deny being armed?

According to the Supreme Court, a Terry stop requires more than a "hunch" on the part of the cop, usually the same standard that would be required to issue a warrant. A bulge under a jacket could be anything. Why did you assume it was a weapon? Why did you assume he was carrying a weapon illegally?

And, just for fun, did the guy turn out to be a criminal?

Patchman
05-13-2011, 17:56
This the totality of the circumstances would give me RAS for a Terry frisk if I saw and outline and suspected he was armed.
Remember he is already pulled over for a traffic violation, he is leaving an area with a rash of recent car burglaries, he is not from that neighborhood, evasive in his answers, I ask if he's armed he says no I see a bulge of a weapon I HAVE RAS TO FRISK.

Swatbwana, you have the patience of a saint. I don't see it's the job of LEO posters here to teach the law of frisk and search.

The test for you and other LEOs to see how you're doing is:

1. Your frisk/search have kept you safe;
2. The arrests you made where you used frisk/search have stood up in court.

Bruce M
05-13-2011, 19:24
Wait - I am confused. Is Terry primarily about reasonable articulated suspicion or is it about frisking a someone for safety?

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 19:56
This thread is still confusing to me, I must have missed the original thread with the disagreement between swatbwanna and holes in paper.

I'm simply trying to understand why the man thinks the way he does, why he would take the actions he claims he would. Nothing more.

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 19:59
I ask if he's armed he says no I see a bulge of a weapon I HAVE RAS TO FRISK.

Never lie to an officer.

But it is ok to say, "I request the presence of my attorney if you are going to ask me questions not directly related to this driving infraction."

The former might give RAS, but the later absolutely cannot (imho, possibly depending on your state's laws and court rulings).

Patchman
05-13-2011, 20:04
Wait - I am confused. Is Terry primarily about reasonable articulated suspicion or is it about frisking a someone for safety?

You naughty, naughty frisky boy. :rofl:

Dragoon44
05-13-2011, 20:24
According to the Supreme Court, a Terry stop requires more than a "hunch" on the part of the cop

A "terry Stop" is based on an officers training and experience which allows him to articulate a reasonable suspicion that someone HAS committed a crime, IS committing a crime, or is ABOUT to commit a crime.

The case Terry Vs. ohio illustrates this, Terry and his accomplice were doing NOTHING visibly illegal at the time they were stopped. Anyone else observing would have simply seen two guys hanging out on a street corner walking up and down the sidewalk and looking into store windows from time to time.

An experienced cop saw two guys "casing" a store in preparation of a robbery.

a Terry stop requires more than a "hunch" on the part of the cop, usually the same standard that would be required to issue a warrant.

Absolutely not true, you are confusing RAS with Probable Cause.

Mayhem like Me
05-13-2011, 20:35
RAS allows us to stop and investigate further either proving the RAS to be possible elements of a crime OR have our suspicions allayed and allow law abiding citizens on their way. Its the cornerstone of effective crime interdiction and takes years of experience to develop.

TBO
05-13-2011, 20:38
"You don't know what you don't know" applies very well to this topic.

gommer
05-13-2011, 20:39
Guy says he's NOT armed, cop sees a print - yeah, how is that not RAS?

Anything else is just icing, IMHO.

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 21:07
Guy says he's NOT armed, cop sees a print - yeah, how is that not RAS?

Anything else is just icing, IMHO.

Because an officer is not psychic.

At some point "I saw a bulge" will become as comical as "I smelled marijuana" or "I saw him weave in is lane." A convenient pretext with no possibility of independent verification. A rational American ought to see the potential, inherent, danger in that.

So what if there's a stop. The person does not lie, but simply declines to answer (as is their right). AFAIK, my state case law is very clear, declining to answer does not create RAS.

btw, I did say "never lie to the police." It just isn't worth it. But that doesn't mean roll over either when they ask you something that is beyond the scope issue at hand (a traffic ticket).

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 21:11
Well I will tell you how I get him out of the vehicle I have him stopped for a legitimate reason I may at any time order him from the vehicle.. His "am I being detained "will have no effect on me..
And yes what I just metioned is RAS absent a reasonable explanation... care to roll the dice on it?

If you did what I described and were armed , a Terry frisk would reveal it and YOU would be DISARMED during the stop.

If the person you pulled over was video recording the traffic stop from second one, would that change the course of action you have said you would take?

Would you still pull him from his car?

Still "make his night longer?"

Still search him?

Still demand to know what he is doing, where he is coming from, where he is going, et cetera?

How do you see the presence of a video recorder (not under your control) affecting the situation.

Merkavaboy
05-13-2011, 21:16
I don’t understand how a Terry stop is justified on a guy who’s pulled over for a minor traffic violation and is legally armed. Is he suspected of committing a crime? Based on what? Driving through an area where crimes have been committed? Are you kidding?

I suggest that you read the following link, especially on Pg.3 under Removing Driver from Vehicle. This should help you understand the principle behind "Terry Frisk" and "Moving Terry Frisk".

http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/the-informer/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/terryfriskupdate.pdf/download

Regarding the original post...if a person is stopped for a traffic violation, then yes, that person IS being detained (Duh!) and he is NOT free to go. And since the person is leaving an area known for burglaries and it's early in the morning (when many burglaries are committed) and the items are in plain sight, then the officer has even more Reasonable Suspicion to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not the items in plain sight may be stolen. And the person will continue to be detained until the officer has completed his investigation and he is satisfied that no crime has been committed and the items are not reported stolen.

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 23:22
the items are in plain sight, then the officer has even more Reasonable Suspicion to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not the items in plain sight may be stolen. And the person will continue to be detained until the officer has completed his investigation and he is satisfied that no crime has been committed and the items are not reported stolen.

There was no mention of any pre-existing police report that specifically mentioned a stolen GPS and/or laptop.

And I don't understand how a person has to prove items in their possession "are not reported stolen" during an ordinary traffic stop. AFAIK, that's not the way the law works. Especially since they are 'ordinary items' normally found in a vehicle.

Now if the officer saw burglary tools, then it would be a different story. If the officer had a report that specifically said a pair of ruby encrusted, gold rimmed sunglasses had been stolen in that neighborhood... and he saw a such a pair in the car during the traffic stop, again it would be a different story imho.

BTW, every neighborhood has car prowls, bar none. From the best, most elite... to the worst, most economically depressed. That is just a fact.

Merkavaboy
05-14-2011, 01:51
There was no mention of any pre-existing police report that specifically mentioned a stolen GPS and/or laptop.

And I don't understand how a person has to prove items in their possession "are not reported stolen" during an ordinary traffic stop. AFAIK, that's not the way the law works. Especially since they are 'ordinary items' normally found in a vehicle.

Now if the officer saw burglary tools, then it would be a different story. If the officer had a report that specifically said a pair of ruby encrusted, gold rimmed sunglasses had been stolen in that neighborhood... and he saw a such a pair in the car during the traffic stop, again it would be a different story imho.

BTW, every neighborhood has car prowls, bar none. From the best, most elite... to the worst, most economically depressed. That is just a fact.

Dude, re-read your own post. Here, I'll help you with it:

"Originally Posted by swatbwana
Say I pull a guy over 0 dark thirty for a minor offense( rolled a STOP), but he's coming out of a neighborhood, a check of his licence shows he lives no where near the area he's coming from coincidentally it has had a rash of car break ins."

LE doesn't need a specific report of a stolen GPS and Laptop in order to ask questions of someone who's leaving an area at "O dark thirty" that has had a "rash of car break ins" in order to ask questions of the driver regarding the property in the back seat. Such items are routinely stolen out of vehicles and are easily disposed of for drug money. So LE has every right to ask simple questions regarding the property and ownership of said property.

Questions like: "Who's property is that?" "It's yours? What brands are they?" Etc..

If the driver wants to play the "Am I being detained?" game and refuses to answer very simple questions, then the suspicion grows even more (its called being evasive, and ordinary citizens are unlikely to be evasive when talking to LE because they have nothing to be evasive about). This can easily lead to a moving Terry Frisk for a pat-down and search for weapons within the area around the drivers sphere of reach. Now the driver can be detained while other officers do a check of the neighborhood looking for any obvious signs of vehicle burgs and the property can be checked to see if it has been reported stolen. If the items are "clear" and there's no obvious signs of car burgs then the driver will be lucky not to get a ticket for the traffic violation and a good cop will do some sort of documentation (what my agency calls a "FI" or Field Interview card) to record the drivers info, the vehicle info and types of items checked, just in case someone reports their GPS and/or laptop stolen during the night.

Japle
05-14-2011, 06:29
From Justice White’s concurring opinion in Terry v Ohio:
"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation."

In the Terry case, Terry and his buddies were obviously (to the officer) casing a store for a robbery. In the case we’re talking about, the driver had rolled through a stop sign, had ordinary items in his car and a bulge under his clothes. At least as far as I can tell from the very limited description of events given here.

Merkavaboy,

From the link you provided:
Legal Basis / Justification for a Frisk:
Reasonable Suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous (see the previous article for a discussion of what constitutes “reasonable suspicion”).2

Frisk Indicators:
See the previous article for a discussion of Reasonable Suspicion Indicators as they are virtually the same. The key is that the reasonable suspicion support a belief that the suspect is “armed and dangerous”.

In the case under discussion, how was the driver considered “dangerous”?

RussP
05-14-2011, 06:58
Because an officer is not psychic.

At some point "I saw a bulge" will become as comical as "I smelled marijuana" or "I saw him weave in is lane." A convenient pretext with no possibility of independent verification. A rational American ought to see the potential, inherent, danger in that.

So what if there's a stop. The person does not lie, but simply declines to answer (as is their right). AFAIK, my state case law is very clear, declining to answer does not create RAS.

btw, I did say "never lie to the police." It just isn't worth it. But that doesn't mean roll over either when they ask you something that is beyond the scope issue at hand (a traffic ticket).TBO said it best, "You don't know what you don't know."

