sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I am not a lawyer.....I am not a cop. I am an ordinary citizen. If I am not free to go, I am under arrest. If I cannot walk away, if a LEO will taze or tackle me if I try. I am under arrest.
Everything else is an obfuscation. An attempt to muddy the waters to usurp more freedoms from citizens while singing God Bless America the whole way.
I don't blame LEOs really, but it is the sign of a declining nation. Sad to see it.
+1
Unless someone is an apologist it is way to easy to understand what an arrest is.
+1
Just to add my usual comments for the consideration of any new readers or lurkers:
In Terry vs Ohio, the US Supreme Court invented reasonable suspicion and temporary detentions out of thin air, and blatantly misadjudicated the case. There are several different angles on this. If you want to know more, I'm happy to explain.
Our Pollyanna Law-enforcement Officer always commits the logical fallacies of appealing to authority or giving one-sided examples of the benefit of detentions. He never compares it to the very foundation of our government:
Government by consent among equals. Among consenting equals, the only possible legitimate justification for seizing another human being is defense of others. For example, a crime witnessed and interrupted. Even investigating, indicting, and prosecuting a crime is one step removed from that premise. That is to say, requiring probable cause to arrest an equal is already one step removed, and already opens the door to abuses. The reasonable suspicion standard for a Terry Stop, especially as modified by more than forty years of sliding-down-the-slippery-slope court decisions, completely validates the temporary seizure of innocent people. People the government just doesn't know for sure are guilty, people the government doesn't even have enough evidence to say they are probably guilty (probable cause).
The Terry decision was another step removed from defense of others. The court decisions since then that took advantage of the mile-wide loopholes in Terry created a standard that is even further removed from defense of others.
There is no possible way to justify temporarily seizing an equal on the slender excuses now sanctioned by the courts, and practiced by a law-enforcement industry which also invents creative ways to expand even the lax standard provided by the courts.
Instead of comparing temporary investigative detentions (Terry Stops) to the foundational premise of our government, PALO resorts to logical fallacies: the US Supreme Court said it, so its reasonable. It provides some benefit sometimes, so its reasonable.
If something is reasonable, it means reason went into evaluating it. In order to accept Terry v Ohio one has to suspend reason or fail to reason. And, that's just talking about the internal inconsistencies in the opinion. One has to avoid considering (reasoning) the seizure of innocent equals, also. And, none of that takes into account yet the ocean of abuses perpetrated by police and enabled by the other police who tolerate the abusers.
+1
It ignores that the so called founding itself was an infringement too, something the anti federalist realized and without them and their constitutional tweaks cops and statist would have done away with any notions of a restrained government long ago.
Seems so many statists and apologist want to convince us there is in one cops words "gray area", first I believe that is bull and a rationalization to do away with the fact that their is limited government and freedom and then there is not, but even if that is true they have pushed the gray area to its extremes that it is virtually indistinguishable from being black or white, and that is a police state.