One Good Cop

[EddieS'04]

There is probably quite a bit of history here between all parties in the second video

I think Redfish has a great point

Probably is a good point. Point is the citzen was most likely video'ing to proove the locals are harrasing the citizens. Notice how many local PD cars showed up. They did this after they saw the deputy release the guy. Point is cops dont want us carrying, even legaly. Most dont like the law of concealed carry in my state.



The other point is. As Tom said, I also truly believe that some one that is out to commit crime. Is going to hide the gun until they get to there destination. Point also is, you will not be able to stop someone bent on killing someone. Just because there are laws that let you carry. The only time a cop may have curtailed a crime with a gun, is. For some reason the person carrying got stoped for another reason and arrested. Or arrested during the stop for carrying illegaly.



I would be willing to bet that this is an area with anti-gun citizens. They themselves dont like the law. So they also cause un-called for harrasment.



I was working the food pantry @ my church. One of the older ladies said. Did you know we have women in our church that have permits to carry concealed. I laughed and reminded her of a local church that gunmen robed. I was a member of that church. I wasnt there that morning, thank God. She said, OH!, But she didnt think guns belong in the church. I asked her what is the difference, in some of our LEO members carrying, vs citizens legaly carrying. She had no answer. Because of several ministries Im involved in. 2 of 3 pastors I know and meet have a Texas CHL.



IMO, anyone that will question private citzens legally carrying. Has a little anti gun in their-selves. All the reasoning in the world has no merit. Other than their own fear.



Citizens that are criminal are criminal anyway. They cant control their selves. I dont know what the stats are of citizens that have permit. That have lost control and used their guns in a heat of rage. I suspect that it is less than 1% of those that have no permit and used their gun. Because that is just who they are anyway. They have a non-permitable back ground. Even if the government was to confiscate all guns. The criminals will have them anyway.



I read an article awhile back. That since parts of the UK has conficated all guns. Some of the cops that never carried guns, have to now. Because of the criminal element with guns has increased. Some of the LEO's said, there has been an increase of home invasions and, the invaders using guns now. HMMM, I think there is a lesson to learn from that article.



To end my,:soap:. The guy in the vid was harrased ilegally. Was in his rights. Even if you feel he had an additude. The cops agreed he was within the law. It was harrasment. The video was to proove the point, of the history of harrasment. That was the point he was makeing.



Peace...:btddhorse:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish posits:

So the Policeman gets a call from the dispatcher about someone with a firearm. The Police Officer sees the individual carrying a firearm legally. The Officer ignores the individual because he believes it is a legal carry.

So, which is it, he saw him "carrying the firearm legally" (that would be a fact), or he "believes it is a legal carry" (that would be an opinion)? It is one or the other, but your two statements in the scenario are contradictory.



Beliefs and opinions shouldn't play into it. As Joe Friday would say: "Just the facts, ma'am!" Either the cop observed him legally carrying the gun, or he observed some wrong-doing that would allow him to stop, question and detain the person. It is black and white, IMHO.



Let's continue...

The individual goes straight to a local restaurant and kills several people, including your wife and kids.

That could happen, regardless whether or not one was legally carrying the weapon prior. Would you agree?

The individual later found to be a convicted felon, mentally ustable, and on his way to kill his old boss.

If that were the case (a convicted felon, unstable, etc), then I would suggest that it would be unlikely that said person should have had a gun, and he would have probably more likely be having a gun illegally. In other words, he probably couldn't legally have a gun. But, that's not the issue. The issue here even if this guy was a convicted felon, nut, the issue is: How would the cop know? He wouldn't! Not if the person was doing nothing outwardly wrong in carrying the gun, and the person were in a right-to-carry state. Such is the law. Cops should uphold and carry out the laws, period!

Do you praise the policeman for upholding the rights of the killer to bear arms (which he incidently only seemed to have) or condemn him for not easly preventing

Actually, I don't think in this scenario the so-called killer would have a right to carry a gun in most states. But, the rights that the cop are upholding are the person's rights to privacy and rights again "undo search and seizure". By upholding these rights, the policeman wouldn't be able to determine the person was (potentially) illegally possessing the gun.



