GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-24-2012, 06:19   #81
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
Mrs Tink;

I have no issues with you whatsoever. I apologize sincerely if I offended. The only person I have difficulty with in this thread is G19G20 who shows an unlimited capacity for both being obtuse as well as twisting things around in an effort to paint the police in a bad light.

It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.
I think part of the confusion (and, most likely, what's tripping up G19G20) is that the word "stop" for LE is loaded language. People say "stop" all the time...I "stopped" for groceries, I "stopped" a person to ask for directions, etc. It's a pretty informal use of the word.

But for LE, "stop" has all kinds of connotations and implies - no, requires - a very defined and formal continuum.

inre G19G20, you may want to actually read Terry and I'd also suggest reading Byron White's joined opinion.

If I were to quibble with anything here, it would be that the jurisprudence revolving around Terry states that the frisking is for weapons, not any/all contraband. In the article (and admittedly, the article does have loaded language of its own), the fellow (Bilal) was stopped and his bag was searched. According to Bilal, the officer was looking for drugs, and the story says the search was to see if "he was carrying anything illegal." First, remember this is but one side of the story and we don't hear from the officer as to why he decided to stop Bilal.

That said, there's a fine line here...if an officer frisks a person because he reasonably thinks the guy may be armed and subsequently finds not a gun but a dime bag, the drugs would most likely be admissible. But the exclusionary rule would apply if the search itself was found unreasonable.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

Last edited by Goaltender66; 05-24-2012 at 06:21..
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2012, 06:26   #82
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,257
For those looking for a primer on relevant decisions: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2012, 08:26   #83
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
I think part of the confusion (and, most likely, what's tripping up G19G20) is that the word "stop" for LE is loaded language. People say "stop" all the time...I "stopped" for groceries, I "stopped" a person to ask for directions, etc. It's a pretty informal use of the word.

But for LE, "stop" has all kinds of connotations and implies - no, requires - a very defined and formal continuum.

inre G19G20, you may want to actually read Terry and I'd also suggest reading Byron White's joined opinion.

If I were to quibble with anything here, it would be that the jurisprudence revolving around Terry states that the frisking is for weapons, not any/all contraband. In the article (and admittedly, the article does have loaded language of its own), the fellow (Bilal) was stopped and his bag was searched. According to Bilal, the officer was looking for drugs, and the story says the search was to see if "he was carrying anything illegal." First, remember this is but one side of the story and we don't hear from the officer as to why he decided to stop Bilal.

That said, there's a fine line here...if an officer frisks a person because he reasonably thinks the guy may be armed and subsequently finds not a gun but a dime bag, the drugs would most likely be admissible. But the exclusionary rule would apply if the search itself was found unreasonable.
You are very right about the word "stop" when it comes to LE. I don't even like to say "I stopped to talk to that guy" if it was a consensual encounter. Sure "I stopped" in the common usage of he word but I did not "stop" in the legal meaning of the word.

Certain words in our business mean very specific things such as "custody" when it comes to Miranda. The average Joe might not think much of the word custody but for us it triggers things, especially if we are asking certain types of questions.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2012, 08:47   #84
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
You are very right about the word "stop" when it comes to LE. I don't even like to say "I stopped to talk to that guy" if it was a consensual encounter. Sure "I stopped" in the common usage of he word but I did not "stop" in the legal meaning of the word.

Certain words in our business mean very specific things such as "custody" when it comes to Miranda. The average Joe might not think much of the word custody but for us it triggers things, especially if we are asking certain types of questions.
We use the phrase "approached and interview" when we are doing a consensual interview where someone is free to leave (good example, in airport interdiction).

We only say "stop" to refer to a reasonable suspicion detention, and only say "arrest" for probable cause seizures of a person.

But, that is frequently the problem with these discussions. Citizens interpret words using the Oxford Dictionary definition, but for us, words means what the courts and laws say they mean.

And, as someone pointed out earler, I don't know how you even have a useful discussion on "stop and frisk" with someone who has not at least read Terry v. Ohio.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 05-24-2012 at 08:49..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2012, 15:43   #85
Mrs. Tink
Semper Fidelis
 
Mrs. Tink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
Mrs Tink;

I have no issues with you whatsoever. I apologize sincerely if I offended. The only person I have difficulty with in this thread is G19G20 who shows an unlimited capacity for both being obtuse as well as twisting things around in an effort to paint the police in a bad light.

It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.
I truly appreciate your comments. I know we can all get frustrated--I know my last post was born out of frustration--especially in a forum like this where no one is face to face and there are impediments to dialogue.

