Disarmed by VA Beach police in front of my own house on 04-26-2011

[Citizen]

Jeez,

I go away for a while and come back to find y'all are still arguing with SlipperyCop10.

Y'all are gluttons for self-punishment, or what?

He's a cop. He's knows how to make assertions and stick to them better than glue.

He has a thorough history of ignoring key points while arguing, strawman, evasion, twisting.

He knows what he is doing. He's a street cop. He knows how to do that stuff. One can only assume that he is trying to derail threads.

Your first mistake is to assume that he is actually talking to you as in having a fair give and receive conversation. He's not. He's talking at you. This is why I don't bother to actually talk to him directly. He's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he will not discuss or argue fairly. There is no point talking to him because literally he will not talk to you when an argument develops.

See his behavior in the thread about the beating of a transexual in McDonalds if you doubt any of this.

But, if y'all like beating your head on a rock, carry on.

 

[Jonesy]

I said I most likely would have frisked you, this being after asking if you had weapons or seeing a bulge. Absence that, I don't want to speculate, depends on what info I was given (maybe if you match other descriptors).

Hendu, did you tell the dispatcher you had a gun on your or that you would be outside waiting for police?

On a side note, I agree that the Police should have offered you an explanation before they left.

Hendu,
You call the police because a nearby neighbor threatens someone with a handgun, which is pretty serious stuff. You contact police and go outside with a holstered gun. When the officer is walking on the street, you waive at his direction, then you complain when they reasonably suspect you might be the one brandishing. Look up VA self defense laws and you will see that if that neighbor came back outside, you will be in heat for not going inside if you choose to use that weapon. You show poor decision making skills combined with legal knowledge.

You don't want to speculate, I was with you until you started talking about frisking him w/out the gun. So lets be clear, you are the officer called to the scene, Hendu is in his driveway as you approach, there is no indication he is armed, he does not meet descriptions and is not at address indicated for suspect, he tells you he is caller and gunman is next door, are you going to frisk him or not?

 

[Jonesy]

Jeez,

I go away for a while and come back to find y'all are still arguing with SlipperyCop10.

Y'all are gluttons for self-punishment, or what?

He's a cop. He's knows how to make assertions and stick to them better than glue.

He has a thorough history of ignoring key points while arguing, strawman, evasion, twisting.

He knows what he is doing. He's a street cop. He knows how to do that stuff. One can only assume that he is trying to derail threads.

Your first mistake is to assume that he is actually talking to you as in having a fair give and receive conversation. He's not. He's talking at you. This is why I don't bother to actually talk to him directly. He's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he will not discuss or argue fairly. There is no point talking to him because literally he will not talk to you when an argument develops.

See his behavior in the thread about the beating of a transexual in McDonalds if you doubt any of this.

But, if y'all like beating your head on a rock, carry on.

I have a very hard head.

 

[NovaCop]

There is a fundamental difference between "might have" and "would have."

From post #283
Yes I would have Terry frisked him most likely.

MOST LIKELY was at the end of that sentence, maybe not the best grammar, but this would indicate "might have".

 

[NovaCop]

You don't want to speculate, I was with you until you started talking about frisking him w/out the gun. So lets be clear, you are the officer called to the scene, Hendu is in his driveway as you approach, there is no indication he is armed, he does not meet descriptions and is not at address indicated for suspect, he tells you he is caller and gunman is next door, are you going to frisk him or not?

I stated in my last post that given more descriptors it is possible.

You are now saying that he doesn't meet descriptions? Where did you get that info?

I obviously would not stop and frisk him if I didn't believe he was the suspect or armed. If he didn't match the description I wouldn't have stopped him at all (possibly asked if he knew anything). I was assuming that he was matching some sort of description when I said that.

Did you read up on Scott v. Commonwealth?

 

[NovaCop]

Jeez,

I go away for a while and come back to find y'all are still arguing with SlipperyCop10.

Y'all are gluttons for self-punishment, or what?

He's a cop. He's knows how to make assertions and stick to them better than glue.

He has a thorough history of ignoring key points while arguing, strawman, evasion, twisting.

He knows what he is doing. He's a street cop. He knows how to do that stuff. One can only assume that he is trying to derail threads.

Your first mistake is to assume that he is actually talking to you as in having a fair give and receive conversation. He's not. He's talking at you. This is why I don't bother to actually talk to him directly. He's proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he will not discuss or argue fairly. There is no point talking to him because literally he will not talk to you when an argument develops.

See his behavior in the thread about the beating of a transexual in McDonalds if you doubt any of this.

But, if y'all like beating your head on a rock, carry on.

Personal attack sir? Very much like you. Glad to see you contribute nothing to the discussion.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Jonesy
Hmmmm, without the hangun being visible, I am doubtful that there would be RAS for a Terry stop and frisk. Wanna articulate RAS without the gun Novacop?

Originally Posted by NovaCop10
I stated that I might have frisked w/out the gun... the gun in this case really sets forth RAS to believe he was the one w/the gun, look at my previous post on the same page.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
There is a fundamental difference between "might have" and "would have."

From post #283
Yes I would have Terry frisked him most likely.

MOST LIKELY was at the end of that sentence.

No problem with reading skills here.

So you say "would have Terry frisked him most likely" w/o a gun being apparent.

Why?

 

[Jonesy]

I stated in my last post that given more descriptors it is possible.

You are now saying that he doesn't meet descriptions? Where did you get that info?

Did you read up on Scott v. Commonwealth?

