Important Notice: The site is currently being upgraded to a new software system. This process could take a day or two to complete. During that time, we are going to leave the site up here, on its old software. WHAT GETS POSTED HERE DURING THIS TRANSITION WILL NOT BE COPIED OVER ONTO THE NEW SITE, WHEN THE UPGRADE IS COMPLETE. When we swap over, the content posted while this message is visible will be lost. We wanted to give you folks a place to hang out and talk while we worked though. We will let you know when we are finished. Please pardon the inconvenience, during this transition.
Anyone watch football? Those guys aren't wimps. When they go down, I'm having a hard time imagining them drawing a weapon from concealment under their shirts and effectively using it. I've been tackled twice in my life. Once by a gang of thugs and once being mugged late at night out for a sandwich. Why folks think they'll be able to draw and shoot while under such an attack is beyond me. Your attacker if it ever happens isn't likely to be some limp wristed fruit loop in drag
People in large part don't look at case law most of the time, (personal opinion), because the perspective is that it is a lot to look at. Indeed it is.
In order to understand how things work in this country, and in state governments you have to go beyond looking at written law to case law. Case law generally is the application of the written law as interpreted by the judiciary, which I think
Please provide case law supporting your assertion that some how handcuffing a person makes them "under arrest" and not merely "detained." You imply that the police need to have probable cause to place a person in handcuffs.
I submit the following:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Landmark case specifically establishing "reasonable, articulable suspicion" as the standard for investigatory stops.