Insofar as one must be "reasonable" and "articulate" in explaining their "suspicion" which developed into probable cause, RS is an implied component of PC. But your post was (intentionally, I think) worded in such a way so as to confuse PC and RAS, to make the seem equivalent. All in line with your apologetical attempt to legalize and normalize criminal transgressions of police. No reason to mention "RAS" unless you wish to insinuate the idea that RAS is sufficient for a home invasion.
Nope, I was not, and am not attempting to make them sound as if they are the same 'thing'.
RAS is not sufficient for a home invasion. RAS can be a step that leads to a home invasion.
Go ahead, read what cops themselves have to
say about it.
LEO's don't know much about the law, or Law. They merely 'enforce the '(L,l)aw.
I see what you are doing, and it's disgusting. You are intentionally conflating the letter of the law with the extreme and illegal latitude police are frequently given by corrupt courts. This is a form of apologia for this criminal behavior.
No, I am merely doing what you had just did in this above quote which is state that LEO's have latitude that goes beyond what some individuals 'believe' should be the degree of latitude given. Whether the latitude is "extreme," or "illegal" is for the (C,c)ourts to decide. Whether or not the (C,c)ourts are "corrupt" is up to the People, but not directly.
You pretend to be alarmed by these excesses, but you then turn around and behave as those the usurpation of the Constitution's supreme legal authority by radical and corrupt judges is itself legal.
I am alarmed. No pretending here. Who is the "supreme legal authority" as you call it? The Constitution, you do realize, is an inanimate object. Individuals that make-up a Government entity applies, and enforces the Constitution. Whether judges or Justices are "radical," or "corrupt" is subjective.
It may be de facto how thing work in most of the US, it is certainly NOT what the law requires. The laws themselves have never been changed. Simply ignored.
So, the Law does not require, but does the Law exclude it?
Refusal to enforce a law is not the same as it magically having disappeared.
LOL, funny, DOMA? This particular Law has not disappeared, it is just not being fought by the Federal Government in Court.
You state it, and then argue the point on its own merits. As I've said, you *say* this alarms you, but you argue as though the facts are as acceptable as the sky being blue
They are not as "acceptable" but as valid as any other assertion.
Generally, when one talks about a state of affairs they admit but find abhorrent, lots of qualifying language is used. One does that to both to prevent misinterpretation of his own position and to prevent normalization of unqualified discussion of the de facto state of affairs.
You act as if "qualifying language' is a bad thing. Words have meaning, and if individuals wish to have a discussion about "the state of affairs" that we find ourselves in relation to the power of the Federal Government we must first establish what the issue is, why 'things' are the way they are, how 'things' have gotten to this point, and then discuss what we can do to get ourselves out of the situation if we determine that the situation we are in is not an acceptable way of Federal Governance, and the society we wish to be, and live in.
Please, don't treat Language as if it this symbolic construct that its components has one singular meaning. Personally, I believe that such accusations of "qualifying language" (implied as a bad 'thing') is nothing more than a product of the accuser being mentally lethargic, and/or lacking the aptitude, interest, or intellectual endurance of systematically formulating a consensus on the meaning of symbols in language, how the symbols will be applied, then establishing what issue(s) should be examined, then come to some sort of conclusion about the totality of the argument from both sides, then hopefully form a consensus on what should be done, then do it!
