TRN
New member
Can anyone post a link where we can view the entire video?
Unfortunately it doesn't show the entire encounter.
Can anyone post a link where we can view the entire video?
Found it here all 13 mins of it, you will toss something at your screen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9O-NmBxCA
The very second those officer stopped him from leaving of his own free will, that stop becomes illegal w/o probable cause. Am I not right?
The very second those officer stopped him from leaving of his own free will, that stop becomes illegal w/o probable cause.
Found it here all 13 mins of it, you will toss something at your screen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9O-NmBxCA
The very second those officer stopped him from leaving of his own free will, that stop becomes illegal w/o probable cause. Am I not right?
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.
The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.
The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, It was unlawful but the man was detained, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun . . ."[2]
And what's worse, is what they did to his son.
I caught an interview with C.J. Wednesday morning on Beck (I don't usually listen, but it happened to be on the radio). C.J. said that he told his son in front of both officers to not answer any questions without his mom present. At that point, one cop took C.J. to jail, and the other took his son home.
But-- when he got him home, he told then son that he wouldn't let him out of the car until he answered his questions, without a parent or a lawyer.
:cuss::cuss::banghead:
The police only need RAS to detain someone, not probable cause.... And the problem with RAS is that it is ill defined and leaves a lot up to the officers judgement in the heat of the moment. Also another issue in these kinds of situations is that the victim doesn't initially know what information the police officer has and whether the police officer has valid RAS even though nothing illegal has taken place.
For instance: Lets assume the victim was doing nothing wrong, just walking down the road with a rifle on his chest. He passes a house and from the window someone sees him walking with the rifle. That person calls the police and says he saw a man walking down the road with a rifle. The dispatcher asks what kind of rifle, the guy says he thinks it is an "assault weapon". The dispatcher asks what the victim was doing with the rifle and the witness says he had another young man with him and appeared to be forcing the young man to march ahead of him at gun point. The dispatcher reports all this to the responding officer, who then approaches as if it is an active crime is taking place. The officer technically has RAS already based on the witness report and therefore can legally approach and disarm while investigating further. Florida vs J.L. doesn't apply in this kind of situation because the witness reported what would definitely be a crime if his statement is accurate, not something that may or may not be.
Of course in this case the officer effectively said all they had before the initial contact was MWAG, which is neither PC nor RAS. The proper response would be none at all, or worst case, to observe from a distance and determine if the individual has likely committed, is committing, or seems as if he is about to commit, a crime. The officers position is also entirely ruined by the fact that he walked right up to the victim and tried to disarm him without drawing his own firearm. He can't validly claim he felt a man with a rifle was a true threat if he was approaching alone and didn't draw his own firearm, at least not in my opinion, and it would be a very easy sell to a jury too.
Isn't that called "kidnapping"
Forgive my ignorance, but can you let me know what the abbreviations MWAG, PC and RAS mean? I found online that RAS is something like Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Is that correct?
Isn't that called "kidnapping"
Forgive my ignorance, but can you let me know what the abbreviations MWAG, PC and RAS mean? I found online that RAS is something like Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Is that correct?
[h=1]Army Vet Disarmed/Arrested by Ignorant Cop[/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FxXaQvMXFXo#!http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/p...with-soldiers-in-area-around-fort-hood-video/
since handgun open carry is not allowed in texas, i'm hoping the owners will allow this topic even though it involves firearms of unmentionable length