Lost or stolen handgun?

[Citizen]

imported post

Although not conclusive, here is another one from Terry vs Ohio:

And, of course, our approval of legitimate and restrained investigative conduct undertaken on the basis of ample factual justification should in no way discourage the employment of other remedies than the exclusionary rule to curtail abuses for which that sanction may prove inappropriate. (emphasis added)

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

...SNIP

Good reason to cut down on the number of laws, eh?
SNIP...

You certainly get no argument from me on that point. Last reliable count i saw was that there were over 22,000 firearms laws in the US. That is just FIREARMS related laws. Just imagine how many laws there must be total. I bet you could fill a libra.... Oh wait ... there are libraries full of law books. Never Mind.

And I think we can all agree that cops do not enact those laws. They are written and pushed forward by others to the state lawmakers.

Are there too many laws on the books now? Hell yes!

We all know that a law written in a book does not stop people from breaking it.

People here complain that cops are stopping people they suspect are breaking the law not knowing that the law does not even exist.

In our society we have a sense of what is right and wrong without even having to know there is a law against it. Sometimes it is morally wrong but not legally wrong. I am not saying that OCing is morally wrong. Just pointing out that some people will see it as some type of violation such as a concealed weapon laws are widely known.

The courts have ruled that you can be stopped for a brief period of time in order for the officer to determine if you are breaking any laws.

This gives the police a little time to check without allowing you to simply walk off. If this was not allowed you could commit a crime in front of the police and escape before they had a chance to check on it. Then they have to go look for you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3843/is_200310/ai_n9241529

While it is not against the law in Virginia to openly carry... many citizens and some officers believe it is. It is from this lack of knowledge, training, experience, and exposure that an officer might stop someone for being armed.

The courts do not expect the police to turn a blind eye on something they find suspicious but cannot determine for sure if a law is being broken. So they are given some altitude to investigate and this may require stopping you.

It is unfortunate but it is likely not due to any malice on the part of the officer who simply did not know. It would be at best.... misfeasance.

While I think of it,

QFT.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP It is unfortunate but it is likely not due to any malice on the part of the officer who simply did not know. It would be at best.... misfeasance.

Fellas,

How many OCer stops can we recall where the police did not also salt the discussion with anti-OC or anti-gun commentary?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen is Sheriff... Sheriff is Citizen!!

[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/PSPtSEIlp8A&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]


Funny how the two of you read into what is posted and go overboard.

Sheriff,

Where exactly did I say anything about an "honest mistake"?

Where did I say anything about it not being a "big deal"?

Where did I talk about making "an arrest"?

I didn't!! As usual... you have embellished your post to make mine out to be something it was not.

You completely missed the point of the post and saw what you wanted. :lol:



Citizen,

Here you go!! :celebrate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.


My whole point was that as long as there was no malice in the stop and the officer believed OCing was a violation of law he would be acting within the scope of a Terry stop suspecting a crime was occurring.

How many OCers have reported that citizens did not know you could go out armed? Now toss a few uninformed cops in the mix. We know they exist.

I did close with:

"It is unfortunate but it is likely not due to any malice on the part of the officer who simply did not know. It would be at best.... misfeasance."

In other words I agree that it is wrong but see how it could happen.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP The courts do not expect the police to turn a blind eye on something they find suspicious but cannot determine for sure if a law is being broken. So they are given some altitude to investigate and this may require stopping you.

It is unfortunate but it is likely not due to any malice on the part of the officer who simply did not know. It would be at best.... misfeasance.

From the very article LEO229 cited and linked:

A police officer cannot stop an individual for investigative purposes solely on the basis of an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.'



From Beck vs Ohio, as quoted in Terry vs Ohio:

"good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough." . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police.



From the holding (the legally operative part of a court opinion) of Terry vs Ohio:

We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. (emphasis added).



Terry v Ohio at Cornell Law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

This is the section I was interested in for the link. No the rest that you fixated on.