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 07:03
In the case under discussion, how was the driver considered “dangerous”?

This is the part that non LEO's have the most problem with. in regards to the topic of this thread and the post everyone is commenting on there are two distinct issues here.

First, in answer to how in the scenario being discussed would the driver be considered dangerous.

The answer is because the officer suspects ( given the circumstances) he is dealing with a burglar, is an armed burglar considered dangerous? Any reasonable person would say yes. The key to this situation is in understanding that once contact was made the driver went from "traffic violator" to suspected car burglar.

Second, is the fact that the subject is detained, he is not free to go nor is he free to remain armed if the officer chooses to disarm him during the detention.

Every LEO that read SwatBawana's post knows exactly what he is talking about because they have been there, done that. so let me add something that SwatBawana let out that most certainly would be part of the usual equation in this type scenario.

The "Vehicle" is not a late model car it is a 15-20 year old piece of junk. So you have this junker mobile cruising around a neighborhood in the wee hours of the morning, a neighborhood that has had a rash of car burglaries. And in the back seat of this junker is some expensive electronic equipment.

HKLovingIT
05-14-2011, 08:24
Do criminals try to play the "Am I being detained officer?" line or is that just Glock Talk-ness?

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 08:42
Do criminals try to play the "Am I being detained officer?" line or is that just Glock Talk-ness?

No criminals know the score, it's the glock talkers that are generally clueless.

:rofl::rofl:

TBO
05-14-2011, 08:49
"You don't know what you don't know".An interesting Online phenomena (not limited to online, but very prevalent).

People wouldn't question a Neurosurgeon on technique used, medical rules, etc, having no education/training/experience in the field.

Switch to LE, and suddenly everyone knows better, knows the LE is doing it wrong, is corrupt, etc.

The topics/subjects/rules/regs/procedures/etc that go with being an LE Officer are neither simple nor short. That's why prospective LE Officers often have so much training and education prior to even being hired by an LE agency, who will in turn apply even more (of their own) training/education before letting the Officer work on their own.
-For example, in my state, a person graduating high school and deciding to pursue LE must have a minimum of a 2 yr college degree in Law Enforcement, complete an LE Skills course, then pass the P.O.S.T. test (think of it as LE's version of the BAR exam for lawyers). After all that, you are only "license eligible". You don't get a LE license until you are hired by an agency.
-Once hired by a LE agency in my state, the "Trainee LE" will have a Field Training Program in which an LE Officer who is both experienced an specially trained to "train" will always be with the Trainee. The program may last from anywhere up to 6 months (3 1/2 to 4 months common here). The Trainee is constantly evaluated during this process, and it they aren't up to the agency standard, are "released". After completing Field Training an LE is then able to be given their assignment and work on their own (the final stage of Field Training has the Trainer shadowing the Trainee and letting the Trainee do it all).

Yet, a poster wants/demands Online that an LE Officer "explain" LE to them in a paragraph.

This clearly shows someone who knows/understands so little that the question seems valid to them. The LE officer easily sees this, as the person puts forth personal opinion, how "they'd like to see things work/be", not something based on current law, case law, department policy, etc.

This is even more compounded by human nature. People, on average, don't like to/can't admit they don't know something about a topic, or are over their head.

Reasonable Suspicion is only one topic/area out of hundreds an LE Officer deals with, and here in this thread even those who are not LE must have by now understood it's not as "simple" as one page of rules/factors/bright lines.

Most LE who partake here have no problem discussing issues/topics with anyone, but it does get a bit old when someone clearing is pressing their personal opinion as gospel and asking/demanding the LE to "prove it to them". Sorry, but I/we can't give you the requisite education/training/experience in a post to someone lacking such (even more so when the person "thinks" they know... or has preconceived ideas/bias).

To point out, in my opinion, a perfect indicator of the "human factor" that gets in the way, let's look at the word: "Ignorant".

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/TBO/ScreenShot001-1.jpg

Read the definition. It's not, by definition, an insult, yet tell someone (who is) they are ignorant on a topic, then stand back!

It's clear Online many people who are ignorant on a topic/subject, spew forth anyway, and just as if they were called "ignorant", get upset when they are told they show a lack of knowledge/education on the topic/subject (the very definition of "ignorant".).

jmho

AZLawDawg
05-14-2011, 08:55
I was gonna post until I saw that TBO and Dragoon pulled a "Sam Spade" and ruined the thread for everybody.

Darkangel1846
05-14-2011, 09:03
Well If stopped by a LEO I will ask why. If he says well there have been many breakins and we're checking late night drivers in this area...I see that as ok and would cooperate.
I usually find it funny that those who complain most about being stopped by the LEOs are the first and loudest to ***** when their car is broken into. As far as CCW.....when they run Lic plate, in my state, it pops up if you have a Conceal carry lic. so they already know, as well as your criminal record. I usually give the LEOs a break as their job is rough enough. Also if pleasent you are treated well and the officer often appoligies for stopping you. So be cool.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 09:08
People wouldn't question a Neurosurgeon on technique used, medical rules, etc, having no education/training/experience in the field.

That is because they are usually no "jail house doctors" but no end of "jail house lawyers", those who think because they read a statute or a court decision they understand not only what it means but how it is applied. In either case they seldom know anything about how other laws can affect the same situation. or more importantly fail to understand the "totality of circumstances".

Instead they bullheadedly cling to their claim that THIS statute or THIS court decision says this or that. While ignoring evidence that the court decision quoted does not necessarily apply to the situation that IS.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 09:11
I was gonna post until I saw that TBO and Dragoon pulled a "Sam Spade" and ruined the thread for everybody.

We are just following the prevailing logic, "If you can, you should."

:supergrin::wavey:

Japle
05-14-2011, 09:15
Posted by Dragoon44:
The "Vehicle" is not a late model car it is a 15-20 year old piece of junk. So you have this junker mobile cruising around a neighborhood in the wee hours of the morning, a neighborhood that has had a rash of car burglaries. And in the back seat of this junker is some expensive electronic equipment.

Now that's a significant piece of information that wasn't made clear.

DanaT
05-14-2011, 09:16
[COLOR=Navy]An interesting Online phenomena (not limited to online, but very prevalent).

People wouldn't question a Neurosurgeon on technique used, medical rules, etc, having no education/training/experience in the field.

Switch to LE, and suddenly everyone knows better, knows the LE is doing it wrong, is corrupt, etc.

The topics/subjects/rules/regs/procedures/etc that go with being an LE Officer are neither simple nor short. That's why prospective LE Officers often have so much training and education prior to even being hired by an LE agency, who will in turn apply even more (of their own) training/education before letting the Officer work on their own.
-For example, in my state, a person graduating high school and deciding to pursue LE must have a minimum of a 2 yr college degree in Law Enforcement

Could it be that one situation, people know that they are un-educated in in even the most basic of discussions on the subject and is what is considered a profession that requires significant education (the surgeon) and one that as you have said doesn't?

Not to knock what you said, but where I live 62% of adults have a 4 year year college degree or higher. That means a two year degree cop is under-educated and below the average educational level. It is hard to look at someone with less than average education the same as a nuerosurgeon surgeon with a 4 year undergraduate, 4 years in medical school, 1 or 2 years general residency and then 4 or 5 years special residency for the nuerosurgery.

They are not quite the same.

Also for what its worth, most of the cities where I live will not hire a cop with-out a 4 year degree.

But again, people undersand the basics of what LEO is supposed to do. It like they understand the basics of what a chef is supposed to do. I doubt the average person could even begin a discussion on proper sterile field operating procedures in an OR (that would be where I would put the minimum requirement to even observe a surgery to be). In addition, the average person has never seen neurosurgey nor any other surgery. They don't see it on TV. However, the average person does see LEO and what they do. They also see them on TV.

There are many differences why people treat neurosurgery and LE differently in discussions.

And lets not forget...the top cop job in many counties is the Sheriff. That requires no skill other than getting elected.

-Dana

TBO
05-14-2011, 09:19
That is because they are usually no "jail house doctors" but no end of "jail house lawyers", those who think because they read a statute or a court decision they understand not only what it means but how it is applied. In either case they seldom know anything about how other laws can affect the same situation. or more importantly fail to understand the "totality of circumstances".

Instead they bullheadedly cling to their claim that THIS statute or THIS court decision says this or that. While ignoring evidence that the court decision quoted does not necessarily apply to the situation that IS.
An excellent summation that all should pay attention too.

The courts get the final say in what a Statute says/means.

For example, here is my States' Disorderly Conduct law:

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

Subdivision 1.Crime.

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.

Subd. 2.

[Repealed, 1969 c 226 s 1 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws?doctype=Chapter&year=1969&type=0&id=226)]

Subd. 3.Caregiver; penalty for disorderly conduct.

A caregiver, as defined in section 609.232 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?id=609.232#stat.609.232), who violates the provisions of subdivision 1 against a vulnerable adult, as defined in section 609.232 (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?id=609.232#stat.609.232), may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Despite what the statute "says", the courts have ruled that words alone generally may not constitute Disorderly Conduct unless they "rise to the level of fighting words".
------------------------

"Reasonable Suspicion".

Ultimately, the court will decide if what an LE Officer states was his RS, stands.
That is the role of the courts.

TBO
05-14-2011, 09:24
Could it be that one situation, people know that they are un-educated in in even the most basic of discussions on the subject and is what is considered a profession that requires significant education (the surgeon) and one that as you have said doesn't?

Not to knock what you said, but where I live 62% of adults have a 4 year year college degree or higher. That means a two year degree cop is under-educated and below the average educational level. It is hard to look at someone with less than average education the same as a nuerosurgeon surgeon with a 4 year undergraduate, 4 years in medical school, 1 or 2 years general residency and then 4 or 5 years special residency for the nuerosurgery.

They are not quite the same.

Also for what its worth, most of the cities where I live will not hire a cop with-out a 4 year degree.