So, YES, I would praise the policeman if this fictitious case were in a right-to-carry state and the person in question was doing nothing wrong while carrying the gun. The policeman would have done his job. He can't predict the future and he can't violate the person's right to privacy to see if he should or shouldn't be carrying the gun.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

TJR



Sorry I confused you. The officer sees no violation of the carry law from observing the individual. The officer, in my example, has to make a choice. Violate the individuals rights by investigating if it is indeed a legal carry, or "believe" he is legal (failing to use CA law and Terry vs Ohio), based on what he only observes. In my example, the officer takes no action.

Your second point is well take, however as I noted I was only writing about the original video.



If I read the CA open carry regulations correctly and this was CA, a officer has the right to inquire if the firearm is loaded or not. Also, Terry vs Ohio may come into play nationwide.

 

[user 64972]

Wonder what the police would do with a possible illegal alien open carrying? What a problem that could be....

 

[Kevin Lang]

Ugh, Terry v. Ohio. "I think you're carrying a gun, and you & your buddies look like unsavory figures, so it's cool for me to grab you, frisk you, throw you up against a wall in public and search you...though I'd like to point out that I do all of this despite not having any probable cause to actually arrest you, and I haven't seen you do anything illegal...but I KNOW you will, because my gut tells me so." :throwup:



A case which violated its own ruling and "distilled" legal precedent. You might not have seen the 2002 movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise, where the premise was arresting "criminals" for crimes that they would commit, rather than had committed or are committing, but this gets dangerously close.



Perhaps you've seen the 1973 Dirty Harry film Magnum Force, which is always what Terry v. Ohio conjures up in my mind. Police placing themselves above the law in order to "enforce" the law based on their own assumptions because "they know best", except the corrupt cops in Magnum Force had more class than the clowns in this video or Terry v. Ohio (Detective McFadden).

 

[Thomas Rogers]

redfish,



i don't think you confused me. The way I see it, a police officer can't enforce laws based on a "belief" that someone is doing something legal, or belief that one is innocent. The way I see it that is simply not the way this country is supposed to work. In the America that I was raised in and love people are assumed innocent until proven guilty and likewise, people are assumed to be performing legal actions unless observed otherwise. So, unless an officer sees an illegal action the person in question is legal... Belief has nothing to do with it...IMHO.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Terry vs Ohio - Law of the Land



Agree a officer can't enforce laws based on belief.



Agree one is innocent until proven guilty.



However, a officer can investigate and detain for reasonable belief. This principle hasn't changed since the 40's. You may not like it, or I may not like it, but, it is case law.



USLegal.com



"Reasonable Belief exists, when there is a reasonable basis to believe that a crime is being or has already been committed. In criminal law, similar to the probable cause standard , it is a subjective standard used to validate a warrantless search and seizure or arrest. And that considers whether an officer acted on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy. That would justify a person of average caution to believe that a crime has been or is being committed."



I truly wish the world was as you see it existed. But, there are some people out there that just don't love us, and they are all not cops.



:love:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I have nothing against cops. I have things against " thought police" and LEO that troll, looking for people that might be doing something wrong, especially if they are doing so under the guise of a belief, whim, or gut instinct. Either someone is doing something wrong and the cop observes it, or not. In ths particular case I can see no reasonable belief that a crime has been or was being committed. Seems to me that the cop was trolling, and would have been trampling on this citizen's rights had he allowed him to. I applaud the citizen for knowing his rights.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Once again.



California Open Carry, continued

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her

person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or

on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are

authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or onany public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer

to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.



I have always been talking about the first video.



If you are talking about the second video.



The second officer got a call and acted. The individual didn't know his rights, if the above law is correct and up to date. If the officer ignores the call and if something happens he is blamed. The contact with the first officer leaves some questions of why the original contact was made, I cannot make any "beliefs" as to what actually caused the contact. All the individual had to do was obey the above law and allow a quick inspection of the weapon. You may applaud him, your Constitutional Right. I do not, my "belief" is that he cares nothing about his Second Amendment rights, he is trolling. My Constitutional Right.



Who among us wants to carry a unloaded gun around anyway? Seems very stupid.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Who among us wants to carry a unloaded gun around anyway? Seems very stupid.