I am sure I will take you up on your offer sometime. It means a lot to me.
__________________
Being a conservative and being a good leader is not enough for some people. They want to measure your principles by how harshly you criticize the people that disagree with you. There’s a technical term for that political strategy: stupid. ~State Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-CO

Americans have put clowns in for government officials and wonder why this place runs like a circus. ~engineer151515
Mrs. Tink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2012, 22:10   #86
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Well, you don't, or didn't, realize that a frisk was a search. And you still want to characterize these things as "random". As far as I can see, your only claimed evidence for that is that sometimes nothing is found: "Nothing was found. Why? Because it was a purely random stop based on NO articulable facts other than Mr. Bilal, a black man carrying a bag, happened to be in the same area as a cop that had nothing better to do than to harrass a law abiding citizen doing his laundry."

If I've read you wrong, how about you present your evidence that this program is based on random selection? No, a media article doesn't count as evidence. Neither does a single stopee's failure to understand or relay the factors considered by the cops.
So it's my job to prove the article is accurate instead of your job as defender of the cop's actions to prove it inaccurate or incomplete? Prove the stop was justified. I have my evidence right in black and white in the article. Where's yours? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it?

Quote:
Then, let's play a math game: to begin, what is the success rate of NYPD's program? "Success" means a stop that ends in an arrest or summons--they correctly picked a criminal out of the landscape.
Who cares what the success rate is. You must subscribe to Machiavelli's motto of "end justifies the means".

If you support racial and socio-economic profiling then please just come out and say so instead of skirting around the edges.

What's sad is that the black guy with a laundry bag gets searched while the real NY criminals on Wall St steal trillions of dollars and there's not an NYPD officer in sight. How "successful" are they at picking the criminals out of the landscape then? I guess success is defined only by how many average folks can be thrown in jail while the real thieves run amok.

Btw, who cares whether a frisk is legally defined as a "search"? That's not the point here. The conduct described in the article are not Terry Stops and that was my whole point in recent posts.
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 05:05   #87
seanmac45
CLM Number 38
Charter Lifetime Member
 
seanmac45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 6,114


The conduct described in the article is indeed a Terry Stop. It just wasn't explained to the detainee or the author of the article as such. We don't have to explain our actions in a Terry Stop to the detainee, the media or YOU.

Our actions in Terry Stops are reviewed at the judicial level by Judges who are much more knowledgeable about Constitutional Law than you.

Your article is "proof" of nothing.

The idea that corporate embezzlement could be revealed through a street level interaction is ludicrous and a desperate argument on your part to seek vindication.

Rest assured though, NYPD has a very capable and highly trained FINCEN unit and it does its' task just as thoroughly and with as much dedication as do the bluesuits on the street.
__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway
seanmac45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 05:23   #88
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
It was a risk, but I knew the Judge well.

I never did try that again but it sure was enjoyable to get away with it once...........
It's nice to know that judges are willing to waive the rules of evidence when a LEO 'knows them.'
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 05:24   #89
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 19,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
The conduct described in the article is indeed a Terry Stop. It just wasn't explained to the detainee or the author of the article as such. We don't have to explain our actions in a Terry Stop to the detainee, the media or YOU.

Our actions in Terry Stops are reviewed at the judicial level by Judges who are much more knowledgeable about Constitutional Law than you.
The people mad at the police should redirect criticism toward judges and laws
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 06:14   #90
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
So it's my job to prove the article is accurate instead of your job as defender of the cop's actions to prove it inaccurate or incomplete? Prove the stop was justified. I have my evidence right in black and white in the article. Where's yours? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it?
Don't be juvenile. You make a claim, you provide evidence for it---that's the way grownups do things. Media that talk about ".9mm Glock service revolvers" are not quality sources on technical subjects.


Quote:
Who cares what the success rate is. You must subscribe to Machiavelli's motto of "end justifies the means".
You should. It's 12%, by the way. So you've got to accept that 1 in 8 people are walking around criminals. That's the only way that "random" stops can produce that arrest rate. If fewer than 1 of 8 of the general population are criminal, the the cops can't be doing random stops after all.


Quote:
If you support racial and socio-economic profiling...
You're playing the race card? Really? I support (a) putting concentrations of cops in high crime areas regardless of the racial makeup there---I won't deny police protection to people on account of their race or ability to pay for it; and (b), profiling the behavior of people encountered in those high crime areas.

Quote:
Btw, who cares whether a frisk is legally defined as a "search"? That's not the point here. The conduct described in the article are not Terry Stops and that was my whole point in recent posts.
The Supreme Court cares. And since we're playing in their field, we ought to care.

They are Terry stops. You haven't bothered to educate yourself on what's going on, nor on the controlling ConLaw on the subject. You're just frothing. Why do you hate the Constitution?
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 09:45   #91
seanmac45
CLM Number 38
Charter Lifetime Member
 
seanmac45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 6,114


Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
It's nice to know that judges are willing to waive the rules of evidence when a LEO 'knows them.'