But again, people undersand the basics of what LEO is supposed to do. It like they understand the basics of what a chef is supposed to do. I doubt the average person could even begin a discussion on proper sterile field operating procedures in an OR (that would be where I would put the minimum requirement to even observe a surgery to be). In addition, the average person has never seen neurosurgey nor any other surgery. They don't see it on TV. However, the average person does see LEO and what they do. They also see them on TV.

There are many differences why people treat neurosurgery and LE differently in discussions.

And lets not forget...the top cop job in many counties is the Sheriff. That requires no skill other than getting elected.

-Dana
While the Surgeon may have much more education/training, how much of that is on:



Use of Force
Search and Seizure
Constitutional Law
Court Rulings

As educated as the Surgeon is, he doesn't know any more about Reasonable Suspicion then the next person/poster.
-------------------------

You also reference another root case- Television/Movies.
Far too many people think they know something because they watch TV.

CSI effect for one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

Snowman92D
05-14-2011, 09:25
Instead they bullheadedly cling to their claim that THIS statute or THIS court decision says this or that. While ignoring evidence that the court decision quoted does not necessarily apply to the situation that IS.

They also tend to overlook the fact, that whether or not RAS or probable cause actually existed at the time in question, is decided later by a judge...not by a goof sitting in handcuffs on the curb. LEO's learn, based on training and experience, which RAS and P/C the judges patently reject as unlawful, and base their actions on that.

BailRecoveryAgent
05-14-2011, 09:26
Wait...Is swatbwana wearing his hat at the time of the traffic stop??:dunno:

Patchman
05-14-2011, 09:49
Not to knock what you said, but where I live 62% of adults have a 4 year year college degree or higher. That means a two year degree cop is under-educated and below the average educational level.
Dana

DING, DING, DING .... Bias REVEALED.

Under-eduated is a requirement to become a LEO.

And of course, in the military all officers are smarted than all enlisted men, including the Sergeants. Why? Because officers have college degrees, well educated and by order of Congress, are gentlemen.

Let me guess. Poster has a college degree.

DING, DING, DING... Bias REVEALED.

Patchman
05-14-2011, 10:04
By DanaT's measurements, and according to the U.S. Census Bureau, I am either 99-percent, or 97-percent superior to the rest of you. I consider my last degree to be a professional degree, but legally I can use the title "doctor."

See here. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf

Booker
05-14-2011, 10:08
Shall Issue is the law of the land.
Stand your ground laws have passed in many states.
Constitutional Carry is gaining ground.

Yet you rail at the loss of rights.

Would you be so kind as to outline what rights have been so diluted?
Please cite court cases/rulings and the effect to those rights before/after.

Thanks in advance.


Why bother? One could post a hundred examples of how the rights of Americans have been eroded over the history of this nation, but you would deny it.

I believe it's because you and your kind have a self-interest in the process. You'll never hear a cop say, "Hey, we don't anymore laws, we have enough tools in our bag."

TBO
05-14-2011, 10:17
Could you be so kind at to honestly answer the honest question asked?

Thank you in advance.

Patchman
05-14-2011, 10:23
Why bother? One could post a hundred examples of how the rights of Americans have been eroded over the history of this nation, but you would deny it.

I believe it's because you and your kind have a self-interest in the process. You'll never hear a cop say, "Hey, we don't anymore laws, we have enough tools in our bag."


Actually cops I know complain all the time there are too many laws already. More laws = less discretion.

College educated.

You should really be bring your complaints to those who pass laws. Tell them to slow down. You know about that 'first Tuesday every November' thing.

BailRecoveryAgent
05-14-2011, 10:23
I believe it's because you and your kind have a self-interest in the process.

Yeah because TBO's 30,000+ posts all point to him being a gun grabbing jack boot thug.:upeyes:

Please cite some examples, inquiring minds want to know.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 10:41
I consider my last degree to be a professional degree, but legally I can use the title "doctor."

I can trump that, I stayed at a holiday inn last night!

People like DanaT believe that a college degree means you are more intelligent. When in fact it means little more than you have more knowledge than the average person in regards to the particular field your degree is in.

And when it comes right down to it, there are a whole lot of people out there with advanced degrees that have been educated well beyond the level of their intelligence.

I would be willing to bet that if folks like DanaT were stuck on the side of the road with a vehicle that would not run they would rather have the high school dropout that is a trained and experienced mechanic stop to help than a professor of sociology with a PHD.

HKLovingIT
05-14-2011, 10:41
No criminals know the score, it's the glock talkers that are generally clueless.

:rofl::rofl:

You da man Dragoon44. :supergrin:

DanaT
05-14-2011, 10:48
DING, DING, DING .... Bias REVEALED.

Under-eduated is a requirement to become a LEO.

And of course, in the military all officers are smarted than all enlisted men, including the Sergeants. Why? Because officers have college degrees, well educated and by order of Congress, are gentlemen.

Let me guess. Poster has a college degree.

DING, DING, DING... Bias REVEALED.

You didn't read my post and it being a reply to another post comparing neurosurgeons to LEO and then saying that LEOs were highly educated having a 2 year college degree.

My response was the educational levels are in no way similar and that in the area where I live, a 2 year degree is below the average educational level of adults.

You also missed the part where I said that is NOT the educational requirements around where I live. Although I most departments will accept 60 credit hours, good luck getting a job when they say "bachelors prefferred" as there are plenty of applicants who have the bachelors.

If you want to say I am baised by saying a typical neurosurgeon is more highly educated than typical LEO, well, I guess I am baised and will continue to go to surgeons for surgery and not an LEO for surgery...

TBO
05-14-2011, 10:54
You didn't read my post and it being a reply to another post comparing neurosurgeons to LEO and then saying that LEOs were highly educated having a 2 year college degree.

My response was the educational levels are in no way similar and that in the area where I live, a 2 year degree is below the average educational level of adults.

You also missed the part where I said that is NOT the educational requirements around where I live. Although I most departments will accept 60 credit hours, good luck getting a job when they say "bachelors prefferred" as there are plenty of applicants who have the bachelors.

If you want to say I am baised by saying a typical neurosurgeon is more highly educated than typical LEO, well, I guess I am baised and will continue to go to surgeons for surgery and not an LEO for surgery...
...and you did show your bias.

You completely ignored my point, that LE have training and experience in their area, that others don't.

Instead, you respond that the 2 yr minimum that I posted, pales in comparison to the length/level of education the Surgeon has, or you have, or others may have.

That is completely disingenuous, as my post, that you replied to, specified the amount of education, training, and experience related to LE and LE topics.

I believe you're just here to claw.

jmho

Booker
05-14-2011, 10:56
Could you be so kind at to honestly answer the honest question asked?

Thank you in advance.


According to the Federal Register there were about 2000 codified criminal federal laws in the early 1980's. In 2007, there were at least 4452. Since the purpose of a law is to restrict behavior or an activity, We are less free today than we were in 1980.

Hope I'm not going to fast for ya! Now I know that arriving at this conclusion requires a small application of logic and I pray that you can keep up.

I'll try and give you a firearms example. In 1920, a citizen could buy a Tommy gun from the Sears & Roebuck catalog. No taxes, no permits, no govt permission required. Can one still do so today? If not, would you say this is a loss or a gain in one rights?

holesinpaper
05-14-2011, 10:57
dbl post

holesinpaper
05-14-2011, 10:57
RAS allows us to stop and investigate further either proving the RAS

So you use RAS, in order to prove RAS. Seems very much like circular logic.

If you can't later prove RAS, does that mean you didn't have RAS in the first place? Seems like it, based on how you expressed it.

DanaT
05-14-2011, 10:59
I can trump that, I stayed at a holiday inn last night!

People like DanaT believe that a college degree means you are more intelligent. When in fact it means little more than you have more knowledge than the average person in regards to the particular field your degree is in.

And when it comes right down to it, there are a whole lot of people out there with advanced degrees that have been educated well beyond the level of their intelligence.

I would be willing to bet that if folks like DanaT were stuck on the side of the road with a vehicle that would not run they would rather have the high school dropout that is a trained and experienced mechanic stop to help than a professor of sociology with a PHD.

No. A college degree does not equal cognative itelligence. It means more education. You cannot teach intelligence. Intelligence is an innate quality.

But you seem to be confusing many things. Lets take it one further. I would much rather fly on an airplane designed by a team of educated engineers than an airplane designed by the high school drop-out, trained experienced mechanic.

What you are missing in the link is many of the specialities that rely on "higher education" also rely on higher cognative intelligence as these professions require putting abstract ideas together. The machanic is not putting abstract ideas together but instead following a taught pattern.

So, now you are saying if "someone like me" is stuck by the side of the road...please tell us us about my skills in that situation...

-Dana

holesinpaper
05-14-2011, 10:59
Guy says he's NOT armed, cop sees a print - yeah, how is that not RAS?

Anything else is just icing, IMHO.

Great argument for open carry... because an officer doesn't have to ask, and you wouldn't need to answer. No chance to use a bulge as a pretext for a search.

holesinpaper
05-14-2011, 11:00
No. A college degree does not equal cognative itelligence. It means more education. You cannot teach intelligence. Intelligence is an innate quality.

But you seem to be confusing many things. Lets take it one further. I would much rather fly on an airplane designed by a team of educated engineers than an airplane designed by the high school drop-out, trained experienced mechanic.

What you are missing in the link is many of the specialities that rely on "higher education" also rely on higher cognative intelligence as these professions require putting abstract ideas together. The machanic is not putting abstract ideas together but instead following a taught pattern.

So, now you are saying if "someone like me" is stuck by the side of the road...please tell us us about my skills in that situation...

-Dana

Seriously dude, quite your sheep skin pissing match. Considering all your misspellings... you're losing. And that's even with option of using spell-check.

Booker
05-14-2011, 11:04
Actually cops I know complain all the time there are too many laws already. More laws = less discretion.

College educated.

You should really be bring your complaints to those who pass laws. Tell them to slow down. You know about that 'first Tuesday every November' thing.



