Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly defends stop-and-frisk, ‘essential’. DHS nominee

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155

    NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly defends stop-and-frisk, ‘essential’. DHS nominee

    “It is a practice that is essential to policing. Police use it throughout America. As a matter of fact, you can’t police without doing it,” he said, adding that criticism of the practice has been “overblown.” "“The notion anyone stopped has done absolutely nothing wrong is not really the case,” Commissioner Kelly responded ... As a federal court nears a decision over the legality of stop-and-frisk, Mr. Kelly penned an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, titled “NYPD: Guilty of Saving 7,383 Lives.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ds-essential-/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    We should have "stop and shove our feet up their bums"!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    At one time, beating confessions out of suspects was a practice that was essential to policing. Police used it throughout America. It wasn't right.

    An officer wants to stop and frisk a person? No problem. He just needs to have RAS, PC, or a warrant--or he should leave that person the **** alone.

    You cops don't get to go all state on someone until you can reasonably believe that he is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. It really is that simple.

    Mr. Kelly, we are the People. You are a public servant. What you want or what works best for you does not matter. Our desire to have our rights respected does matter. Get over it.
    Last edited by eye95; 07-23-2013 at 05:49 PM.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    At one time, beating confessions out of suspects was a practice that was essential to policing. Police used it throughout America. It wasn't right.

    An officer wants to stop and frisk a person? No problem. He just needs to have RAS, PC, or a warrant--or he should leave that person the **** alone.

    You cops don't get to go all state on someone until you can reasonably believe that he is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. It really is that simple.

    Mr. Kelly, we are the People. You are a public servant. What you want or what works best for you does not matter. Our desire to have our rights respected does matter. Get over it.
    I had a nice, pro-rights reply all figured out for the commissar's commissioner's statement. Eye's was better.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-23-2013 at 07:18 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    For any who haven't been following this story with the NYPD, it goes back years. It first broke in the press about two or three years ago.

    In certain sections of NYC, there have been vast numbers of stop-and-frisks--hundreds of thousands--in a relatively short time frame. In one area, the number of stops-and-frisk exceeded the male population, meaning some were being S&F'd multiple times.

    But, the commissioner's lie about people not being innocent is told by the statistics: hundreds of thousands of S&Fs, but a tiny number of actual arrests or citations. So, either the commissioner is lying, or his cops couldn't turn RAS into probable cause, which totally defies belief.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I had a nice, pro-rights reply all figured out for the commissar's commissioner's statement. Eye's was better.
    I don't know what you had figured out, but Eye's post was definitely on time.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    “It is a practice that is essential to policing. Police use it throughout America. As a matter of fact, you can’t police without doing it,” he said, adding that criticism of the practice has been “overblown.” "“The notion anyone stopped has done absolutely nothing wrong is not really the case,” Commissioner Kelly responded ... As a federal court nears a decision over the legality of stop-and-frisk, Mr. Kelly penned an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, titled “NYPD: Guilty of Saving 7,383 Lives.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ds-essential-/
    Making stops (seizures) pursuant to Terry v. Ohio iow with reasonable suspicion is a valid tool for law enforcement. For example, if a getaway car is described leaving the scene of a robbery, and an officer sees a similar vehicle (Green minivan, for example, as the description) headed away from the scene a minute later, he can stop the vehicle based on REASONABLE SUSPICION (terry) and then bring the victim to the scene for a one on one to see if the victim can confirm or deny that the person in the vehicle was the person who robbed him.

    Lots more examples, but Terry stops are both constitutional and a huge benefit to society in authorizing law enforcement to stop and investigate suspicious behavior. In many cases, either the officer will realize what was suspicious is easily explainable and not at all related to a crime or he may have his suspicions but be unable to establish PC. In either case, the person is let go after a brief detention. There's no bright line rule, but 15 minutes is reasonable for a terry stop. I've made hundreds of terry stops in my career.

    The problem with NYPD is that it's pretty clear they are NOT relying on RS to make stops, but are instead harassing innocents on the flimsiest of pretexts. Iow, terry stops good, NYPD execution of same NOT good.

    Also, NYPD is conducting frisks without the required specific articulable suspicion of the person being armed and dangerous that is required under Terry v. Ohio
    Last edited by PALO; 07-27-2013 at 06:03 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Terry vs. Ohio was a horrible watering down of the 4th amendment.