"A. Terry v. Ohio and the Reasonable Suspicion Standard In Terry v. Ohio,17 the United States Supreme Court held that a police officer may stop and briefly detain an individual without a warrant if the officer lacks probable cause for an arrest but believes that the suspect is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.18 The Court recognized that it is not practical to subject stopped individuals to the warrant procedure if the officer's on-the-scene observations suggest the need for immediate action.19 In evaluating the constitutional reasonableness of such a stop, the Court balanced the government's interest against the degree of intrusion upon individual rights and concluded that the government's interest in crime prevention and detection outweighed the limited intrusion of a brief investigative stop upon an individual's personal liberty.20 The Terry Court held that a police officer may make an investigative stop when the officer "observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.. . ."21
A police officer's ability to conduct a warrantless stop is not limited to street encounters such as in Terry: the Fourth Amendment also permits a police officer to briefly stop a vehicle for investigative purposes if the officer believes that the driver or passengers of the vehicle are engaged in criminal activity.22 This "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement is based upon the inherent mobility of vehicles, which often makes obtaining a warrant impractical, and the decreased expectation of privacy due to the "configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles."23"


This is not a one size fits all case. Points are being made overall.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP My whole point was that as long as there was no malice in the stop and the officer believed OCing was a violation of law he would be acting within the scope of a Terry stop suspecting a crime was occurring.

You heard it here first, fellas. LEO229 believes Terry authorizes the stop even if there isno law to violateunderlying the suspicion. As long as there was no malice. Or, at least wants us to believe it.

Earlier he wrote: The courts have ruled that you can be stopped for a brief period of time in order for the officer to determine if you are breaking any laws. (emphasis added)

So, according to our constitutional rights wizard, LEO229, who has shown himself to be an expert on 4A case law (cough, cough) a police officer only needssuspicion that some law is being violated in order to justify a detention, even if the officer doesn't know which law. Nor whether there is even any law at all being violated.

Nevermind that Danbus and Mark Marchifavia have both won $10K in settlements, andDicksen City, PAis talking settlement. I suppose the lawyers in thosecases, on both sides, incorrectly understood Terry and related case law.

Oh, and don't forget how Manassas City PD claimed numerous things didn't occur. Meaning, why would they...um...in effect call the OCers liars if there were no 4A violations over the mere fact of OC not being illegal? If Terry authorized it, why deny it?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. One does wonder when the rights-twisting posts will end.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP My whole point was that as long as there was no malice in the stop and the officer believed OCing was a violation of law he would be acting within the scope of a Terry stop suspecting a crime was occurring.

You heard it here first, fellas. LEO229 believes Terry authorizes the stop even if there isno law to violateunderlying the suspicion. As long as there was no malice.

Earlier he wrote: The courts have ruled that you can be stopped for a brief period of time in order for the officer to determine if you are breaking any laws. (emphasis added)

So, according to our constitutional rights wizard, LEO229, who has shown himself to be an expert on 4A case law (cough, cough) a police officer only needssuspicion that some law is being violated in order to justify a detention, even if the officer doesn't know which law. Nor whether there is even any law at all being violated.

Nevermind that Danbus and Mark Marchifavia have both won $10K in settlements, andDicksen City, PAis talking settlement. I suppose the lawyers in thosecases, on both sides, incorrectly understood Terry and related case law.

Oh, and don't forget how Manassas City PD claimed numerous things didn't occur. Meaning, why would they...um...in effect call the OCers liars if there were no 4A violations over the mere fact of OC not being illegal? If Terry authorized it, why deny it?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. One does wonder when the rights-twisting posts will end.

You are now twisting what I have said.

Either you can rant or we can discuss the matter as adults. I am more than willing to talk about it. You, on the other hand, seem to want to do more than that. :lol:

Help me better understand your take on it.