Yet, everytime the govt is trying to pass another rights grabbing law, they roll out all of the coppers, in their best uniforms, with their shiny badges, to stand behind the person signing the new law!

I'd call that a sign of support!

Sure one can complain to our legislators, but it's always an uphill battle when the various Police lobbying groups are the ones pushing for many of these new laws or opposing the repeal of older laws.

DanaT
05-14-2011, 11:08
...and you did show your bias.

You completely ignored my point, that LE have training and experience in their area, that others don't.

Instead, you respond that the 2 yr minimum that I posted, pales in comparison to the length/level of education the Surgeon has, or you have, or others may have.

That is completely disingenuous, as my post, that you replied to, specified the amount of education, training, and experience related to LE and LE topics.

I believe you're just here to claw.

jmho


No. Your original post said that people do not criticize neurosurgeons the same way they do LEO.

I offered an explanation the average person has a basic understanding of LE and the average person has absolutely no understanding of neurosurgery.

Now, lets take this one step further. By law, the average person in the USA is legally required to participate in the crimal justice system (maybe its different where you live). We are required to participate as jurors which do in fact judge LE activities in criminal cases. So by law, we are qualified as participants in the the criminal (and civil) justice system.

I know of no law that requires citizens to act as surgeons but maybe I am ignorant.

So in fact, the basis of you post that citiznes have no authority to question LEO actions than surgeons is factually fasle. In addition, all LEO officers are servants of the people and serve at the will of the people (or at least at the will of the officials elected by the people which in a republic is the same as serving at the will of the people). Most surgeons do not.

There are many many reasons why people question LEO and do not question neurosurgeons.

-Dana

Booker
05-14-2011, 11:08
Yeah because TBO's 30,000+ posts all point to him being a gun grabbing jack boot thug.:upeyes:

Please cite some examples, inquiring minds want to know.

One, sometimes, must create their own "job security."

TBO
05-14-2011, 11:09
#1. Your response to my above question, is that really all you have?


To the below:

Yet, everytime the govt is trying to pass another rights grabbing law, they roll out all of the coppers, in their best uniforms, with their shiny badges, to stand behind the person signing the new law!

I'd call that a sign of support!

Sure one can complain to our legislators, but it's always an uphill battle when the various Police lobbying groups are the ones pushing for many of these new laws or opposing the repeal of older laws.
It is a truth that people see what they want to.

In your post, what is the number of coppers you see standing with the person signing the new law?

DanaT
05-14-2011, 11:09
Seriously dude, quite your sheep skin pissing match. Considering all your misspellings... you're losing. And that's even with option of using spell-check.

Pot....meet kettle....

-Dana

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 11:10
So you use RAS, in order to prive RAS. Seems very much like circular locig.

If you can't later prove RAS, does that mean you didn't have RAS in the first place? Seems like it, based on how you expressed it.

No it doesn't the purpose of the investigation is to determine if the RAS was in fact True or not.

Lets put it in a way you might understand,

You are awakened at 2AM by the sound of breaking glass, you arm yourself to investigate Your RAS that someone is breaking into your house to either steal or kill.

When you reach the back door you see an arm come through the broken window and unlock the door. As you shout commands for them to stop they open the door and enter the residence. despite your warnings they advance on you in the darkness. believing that your life and that of your family is in danger from a burglar\killer etc. you fire.

Turns out the man you shot was a drunken college student who mistakenly took your house for his.

Does that fact make it a bad shooting and invalidate your RAS for your actions?

The key ingredient in understanding RAS is the key word "Reasonable" neither the cops nor you in this scenario have to be right, your suspicions and your actions only have to be reasonable.

TBO
05-14-2011, 11:17
No. Your original post said that people do not criticize neurosurgeons the same way they do LEO.

I offered an explanation the average person has a basic understanding of LE and the average person has absolutely no understanding of neurosurgery. -If by basic you mean: "Cops arrest people and write tickets", you are correct. If you mean they understand the job of an LE Officer, you are incorrect.

Now, lets take this one step further. By law, the average person in the USA is legally required to participate in the crimal justice system (maybe its different where you live). We are required to participate as jurors which do in fact judge LE activities in criminal cases. So by law, we are qualified as participants in the the criminal (and civil) justice system. -Jurors don't come equipped to court, they are given instruction on specific rules as they apply to the specific case they are hearing. Your mental gymnastics in the above showcase you as I've come to know through reading your posts.

I know of no law that requires citizens to act as surgeons but maybe I am ignorant.- There is much you do not know, but I don't see the relevance of this post.

So in fact, the basis of you post that citiznes have no authority to question LEO actions than surgeons is factually fasle. In addition, all LEO officers are servants of the people and serve at the will of the people (or at least at the will of the officials elected by the people which in a republic is the same as serving at the will of the people). Most surgeons do not.

There are many many reasons why people question LEO and do not question neurosurgeons.

-DanaAgain you project and put words in my mouth.
I did not say people can't question LE, I merely stated that people often think they know what they are talking about, but really don't. On top of that, some demand LE prove to them they are wrong, when they don't know/understand enough, period. This means no matter what the LE explains, it likely won't satisfy the poster who already has their mind made up because "they know".

In this thread I'm not talking about laws/statutes, but in the performance of LE duties, such as Reasonable Suspicion.

Patchman
05-14-2011, 11:20
I can trump that, I stayed at a holiday inn last night!

People like DanaT believe that a college degree means you are more intelligent. When in fact it means little more than you have more knowledge than the average person in regards to the particular field your degree is in.

And when it comes right down to it, there are a whole lot of people out there with advanced degrees that have been educated well beyond the level of their intelligence.

I would be willing to bet that if folks like DanaT were stuck on the side of the road with a vehicle that would not run they would rather have the high school dropout that is a trained and experienced mechanic stop to help than a professor of sociology with a PHD.

For the last 20 minutes or so I've been trying to change the "details" under my handle from "Senior Member" to "It's Doctor To You." I figured if a JBT thug (you) can do it, then certainly a highly degreed, tall, handsome guy with a Greek-god-like-body (me) can do it too. :supergrin:

Did I mention I can use the title "doctor? Although I am still waiting for Congress to ordain me a "gentleman."

Doctor Sid Patchman, of Patchmanabad, PAK. Nice ring to it.

AZLawDawg
05-14-2011, 11:29
I offered an explanation the average person has a basic understanding of LE and the average person has absolutely no understanding of neurosurgery.



and contrary to popular belief, or GT belief, that very, very basic understanding of LE ( that is mostly garnered from TV, a traffic stop, or something that happened to a friend of a friend of a friend ) carries zero weight as to how LEO's actually do their job - or in their minds, should do their job.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 11:31
But you seem to be confusing many things. Lets take it one further. I would much rather fly on an airplane designed by a team of educated engineers than an airplane designed by the high school drop-out, trained experienced mechanic.


What makes the educated engineers a better person to design the plane?

The answer of course, is training and experience.


What you are missing in the link is many of the specialities that rely on "higher education" also rely on higher cognative intelligence as these professions require putting abstract ideas together. The machanic is not putting abstract ideas together but instead following a taught pattern.

What you are missing is that many occupations do not require dealing with putting "Abstract ideas" together. many though such as a mechanic and even a police officer require problem solving abilities, THAT is a cognitive function as well.

So, now you are saying if "someone like me" is stuck by the side of the road...please tell us us about my skills in that situation.

Well lets test your cognitive abilities here. Notice I did not say broken down, I said STUCK implying someone lacks the knowledge or tools to fix the problem. Whether that actually describes your actual knowledge or ability in car repair does not alter the point made.

I am not surprised you attempt to ignore the point by engaging in deflection.

AZLawDawg
05-14-2011, 11:32
Yet, everytime the govt is trying to pass another rights grabbing law, they roll out all of the coppers, in their best uniforms, with their shiny badges, to stand behind the person signing the new law!

I'd call that a sign of support!

Sure one can complain to our legislators, but it's always an uphill battle when the various Police lobbying groups are the ones pushing for many of these new laws or opposing the repeal of older laws.

Well, if you're gonna sit on your butt and not do anything, please don't complain when laws are passed that you don't like.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 11:36
For the last 20 minutes or so I've been trying to change the "details" under my handle from "Senior Member" to "It's Doctor To You." I figured if a JBT thug (you) can do it, then certainly a highly degreed, tall, handsome guy with a Greek-god-like-body (me) can do it too. :supergrin:

Did I mention I can use the title "doctor? Although I am still waiting for Congress to ordain me a "gentleman."

Doctor Sid Patchman, of Patchmanabad, PAK. Nice ring to it.

Amelika has been veddy veddy gud to you.

:rofl::rofl:

DanaT
05-14-2011, 11:47
Your mental gymnastics in the above showcase you as I've come to know through reading your posts.

Thank you. I take it as a compliment that you think I am mental gymnist






Your mental gymnastics in the above showcase you as I've come to know through reading your posts.

Thank you. I take it as a compliment that you think I am mental gymnast

[COLOR=Navy]Again you project and put words in my mouth.

This is no different that people dissecting my post and taking a few sentences out of context of the entire post.
I did not say people can't question LE, I merely stated that people often think they know what they are talking about, but really don't. On top of that, some demand LE prove to them they are wrong, when they don't know/understand enough, period. This means no matter what the LE explains, it likely won't satisfy the poster who already has their mind made up because "they know".

In this thread I'm not talking about laws/statutes, but in the performance of LE duties, such as [COLOR=Black]Reasonable Suspicion.
We will get back to my original post….
“Could it be that one situation, people know that they are un-educated in in even the most basic of discussions on the subject and is what is considered a profession that requires significant education (the surgeon) and one that as you have said doesn't?
<snip>

But again, people understand the basics of what LEO is supposed to do. It like they understand the basics of what a chef is supposed to do. I doubt the average person could even begin a discussion on proper sterile field operating procedures in an OR (that would be where I would put the minimum requirement to even observe a surgery to be). In addition, the average person has never seen neurosurgery nor any other surgery. They don't see it on TV. However, the average person does see LEO and what they do. They also see them on TV.