I call it a Judge who knew a case based upon probable cause when he saw one.

That was the end of the hearing.

Sorry if it disappoints you.
__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway
seanmac45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 09:51   #92
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Don't be juvenile. You make a claim, you provide evidence for it---that's the way grownups do things. Media that talk about ".9mm Glock service revolvers" are not quality sources on technical subjects.
Im arguing the claim by CAcop that the conduct in the article is a Terry stop. Not sure what you're arguing. The contents of the article do not meet the definition of a Terry stop. It's your job to explain how it does.

Quote:
You should. It's 12%, by the way. So you've got to accept that 1 in 8 people are walking around criminals. That's the only way that "random" stops can produce that arrest rate. If fewer than 1 of 8 of the general population are criminal, the the cops can't be doing random stops after all.
The Dont Talk To Police video explains why this thinking is erroneous. There's so many laws on the books (local, state, federal, international, and all the admin regulations) that even the watchdogs have completely lost count. At any given time, practically everyone is a "criminal" either at that moment or some point in the past. Btw, 12% is pathetic. So 7 in 8 people stopped under this program aren't breaking any laws? And you're PROUD of that figure? In a "free" country like the USA...
And you're still claiming it meets the definition of a Terry stop. Odd. I'd expect a much higher success rate if cops are able to articulate FACTS that led to the stop.

Quote:
You're playing the race card? Really? I support (a) putting concentrations of cops in high crime areas regardless of the racial makeup there---I won't deny police protection to people on account of their race or ability to pay for it; and (b), profiling the behavior of people encountered in those high crime areas.
Still wondering how many of these stops take place on Wall St at lunch hour, instead of predominantly minority areas in Queens and Brooklyn. I dare any of you NYPD on this forum to set up this crap outside 85 Broad St.

Quote:
The Supreme Court cares. And since we're playing in their field, we ought to care.

They are Terry stops. You haven't bothered to educate yourself on what's going on, nor on the controlling ConLaw on the subject. You're just frothing. Why do you hate the Constitution?
OK so you tell us how a 12% success rate falls under the articulable facts of criminal conduct definition of a Terry stop.

Last edited by G19G20; 05-25-2012 at 09:56..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 10:11   #93
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
I call it a Judge who knew a case based upon probable cause when he saw one.

That was the end of the hearing.

Sorry if it disappoints you.
I know you're not, but thanks for being polite.
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks

Last edited by eracer; 05-25-2012 at 10:11..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 13:09   #94
Woofie
CLM Number 293
Disirregardless
 
Woofie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 10,111
Send a message via AIM to Woofie
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
Mrs Tink;

I have no issues with you whatsoever. I apologize sincerely if I offended. The only person I have difficulty with in this thread is G19G20 who shows an unlimited capacity for both being obtuse as well as twisting things around in an effort to paint the police in a bad light.

It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.
__________________
"Turns oit i had irrisputable proof i was out of the country" youngdocglock

"I don't need to figure probabilities, and I don't need facts." JBnTx

"Maybe they should drink like Woofie and come up with pure brilliance." OXCOPS

"Woofie is the only smart one around here." Photoman642
Woofie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 15:08   #95
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Btw, 12% is pathetic. So 7 in 8 people stopped under this program aren't breaking any laws?
12% is superb. First of all, it's significantly higher than the percentage of criminals in the general population. That all by itself disproves the silly claim that these stops are random. And I'd suggest that it's right in line with the expectation of what a reasonable suspicion is. Individual stops will have to be decided on their individual merits, but the program overall is simply not grabbing poor minorities at random.

Understand that no percentage likelihood has ever been assigned to either probable cause or reasonable suspicion. We *do* know, however that a preponderance of the evidence is 51%. Probable cause, by definition, is a standard lower than preponderance. I've heard it argued that PC is half of that standard. Reasonable suspicion is even lower than PC. By the logic employed, 12% would be right in the ballpark.

Quote:
And you're still claiming it meets the definition of a Terry stop. Odd. I'd expect a much higher success rate if cops are able to articulate FACTS that led to the stop.
I'd submit that's because you have no working knowledge of either the court requirements or the practicalities. Let's remember that RS is by definition a pattern of wholly legal behavior to begin with. After all, if the cops were witnessing and articulating illegal acts, it'd be a straight arrest with no need for an investigatory stop. Even Terry himself would have been let go if he hadn't yet picked up the gun for his robbery. When every guy who actually does this stuff and defends it in court is telling you something, including the guy from that jurisdiction, maybe you ought to pay a bit more attention. If one guy of every eight that you contact deserves to go see a judge, you're doing somerging right.