It is hard for me to get to your points as I have to filter out all the noise being added that is not required while you try to get a few licks in to show off for the "fellas". Having Sheriff "Step aside and let me at him" was a nice touch! :lol:

"the United States Supreme Court held that a police officer may stop and briefly detain an individual without a warrant if the officer lacks probable cause for an arrest but believes that the suspect is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity"

From your position the officer needs to know what crime you have or are about to commit BEFORE he can stop you under Terry. Is that right?

If this is true, and the officer believes OC is illegal, I fail to see the problem... with the exception that OC is it not actually against the law.

My take is in Terry it only addresses suspected "criminal activity" so that leaves the door open. How would the officer know the exact violation unless he had PC to arrest?

I have had debates with many here in the past about a man in a parking lot with a rifle. He appears to be out of place and hanging around for an extended period of time. Sitting and watching the exit doors.

Would it be your position that the guy with the rifle could never be stopped and talked to either? The officer does not know if the guy intends to murder someone at that business so he must let him "hang out".

In Terry, it is more about a pat down than a detention. But it is a building block of other case law that is out there covering stops. In Terry the officer stopped three men he believed were going to stick up a business. The officer drew a conclusion based on what he saw. Nothing done was even a violation of any law.

So I fail to see what your argument is here.

If a cop believes OC is illegal then why would he not be able to do a Terry stop?



In the civil cases you mentioned I do not know that they ever actually went to trial. If not, the plaintiff did not "win" the money. I suspect the local governments decided to cut their losses and pay off the plaintiff. This is not uncommon. It does not indicate any wrong doing and is a nothing but a financial decision.

"We can go to trial and it will cost us $100,000 no matter what or we can give the guy $10,000 to go away."

No brainer to me!!!

I am not trying to justify a Terry stop when used on someone OCing. I was only posting how I saw it playing out when the officer thought OC was against the law.

Too bad you cannot see past your own bias while you "get at me" :?

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

I've got to give you guys credit - you are consistant!

(always pissing and moaning about the same stuff)

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Ahem. Excuse me, Sheriff. Step aside and let me at him. I'll show you how to shoot hisBS posts full of holes.

Basically you just provide the truth.

I enjoy reading his interpretation and philosophy of the law, and of case law. Some of his "opinions" will jam him up against the big time wall sooner or later. And thenbiggest problem is the fact a lot of cops are in the same boat. They think they know it all and can do as they please out here on the street as long as they can "articulate" what they have done. I love that catch phrase, "articulate"! Must be something in the kool aid they serve at the police academies nowadays.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Sheriff,

Where exactly did I say anything about an "honest mistake"?

I stand corrected. Whenever a cop screws up you call it a "mistake".

I added the word "honest" to it. Sorry. :lol:

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

From your position the officer needs to know what crime you have or are about to commit BEFORE he can stop you under Terry. Is that right?

If this is true, and the officer believes OC is illegal, I fail to see the problem...

QFT!

Reno229 sees no problem with a cop thinking something is against the law

This in turn means he has no problem with "ignorance of the law" whencommitted by a cop.

Welcome back to OC, Reno. I live to see what comes out of your mouth next. :lol:

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

SNIP My whole point was that as long as there was no malice in the stop and the officer believed OCing was a violation of law he would be acting within the scope of a Terry stop suspecting a crime was occurring.

You heard it here first, fellas. LEO229 believes Terry authorizes the stop even if there isno law to violateunderlying the suspicion. As long as there was no malice.

Earlier he wrote: The courts have ruled that you can be stopped for a brief period of time in order for the officer to determine if you are breaking any laws. (emphasis added)

So, according to our constitutional rights wizard, LEO229, who has shown himself to be an expert on 4A case law (cough, cough) a police officer only needssuspicion that some law is being violated in order to justify a detention, even if the officer doesn't know which law. Nor whether there is even any law at all being violated.

Nevermind that Danbus and Mark Marchifavia have both won $10K in settlements, andDicksen City, PAis talking settlement. I suppose the lawyers in thosecases, on both sides, incorrectly understood Terry and related case law.