    Every "tool" LEA's want to help crime is an infringement upon a free peoples liberties.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Terry vs. Ohio was a horrible watering down of the 4th amendment.

    Every "tool" LEA's want to help crime is an infringement upon a free peoples liberties.
    Any tool you give the guberment will be mis-used ... look at the NSA ..

    I won't even help the gubernment with criminal cases until the tools are taken away.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    25

    Terry Stops

    Periodically I get stopped this way, because I carry my cell phone and metal wallet in a shoulder holster rig. I just explain it to the cops - at this point they can see what it is - and move on. At least twice I have been carrying concealed, and the discussion never came up.

    Kelley's problem is the manner and style that his people use, not the stop itself. NYC cops panic at the thought of a low serf carrying a firearm, and the paranoia messes up their heads. The person stopped is considered an enemy.

    Florida cops, on the other hand, are used to running into law abiding citizens packing, and use a more nuanced approach. They consider us carriers their allies, and like the possibility of a dead perp, since there is less paperwork. I work as a security guard, and have discussed situations where robbers were doing a series of events, and it was described as a race - would the police catch them, or would a civilian get them first.

    While working in NYC at JFK, I would get weird looks about my phone, but as an olde white guy they never said anything. Now if I was a young minority male.....

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly defends stop-and-frisk, ‘essential’. DHS nomin

    Stop and frisk has nothing to do with manner of carry--or even carry at all. It has to do with police wanting to be able to stop someone because they "get a hinky feeling" or they "have a hunch."

    It stems from the notion that government is supposed to "do something" to "prevent crime." When government tries to "prevent crime," it reduces crime very little. It ends up annoying the hell out of the law-abiding and, as in the case of NYC's stop-and-frisk, violating the hell outta people's rights.

    Government's proper role is to react to crime, to punish it, and thereby reduce it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    <snip>

    Lots more examples, but Terry stops are both constitutional and a huge benefit to society in authorizing law enforcement to stop and investigate suspicious behavior. In many cases, either the officer will realize what was suspicious is easily explainable and not at all related to a crime or he may have his suspicions but be unable to establish PC. In either case, the person is let go after a brief detention. There's no bright line rule, but 15 minutes is reasonable for a terry stop. I've made hundreds of terry stops in my career. <snip>
    Constitutional, a statement of fact.

    Huge benefit? The jury remains undecided in my view. What I consider suspicious and what a LEO considers suspicious may be two different things. It is unfortunate that my suspicion could lead to a civil proceeding against me if my suspicion was wrong. LEOs have no such fear, if they did then Terry would not be used as frequently as it is today. The hurdle that a aggrieved citizen must jump over to gain a redress of a wrong suspicion by LE is daunting, though not impossible, theoretically speaking of course.

    I am continually amused by the definitions of "brief." Brief for me is of a much shorter duration than what the courts have provided as a definition for the use by LE. Terry is very useful for LE and anti-liberty. Proactive policing is rarely successful at mitigating crime and very successful at mitigating the public's trust in LE.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Stop and frisk has nothing to do with manner of carry--or even carry at all. It has to do with police wanting to be able to stop someone because they "get a hinky feeling" or they "have a hunch."
    I'm betting the frisk part is more a fishing expedition for drugs by way of plain feel. Terry is pretty clear about when a cop can frisk for a weapon.

    There is just no way I'll believe that the huge number of stops include reasonable indicators the detainee might be armed. But, I'll bet the cops push the envelope on Terry, hoping they can feel a baggy of weed or crack.

    And, why not? If the cop finds nothing and releases his victim, the victim is unlikely to sue. If the cop finds something, he can always embellish his report to include something that "gave him reason to suspect the defendant might be armed."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    I've seen a lot of rubbish analysis of stop and frisk and reasonable suspicion in general.

    Let me give you an example of why reasonable suspicion is a good standard. I saw a guy trying to coat hanger his way into a car at 0 dark 30 in a parking lot. Guess what? That's reasonable suspicion. In that case, it turned out that after makin g a terry and investigating further, he was breaking into somebody else's car w/o permission and I was able to establish PC for an arrest.

    In another case, nearly the same scenario, except upon investigation, it turned out he was trying to get into his OWN car, and obviously no crime was occurring. I was able to help him get in, get his keys and be on h is merry way.