Welcome to California.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



I am talking about the first video as well. I have no problem with the officer inspecting the firearm to see if it is loaded, given that is the law within that state. But, after he saw that the firearm was not loaded, he should have returned it to the individual and ended the stop. Nothing else should have been asked. From that point on, the police officer was harassing the person and on the verge of invading their privacy.



As far as carrying around an unloaded gun, well, I would say that carrying around an unloaded gun and some ammo is better than carrying around no gun at all for certain people and certain situations. Sure, I guess it would be better to carry a loaded weapon, but as others have said, you gotta love California.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Nothing else should have been asked. From that point on, the police officer was harassing the person and on the verge of invading their privacy.

So on your "belief" of "harassment", Terry vs Ohio be dammed, the officer should have --

Three strikes, and I think you should be out, riding a desk for a month, or maybe the couch with no pay for a week.

Where are the Union guys on this? Don't you think it would be better if Obama just called them in for a beer? :haveabeer::haveabeer:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



No, Terry vs Ohio not be damned, as it doesn't apply in the first video.



I say that because T v O clearly includes the following key condition, as you already know:

...if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous.

There is no reasonable suspicion in the video that I can see. None was communicated at the onset of the stop, during the stop, or as the person was allowed to go about his business.



Having a gun on one's person is not reasonable suspicion that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed.



Sure, we can assume or conjecture that the cop is privy to additional information not known to the viewer of the video and that additional information has given him reasonable suspicion. But I don't buy that, for it that were the case, then this officer would have be derelict in his duty...and would have then HAD the duty to stop and seize the person in the video. He didn't do that. When he asked for identification, physical, then verbal, and the person knew his rights and didn't freely offer those things, the policeman DID NOT press the issue. He didn't force the person to comply, which, he would have been obligated by duty to do IF he had that reasonable suspicion.



So, by his actions, clearly (to me) T v O does not apply as there was not reasonable suspicion, which seems very clear by the actions (inactions) of the policeman.



The cop was trolling, IMHO. I see no other reasonable way to assume otherwise.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Well lets summarize this extreme waste of time. This is what happens to me when there is no NASCAR on Sunday.



Strike #1



Me - Stop allowed because of CA state law.



You -

He stopped and asked about a gun being carried by someone breaking no laws, and clearly in a state that doesn't require a carry permit (I say clearly because he never asked to see the permit).

Strike #2



Me - questioning allowed because of Ohio vs Terry



Concurring opinion

Justice White joined the opinion of the Court but suggested that



"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." (392 U.S. 1, at 34).



You -

Strike #2 is that he asked for identification when there was no lawful stop for a detainable offense.

Strike #3



Me - Don't know the CA law on this one, but I can't find any law that says it is simply wrong or unconstitutional. At any rate, it would not be a constitutional violation of rights punishable by death. Just anything he said would not be use-able in court.



You - "Strike #3 was that he told the pedestrian that he had to give his name, verbally, in lieu of having ID. That's simply wrong if there is no detainable offense stop. Again, unconstitutional."



Trolling



Me - Individual stopped was Trolling, to try and get his self beatin to a pulp, thus making money. "I know jaded"



You - "Officer was Trolling" "looking for more work, rather that eating more donuts) OK I added that last point for you.



End Result



Me - Good stop. Officer did his job.



You - "Three strikes, and I think you should be out, riding a desk for a month, or maybe the couch with no pay for a week."

 

[Kevin Lang]

"Reasonable Belief exists, when there is a reasonable basis to believe that a crime is being or has already been committed. In criminal law, similar to the probable cause standard , it is a subjective standard used to validate a warrantless search and seizure or arrest. And that considers whether an officer acted on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy. That would justify a person of average caution to believe that a crime has been or is being committed."

Terry v. Ohio is about the cops being able to harass people for crimes that have not happened, but the police officer(s) involve believe will happen. Humorously that doesn't fit your quotation on "reasonable belief".



In your reply to TJR you posted a judge's consenting opinion to Terry v. Ohio. It's only proper that you should also post the famous dissenting judge's opinion.

"We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again." (392 U.S. 1, at 37).



"To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment." (392 U.S. 1, at 38).