Oh, and don't forget how Manassas City PD claimed numerous things didn't occur. Meaning, why would they...um...in effect call the OCers liars if there were no 4A violations over the mere fact of OC not being illegal? If Terry authorized it, why deny it?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. One does wonder when the rights-twisting posts will end.

You are now twisting what I have said.

Either you can rant or we can discuss the matter as adults. I am more than willing to talk about it. You, on the other hand, seem to want to do more than that. :lol:

Help me better understand your take on it.

It is hard for me to get to your points as I have to filter out all the noise being added that is not required while you try to get a few licks in to show off for the "fellas". Having Sheriff "Step aside and let me at him" was a nice touch! :lol:

"the United States Supreme Court held that a police officer may stop and briefly detain an individual without a warrant if the officer lacks probable cause for an arrest but believes that the suspect is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity"

From your position the officer needs to know what crime you have or are about to commit BEFORE he can stop you under Terry. Is that right?

If this is true, and the officer believes OC is illegal, I fail to see the problem... with the exception that OC is it not actually against the law.

My take is in Terry it only addresses suspected "criminal activity" so that leaves the door open. How would the officer know the exact violation unless he had PC to arrest?

I have had debates with many here in the past about a man in a parking lot with a rifle. He appears to be out of place and hanging around for an extended period of time. Sitting and watching the exit doors.

Would it be your position that the guy with the rifle could never be stopped and talked to either? The officer does not know if the guy intends to murder someone at that business so he must let him "hang out".

In Terry, it is more about a pat down than a detention. But it is a building block of other case law that is out there covering stops. In Terry the officer stopped three men he believed were going to stick up a business. The officer drew a conclusion based on what he saw. Nothing done was even a violation of any law.

So I fail to see what your argument is here.

If a cop believes OC is illegal then why would he not be able to do a Terry stop?



In the civil cases you mentioned I do not know that they ever actually went to trial. If not, the plaintiff did not "win" the money. I suspect the local governments decided to cut their losses and pay off the plaintiff. This is not uncommon. It does not indicate any wrong doing and is a nothing but a financial decision.

"We can go to trial and it will cost us $100,000 no matter what or we can give the guy $10,000 to go away."

No brainer to me!!!

I am not trying to justify a Terry stop when used on someone OCing. I was only posting how I saw it playing out when the officer thought OC was against the law.

Too bad you cannot see past your own bias while you "get at me" :?

Oh, I think you do. I made it very clear. In the quoted post, you are the one conflating two ideas.

Fellas,

I am not alawyer, but I have read a number of 4th Amendment cases. In every one the police suspected the defendant of a particular crime or type of crime before the detention. There was no general stop just to see what the person was up to.

Also, case law, Terry I think, contains a prohibition against police "inchoate (incompletely formed) suspicions and hunches." Nothing is out of bounds if LEO229's version of inchoate suspicions are allowed.

So, I see no evidence the courts have allowed a detention to investigate whether there is a law against some behavior or set of behaviors and circumstances.

Now,on to whether Terry or any case law authorizes mistakes of thenature 229 is discussing here.

Justto help show how the principlessupposedlyalign I'll offer somethingTerry quotes an earlier opinion:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

I wouldsay that a police officer has no authority of law if there is no law to be violated in the first place. And how about that word "questionable"? Wouldn't a mistakeof this nature be questionable?

Also, I know of no opinion, except suspicionless checkpoints,where a court held that a detention was legal when there was no law to be violated underlyinga police officer's error of this nature.

When I get time later today, I will look up the statute authorizing police in VA. I'm betting there is nothing authorizing them to investigate no-crime against non-existent laws.

Also, what would be the point of distinguishing between consensual encounters and detentions, and having reams of case law about whether an encounter was consensual? Under LEO229's interpretation(s) a police officer could detain almost anyone for almost anything; there would be no need to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual to the extent that courts have in a number of4Adecsisions.