    Without RS as a standard to stop and investigate, I would not be able to have investigated these incidents.

    Cops can and should be able to investigate suspicious activity that is MORE than a mere hunch but below the standard of probable cause to arrest. The 4th amendment says seizures must be "reasonable" . It does not establish the standard of evidence to make such seizures.

    I believe the court established standard is REASONABLE.

    If probable cause was the standard to SEIZE than that would be an unreasoble standard imnsho and would not give LEO's the tools to protect the public while balancing the rights of suspects.

    I was proned out at gunpoint once based on RS. I was innocent, but the cops had RS to stop me and good for them for doing so professionally.

    Again, the problem is NOT the RS standard or terry stops. The problem is that NYPD is making stops and doing frisks without HAVING reasonable suspicion for the seizure and without specific articulable facts to justify a pat frisk.

    I am happy to live in a state that restricts LEO's much more than the constitution requires, since my state has an explicit right to privacy. We can't search cars incident to arrest, we are much more limited in curtilage searches, overhead searches, seizures, etc. It's great. But even with our explicit right to privacy recognized in WA state, that does not prevent cops from making BRIEF investigatory stops based on RS.

    the RS standard has allowed me to solve a lot of crimes and to gather tons of intelligence that later helped solve crimes and I'll continue to make terry stops because they are a valid constitutional tool and they help me serve the people in the community I serve.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I've seen a lot of rubbish analysis of stop and frisk and reasonable suspicion in general.

    Let me give you an example of why reasonable suspicion is a good standard. I saw a guy trying to coat hanger his way into a car at 0 dark 30 in a parking lot. Guess what? That's reasonable suspicion. In that case, it turned out that after makin g a terry and investigating further, he was breaking into somebody else's car w/o permission and I was able to establish PC for an arrest.

    In another case, nearly the same scenario, except upon investigation, it turned out he was trying to get into his OWN car, and obviously no crime was occurring. I was able to help him get in, get his keys and be on h is merry way.

    Without RS as a standard to stop and investigate, I would not be able to have investigated these incidents.

    Cops can and should be able to investigate suspicious activity that is MORE than a mere hunch but below the standard of probable cause to arrest. The 4th amendment says seizures must be "reasonable" . It does not establish the standard of evidence to make such seizures.

    I believe the court established standard is REASONABLE.

    If probable cause was the standard to SEIZE than that would be an unreasoble standard imnsho and would not give LEO's the tools to protect the public while balancing the rights of suspects.

    I was proned out at gunpoint once based on RS. I was innocent, but the cops had RS to stop me and good for them for doing so professionally.

    Again, the problem is NOT the RS standard or terry stops. The problem is that NYPD is making stops and doing frisks without HAVING reasonable suspicion for the seizure and without specific articulable facts to justify a pat frisk.

    I am happy to live in a state that restricts LEO's much more than the constitution requires, since my state has an explicit right to privacy. We can't search cars incident to arrest, we are much more limited in curtilage searches, overhead searches, seizures, etc. It's great. But even with our explicit right to privacy recognized in WA state, that does not prevent cops from making BRIEF investigatory stops based on RS.

    the RS standard has allowed me to solve a lot of crimes and to gather tons of intelligence that later helped solve crimes and I'll continue to make terry stops because they are a valid constitutional tool and they help me serve the people in the community I serve.
    Valid constitutional tool? When proactive policing isn't even constitutional?

    How do you right this with the fact that our constitution is based on natural and common law, one that says we have the right to resist an unlawful arrest. Guess what a detention was until Terry..........an arrest.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Valid constitutional tool? When proactive policing isn't even constitutional?

    How do you right this with the fact that our constitution is based on natural and common law, one that says we have the right to resist an unlawful arrest. Guess what a detention was until Terry..........an arrest.
    You can assert all you want that it's unconstitutional. Fine. That's your opinion.

    I disagree, as do the courts. I would suggest the majority of the public if presented with the above listed scenarious would also agree that a cop should be able to stop a possible getaway car or investigate a guy slim jimming his way into a car . And it's the RS standard that gives LEO's the authority to do so.

    THe 4th says seizures must be reasonable. It does not establish the standard of evidence to make such seizures.

    Again, you can make assertions all you want, but if the founders had written the constitution differently then the law would be different.

    They left the standard undefined except for "reasonable" and IMO the courts established a standard that balances very well.