You said you would likely terry frisk him w/out gun being visible. I want to know if you came to the scene and did not view any indication of him being armed and he did not meet any descriptions, whether you would Terry frisk him. I mean come on, when we called you on saying you would frisk him w/out gun, you brought in descriptors as justification for a possible search that did not exist in the facts as told by Hendu.

Now lets just assume there are no such descriptors, since none were described by Hendu. I mean you did say you would Terry frisk him.

 

[Jonesy]

No problem with reading skills here.

So you say "would have Terry frisked him most likely" w/o a gun being apparent.

Why?

Our trains are following the same tracks.

 

[All American Nightmare]

Yeah i know things are done differently in the south. COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Inappropriate! Take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of someone who isnt a gun-person. Its hard to see how disrespectful some people can be when you force yourself to be on their side.

I would love to see what you said to me.( feel free to PM it to me) Did you by chance get ex-lax on your hands or fingers?

 

[NovaCop]

Our trains are following the same tracks.

Most likely because of his proximaty and description if provided it somewhat matches.

 

[NovaCop]

Xdm, let it go no need for Internet tough guy talk he already got yelled at for his remarks.

 

[ProShooter]

This thread has officially ceased to be of any value.

 

[grylnsmn]

I don't remember coming across any case law besides what I provided, and the Terry case a few members are interpreting themselves. I didn't mean to be offensive but if someone believes a search warrant is needed to speak to a possible armed suspect in a front yard then they don't have any grasp on law. I can't get into a discussion explaining ten pages of law about seizures and warrants. I didn't mean to come off as rude, just a little frustrated. I hope some legal classes are in order.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge, I don't think I was incorrect with that comment it was just saying the poster is showing a lack of knowledge. I'm ignorant to accounting.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a classic example of a strawman fallacy.

Where in this thread did anyone (other than you) say anything about needing a search warrant to speak with a possibly armed suspect?

Under Terry, you need to have Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous (or armed and presently dangerous) before a seizure to check for/secure weapons is justified. Let's break that down to its components: the suspicion and its focus.

Suspicion

The suspicion needs to be both reasonable (i.e. a reasonable individual would agree that it was suspicious) and articulable (i.e. you can identify specific elements that support the suspicion). A general "spidey sense" does not meet the standard of "articulable", you need something specific.

Focus

Terry states that the focus of the suspicion needs to be that the individual is armed and dangerous (or armed and presently dangerous, as it uses both wordings). This gives a two-pronged set of criteria that need to be met with specific facts or observations supporting the suspicion.

There's no dispute that Hendu was armed. However, no evidence has been provided supporting any specific facts or observations that he was (presently) dangerous. The fact that he was armed, in and of itself, cannot be sufficient to support that he was dangerous, or else there would be no need for the second criteria.

I'm not saying that a warrant would be needed to question Hendu in this case. I am saying that you need to have something beyond the mere fact that he was armed to meet the criteria for a search/seizure of his firearm. You need specific facts or observations that indicate that he was dangerous in addition to being armed.

 

[snatale42]

I was disarmed by the Va Beach 4th precinct yesterday in front of my own house. I will post details after I get my own report written and FOIA the event.

I hate reading crap like this, I live in Richmond but have heard nothing but horror stories about the PD's in the Hampton Roads area harassing people like this. I'm from MA and know how bad it can actually get. It's very scary when the people who are sworn to uphold the law and our rights do the exact opposite.

 

[NovaCop]

Gry,

If you would be more thorough you would see my response about a search warrant was to tcmech in his post #284 where he wants a search warrant to talk to someone on their lawn.

This thread is exhausted.

 

[riverrat10k]

I disagree. The cop went there on a report of a man brandishing at specific address.

snip

What if Nap, Grapeshot, and I were all neighbors and were in each OCing in our own driveways when the police arrived. Are we saying the police would be justified to seize all of us and disarm us? Just because of some nebulous connection between men, the same street, and guns? Because, I think that is what this is really going to boil down to--since OCd guns are not common yet, any OCd gun is justification for police to suspend inquiry and judgement, and just start seizing gunner and gun if in the vicinity of a reported gun offense.

I like this idea! A homeowners association that requires open carry!

 

[wylde007]

I like this idea! A homeowners association that requires open carry!

As a libertarian I cannot get behind the idea of requiring anyone to do anything.

However, if it was RECOMMENDED...

 

[riverrat10k]

He was disarmed for a brandishing complaint with ras that he was a suspect. No search warrant needed for curtilige of a property so I don't know why you're so stuck on it being his property.

Wylde, your post indicating people should be allowed to shoot police is off topic on this thread. It looks negatively upon yourself.

Novacop, you sir, are disingenuous and a fraud. Let's compare wylde's statement to what you wrote:

Wylde (caps mine):"Without directly advocating violence, if law enforcement officers were afraid that law-abiding citizens could shoot them and ENJOY THE SAME LEGAL AMNESTY THAT THEY DO, I believe many of them would think that much harder about abusing their "authority", for lack of any better term.

Your statement, Nova, was not even remotely close to what Wylde said. I do believe you are a cop, or at least a government employee. No one else could lie and distort as seamlessly as you do on this board.

 

[peter nap]

Novacop, you sir, are disingenuous and a fraud. Let's compare wylde's statement to what you wrote:

Wylde (caps mine):"Without directly advocating violence, if law enforcement officers were afraid that law-abiding citizens could shoot them and ENJOY THE SAME LEGAL AMNESTY THAT THEY DO, I believe many of them would think that much harder about abusing their "authority", for lack of any better term.

Your statement, Nova, was not even remotely close to what Wylde said. I do believe you are a cop, or at least a government employee. No one else could lie and distort as seamlessly as you do on this board.

That was well stated RR.
+1000