And finally, to physically detain someone while the police investigate whether there is a law against some behavior, or set of behaviors, would turn the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures on its head. As would detention on a mistake about the illegality of some behavior.

One does wonder how pervasive this idea is within LEO229's department.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

I've got to give you guys credit - you are consistant!

(always pissing and moaning about the same stuff)

Ya.. I will have to agree with you.

As often as it happens.... a simple post of my thoughts and opinions is aggressively attacked by Citizen and his sidekick Sheriff.

It is pointless to continue since we are not actually having any kind of civil conversation here but instead a one sided pissing contest.

Citizen seems to have something to prove and cannot discuss things in a manner where we can create any open dialog to have any exchange of thoughts and ideas.

He want to address the "fellas" here and make his point.

I commented where appropriate and it is obvious that anything said will be criticized.

Citizen is on his soap box and there is no stopping him as he shouts across the land.... :lol:

 

[Citizen]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

I've got to give you guys credit - you are consistant!

(always pissing and moaning about the same stuff)

Ya.. I will have to agree with you.

As often as it happens.... a simple post of my thoughts and opinions is aggressively attacked by Citizen and his sidekick Sheriff.

It is pointless to continue since we are not actually having any kind of civil conversation here but instead a one sided pissing contest.

Citizen seems to have something to prove and cannot discuss things in a manner where we can create any open dialog to have any exchange of thoughts and ideas.

He want to address the "fellas" here and make his point.

I commented where appropriate and it is obvious that anything said will be criticized.

Citizen is on his soap box and there is no stopping him as he shouts across the land.... :lol:

You damn betcha!

1. Your history here makes intelligent conversation pointless--weasel, obfuscate, twist, dodge, minimize, etc.

2. I've heard and seen your so-called conversions before.Nothing really changed. You went right back to your old ways. At a certain point people are justified in considering that your previous "conversions" were not sincere. We passed that point before you returned lately. No reason to believe you are sincere now.

3. I'm not stupid enough to think that if I left it at neutral conversation, that you would do any better with the weaseling, obfuscation, etc.

Like Isaid earlier in another thread, you knock off forwardingslanted representations of rights and you won't hear much from me. Otherwise, every single time I see one, you will hear about it.

Just like that "little" mistake of yours from a few days ago about the 5th Amendment where you were activelymis-explaining its scope to them. The one you never acknowledged. The one you carefully skirted.

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

I am glad someone here has a sense of humor!!!

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

You damn betcha!

1. Your history here makes intelligent conversation pointless--weasel, obfuscate, twist, dodge, minimize, etc.

2. I've heard and seen your so-called conversions before.Nothing really changed. You went right back to your old ways. At a certain point people are justified in considering that your previous "conversions" were not sincere. We passed that point before you returned lately. No reason to believe you are sincere now.

3. I'm not stupid enough to think that if I left it at neutral conversation, that you would do any better with the weaseling, obfuscation, etc.

Like Isaid earlier in another thread, you knock off forwardingslanted representations of rights and you won't hear much from me. Otherwise, every single time I see one, you will hear about it.

Just like that "little" mistake of yours from a few days ago about the 5th Amendment where you were activelymis-explaining its scope to them. The one you never acknowledged. The one you carefully skirted.

QFT

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Here is some good reading.

http://www.fletc.gov/training/progr...-by-subject/4th-amendment/terrystopupdate.pdf

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It is pointless to continue since we are not actually having any kind of civil conversation here but instead a one sided pissing contest.

QFSSICPUNTIALAD!!!

( Quoted ForSmoke ScreenI Perhaps Can Use Next Time I Am Losing A Debate) :lol:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

It is pointless to continue since we are not actually having any kind of civil conversation here but instead a one sided pissing contest.

QFSSICPUNTIALAD!!!

( Quoted ForSmoke ScreenI Perhaps Can Use Next Time I Am Losing A Debate) :lol:

Actually Sheriff... It has nothing to do with losing. It is knowing when to stop.