grylnsmn
Regular Member
I'm sorry, but the fact that someone reported a brandishing doesn't make someone on the scene more dangerous. That isn't a matter of perception, but your own assumptions about the situation.
In fact, you might want to go back and reread Terry again, because it clearly lays out the facts that led to the suspicion on the part of the officer. He specifically identified behaviors from the suspects that were out of the ordinary.
Officer McFadden had reason to suspect them on the basis of their actions after observing their behavior directly.
Tell me, what should Hendu have done to keep from being deemed "armed and dangerous" in your opinion? Can you identify any actions he could have taken that you wouldn't have decided made him suspicious (other than simply not being armed)? If not, then it all boils down to you would deem him dangerous merely because of the fact that he was armed, which goes well beyond Terry's allowable parameters.
You shouldn't be able to suspend someone's rights merely because you assume that they are dangerous. You need to actually observe something about their behavior that provides a reasonable basis for that assumption, something that an otherwise innocent person would not have done.
The test is very simple: if Hendu had been concealing his firearm instead of wearing it openly, and otherwise behaved the same (as described in his account), would you determine that there was a reasonable basis to detain and search him? Would you have reason to believe that he was dangerous if you didn't know that he was armed?
If your answer is no, then all of your excuses reduce down to an assertion that a person who is armed is inherently dangerous, regardless of the rest of the circumstances. That simply doesn't meet the standard described in Terry.