(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio#Dissenting_opinion">Justice Douglas</a>; it's only right below the quote you used on the case's wikipedia article :grin: )

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Yeah, okay, granted that first strike as I call it is allowed in California to see if the gun in question is loaded. I'll grant that and restate it.



The following 2nd and 3rd strikes that I described I agree are still valid strikes.



Again, granted, the cop is allowed to stop the person and check the weapon for ammo. Sure, the cop can ask questions at that time, but NOT because of Terry vs Ohio as you claim. The cop can ask questions simply because he has a reason to stop the person and as part of that stop can ask whatever he wants...questions like: Where have you been? or Where are you going? But this ability to converse doesn't come legally from Terry vs Ohio. Terry vs Ohio only comes into play when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime, or there about to be a crime. I don't think this applies to the situation. You aren't going to convince me that it does. The reason for the stop is to check compliance. After that, conversation can occur.



Again, the way the stop should have happened is:



a. The cop asks to see the weapon and that it is empty of ammo.



b. The gun carrying person complies, the cop sees the gun is empty.



c. The cop allows the person to "move along".



There is no reasonable, nor no legal reason to ask the person stopped any other questions. Again, that doesn't prevent the cop from asking them, and it is not illegal to ask them, but there is no case law that I know of that would compel the person stopped to answer, and because of that, I feel it is textbook harassment.



Bottom line as I see it: The stop is legal, the conversation and line of question not in itself illegal, but also serves no real purpose other than to troll, and as a by-product it harasses.



I see the incident as very similar to a policeman asking a random person on the street for identification. It is harassment. The fact that the cop stopped the person to check compliance with a law, as is lawful in the state, means (to me) that said policeman should only ascertain compliance, and if in compliance, has nothing else to say or do.



So, yeah, only TWO STRIKES, not THREE. (see, I can concede where I am wrong).







KL,



I made that point a couple of times above, already, that T v O doesn't seem to apply in this case. Rather than concede that or discuss WHY it does, Redfish goes back over already trodden ground.



I also read the dissenting judges opinion and whole-heartily agree with it.



P.S. I am very concerned, much like the Arizona immigration bill, that case law like Terry v Ohio are simply too subjective. The supreme court said that in Terry v Ohio that the reasonable belief used by LEO in the field should be the same as that required when seeking a search warrant. Put simply, I'm skeptical (as was judge Douglas) that LEO will show such restraint and discipline, and that giving them such power would give them MORE authority then the courts and judges in such matter, and that for that reason it's just too much power, too risky...too big a shift in rights away from the citizen and towards the police.



I'd like to see how many cases have been thrown out because cops and attorneys have declared valid actions based on T v O, but later, judges have claimed it not apply.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

The reasonable belief statement came from US Legal.com, it is not mine. It was used to help TJR with this statement.

a police officer can't enforce laws based on a "belief" that someone is doing something legal

I never said it had anything to do with this case.



So you both would suspend the officer for 30 days without pay because you choose to agree with a dissenting opinion and because you think T v O "doesn't seem" to apply.



Strike #2 How can strike 2 still be valid when it was a legal stop and its is not illegal ask someone there name.



Forgive me I have to trodden when the facts are repeatedly ignored. :banghead:

 

[Tom Schindler]

Is a police officer allowed the stop an individual to see if he has a cell phone in his hand? Is a ploice officer allowed to stop an individual to check if they may have a hidden weapon?



If a guy was up to no good, he would not carry his gun for all to see. He would keep it hidden.





Tom

 

[Robert Thomas]

No. But he is allowed to ask to see a individuals hands.

Sometimes.

Don't know, lots of nuts in the world.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Strike #2 is a strike because, although it is a legal stop, once the purpose of the legal stop has been fulfilled there is no need to ask any questions further. I see no problem with conversation and questions as the officer does his duty, in this case determining if the gun is loaded. But once that duty is done the questions should stop, PERIOD. The fact that they continued, IMHO, meant the LEO was arguably harassing the person stopped.



I haven't purposefully ignored any facts. The facts of the case are that it was a legal stop. The purpose of the stop was fulfilled. There is no legal basis to ask any additional questions at that point. Those are the facts. Terry vs. Ohio seems to me to have no bearing on the first video (IMHO).



TJR