There are many differences why people treat neurosurgery and LE differently in discussions.”

Somehow, all the LEO on here are such prima donnas, that you in fact, didn’t even see that I was generally agreeing.
So, let me repeat this since it seems to be tough…

“But again, people understand the basics of what LEO is supposed to do. It like they understand the basics of what a chef is supposed to do. I doubt the average person could even begin a discussion on proper sterile field operating procedures in an OR (that would be where I would put the minimum requirement to even observe a surgery to be). In addition, the average person has never seen neurosurgery nor any other surgery. They don't see it on TV. However, the average person does see LEO and what they do. They also see them on TV.

There are many differences why people treat neurosurgery and LE differently in discussions.”

Do you get that? People have ZERO (nil, zip, zilch, etc) understanding what a neurosurgeon does. People can watch neurosurgery (or a video of it) and would not be able to tell gross negligence from expert surgery and actually are so uneducated in it that they can’t even form an opinion. People may not know LE duties but they do understand the basics of what LE are supposed to do. People can watch LE activities (or videos of it) and they can generally tell expert application of LE duties from gross negligence or at least they understand the frame work well enough to form what an opinion on gross negligence by LE.

-Dana

David Armstrong
05-14-2011, 11:53
Is that what happened? Was he evasive? Did he deny being armed?

According to the Supreme Court, a Terry stop requires more than a "hunch" on the part of the cop, usually the same standard that would be required to issue a warrant.
No. The standard for a warrant is probable cause, the standard for a Terry stop is reasonable suspicion.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 11:58
But again, people understand the basics of what LEO is supposed to do. It like they understand the basics of what a chef is supposed to do.

Understanding someones function is does not equal knowledge of how they carry out that function or why they do things the way they do.

David Armstrong
05-14-2011, 12:04
Could it be that one situation, people know that they are un-educated in in even the most basic of discussions on the subject and is what is considered a profession that requires significant education (the surgeon) and one that as you have said doesn't?
It is not general education that counts in this case, it is specific education.
But again, people understand the basics of what LEO is supposed to do. It like they understand the basics of what a chef is supposed to do.
Actually that is a good example of the problem. Most folks DO NOT understand the basics of what a chef is supposed to do. Most folks understand the basics of cooking food, and think that is comparable to what a chef does. It isn't. A good chef will have a specific body of knowledge that is far beyond that of most cooks. Most cooks can't make decent fish ice cream. Nowadays virtually any good chef understands how to do that.
However, the average person does see LEO and what they do. They also see them on TV.
The average person has also seen what a crab fisherman in Alaska does, and what a logger does. That doesn't mean they have the faintest idea of how or why it is done.
If you want to say I am baised by saying a typical neurosurgeon is more highly educated than typical LEO, well, I guess I am baised and will continue to go to surgeons for surgery and not an LEO for surgery...
By the same token, if you are being held hostage by a group of criminals threatening to kill you, would you prefer that the folks who come to handle the situation be trained surgeons or some LEOs?
We are required to participate as jurors which do in fact judge LE activities in criminal cases.
Wrong. Jurors do not judge LE activities in a criminal case, jurors decide if a crime has been committed by a particular person. Jurors don't get to judge if a LEOs actions are a 4th Amendment violation or some such. The judge does that. Furthermore jurors are educated on the law as it applies in court. That is part of what a trial is about, instructing jurors how to look at evidence and evaluate testimony.

Mayhem like Me
05-14-2011, 13:58
So you use RAS, in order to prove RAS. Seems very much like circular logic.

If you can't later prove RAS, does that mean you didn't have RAS in the first place? Seems like it, based on how you expressed it.

Nice try quote the WHOLE sentence, you truly are not reading or understanding basic concepts i am glad you are not a LEO.

Mayhem like Me
05-14-2011, 13:59
If the person you pulled over was video recording the traffic stop from second one, would that change the course of action you have said you would take?

Would you still pull him from his car?

Still "make his night longer?"

Still search him?

Still demand to know what he is doing, where he is coming from, where he is going, et cetera?

How do you see the presence of a video recorder (not under your control) affecting the situation.

Nothing would change I am recording the incident as well.

jcsd2407
05-14-2011, 13:59
An interesting Online phenomena (not limited to online, but very prevalent).

People wouldn't question a Neurosurgeon on technique used, medical rules, etc, having no education/training/experience in the field.

Switch to LE, and suddenly everyone knows better, knows the LE is doing it wrong, is corrupt, etc.

The topics/subjects/rules/regs/procedures/etc that go with being an LE Officer are neither simple nor short. That's why prospective LE Officers often have so much training and education prior to even being hired by an LE agency, who will in turn apply even more (of their own) training/education before letting the Officer work on their own.
-For example, in my state, a person graduating high school and deciding to pursue LE must have a minimum of a 2 yr college degree in Law Enforcement, complete an LE Skills course, then pass the P.O.S.T. test (think of it as LE's version of the BAR exam for lawyers). After all that, you are only "license eligible". You don't get a LE license until you are hired by an agency.
-Once hired by a LE agency in my state, the "Trainee LE" will have a Field Training Program in which an LE Officer who is both experienced an specially trained to "train" will always be with the Trainee. The program may last from anywhere up to 6 months (3 1/2 to 4 months common here). The Trainee is constantly evaluated during this process, and it they aren't up to the agency standard, are "released". After completing Field Training an LE is then able to be given their assignment and work on their own (the final stage of Field Training has the Trainer shadowing the Trainee and letting the Trainee do it all).

Yet, a poster wants/demands Online that an LE Officer "explain" LE to them in a paragraph.

This clearly shows someone who knows/understands so little that the question seems valid to them. The LE officer easily sees this, as the person puts forth personal opinion, how "they'd like to see things work/be", not something based on current law, case law, department policy, etc.

This is even more compounded by human nature. People, on average, don't like to/can't admit they don't know something about a topic, or are over their head.

Reasonable Suspicion is only one topic/area out of hundreds an LE Officer deals with, and here in this thread even those who are not LE must have by now understood it's not as "simple" as one page of rules/factors/bright lines.

Most LE who partake here have no problem discussing issues/topics with anyone, but it does get a bit old when someone clearing is pressing their personal opinion as gospel and asking/demanding the LE to "prove it to them". Sorry, but I/we can't give you the requisite education/training/experience in a post to someone lacking such (even more so when the person "thinks" they know... or has preconceived ideas/bias).

To point out, in my opinion, a perfect indicator of the "human factor" that gets in the way, let's look at the word: "Ignorant".

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/TBO/ScreenShot001-1.jpg

Read the definition. It's not, by definition, an insult, yet tell someone (who is) they are ignorant on a topic, then stand back!

It's clear Online many people who are ignorant on a topic/subject, spew forth anyway, and just as if they were called "ignorant", get upset when they are told they show a lack of knowledge/education on the topic/subject (the very definition of "ignorant".).

jmho


In the view of the straight forward and clear words of TBO and Dragoon I humbly bow. I don't believe it could be said any better.

Mayhem like Me
05-14-2011, 14:01
Wait...Is swatbwana wearing his hat at the time of the traffic stop??:dunno:

And cover these glorious Golden locks..I think not!

jcsd2407
05-14-2011, 14:28
and contrary to popular belief, or GT belief, that very, very basic understanding of LE ( that is mostly garnered from TV, a traffic stop, or something that happened to a friend of a friend of a friend ) carries zero weight as to how LEO's actually do their job - or in their minds, should do their job.
I can say from my own experience that prior to my employment as a deputy I had a very skewed and flawed view of what law enforcement did. The only correction to that was the academy and the actual experience of working the road.

Sam Spade
05-14-2011, 15:39
:wavey:

Hi, guys. Sorry I'm late to the party. Where all the women at?

:wavey:

Guys, I applaud you for looking to understand how the Constitution is actually put into action in the real world. I strongly recommend that you check your preconceptions at the door and listen. There's a couple of centuries of actual experience in the application of the 4th Amendment posting here. We haven't been fired, indicted or convicted and we win our cases. Think about that---the decisions we cop posters make in a split second at 0200 have been reviewed by an army of lawyers and judges over a period of months with hundreds of clerks and volumes of references backing them up. And your humble cop posters are making cases that stick. That ought to suggest a prudent course of action to some of y'all.

BailRecoveryAgent
05-14-2011, 15:51
One, sometimes, must create their own "job security."

So, without new laws cops will be out of a job because criminals will stop violating the old ones???:dunno:

Be careful, we don't want you pullin' a hammy doin all that stretchin'.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 15:56
Hi, guys. Sorry I'm late to the party. Where all the women at?

Hah, you are too late we already detained and frisked all the hot chicks, now they are in protective custody.

:tongueout::rofl:

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 15:59
So, without new laws cops will be out of a job because criminals will stop violating the old ones???:dunno:

Be careful, we don't want you pullin' a hammy doin all that stretchin'.

Yeah, somehow I missed out on BG's pulling me over and complaining about how rapin, robbin, murderin, and stealing was getting real boring and wouldn't I please lobby for some new legislation so they could break some new laws for a change.

:rofl::rofl:

DanaT
05-14-2011, 16:34
:wavey:

Hi, guys. Sorry I'm late to the party. Where all the women at?

:wavey:



I guess you didn't get the memo that this is a sausage and beer party (as opposed to a wine and cheese party). Not many women at a sausage party....

-Dana

Booker
05-14-2011, 16:38
So, without new laws cops will be out of a job because criminals will stop violating the old ones???:dunno:

Be careful, we don't want you pullin' a hammy doin all that stretchin'.

