roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Stop feeding the troll....
Stop feeding the troll....
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Was I just Terry Stopped?
- Thread starter AbNo
- Start date
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Thank you again, Citizen, thank you 229, and everyone, please follow Roscoe's advice.
Thank you again, Citizen, thank you 229, and everyone, please follow Roscoe's advice.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I don't think Nitrovic was trolling and I think he was giving honest input to the situation until he got frustrated and as he received confrontational responses. We were asked by forum staff to put the past aside and give him an honest chance and I for one intend to do that as I promised.
Nitrovic, just because someone argues with your opinion is no reason to get upset and bail or to go off on the entire forum. People argue with each other all the time (on most forums) in one thread and are on the same side in the next thread. It is sometimes very frustrating and sometimes you just have to shrug and walk away as it were. I was heartened to see your first posts in this thread as you were involved in the dialogue of the forum and offering topical input from your experience without rancor. I'm sure that you can understand that there will some reactiveness for a while given the previous issues. Sometimes the best outcome is an unsatisfying "we'll just have to agree to disagree on this."
I don't think Nitrovic was trolling and I think he was giving honest input to the situation until he got frustrated and as he received confrontational responses. We were asked by forum staff to put the past aside and give him an honest chance and I for one intend to do that as I promised.
Nitrovic, just because someone argues with your opinion is no reason to get upset and bail or to go off on the entire forum. People argue with each other all the time (on most forums) in one thread and are on the same side in the next thread. It is sometimes very frustrating and sometimes you just have to shrug and walk away as it were. I was heartened to see your first posts in this thread as you were involved in the dialogue of the forum and offering topical input from your experience without rancor. I'm sure that you can understand that there will some reactiveness for a while given the previous issues. Sometimes the best outcome is an unsatisfying "we'll just have to agree to disagree on this."
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
I don't think what he was doing fit the literal definition of a troll, either.
I think he saw something he disagreed with, and rather than post incisive analysis supported by court opinions of his own, he just contradicted. And kept contradicting, without really posting anything really useful.
I also think he jumped the gun a little bit with his first post, declaring it wasn't a non-consensual encounter, seemingly without reading farther into the thread to see Abno's supplemental information.
His near hysterical sign-off even contradicted himself. "Get a lawyer or do your own research." OK. Where did he think we've been getting our case law? Personal research. He's basically telling us we should do the very thing he's telling us we shouldn't be doing because we'll come up with "wrong" answers.
One of his points was a little revealing. Cases that don't apply because the circumstances in the cited casesare different. Differences are great, but only if they are differences that matter.He didn't bother to examine or discuss similarities.But that's justdiversion on his part. The real matter is that nobody needs to compare the exact circumstances to be able to read the principle quoted and figure out whether it applies, and to what extent it applies. Its the principles that guide the decision, notthe circumstances in the caseguiding the principles--which seems to be his logic.
Another comment that points up his thinking difficulty was the one about all cases are different, that's why the court hears cases. If all cases were so different, there would be no point inconsulting opinions.There are differences and there are similarities. Again, he was overlooking the similarities. Or not bothering to postthe differences and explain how they rendered the quoted material inapplicable.
I don't mind if he "spreads the word." Intelligent people who come and look will see very little to match his histrionics. If hard-headed cops come to look, well, I don't mind them discovering that there are a bunch of citizens who know the case law. Maybe it will make them more careful to observe people's rights.
Its one thing to get frustrated. Its something else to just keep contradicting instead of offering persuasive information. And it is definitely something else to get so frustrated in so little discussion,fly off the handle,and leave with a threat.
deepdiver wrote:
I don't think what he was doing fit the literal definition of a troll, either.
I think he saw something he disagreed with, and rather than post incisive analysis supported by court opinions of his own, he just contradicted. And kept contradicting, without really posting anything really useful.
