Almost drew my weapon today!

[wylde007]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

I stated that it can be FACTORED into articulation.

I understood that. I'm just saying it needs to be handled with kid gloves.

Example: It's 3:00 am in a parking lot (known for GLA from autos) and two males wearing dark clothes are peering into a vehicle with a flashlight. RAS to stop.

Now if it's 3:00 pm and two males are peering into a vehicle, probably won't get stopped.

Really? You wouldn't approach and ask what they were up to?

Their body language would give them away dead in either instance. You've essentially just told me that you'd only pursue suspicious activity after dark. If someone was looking into a vehicle in a parking lot, mine or someone else's, I would wonder what was going on.

Matter-of-fact, I would approach as a citizen and ascertain if they had perhaps locked their keys in the car. Immediately upon response you'd know if they were ill-intentioned or not. Generally. I don't have any "police" training and I think I could figure that out.

However, like I said... tread carefully. You described a situation QUITE DIFFERENT from a man walking down the street at 3 AM. The RAS doesn't come from the time of day, rather the suspiciousness of the act. Peering into a car window is suspicious. Walking down the street? Not so much.

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

At 3:00 pm, I could spend my entire time trying to talk to people standing near cars, given that I work in a high populated, very busy area, so there would need to be more factors for me to stop and talk to them. I don't have a slim jim anyway, so I'm useless at helping retrieve the keys.

I disagree with your stance that time of day is not a direct correlation to RAS. I will have to post up some case law to support my opinion (give me a bit, headed out now). Someone walking down the street at 3:00 am is suspicious to me. Call me crazy, or maybe it's that I see things differently, but I still consider it suspicious. I will want to know where you are going, what you are doing. I will most likely stop and try to get a consensual encounter going, but at that point won't really have RAS for a Terry Stop (without more factors).

Does anyone know if Ung was drinking prior, if he had a previous conflict with these men, or what was said?

 

[wylde007]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

I will want to know where you are going, what you are doing.

And no one would be obliged to share that information with you.

I will most likely stop and try to get a consensual encounter going, but at that point won't really have RAS for a Terry Stop (without more factors).

You've just admitted that you don't have RAS for a stop, but you'll try to engage a consensual encounter that someone has no obligation to humor you in.

What then?

So people make a regular habit of walking around your area and peering into cars? Really? Do you work at a used car dealership? That wouldn't seem suspicious to you in the daytime? That's not unusual?

I just can't get over that. Seriously. Fail.

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

I will want to know where you are going, what you are doing.

And no one would be obliged to share that information with you.

I will most likely stop and try to get a consensual encounter going, but at that point won't really have RAS for a Terry Stop (without more factors).

You've just admitted that you don't have RAS for a stop, but you'll try to engage a consensual encounter that someone has no obligation to humor you in.

What then?

So people make a regular habit of walking around your area and peering into cars? Really? Do you work at a used car dealership? That wouldn't seem suspicious to you in the daytime? That's not unusual?

I just can't get over that. Seriously. Fail.

You don't make much sense. I stated I did have RAS to stop someone at 3am peering into a vehicle in a parking lot with a flashlight, dressed in dark clothes, with a flashlight, in an area known for larcenies from auto. During the day, there are too many people out to determine if they are talking to someone inside the car, or just hanging out around the car, etc. I was only giving you an elementary school example of how time of day can add to RAS, but maybe I didn't make it easy enough for you to understand...fail.

Yes I would try to talk to someone out in the middle of the night, why not? You do know that in order to catch criminals, I need to talk to them first? It's good to know who lives in the area as well. I wouldn't think you would understand, and obviously you don't.

"However, like I said... tread carefully. You described a situation QUITE DIFFERENT from a man walking down the street at 3 AM. The RAS doesn't come from the time of day, rather the suspiciousness of the act. Peering into a car window is suspicious. Walking down the street? Not so much."- WYLDE
Can you support that statements with a cite?

Here's something interesting.... U.S. v Mayo (occurred in VA).... man walking down a street in a high crime area.... officers approached him... he seemed nervous and made movements with his hand and pocket... they Terry Stopped him, then Terry Frisked him.. recovered a concealed weapon (illegal) and charged. Everything upheld. So you were completely wrong, why do you post about things you do not know? You failed to support your theory.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

I don't need a cite to tell you that it's not illegal to walk down the street, but that peering suspiciously into a car window could be an indicator of potential illegal act.

You don't make any sense and I'm glad I don't live in your AO.

I understand you think you know the law and believe yourself to be above it. You're the worst kind of hypocrite and your claim to have a badge, too? Sure, Barney. Whatever.