Ok, they may not be out of a job, but new laws sure help to increase the budget, don't they?:whistling:

Well, Mr Politican, since you passed the new XYZ ordinance, then you know that we're going to need AR15 rifles, new S&W M&P pistols, an APC or two, plus some K-9's, and a few helicopters are also gonna be needed because we just can't let these farmers sell their damned milk without these tools. And we need to hire x number of officers to get er done, but we can cover that with a federal grant!:rofl:

DanaT
05-14-2011, 16:42
Wrong. Jurors do not judge LE activities in a criminal case, jurors decide if a crime has been committed by a particular person. Jurors don't get to judge if a LEOs actions are a 4th Amendment violation or some such. The judge does that. Furthermore jurors are educated on the law as it applies in court. That is part of what a trial is about, instructing jurors how to look at evidence and evaluate testimony.

Unless the criminal/civil trial is for the officer being accused violating the rights of a citizen.

So that I don't repeat a repsonse to early post that was nearly the same saying jurors are "instructed" and therefore capable of judging evidence is exactly what the difference that was talked earlier.

In very little it is assumed that a general member of the public can be educated enough to pass judgement on people and determine if someone broke the law. Therefore, the laws that the LEO are enforcing can be easily taught it seems from what has been posted.

Would you let a surgeon operate on you that had as much instruction in surgery as the average juror has training in interpreting the law?

-Dana

DanaT
05-14-2011, 16:51
[COLOR=Navy]An interesting Online phenomena (not limited to online, but very prevalent).

People wouldn't question a Neurosurgeon on technique used, medical rules, etc, having no education/training/experience in the field.

Switch to LE, and suddenly everyone knows better, knows the LE is doing it wrong, is corrupt, etc.

I forgot to mention that you are factually wrong trying to support your world view of the view that the public has towards LEO.

http://forums.wrongdiagnosis.com

-Dana

DanaT
05-14-2011, 16:53
No criminals know the score, it's the glock talkers that are generally clueless.

:rofl::rofl:

Could you please give some insight into why you say this and what you mean by it?

-Dana

Patchman
05-14-2011, 16:59
Ok, they may not be out of a job, but new laws sure help to increase the budget, don't they?:whistling:

Well, Mr Politican, since you passed the new XYZ ordinance, then you know that we're going to need AR15 rifles, new S&W M&P pistols, an APC or two, plus some K-9's, and a few helicopters are also gonna be needed because we just can't let these farmers sell their damned milk without these tools. And we need to hire x number of officers to get er done, but we can cover that with a federal grant!:rofl:

Actually, the best thing to release federal LE grants is after some radical [name your religion] or some home grown [name your militia] kills Americans.

Seriously.

With Federal grants, our local agency has already purchased 3 new helicopters (military grade night capabilities, military engins & miniguns), an air ship (blimp) and a communication satellite with a stationary orbit over our jurisdiction. Grants for a drone or two are pending.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 17:07
Could you please give some insight into why you say this and what you mean by it?

-Dana

The bad guys at least understand how the real world works. And they know in a situation like the one given "Am I being detained", isn't going to get them anywhere.

They know better than to try and play jail house lawyer on the street. they reserve that for when they are locked up and have lots of free time and are bored.

Patchman
05-14-2011, 17:13
Justice Department seeking Congressional approval to arm drones with missiles. Decision expected by Spring of 2012.

You heard it here first.

David Armstrong
05-14-2011, 18:09
Unless the criminal/civil trial is for the officer being accused violating the rights of a citizen.
Nope. The jurors will still determine if there is a crime, they do not judge the LE activity itself.
In very little it is assumed that a general member of the public can be educated enough to pass judgment on people and determine if someone broke the law. Therefore, the laws that the LEO are enforcing can be easily taught it seems from what has been posted.
Don't know where you get that. The general public is rarely taught the law. Jurors are offered evidence and told how to look at that evidence for one narrow purpose.
Would you let a surgeon operate on you that had as much instruction in surgery as the average juror has training in interpreting the law?
Sorry, but strawmen do not make good arguments. Surgery is a skill, and different surgeries need different levels of skill, so there is not a single standard. Jurors are not trained on how to interpret the law, jurors are asked to decide if a person is guilty based on evidence provided to them.

JTB
05-14-2011, 18:32
Ok, they may not be out of a job, but new laws sure help to increase the budget, don't they?:whistling:

Well, Mr Politican, since you passed the new XYZ ordinance, then you know that we're going to need AR15 rifles, new S&W M&P pistols, an APC or two, plus some K-9's, and a few helicopters are also gonna be needed because we just can't let these farmers sell their damned milk without these tools. And we need to hire x number of officers to get er done, but we can cover that with a federal grant!:rofl:

Is this why, the police radios in Oakland CA do not work and at least in CA large number of officers are being laid off?

kensteele
05-14-2011, 19:02
The bad guys at least understand how the real world works. And they know in a situation like the one given "Am I being detained", isn't going to get them anywhere.


Agreed. Would you also agree that "am i being detained" almost always works for the good guy; gets off (eventually) the innocent guy who hasn't done anything wrong?

holesinpaper
05-14-2011, 19:26
The bad guys at least understand how the real world works. And they know in a situation like the one given "Am I being detained", isn't going to get them anywhere.

They know better than to try and play jail house lawyer on the street. they reserve that for when they are locked up and have lots of free time and are bored.

And that's why it's usually best to simply opt to remain silent, if one is detained and questioned by the police.

Saves the cops time, and saves the 'suspects' breath.

A good attorney would give his client this advice absolutely every single effing time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

DanaT
05-14-2011, 20:28
Nope. The jurors will still determine if there is a crime, they do not judge the LE activity itself. .

Unless the LE activity is the subject of the court procedings and/or LE activity/procedures are being used as an affimative defense..

Don't know where you get that. The general public is rarely taught the law. Jurors are offered evidence and told how to look at that evidence for one narrow purpose.

Sorry, but strawmen do not make good arguments. Surgery is a skill, and different surgeries need different levels of skill, so there is not a single standard. Jurors are not trained on how to interpret the law, jurors are asked to decide if a person is guilty based on evidence provided to them.[/QUOTE]

The strawman argument was introduced in post 39 when the concept of laymen comparing LEO to neurosurgeons.

-Dana

DanaT
05-14-2011, 20:33
The bad guys at least understand how the real world works. And they know in a situation like the one given "Am I being detained", isn't going to get them anywhere.

They know better than to try and play jail house lawyer on the street. they reserve that for when they are locked up and have lots of free time and are bored.


So let me see if I understand what you are saying. Please correct me if I am mis-understanding you.

1) The typical GT person does not have experience as LEO and hasn't experienced that side of LE.
2) The typical GT person doesn't understand how being arrested/detained works because they don't have enough experience on that side of the law.

Am I understanding this correctly?

-Dana

David Armstrong
05-14-2011, 20:39
Unless the LE activity is the subject of the court procedings and/or LE activity/procedures are being used as an affimative defense..
Sorry, doesn't work that way. The validity of the activity is not decided by the jury, the jury will decide if the officer performed the activity according to legal standards. The jury doesn't get to decide what the standards are.
The strawman argument was introduced in post 39 when the concept of laymen comparing LEO to neurosurgeons. -Dana
If you agree it is a strawman argument then you make the point for me that the way you are using it is not valid. The issue of having some understanding of what you are talking about when discussing things is not the strawman, the strawman is trying to compare the jobs themselves instead of the understanding of the jobs.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 20:51
So let me see if I understand what you are saying. Please correct me if I am mis-understanding you.

1) The typical GT person does not have experience as LEO and hasn't experienced that side of LE.
2) The typical GT person doesn't understand how being arrested/detained works because they don't have enough experience on that side of the law.

Am I understanding this correctly?

-Dana

Partially correct, but that is not all of it. the MAJORITY of GT posters fall into the category of 1 and 2 but also pretty much understand that fact. And while they may have an opinion or questions some things are at least open to information as to why their opinion may be wrong. or why things were done the way they were.

But then you have a very vocal MINORITY that also fall into the that category but adamantly refuse to believe they don't in fact know how police work is done and think that how THEY think it should be done or how they view things is absolutely correct. Even when they have absolutely no training or experience to base those opinions on.

You can find plenty of evidence of that in this thread alone.

Hrsuhd
05-14-2011, 20:58
[QUOTE=TheeBadOne;17344421]An excellent summation that all should pay attention too.

The courts get the final say in what a Statute says/means.

For example, here is my States' Disorderly Conduct law:

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

Subdivision 1.Crime.

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
[COLOR="lime"]A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.

This struck me as funny does this mean someone get arrested for having a seizure?

DanaT
05-14-2011, 21:06
What makes the educated engineers a better person to design the plane?

The answer of course, is training and experience.

You can't simply train/educate anyone to design a plane. Therefore it is more than just training and experience. This is the same argument is saying that with enough experience and training I could be a QB in the NFL. No matter how much experience and training you give me, it isn't happening.


I would be willing to bet that if folks like DanaT were stuck on the side of the road with a vehicle that would not run they would rather have the high school dropout that is a trained and experienced mechanic stop to help than a professor of sociology with a PHD.

Well lets test your cognitive abilities here. Notice I did not say broken down, I said STUCK implying someone lacks the knowledge or tools to fix the problem. Whether that actually describes your actual knowledge or ability in car repair does not alter the point made.

I am not surprised you attempt to ignore the point by engaging in deflection.

Sorry. I forgot to repsond to this one.

Ok. So the given the situation that I am "stuck on the side of the road with a vehicle that won't run" and am waiting on the highschool dropout that is an experienced mechanic stop to help or the sociology PHD. Given what you said, that I need someone with the knowledge and tools to help , I am think I am about as screwed either way. I seriously doubt that the high school dropout experienced mechanic will have the tools with him to fix my ride. Therefore, my choice is some hot young girl in a bikini. Maybe a tow truck would be helpful too. Or a hot blond girl with a tow truck.

-Dana

DanaT
05-14-2011, 21:10
Partially correct, but that is not all of it. the MAJORITY of GT posters fall into the category of 1 and 2 but also pretty much understand that fact. And while they may have an opinion or questions some things are at least open to information as to why their opinion may be wrong. or why things were done the way they were.