I also think he jumped the gun a little bit with his first post, declaring it wasn't a non-consensual encounter, seemingly without reading farther into the thread to see Abno's supplemental information.
His near hysterical sign-off even contradicted himself. "Get a lawyer or do your own research." OK. Where did he think we've been getting our case law? Personal research. He's basically telling us we should do the very thing he's telling us we shouldn't be doing because we'll come up with "wrong" answers.
One of his points was a little revealing. Cases that don't apply because the circumstances in the cited casesare different. Differences are great, but only if they are differences that matter.He didn't bother to examine or discuss similarities.But that's justdiversion on his part. The real matter is that nobody needs to compare the exact circumstances to be able to read the principle quoted and figure out whether it applies, and to what extent it applies. Its the principles that guide the decision, notthe circumstances in the caseguiding the principles--which seems to be his logic.
Another comment that points up his thinking difficulty was the one about all cases are different, that's why the court hears cases. If all cases were so different, there would be no point inconsulting opinions.There are differences and there are similarities. Again, he was overlooking the similarities. Or not bothering to postthe differences and explain how they rendered the quoted material inapplicable.
I don't mind if he "spreads the word." Intelligent people who come and look will see very little to match his histrionics. If hard-headed cops come to look, well, I don't mind them discovering that there are a bunch of citizens who know the case law. Maybe it will make them more careful to observe people's rights.
Its one thing to get frustrated. Its something else to just keep contradicting instead of offering persuasive information. And it is definitely something else to get so frustrated in so little discussion,fly off the handle,and leave with a threat.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Or, you know, go and bad-mouth a group of people to another forum.
Citizen wrote:
Or, you know, go and bad-mouth a group of people to another forum.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
IMHO no Terry Stop, just a consensual encounter. Continue walking or ask - am I being detained?
The police need RAS in order to Terry stop. The officer knew OC was legal and never indicated any RAS, therefore no Terry Stop.
IMHO no Terry Stop, just a consensual encounter. Continue walking or ask - am I being detained?
The police need RAS in order to Terry stop. The officer knew OC was legal and never indicated any RAS, therefore no Terry Stop.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Then why did he insist on IDing me?
Then why did he insist on IDing me?
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Maybe he didn't like the way you looked. He might have had a "gut feeling", but no RAS, so by definition no Terry Stop.
Maybe he didn't like the way you looked. He might have had a "gut feeling", but no RAS, so by definition no Terry Stop.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Well, then what is it?
Saying "It's not this" isn't quite as helpful as saying "It wasn't this, but it WAS that..."
Well, then what is it?
Saying "It's not this" isn't quite as helpful as saying "It wasn't this, but it WAS that..."
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
AbNo wrote:
AbNo wrote:
I think it was a consensual encounter. Not a pleasant one, but one in which you were free not to take part in. I hate to agree with nitrovic, but that is what it seems to be.Well, then what is it?
Saying "It's not this" isn't quite as helpful as saying "It wasn't this, but it WAS that..."
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Beg to differ on a few points, DeepDiver. No offense.
Whether the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) is not the definition of whether a seizure occurred. This logic would mean that if you are hand-cuffed, mug-shotted, and "booked" without probable cause, then no arrest actually occurred.
Also, to use the standard that one is free by law to not take part misses similarly. Just because a citizen is arrested without probable cause, yet had the right to resist an unlawful arrest but did not resist,does not mean that the arrest did not take place.
I am not a lawyer. Yet to the extent of my research it is my personal understanding that the standard in use by the courts is this or something very similar to it:
From the totality of the circumstances would a reasonable person conclude that he is free to ignore the officer's inquiries and walk away?Additionally, it is my understanding that these are examples of circumstances that might lead a reasonable person to conclude that he is not free to ignore or walk away:
1. Authoritative or commanding tone of voice.
2. Show of authority (not exactly sure, except perhaps by commanding gestures or posture that indicates readiness to apply force).