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

I just gave you a cite where it contradicts what you just said. I just provided case law to show that time of day is incorporated into RAS. How am I a hypocrite? Barney? Once again you must resort to personal blows because you cannot fend for yourself with a logical debate backed with facts. Get back to me when you want to prove me wrong by providing laws or case law to support your answers.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Barney?

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

Barney?

Once again, personal attacks... it's like a frat of bullies that roam on here to attempt to push out anyone who doesn't have the same views as them. Fog and mirrors.

I'm very surprised at the responses of members on this site. The 2A is a controversial legislative topic. This is one of the main sites of support. I would think that members would try to express their views in a manner that would better reflect their stance and give a better image of them as a whole. I'm not even against the 2A, but only debate some legal issues and I have been mocked on the forum and in personal messages and have had some posts deleted by the site (that didn't break rules). I just think there is a better route to get your point across... but call me crazy? Oh wait... call me Barney.

 

[curtiswr]

imported post

Your first posts were contentious and you're upset because we treat you with the respect that you came here with? Poor you.

 

[allens]

imported post

That may be the way you handle it in Colorado, but I would have done the EXACT same thing.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Get back to me when you want to prove me wrong by providing laws or case law to support your answers.

Your SINGULAR case law means bupkiss, Barney.

You have said, in as many words, that you are perfectly OK with violating someone's civil rights in order to ascertain if they "might be up to something".

You have proven by your words that you are exactly the kind of law enforcement employee that truly law-abiding citizens despise. You believe you are above the law and that violations thereof, if they help pin a crime on someone, are a small price to pay for landing a fish.

You have either adopted this as your SOP from observing others in similar fashion or come to the conclusion that it's OK to violate someone's rights when it gives you a means to an end. Whatever school of law enforcement you are a product of is an affront to decency and community.

You're not being picked on. You've made your bed. You sleep in it.

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

Get back to me when you want to prove me wrong by providing laws or case law to support your answers.

Your SINGULAR case law means bupkiss, Barney.

You have said, in as many words, that you are perfectly OK with violating someone's civil rights in order to ascertain if they "might be up to something".

You have proven by your words that you are exactly the kind of law enforcement employee that truly law-abiding citizens despise. You believe you are above the law and that violations thereof, if they help pin a crime on someone, are a small price to pay for landing a fish.

You have either adopted this as your SOP from observing others in similar fashion or come to the conclusion that it's OK to violate someone's rights when it gives you a means to an end. Whatever school of law enforcement you are a product of is an affront to decency and community.

You're not being picked on. You've made your bed. You sleep in it.

What exactly is singular case law? Do you mean I provided only one case to support my post? Using the word singular is not grammatically correct, although I don't hold you to much standards. I could provide more for you sir.

How do I believe I am above the law? Just because I stated that being out at 3 am can add to my RAS to stop someone and talk to them? I believe most citizens would support officers checking out several individuals in their parking lot at 3 am dressed in all black with a flashlight? Guess you would be fine with it? In order to catch criminals, you need to interact with people (law abiding and those who aren't). Laws don't apply to me? I have never had a ticket in my life, nor been arrested. I have never been in trouble in school, received good grades growing up and graduated college with good grades. Never been fired from a job and have had jobs with a lot of responsibility. I couldn't keep my current job unless I strictly followed SOP's and laws. I have never been written up at work or had to defend any choices I made. I follow rules, but yet you call my integrity into question because of the 20 or so posts on a website that don't follow your same beliefs?

It sounds like you believe police are out on a witch hunt. We are there to nail law abiding citizens. Like I expressed before, there is no way to even do that unless an officer lies (which should result in their immediate termination). Do you know what a magistrate is? A Commonwealth Attorney? A General District court preliminary hearing/Circuit Court Grand Jury? All of these are prior to trial checks and balances to make sure there is enough probable cause to charge someone (unless it's a VUS offense, which the C.A. will decide to proceed or nolle prosse).

I don't mind if I am being picked on or not. It's just a forum, trust me I have been verbally abused and in physical confrontations on a regular basis during my work. I take nothing personal and was merely stating that personally attacking others on this site will push them against supporting the overall mission statement of this website and organizations.

You have yet to prove me wrong, and are avoiding my challenge of proving which statements I made which are incorrect, and only resorted to calling me names. That's grade school. Please, once again, if I am incorrect about anything I said about RAS, please bring those statements to light and provide laws/case law to support your answer. Up to the challenge? If I am wrong, then I will be sure to tell my legal instructor and coworkers.

PS. You also called them "citizens" ... how dare you mock the public like that. Just because you have been a member on this site longer than I have seems to make you believe your ideas hold more weight than mine do.