But then you have a very vocal MINORITY that also fall into the that category but adamantly refuse to believe they don't in fact know how police work is done and think that how THEY think it should be done or how they view things is absolutely correct. Even when they have absolutely no training or experience to base those opinions on.

You can find plenty of evidence of that in this thread alone.

Now we are getting somewhere.

We have established that most GT are not LEO and/or criminals and therefore really don't know the "system." However, they have strong opinions.

Why would people, who basically not being LEO or criminals care be vocal about what LEO does? I mean it seems to me they have no "skin in the game."

-Dana

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 21:37
You can't simply train/educate anyone to design a plane.

You are the one that set the qualification at simply "educated engineer." A "educated engineer is someone that has successfully completed their training as an engineer.

Training is simply learning a skill or job. in the case of the educated engineer, they are someone who learned the skills needed to be an engineer.

And yes not everyone has the aptitude to be an engineer but the same is true of being a good cop or a good mechanic, or many other jobs. the best at it will always be those with an aptitude for that kind of job or work.

This is the same argument is saying that with enough experience and training I could be a QB in the NFL. No matter how much experience and training you give me, it isn't happening.

That does not change the fact that engineers entrusted with building planes have the training needed to do so and the experience to do so. I am not aware of any airline or plane manufacturing company that entrust building airplanes to someone fresh out of school with no actual experience in having actually been part of building a plane before.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 21:42
Why would people, who basically not being LEO or criminals care be vocal about what LEO does? I mean it seems to me they have no "skin in the game."


Simple they do have something in the game, usually a chip on their shoulder about cops, but usually the actual root of the problem is they despise authority of any kind and cops are simply the most visible representation of Govt. authority.

It is not hard to see, they like to drop into threads about cops and add absolutely NOTHING to the discussion other than to vent their spleen about cops.

Like toddlers in the terrible twos they hate being told NO.

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 21:45
You are the one that set the qualification at simply "educated engineer." A "educated engineer is someone that has successfully completed their training as an engineer.

Training is simply learning a skill or job. in the case of the educated engineer, they are someone who learned the skills needed to be an engineer.

And yes not everyone has the aptitude to be an engineer but the same is true of being a good cop or a good mechanic, or many other jobs. the best at it will always be those with an aptitude for that kind of job or work.



That does not change the fact that engineers entrusted with building planes have the training needed to do so and the experience to do so. I am not aware of any airline or plane manufacturing company that entrust building airplanes to someone fresh out of school with no actual experience in having actually been part of building a plane before.


holy hairsplitting batman.

I may get an infraction for saying so, but I dare say it does not take as much training and education to become a peace officer as it does to become a mechanic or engineer.

noway
05-14-2011, 21:57
No. Your original post said that people do not criticize neurosurgeons the same way they do LEO.

I offered an explanation the average person has a basic understanding of LE and the average person has absolutely no understanding of neurosurgery.

Now, lets take this one step further. By law, the average person in the USA is legally required to participate in the crimal justice system (maybe its different where you live). We are required to participate as jurors which do in fact judge LE activities in criminal cases. So by law, we are qualified as participants in the the criminal (and civil) justice system.

I know of no law that requires citizens to act as surgeons but maybe I am ignorant.

So in fact, the basis of you post that citiznes have no authority to question LEO actions than surgeons is factually fasle. In addition, all LEO officers are servants of the people and serve at the will of the people (or at least at the will of the officials elected by the people which in a republic is the same as serving at the will of the people). Most surgeons do not.

There are many many reasons why people question LEO and do not question neurosurgeons.

-Dana


:wavey:

Bingo on that last sentence & brilliant examples in your posting.

And history has shown that the civillians questioning Law & Justice , has fix or cause the cycle for things to be fix.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 22:02
I may get an infraction for saying so, but I dare say it does not take as much training and education to become a peace officer as it does to become a mechanic or engineer.

And your point is? How much training and education that is required to learn to do any job is secondary to whether or not you have an aptitude for the job.

Plenty of people go through police standards and even get a job as a cop only to discover that out once they are on the street they don't have what it takes to do the job. And the same is true of engineers and mechanics. merely being trained to do something does not mean you are going to be any good at it.

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 22:24
And your point is? How much training and education that is required to learn to do any job is secondary to whether or not you have an aptitude for the job.

Plenty of people go through police standards and even get a job as a cop only to discover that out once they are on the street they don't have what it takes to do the job. And the same is true of engineers and mechanics. merely being trained to do something does not mean you are going to be any good at it.


and the same thing can be said for window washers, bus drivers, and janitors.

I will get in trouble if I elaborate further.

Dukeboy01
05-14-2011, 22:24
holy hairsplitting batman.

I may get an infraction for saying so, but I dare say it does not take as much training and education to become a peace officer as it does to become a mechanic or engineer.

And you'd be wrong.

Mechanic: 51 weeks at UTI for their Automotive Technology Training Program

http://www.uti.edu/Programs/Automotive-Diesel-Collision-Repair/Automotive

Engineer: 9 weeks of conductor school plus "16-20" weeks of Locomotive Engineer class. You could easily be driving a train by Christmas if you start now.

http://www.modocrailroadacademy.com/faq.htm

I'll not count the 97 hours of college credit I had in Police Administration at Eastern Kentucky University since

A: It wasn't a requirement to get my job
and
B: I didn't learn anything about real police work there anyway.

I started in June of 1997. My basic police training academy was 16 weeks. We got sworn in and then did another 16 weeks of post- certification training before we graduated from the academy. We then had two weeks of Intoxilyzer certification and RADAR certification (40 hours each) before we started our Field Training Officer training. We all did 3 rotations of 5 weeks duration each before beginning our solo patrol phase in which we were still probationary employees and subject to one final review board before we were totally cut loose in October of 1998.

Dragoon44
05-14-2011, 22:35
and the same thing can be said for window washers, bus drivers, and janitors.

I will get in trouble if I elaborate further.

:upeyes:

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 22:51
:upeyes:


oooh, smileys:yourock::thumbsup::exercise::cop::fred:

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 23:23
And you'd be wrong.

Mechanic: 51 weeks at UTI for their Automotive Technology Training Program

http://www.uti.edu/Programs/Automotive-Diesel-Collision-Repair/Automotive

Engineer: 9 weeks of conductor school plus "16-20" weeks of Locomotive Engineer class. You could easily be driving a train by Christmas if you start now.

http://www.modocrailroadacademy.com/faq.htm

I'll not count the 97 hours of college credit I had in Police Administration at Eastern Kentucky University since

A: It wasn't a requirement to get my job
and
B: I didn't learn anything about real police work there anyway.

I started in June of 1997. My basic police training academy was 16 weeks. We got sworn in and then did another 16 weeks of post- certification training before we graduated from the academy. We then had two weeks of Intoxilyzer certification and RADAR certification (40 hours each) before we started our Field Training Officer training. We all did 3 rotations of 5 weeks duration each before beginning our solo patrol phase in which we were still probationary employees and subject to one final review board before we were totally cut loose in October of 1998.


LOL they were talking about engineers designing airplanes and now suddenly you're talking about a guy that drives a train. very smooth.

it would take about 24 months to become a licenced aircraft maintainance engineer. even longer if you want to be an aeronautical engineer, as you need a 4 year degree.

so 96 weeks for aircraft repair, well over 175 weeks for aeronautical engineering, by your own info it takes 51 weeks to become a mechanic, and you were graduated from the police academy in 32 weeks.

:supergrin:

DanaT
05-15-2011, 08:54
of Locomotive Engineer class. You could easily be driving a train by Christmas if you start now.

I have been wonding for quite a while when I get to drive the train...but no luck so far...

-Dana

RussP
05-15-2011, 09:15
And your point is? How much training and education that is required to learn to do any job is secondary to whether or not you have an aptitude for the job.

Plenty of people go through police standards and even get a job as a cop only to discover that out once they are on the street they don't have what it takes to do the job. And the same is true of engineers and mechanics. merely being trained to do something does not mean you are going to be any good at it.And some choose to stay and play, doing a mediocre job just under the radar, others leave voluntarily, others are encouraged to change jobs, others are forced to.

Okay, lets get off this path and back to the original topic, "What's the RAS for stopping someone carrying".

DanaT
05-15-2011, 09:29
Simple they do have something in the game, usually a chip on their shoulder about cops, but usually the actual root of the problem is they despise authority of any kind and cops are simply the most visible representation of Govt. authority.

It is not hard to see, they like to drop into threads about cops and add absolutely NOTHING to the discussion other than to vent their spleen about cops.

Like toddlers in the terrible twos they hate being told NO.

I would say that there is the genernal anti-authority people. You may even say I fit into that (but you would be wrong).

In general, I am not anti-authority, but anti a broken justice system.

For example, in another thread about 5 people being cited for OC, the general consensus was that there were “no damages” because charges were dropped. In another thread about not having a right to resist unlawful entry, the justices said that the basic premise is out dated because people have redress and bail. Keep in mind these are short summaries.

However, if a person is innocent (I make this a very big distinction) such as the guy who were cited for OC or people who have had SWAT teams break down the wrong door because of an incorrect address, they really don’t have redress. A SWAT team breaking down your door in the middle of the night can cause severe damage that is not necessarily easy to measure monetarily. Being charged, causes damage to people. There is the expenses of hiring attorneys, the court appearances, stress involved with the situation. In general, when someone innocent in wrongfully arrested/charged their lives are turned upside down until the ordeal is over. Some people it takes a long time to end.

For example this guy who is very near me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Hettrick_murder_case

He spent 10 years in prison for something he didn’t do. At the end, he has won a large civil lawsuit and the following has happened. “On June 30, 2010, a Larimer County Grand Jury indicted Lt. James Broderick on eight counts of felony first degree perjury for false material statements he made related to the arrest and conviction of Masters”

That detective, if found guilty, will likely face a couple years in jail. Really, he should spend every day in prison that the other guy did.

