+1
Just to add my usual comments for the consideration of any new readers or lurkers:
In Terry vs Ohio, the US Supreme Court invented reasonable suspicion and temporary detentions out of thin air, and blatantly misadjudicated the case. There are several different angles on this. If you want to know more, I'm happy to explain.
Our Pollyanna Law-enforcement Officer always commits the logical fallacies of appealing to authority or giving one-sided examples of the benefit of detentions. He never compares it to the very foundation of our government:
Government by consent among equals. Among consenting equals, the only possible legitimate justification for seizing another human being is defense of others. For example, a crime witnessed and interrupted. Even investigating, indicting, and prosecuting a crime is one step removed from that premise. That is to say, requiring probable cause to arrest an equal is already one step removed, and already opens the door to abuses. The reasonable suspicion standard for a Terry Stop, especially as modified by more than forty years of sliding-down-the-slippery-slope court decisions, completely validates the temporary seizure of innocent people. People the government just doesn't know for sure are guilty, people the government doesn't even have enough evidence to say they are probably guilty (probable cause).
The Terry decision was another step removed from defense of others. The court decisions since then that took advantage of the mile-wide loopholes in Terry created a standard that is even further removed from defense of others.
There is no possible way to justify temporarily seizing an equal on the slender excuses now sanctioned by the courts, and practiced by a law-enforcement industry which also invents creative ways to expand even the lax standard provided by the courts.
Instead of comparing temporary investigative detentions (Terry Stops) to the foundational premise of our government, PALO resorts to logical fallacies: the US Supreme Court said it, so its reasonable. It provides some benefit sometimes, so its reasonable.
If something is reasonable, it means reason went into evaluating it. In order to accept Terry v Ohio one has to suspend reason or fail to reason. And, that's just talking about the internal inconsistencies in the opinion. One has to avoid considering (reasoning) the seizure of innocent equals, also. And, none of that takes into account yet the ocean of abuses perpetrated by police and enabled by the other police who tolerate the abusers.
) so you know how unsafe I feel if a complete stranger in uniform wants to handcuff me for no real reason , .... ok I ranted , I feel better now.