 

[NovaCop]

imported post

Wylde.....still waiting......

 

[wylde007]

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

What exactly is singular case law? Do you mean I provided only one case to support my post?

Singular. As in one. 100% grammatically correct.

How do I believe I am above the law? Just because I stated that being out at 3 am can add to my RAS to stop someone and talk to them? I believe most citizens would support officers checking out several individuals in their parking lot at 3 am dressed in all black with a flashlight? Guess you would be fine with it?

Your inability to process context is mindboggling. There is a guy walking down the street at 3 am and then there are several "individuals" dressed all in black casing vehicles with a flashlight.

Are you so dense that you don't appreciate the difference in those two scenarios?

I have never had a ticket in my life, nor been arrested. I have never been in trouble in school, received good grades growing up and graduated college with good grades. Never been fired from a job and have had jobs with a lot of responsibility. I couldn't keep my current job unless I strictly followed SOP's and laws. I have never been written up at work or had to defend any choices I made.

While you're patting yourself on the back for wholly and completely irrelevant periphery, don't forget to wipe.

Do you know what a magistrate is? A Commonwealth Attorney? A General District court preliminary hearing/Circuit Court Grand Jury? All of these are prior to trial checks and balances to make sure there is enough probable cause to charge someone (unless it's a VUS offense, which the C.A. will decide to proceed or nolle prosse).

That's bulls**t and you know it. You don't need "reasons" to arrest someone. It's the magistrate or CA who decide whether your claim of arrest is valid and arraignable.

You have yet to prove me wrong, and are avoiding my challenge of proving which statements I made which are incorrect, and only resorted to calling me names.

You prove yourself wrong by falsifying statements, posting vagaries and exaggerations and representing personal opinion as fact. Plus, I had a job to do last night so I couldn't sit around debating your lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

That's grade school. Please, once again, if I am incorrect about anything I said about RAS, please bring those statements to light and provide laws/case law to support your answer.

Covered. 100%. You said you would stop someone walking down the street at 3 am and then somehow made a direct association between that innocent act and a "couple of people peering into cars with a flashlight in a parking lot" a proceeded to build an argument around two uniquely separate instances.

Furthermore you said that the exact same situation, repeated during daylight hours, would NOT draw your attention because of the population density of your particular AO? You have yet to address that little morsel with any manner of articulation.

PS. You also called them "citizens" ... how dare you mock the public like that.

What the hell are you talking about? I can't even begin to figure out what backhanded read of something I wrote you could have used to believe for a moment that I would mock my fellows. Your credibility is on shaky ground as it is around here and you go making off-the-cuff and insubstantial remarks like this?

Who the hell do you think you are? You have proven nothing by your incessant self-righteousness and vaguely relevant case law.

When you first showed up here I was of the mind to give you the benefit of the doubt even though you ran off at the mouth like a rookie fresh out of the local Paul Blart Academy... but that time has since passed.

Now, if you don't mind, I've got to go change the earl in the General.

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

RAS in the "totalityof the circumstances"as articulated in United States v. Mayo, a binding 4th Circuit precedent:


[align=left]"First, we note that Officer Cornett’s encounter with Mayo occurred[/align]

[align=left]in a high-crime area that had been targeted for special enforcement by[/align]

[align=left]the City of Richmond. Although standing alone this factor may not[/align]

[align=left]be the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop anyone in the area, see[/align]

[align=left]Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979), it is a factor that may be considered[/align]

[align=left]along with others to determine whether police have a reasonable[/align]

[align=left]suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, see[/align]

[align=left]Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124.[/align]

[align=left]Second, Mayo’s activity upon viewing the marked patrol car suggested[/align]

[align=left]that he might be carrying a gun. The way Mayo put his hand[/align]

[align=left]in his pocket and the appearance of something heavy in his pocket[/align]

[align=left]suggested to the officers that Mayo had put his left hand onto a gun[/align]

[align=left]to protect it while he was moving.[/align]

[align=left]Third, upon seeing the police, Mayo sought to evade their scrutiny.[/align]

[align=left]When he saw the approaching police car, Mayo "turned 180 degrees"[/align]

[align=left]and walked from the street into an adjacent apartment complex. And[/align]

[align=left]when he came out the other side, only to view the police again, he[/align]

[align=left]reacted in a shocked manner, thereafter proceeding to walk away.[/align]

[align=left]Fourth and finally, when the officers confronted Mayo, he evinced[/align]

[align=left]an unusually nervous behavior. He averted his eyes to avoid those of[/align]

the officers, and his nervousness was palpable."



Not my favorite "Mayo" case, see United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.Pa. 1971), but a persuasive one.