In general, it is very easy for people that are part “of the system” to say “no-harm-no-foul” we let you out. But, realistically, any arrest/charges for which a person is innocent disrupts their lives and can have serious economic consequences. Unlike police, most jobs do not pay you for time taken to resolve a legal issue. You can tell your employer that you need weeks off for a trial but after about 3 days, you are out of a job. It is not a no-harm-no-foul game. LEO, prosecutors, and the others that are part of the justice system are playing with peoples lives. The split-second, “reasonable-cop” standard can have lasting impacts on people lives.

I also believe the justice system is broken in that it is very one-sided. If I were charged with a crime, there is ample money to pay however many detectives, labs, etc are need to produce evidence against me. Essentially there are unlimited funds to go after me. However, my defense is based upon what I can afford. Lawyers are typically $250+ an hour. Labs tests are similarly priced. My mother was involved in a legal dispute (executor of an estate), and legal fees quickly piled up to a quarter million. How many people have an extra $250K (or $25k) laying around to keep themselves out of prison. Add to that that once they are charged, they may lose their jobs.

The other end of LEO that I see all the time is the speed traps on the highway. There is a section in the north end of town, where the speed limit is 65. About once a week, there is an officer standing on an overpass with a lidar/radar gun. Down just a little ways is 10-15 cop cars/motorcycles. They are pulling people over left and right. People see the police and slam on brake. People are pulling out into traffic after being stopped. Police are pulling chasing people. People and police are slowing down and moving across traffic for the traffic stop. Last time I drove through there with the speed trap, there was rear end collision on the side. The police in this section of the highway are creating much more danger than the person driving 70 or 75. The LEO are being used as revenue collection devices. What I blame the LEO for is not standing up and saying they are creating an unsafe situation (people slamming on brake on a highway is not safe) and refusing to do it. To copy a signature line..wrong is wrong even if everyone else is doing it.

LEO also think they should get a pass for split second decisions. Maybe they break the law (assault) but that is what a “reasonable officer” would do. Well, in general, there are many people in prison that basically are (were) good people that made a bad decision in a hurry based upon their situation. It seems that the justice system does not recognize this.

So, as you see, its not LEO that I have an issue with. It is how the “justice system” works and the general “no-harm-no-foul” attitude of the those involved with the system. Of course the hard part is balancing innocence with justice for the real criminals. But one guiding principle that this country was founded on is that it is better to let a guilty person go free than imprison an innocent person. This principle was for very good reason as there was an elite class that basically, imprisoned who they liked for what-ever they liked . I fear the balance is shifting back to imprisoning everyone. Why does the USA have the highest per-capita incarceration rate?

-Dana

Dragoon44
05-15-2011, 10:31
Deleted, just saw the moderators post.

Snowman92D
05-15-2011, 10:40
The notion of why people would be inclined to carp and second-guess what a cop does vs. what a neurosurgeon does has a lot more to do with the good ol' American habit of reserving their right to give government officials unbridled hell. The cop is the 24/7/365 representative of the .gov, and the most visible manifestation thereoff.

If all neurosurgeons were public employees, and thus a perennial symbol of what everyone dislikes in our often-bungling, politically screwed-up government system, they'd be catching a lot more grief and a lot less worship. One supposes that will come soon enough when the neurosurgeons are dumbed down enough to stay in the Obamacare medical system.

Sam Spade
05-15-2011, 10:58
Okay, lets get off this path and back to the original topic, "What's the RAS for stopping someone carrying".

Articuable facts and reasonable inferences which, based on the totality of the circumstances, would lead one to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

No percentage likelihood has ever been assigned. However, the "preponderance of the evidence" is 50.1%. Probably cause :cool: is lower than that, lower than 50-50 Reasonable suspicion is lower still.

In the OP: an area suffering a rash of car busts, commonly found at night. A non-resident in the area with items in his car such as are frequently stolen in car busts. A time of day where no business is open, the vast majority of people are asleep and he does not provide an explanation. He's armed. Yes, Virginia, there is RS.

Of course there may be innocent explanations, just as Mr. Terry could have ended up being an indecisive window-shopper. Doesn't matter.

And of course you can listen to any lawyer, who will tell you not to talk. And your night will get longer as we do the work ourselves, guided by our own suspicious nature looking to see if there's a case instead of your input in your best interests. It really is a free country, though. That includes the freedom to make less than optimal choices and live with the consequences.

Now let me broaden the discussion: imagine a man carrying a rifle in his hands, approaching a mall during business hours. Working off the definition, can anyone *not* see RS to stop him and investigate? Bonus: Any time the government has the authority to do something, they have the authority to use reasonable force (as determined by the model "reasonable officer" NOT the more generic "reasonable man") to make it happen. Would such a stop/detention/investigation justify the threatened use of firearms by LE? Why or why not?

TBO
05-15-2011, 11:19
....to piggyback on what Sam said.

REASONABLE SUSPICION

Perhaps this may make it easier to understand.

Instead of a "Reasonable Suspicion" to contact a suspect, substitute: "Articulable Basis".

The Officer must be able to explain to the court (if challenged) an "Articulable Basis" for his actions.

What you've read in prior posts someone outlining the "Reasonable Suspicion" for a contact, is outlining the "Articulable Basis" that is/was valid for that "specific contact" at that "specific time".

Sincerely,

TBO

Dragoon44
05-15-2011, 14:10
Now let me broaden the discussion: imagine a man carrying a rifle in his hands, approaching a mall during business hours. Working off the definition, can anyone *not* see RS to stop him and investigate? Bonus: Any time the government has the authority to do something, they have the authority to use reasonable force (as determined by the model "reasonable officer" NOT the more generic "reasonable man") to make it happen. Would such a stop/detention/investigation justify the threatened use of firearms by LE? Why or why not?
__________________

Rifle in hands? or low ready yes RAS exists, and the manner of carry also justifies a stop at gunpoint.

If the rifle were slung over the shoulder I would be less likely to say stop at gunpoint.

holesinpaper
05-15-2011, 15:00
Rifle in hands? or low ready yes RAS exists, and the manner of carry also justifies a stop at gunpoint.

If the rifle were slung over the shoulder I would be less likely to say stop at gunpoint.

Would this give you RAS?

http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt197/pooshark123/DSC02568.jpg

:whistling: :rofl:

holesinpaper
05-15-2011, 15:06
OMG, cops and OCers CAN get along.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5814&d=1304638014

When exercising rights becomes normalized, we all win.

Dragoon44
05-15-2011, 15:12
Would this give you RAS?

http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt197/pooshark123/DSC02568.jpg

:whistling: :rofl:

Yes that the Beverly Hillbillies had taken over the governors office.

:rofl:

holesinpaper
05-15-2011, 15:13
I call shenanigans on Swatbana's original scenario.

In the most populous county in my state, the Sheriff declared:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013470486_sheriffcuts19m.html
there will no longer be deputies to investigate burglaries, car prowls, auto theft and fraud

So if the sheriff dictates that car prowls and burglaries not be investigated, then there would be no reason to ask questions about a GPS or Laptop at 0' dark thirty.

Of course, your state, county and/or city might be different.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnfmHsXeUz6ulnaPZOYnq_vlV7GbbGcQzY195mWjCq0dhMaYJ5&t=1

Dragoon44
05-15-2011, 15:14
OMG, cops and OCers CAN get along.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5814&d=1304638014

When exercising rights becomes normalized, we all win.

I call fake, if that were real his hands would be handcuffed behind him.
:rofl:

holesinpaper
05-15-2011, 15:26
Yes that the Beverly Hillbillies had taken over the governors office.

:rofl:

Yeah, um... we don't really have "hillbillies' around here. And we're a loooong way from Beverly Hills.

The best we can do is "logger types."

http://gi345.photobucket.com/groups/p391/R8RQDZHFD4/IMG_1014.jpg

Yes, it was a special "tour your state capital with guns" holiday. ;)
http://gs345.photobucket.com/groups/p391/R8RQDZHFD4/?action=view&current=IMG_1014.jpg

http://gs345.photobucket.com/groups/p391/R8RQDZHFD4/?action=view&current=IMG_1014.jpg

steveksux
05-15-2011, 16:28
Yeah, um... we don't really have "hillbillies' around here. And we're a loooong way from Beverly Hills.

The best we can do is "logger types."

http://gi345.photobucket.com/groups/p391/R8RQDZHFD4/IMG_1014.jpg
Good candidate for smartcarry. :whistling::tongueout::rofl:

Randy

Dukeboy01
05-15-2011, 18:41
Yeah, um... we don't really have "hillbillies' around here. And we're a loooong way from Beverly Hills.

The best we can do is "logger types."

http://gi345.photobucket.com/groups/p391/R8RQDZHFD4/IMG_1014.jpg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo

DanaT
05-15-2011, 19:16
There is RAS in all those pictures....

Those people dress in such poor taste that any cop RAS to contact them when OC.

-Dana

TKOFaith
09-09-2011, 10:37
OK. I'm not in LE. I find this thread interesting. But I don't have a clue what RAS is. Could someone please enlighten me?

Thanks!

Sam Spade
09-09-2011, 16:24
OK. I'm not in LE. I find this thread interesting. But I don't have a clue what RAS is. Could someone please enlighten me?

Thanks!
Page 5:

Articuable facts and reasonable inferences which, based on the totality of the circumstances, would lead one to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

No percentage likelihood has ever been assigned. However, the "preponderance of the evidence" is 50.1%. Probably cause :cool: is lower than that, lower than 50-50 Reasonable suspicion is lower still.

In the OP: an area suffering a rash of car busts, commonly found at night. A non-resident in the area with items in his car such as are frequently stolen in car busts. A time of day where no business is open, the vast majority of people are asleep and he does not provide an explanation. He's armed. Yes, Virginia, there is RS.

Of course there may be innocent explanations, just as Mr. Terry could have ended up being an indecisive window-shopper. Doesn't matter.

See also http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145 , Post 2.

TKOFaith
09-12-2011, 06:51
Page 5:
See also http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145 , Post 2.

Thanks, Sam!