3. Hands on weapons.
4. Blocking the person'spath.
5. Touching the person, controlling his movement.
6. Making the person go somewhere else after the contact to continue the interview.
7. Superior numbers .
8. Intimidating speech. (For example the statement leveled at Unrequited: "You need to come outside right now or something very bad is going to happen.").
This list might not be exhaustive.
See the cases I quoted earlier in this thread. Not just the quotes, the cases themselves. One of the great things about court opinions is that within themselves, they cite other court opinions. Meaning, they give you plenty of threads to follow. Print them off and use a highlighter on the important parts orcopy and link them on your computer for quick reference.
Lets look at it from another angle, just to enhance the perspective. It is unwise to walk away from a police encounter in the face of indicators that compliance might be compelled. Whether it is technically legalhas littlebearing on whetherits smart to walk away or whether doing so may trigger a compelling response,even if theofficer has failed to declared a detention. Remember also, that likely you will have no way of knowing for sure whether the officer hasreasonable suspicion given that police lie. Thus you have no way of knowing whether the officer considers he has RAS; and, that will be the key element in whether you trigger a compelling response--what the officer considers. If the officer thinks he has legitimate reason to detain you, even if he legally does not, you will probably trigger a compelling response by trying to walk away. I'm not saying you can't ask. I'm only examining this one part of the picture.
But lets look at that part of the picture. The 4th Amendment does not require you to ask the officer if he has RAS in order to determine whether you are seized. It does not require you to ask if you are free to go in order to determine whether you are seized. It does not require you to attempt to leave in order to determine whether you are seized.Doing these things may show it very clearly, but you are not required to do them to determine whether aseizure has occurred.
Also, the 4th Amendment does not require you to evaluate the officer's statements about his reason for encountering you in order that youjudge whether he hasa genuine RASso you can figure out whether you are free to leave or not.How in the world are most people going to know whether any given reason really amounts to genuine RAS? And use that to determine whether they can ignore the cop and leave? Of course, not. And that is if he is being truthful, giving you the real reason for the encounter. The 4th Amendment does not require us to be able to evaluate an officer's stated reasons in order to determine whether we are free to disregard his inquiries.
Keep in mind that we have specialized knowledge, a degree of it anyway since we're not lawyers. Unfortunately a lot of people don't know the details of the 4th Amendment that we do. What would a reasonable person conclude about whether he was free to ignorean officer's inquiries?
As a counter-point, think up what circumstances and indications a genuinely, obviously consensual encounter might include: Relaxed officercommenting about the weather. A smile vs a hard expression. Pointed questionsaboutyou vs "did you see a guy with a purse run past here." Etc. Think up a few yourself.
Keep your eye on the ball folks. The question is whether a seizure occurred, as opposed to whether the citizen exercised his rights.
Based on what AbNo is telling us, I think one did.
Beg to differ on a few points, DeepDiver. No offense.
Whether the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) is not the definition of whether a seizure occurred. This logic would mean that if you are hand-cuffed, mug-shotted, and "booked" without probable cause, then no arrest actually occurred.
Also, to use the standard that one is free by law to not take part misses similarly. Just because a citizen is arrested without probable cause, yet had the right to resist an unlawful arrest but did not resist,does not mean that the arrest did not take place.
I am not a lawyer. Yet to the extent of my research it is my personal understanding that the standard in use by the courts is this or something very similar to it:
From the totality of the circumstances would a reasonable person conclude that he is free to ignore the officer's inquiries and walk away?
1. Authoritative or commanding tone of voice.
2. Show of authority (not exactly sure, except perhaps by commanding gestures or posture that indicates readiness to apply force).
3. Hands on weapons.
4. Blocking the person'spath.
5. Touching the person, controlling his movement.
6. Making the person go somewhere else after the contact to continue the interview.
7. Superior numbers .
8. Intimidating speech. (For example the statement leveled at Unrequited: "You need to come outside right now or something very bad is going to happen.").