    Again, that's tangential to the fact (imo) that NYPD is abusing their authoritah

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly defends stop-and-frisk, ‘essential’. DHS nomin

    I'm gonna get smacked for this, but a cop stopping someone coat-hangering his way into a car is quite reasonable.

    State and local policing is a function of State constitutions, not the US Constitution, so I do not see "proactive" policing being necessarily unconstitutional.

    If a cop sees something that any reasonable person would suspect is a crime against another person, I damned well want him to stop the suspect and investigate.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    Last edited by eye95; 07-29-2013 at 06:59 PM.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    PALO and Eye are just so much statist blah, blah, blah regurgitation.

    They carefully avoid the crucial point: that a cop isn't just investigating--he's seizing someone. In fact, that's just about the only power he has, since his victim can often completely stymie the investigation just by shutting up.

    Now, where on earth did the cop get that power to seize someone while investigating a crime? Citizens don't have that power. How did government received a delegated power that was not in the hands of the citizens to delegate?
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-29-2013 at 08:38 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    SNIP

    Let me give you an example of why reasonable suspicion is a good standard. I saw a guy trying to coat hanger his way into a car at 0 dark 30 in a parking lot. Guess what? That's reasonable suspicion. In that case, it turned out that after makin g a terry and investigating further, he was breaking into somebody else's car w/o permission and I was able to establish PC for an arrest.

    1. In another case, nearly the same scenario, except upon investigation, it turned out he was trying to get into his OWN car, and obviously no crime was occurring. I was able to help him get in, get his keys and be on h is merry way.

    2. Without RS as a standard to stop and investigate, I would not be able to have investigated these incidents.

    Cops can and should be able to investigate suspicious activity that is MORE than a mere hunch but below the standard of probable cause to arrest. The 4th amendment says seizures must be "reasonable" . It does not establish the standard of evidence to make such seizures.

    I believe the court established standard is REASONABLE.

    If probable cause was the standard to SEIZE than that would be an unreasoble standard imnsho and would not give LEO's the tools to protect the public while balancing the rights of suspects.

    I was proned out at gunpoint once based on RS. I was innocent, but the cops had RS to stop me and good for them for doing so professionally.

    Again, the problem is NOT the RS standard or terry stops. The problem is that NYPD is making stops and doing frisks without HAVING reasonable suspicion for the seizure and without specific articulable facts to justify a pat frisk.

    I am happy to live in a state that restricts LEO's much more than the constitution requires, since my state has an explicit right to privacy. We can't search cars incident to arrest, we are much more limited in curtilage searches, overhead searches, seizures, etc. It's great. But even with our explicit right to privacy recognized in WA state, that does not prevent cops from making BRIEF investigatory stops based on RS.

    the RS standard has allowed me to solve a lot of crimes and to gather tons of intelligence that later helped solve crimes and I'll continue to make terry stops because they are a valid constitutional tool and they help me serve the people in the community I serve.
    1. Oh, ho, ho, ho. Thank you for that revealing admission.

    2. Horse%&$#. You can investigate all you want. Anybody can. You're carefully omitting that you seized someone.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    1. Oh, ho, ho, ho. Thank you for that revealing admission.

    2. Horse%&$#. You can investigate all you want. Anybody can. You're carefully omitting that you seized someone.
    No, I'm n ot. I said STOP and investigate. A "stop" is a seizure. They are basically interchangeable terms in the field of constitutional law.

    It's a darned good thing cops can SEIZE/STOP and investigate (briefly) with RS. It balances quite well the right of people to be free of govt. intrusion with the authority of the state to investigate crime and protect life/property, to include inchoate offenses.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Re: NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly defends stop-and-frisk, ‘essential’. DHS nominee

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    PALO and Eye are just so much statist blah, blah, blah regurgitation.

    They carefully avoid the crucial point: that a cop isn't just investigating--he's seizing someone. In fact, that's just about the only power he has, since his victim can often completely stymie the investigation just by shutting up.