Quote:
OK so you tell us how a 12% success rate falls under the articulable facts of criminal conduct definition of a Terry stop.
Just did. If something is unclear, ask. You've shown that you're in no position to lecture.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Last edited by Sam Spade; 05-25-2012 at 15:17..
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 20:50   #96
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
These quotes are from audio recordings of NYPD, in specific reference to this program:


Deputy Inspector Mauriello, October 31, 2008 (Halloween night): "And they got any bandanas around their necks, Freddy Krueger masks, I want them stopped, cuffed, alright, brought in here, run for warrants.”

Sergeant Stukes, November 23, 2008: "If they're on a corner, make 'em move. They don't wanna move, lock 'em up. You can always articulate [a charge] later."

Sergeant Stukes, December 8, 2008: "You're gonna be 120 Chauncey [St.]. You're gonna be [in a?], uh, vehicle out there. Shake everybody up. Anybody moving, anybody coming out of that building - [UF] 250"; "You're gonna be Howard and Chauncey 1900, post one. Same thing. Two, three [inaudible]. Everybody walking around. Stop em. 250-em"; "Anybody walking around, shake 'em up, stop 'em, 250-em, doesn't matter what it takes."





And these statistics:

Guns were seized in 0.15 percent of all stops. This is despite the fact
that "suspicious bulge" was cited as a reason for 10.4 percent of all stops.84 Thus, for every sixty-nine stops that police officers justified specifically on the basis of a suspicious bulge, they found one gun.


Over the fourteen months beginning in January 1998, "NYPD officers documented 174,919 street 'stops' on UF-250 forms."57 That is equivalent to just under 12,500 stops per month or 150,000 stops per year. In 2004, officers documented over 313,000 stops, and since then the number has increased every year except 2007, rising to over 684,000 in 2011.


...approximately seventeen percent of summonses from 2004 and 2009 were thrown out by the New York courts as being facially (i.e., legally) insufficient and more than fifty percent of all summons were dismissed before trial.


Source: www.documentcloud.org/documents/356750-5-16-12-floyd-class-cert-opinion-and-order.html
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 01:30   #97
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade's first sentence View Post
12% is superb. First of all, it's significantly higher than the percentage of criminals in the general population.
You lost me right here because your last post said that 1 in 8 people is a criminal. Now it's a lot less than that? And you're talking about superb? I won't even bother with the rest of your post because your premise contradicts yourself and makes everything else you say suspect and I won't run around chasing down your contradictions all day.


eta
Quote:
Originally Posted by sam spade's last post
You should. It's 12%, by the way. So you've got to accept that 1 in 8 people are walking around criminals.

Last edited by G19G20; 05-26-2012 at 01:35..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 06:57   #98
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
I believe it is lame to speak with firmness on things you don't know about.
On the other hand, being firm to speak with lameness on things they don't know about is fun to watch! Winning!

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 07:02   #99
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
You lost me right here because your last post said that 1 in 8 people is a criminal. Now it's a lot less than that? And you're talking about superb? I won't even bother with the rest of your post because your premise contradicts yourself and makes everything else you say suspect and I won't run around chasing down your contradictions all day.


eta
No--for the results seen to be generated from pure random stops, *you* have to believe that 1 of every 8 people around you is an active criminal.

Clearly that isn't so. So for NYPD to be generating 12% arrests with a tactic, they have to be recognizing criminal behavior in those they cut out of the herd. That's the very essence of a constitutional investigatory stop.

You wanted proof that the stops weren't random, it's right there in the math. Again, the judgement about an individual stop rides on the specific facts around it.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 07:16   #100
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
Terry stops are NOT random. Stop Question and Frisk forms are the way that NYPD documents them.....

Time of day, type of location, the subjects attire, his behavior, his reactions to inquiries ALL go into the equation and it all has to be taken in, processed and acted upon by the officer in an appropriate manner, or else anything obtained will be lost as evidence in the court process.
First of all, everyone should note the bolded part. If the stops are not justifiable, i.e. strictly random, any evidence found is inadmissible , and the case against the person stopped is shot. There's your protections, there's the motivation for the cops to make sure its done right, or it's all a waste of their time.

Second, lets walk this back a bit. The person was "peppered with questions, asked for id and the officer rummaged through his bag..."

Am I missing something? Is there anything in the article that suggests this actually WAS a Terry stop? Because I'm wondering if one of the questions he was peppered with was "Do you mind if I search your bag? You have nothing to hide, right?" and the guy wasn't aware he could simply refuse a consensual search?

Maybe people should actually pay attention in civics class and have a basic understanding of their rights so they know when they've been actually violated? Just a thought.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 05-26-2012 at 07:18..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:36.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,233
353 Members
880 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31