See the cases I quoted earlier in this thread. Not just the quotes, the cases themselves. One of the great things about court opinions is that within themselves, they cite other court opinions. Meaning, they give you plenty of threads to follow. Print them off and use a highlighter on the important parts orcopy and link them on your computer for quick reference.
Lets look at it from another angle, just to enhance the perspective. It is unwise to walk away from a police encounter in the face of indicators that compliance might be compelled. Whether it is technically legalhas littlebearing on whetherits smart to walk away or whether doing so may trigger a compelling response,even if theofficer has failed to declared a detention. Remember also, that likely you will have no way of knowing for sure whether the officer hasreasonable suspicion given that police lie. Thus you have no way of knowing whether the officer considers he has RAS; and, that will be the key element in whether you trigger a compelling response--what the officer considers. If the officer thinks he has legitimate reason to detain you, even if he legally does not, you will probably trigger a compelling response by trying to walk away. I'm not saying you can't ask. I'm only examining this one part of the picture.
But lets look at that part of the picture. The 4th Amendment does not require you to ask the officer if he has RAS in order to determine whether you are seized. It does not require you to ask if you are free to go in order to determine whether you are seized. It does not require you to attempt to leave in order to determine whether you are seized.Doing these things may show it very clearly, but you are not required to do them to determine whether aseizure has occurred.
Also, the 4th Amendment does not require you to evaluate the officer's statements about his reason for encountering you in order that youjudge whether he hasa genuine RASso you can figure out whether you are free to leave or not.How in the world are most people going to know whether any given reason really amounts to genuine RAS? And use that to determine whether they can ignore the cop and leave? Of course, not. And that is if he is being truthful, giving you the real reason for the encounter. The 4th Amendment does not require us to be able to evaluate an officer's stated reasons in order to determine whether we are free to disregard his inquiries.
Keep in mind that we have specialized knowledge, a degree of it anyway since we're not lawyers. Unfortunately a lot of people don't know the details of the 4th Amendment that we do. What would a reasonable person conclude about whether he was free to ignorean officer's inquiries?
As a counter-point, think up what circumstances and indications a genuinely, obviously consensual encounter might include: Relaxed officercommenting about the weather. A smile vs a hard expression. Pointed questionsaboutyou vs "did you see a guy with a purse run past here." Etc. Think up a few yourself.
Keep your eye on the ball folks. The question is whether a seizure occurred, as opposed to whether the citizen exercised his rights.
Based on what AbNo is telling us, I think one did.
imported post
Vic, there is wrong and there is wrong.
There's enough to file a complaint over because there's always enough.
The problem is that he should never have been approached that way. ABNO is a nice kid that tries to be cooperative. Sure he could have walked away but he tried to be as cooperative as he could without breeching his self imposed limits.
As a former LEO, would you rather have contact with someone like that or like me. In the same circumstance, I would and have given my name. When the lecture started said " That's your opinion Officer and since I don't give a rats ass what your opinion is, save it because this conversation is OVER.
Not much you can do but beat your chest a few times and we all go home pissed.
Think about it!
Vic, there is wrong and there is wrong.
There's enough to file a complaint over because there's always enough.
The problem is that he should never have been approached that way. ABNO is a nice kid that tries to be cooperative. Sure he could have walked away but he tried to be as cooperative as he could without breeching his self imposed limits.
As a former LEO, would you rather have contact with someone like that or like me. In the same circumstance, I would and have given my name. When the lecture started said " That's your opinion Officer and since I don't give a rats ass what your opinion is, save it because this conversation is OVER.
Not much you can do but beat your chest a few times and we all go home pissed.
Think about it!
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
Not sure if you are referring to AbNo's encounter or encounters generally.
In case you mean generally, allow me to contribute something.
Almost every encounter, excluding traffic stops,between police and OC'ers we've seen reported here had, based on the reports, nogenuine RAS.
That means that most encounters should have been consensual, almost all.
Well, all you have to do is say at the outset, "Officer, I know you're just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter."*
End of discussion. Period. You have now laid down a defined and recognizeable boundry across which the officer may not proceed without genuine RAS.
If he proceeds, he had better have genuine RAS, or a piece of his personnel file is yours.
No need to beat your chest. No need to go home angry. He will leave you alone, or if he doesn't, just quietly gather your evidence, and nail his personnel file. Or not, if it turns out he did have genuine RAS.
*Commonwealth vs Taylor:
[align=left]In Wechsler v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 162, 169, 455 S.E.2d 744, 747 (1995), this Court summarized the three types of police-citizen encounters: [/align]
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence recognizes three categories of police-citizen confrontations: (1) consensual encounters, (2) brief, minimally intrusive investigatory detentions, based upon specific, articulable facts, commonly referred to as Terry stops, and (3) highly intrusive arrests and searches founded on probable cause.
http://tinyurl.com/5np6sh (middle of page two)
peter nap wrote:
Not sure if you are referring to AbNo's encounter or encounters generally.
In case you mean generally, allow me to contribute something.
Almost every encounter, excluding traffic stops,between police and OC'ers we've seen reported here had, based on the reports, nogenuine RAS.
That means that most encounters should have been consensual, almost all.
Well, all you have to do is say at the outset, "Officer, I know you're just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter."*
End of discussion. Period. You have now laid down a defined and recognizeable boundry across which the officer may not proceed without genuine RAS.
If he proceeds, he had better have genuine RAS, or a piece of his personnel file is yours.
No need to beat your chest. No need to go home angry. He will leave you alone, or if he doesn't, just quietly gather your evidence, and nail his personnel file. Or not, if it turns out he did have genuine RAS.
*Commonwealth vs Taylor:
[align=left]In Wechsler v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 162, 169, 455 S.E.2d 744, 747 (1995), this Court summarized the three types of police-citizen encounters: [/align]
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence recognizes three categories of police-citizen confrontations: (1) consensual encounters, (2) brief, minimally intrusive investigatory detentions, based upon specific, articulable facts, commonly referred to as Terry stops, and (3) highly intrusive arrests and searches founded on probable cause.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
Couple of years in the service can do that to you.
Besides, if Autozone didn't have that replacement-replacement TPS for my Jeep, I was walking home, anyway. I was in no hurry. :lol:
Peter nap wrote:
Before this, I've had three LEO encounters in VA regarding OC.
One state trooper that was straight-forward business, but professional, so I'll call it good.
One.... silly one for lack of a better term with one of the HPD guys. I got such a laugh out of it, I'd consider it a positive.
And my last encounter was quite a positive, I feel. The H'burg LEO was very nice, helpful, and a bit... surprised when he'd been talking to me for about 8 minutes after the paperwork when he noticed my weapon sitting on the dashboard. :lol:
He was still nice afterwards, though.
Come to think of it, all three of those were traffic stops for things like tags and sticker (but the state trooper one was someone else driving).
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was....
I've averaged good encounters with the local constabulary. I didn't feel the need to be rude or dismissive
Hell, even after the continued berating and lecturing, I still tried to make nice conversation with him, for all the good it did. :?
peter nap wrote:
Couple of years in the service can do that to you.
Besides, if Autozone didn't have that replacement-replacement TPS for my Jeep, I was walking home, anyway. I was in no hurry. :lol:
Peter nap wrote:
And see, I don't feel the need to be like that.
Before this, I've had three LEO encounters in VA regarding OC.
One state trooper that was straight-forward business, but professional, so I'll call it good.
One.... silly one for lack of a better term with one of the HPD guys. I got such a laugh out of it, I'd consider it a positive.
And my last encounter was quite a positive, I feel. The H'burg LEO was very nice, helpful, and a bit... surprised when he'd been talking to me for about 8 minutes after the paperwork when he noticed my weapon sitting on the dashboard. :lol:
He was still nice afterwards, though.
Come to think of it, all three of those were traffic stops for things like tags and sticker (but the state trooper one was someone else driving).
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was....
I've averaged good encounters with the local constabulary. I didn't feel the need to be rude or dismissive
Hell, even after the continued berating and lecturing, I still tried to make nice conversation with him, for all the good it did. :?
imported post
Citizen wrote:
I was referring to AbNo's encounter.
While your research is very good Citizen, sometimes it just doesn't work out the way you describe.
I'm a little less diplomatic then you, and I'm not big on telling people, "I do not Consent to XXXXXXXX." Sometimes it gets inconvenient. Ask Danbus.
BTW...I was talking about the Officer beating his chest as in, I will arrest you if you don't cooperate. He won't.
Citizen wrote:
I was referring to AbNo's encounter.
While your research is very good Citizen, sometimes it just doesn't work out the way you describe.
I'm a little less diplomatic then you, and I'm not big on telling people, "I do not Consent to XXXXXXXX." Sometimes it gets inconvenient. Ask Danbus.
BTW...I was talking about the Officer beating his chest as in, I will arrest you if you don't cooperate. He won't.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
Thanks for clarifying.
I think the Danbus situation is rare. Since a gun was pointed at him, it was obvious compliance might be compelled, so there would be no question about whether he was seized.
It might be a benefitto re-examineyour willingness to refuse consent. Basically, it is just exercising or invoking your rights.
You can't prevent a police officer from trampling your rights if he wants to. All you can do is remind him where the boundaries are by invoking your rights. Its only after the bad encounter that you really get a chance to push back. Also, having invoked your rights, you establish for yourself a better legal footing if things go South.
peter nap wrote:
Thanks for clarifying.
I think the Danbus situation is rare. Since a gun was pointed at him, it was obvious compliance might be compelled, so there would be no question about whether he was seized.
It might be a benefitto re-examineyour willingness to refuse consent. Basically, it is just exercising or invoking your rights.
You can't prevent a police officer from trampling your rights if he wants to. All you can do is remind him where the boundaries are by invoking your rights. Its only after the bad encounter that you really get a chance to push back. Also, having invoked your rights, you establish for yourself a better legal footing if things go South.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
I also have told several Officers that they need to "Say the MAGIC WORD".
BUT.....I look at why the officer is fishing. If he just wants to throw his weight around, I push back. If he has a legitimate reason for knowing who I am and is polite about it, I don't mind telling him.
If he wants to know more, the conversation is over because there is no benefit ...ever, from giving additional information.
In AbNo's case, there was no reason I can think of, for the officer to have approached him. There was even less excuse for the lecture. He has had problems before in Harrisonburg and it appears that the PD needs some educating.
Now don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with standing on your rights, either as a matter of routine or to make a statment.
For me, it just isn't necessary in every case. It's a little like shooting snakes, some people shoot every one they see. I just shoot the ones that want to bite me.
Citizen wrote:
I don't go along with stops that easily. I've been on both sides of that fence though and I look at it differently. I hardly ever show ID for anything.
I also have told several Officers that they need to "Say the MAGIC WORD".
BUT.....I look at why the officer is fishing. If he just wants to throw his weight around, I push back. If he has a legitimate reason for knowing who I am and is polite about it, I don't mind telling him.
If he wants to know more, the conversation is over because there is no benefit ...ever, from giving additional information.
In AbNo's case, there was no reason I can think of, for the officer to have approached him. There was even less excuse for the lecture. He has had problems before in Harrisonburg and it appears that the PD needs some educating.
Now don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with standing on your rights, either as a matter of routine or to make a statment.
For me, it just isn't necessary in every case. It's a little like shooting snakes, some people shoot every one they see. I just shoot the ones that want to bite me.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
peter nap wrote:
peter nap wrote:
Call me dense, but what is the "magic word"?