    Now, where on earth did the cop get that power to seize someone while investigating a crime? Citizens don't have that power. How did government received a delegated power that was not in the hands of the citizens to delegate?
    Citizens do have that power, and the power to delegate it. Common law allows you to detain another person you have good reason to believe has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and to do so for investigative purposes without probable cause for arrest. The fact that we have let the formal acknowledgement of this right be legislated away from us in most states in favor of police doing it doesn't mean we don't have this right or the power to delegate it.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly defends stop-and-frisk, ‘essential’. DHS nomin

    If it is my car, I sure as hell hope that a cop who sees someone, even me, trying to get into it with a coathanger, stops him! Whether you call it an investigatory stop, a detention, or a seizure, I don't care. This is the function of police: reacting to what any reasonable person would suspect is a crime and could articulate to another where that person could also reasonably conclude that the activity looked suspiciously like a crime in progress!

    That ain't statist. That is the reasonable recognition that some small amount of government and some small amount of policing against crime is necessary for a functioning society.

    I am sorry if that offends those who want no government or no police at all. Actually, no I am not.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    PALO and Eye are just so much statist blah, blah, blah regurgitation.

    They carefully avoid the crucial point: that a cop isn't just investigating--he's seizing someone. In fact, that's just about the only power he has, since his victim can often completely stymie the investigation just by shutting up.

    Now, where on earth did the cop get that power to seize someone while investigating a crime? Citizens don't have that power. How did government received a delegated power that was not in the hands of the citizens to delegate?
    I am far from a statist, but that is usually the refuge of somebody who has no argument- devolve to name calling.

    I have not avoided the crucial point that the cop is seizing somebody. I reference both stops and seizures (same thing) in my posts about terry STOPS . duh. stop -= seizure. It appears to me you are just not reading what I am writing.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    Citizens do have that power, and the power to delegate it. Common law allows you to detain another person you have good reason to believe has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and to do so for investigative purposes without probable cause for arrest. The fact that we have let the formal acknowledgement of this right be legislated away from us in most states in favor of police doing it doesn't mean we don't have this right or the power to delegate it.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
    You are correct. The law of course varies state to state in regards to the standard of evidence for a "citizen" (cops are citizens too , but I know what u mean) to seize somebody but I have MANY MANY times responded to scenes where average joes have detained somebody. And I can only recall a handful of incidents where they didn't have sufficient cause to seize or where they went overboard in their use of force. I've had cases where they seized drunk drivers, burglars, auto prowlers, etc. And as a cop I LOVE when average joes get involved. It's not vigilantism to act in such a manner. Vigilantism is when you try to punish people for past acts. I am talking about citizens responding to crimes in progress.

    Just the other day I responded to a burglary where a citizen held the burglar at gunpoint inside his garage. The burglar was so terrified SHE called 911 lol and asked us to hurry up.

    Most states have a higher standard of evidence required for citizens to seize vs. cops. Cops can seize with RS. Most states require either probable cause or "in fact committed" (the offense is witnessed by the citizen). Otoh, they generally give citizens MORE leeway with use of force than they give cops. I recall one case in Kelso oregon where a guy broke into a house the neighbor KNEW was unoccupied. When the guy left, the neighbor told him to stop and when he didn't, he shot the guy in the buttocks with a bow and arrow (deadly force). If I shot a NONVIOLENT fleeing felon I would be in deep ****, but the prosecutor cut the "citizen" a break. Another difference is that cops have qualified immunity in terms of civil action against them.

    I've been a police officer in three states and in all of those states, citizens ABSOLUTELY had the right to use reasonable force to detain persons that they witnessed committing a crime.

    My state is especially protective of the right to self defense as well. Not only does the state have the burden to disprove self defense, but if the jury rules not guilty they are then polled to see if they believe the case was self defense. If yes, the defendant gets both BACK PAY for the course of the trial AND his entire defense (lawyer etc.) paid for by the state!

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I am far from a statist, but that is usually the refuge of somebody who has no argument- devolve to name calling.

    I have not avoided the crucial point that the cop is seizing somebody. I reference both stops and seizures (same thing) in my posts about terry STOPS . duh. stop -= seizure. It appears to me you are just not reading what I am writing.
    Nice try. Mentioning in passing doesn't count. Your emphasis is on investigating.

    Now, both you and Eye are still dodging the question: where do cops get an authority (seize) that citizens didn't possess and couldn't have delegated? You even went off on a tangent about crimes witnessed rather than crimes suspected.

    Face it. SCOTUS invented Terry out of whole cloth, and sanctioned illegal seizures police had been perpetrating on citizens for some time. The faulty logic is right there in Terry for anybody to see.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •