Would also require the cops to have x ray vision for telling the difference between a spring loaded knife and a non spring loaded knife in his pocket.Why would anyone carry a spring loaded knife? A good thumb notch or spiderco opens just as fast, and more reliably.
What he said. Springs can break. There are a variety of good knives on the market which can be opened reliably with one hand and are rugged enough you shouldn't have to worry about things breaking.
There was an appeals court decision a couple years ago which provides some clarification as to what is legal in these circumstances.
Running creates "reasonable suspicion" but does not create "probable cause". Article explaining.
UNITED STATES of America v. Alexander NAVEDO Appellate decision.
Basically if you run, the officers can stop you and pat you down. They can't arrest you though unless they find something more substantial. Of course, police officers are rarely punished for false arrest.
A couple of articles/pages that may (or may not) be pertinent to this thread:
D.A. Who Failed to Indict Eric Garner's Killer Elected to Congress
Lawsuits Filed as Chicago Denies Black People Concealed Carry Licenses
I seem to recall there being a couple of stragglers. But only, like, two. And I might not even remember right. :)
Contributor
|
I seem to recall there being a couple of stragglers. But only, like, two. And I might not even remember right. :)Picture of officers split.
Thank you. :)
Even if he was carrying an illegal knife (which he evidently wasn't), he should not have died in custody.
Even if he had a loaded firearm, once he's disarmed and arrested, he should not have died in custody.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legally, they could stop and search him. When they did so, they found the knife. At that point they could tell what it was.
The narrative they're going to go with is he was a dangerous criminal breaking the law and we brought down a black man armed with AN ILLEGAL WEAPON. (although how the hell a knife is illegal when i can buy an ar 15 knockoff with no more id than the beard of my face is a mystery to me)He ran, so we were right to arrest him because he was guilty of CRIIIIIME and because he is GUILTY! he deserved to be beaten to death.
Thats the part that requires x ray vision. Along with enough head desking logical problems to wreck an entire ikea superstore.
Legally, they could stop and search him. When they did so, they found the knife. At that point they could tell what it was.The narrative they're going to go with is he was a dangerous criminal breaking the law and we brought down a black man armed with AN ILLEGAL WEAPON. (although how the hell a knife is illegal when i can buy an ar 15 knockoff with no more id than the beard of my face is a mystery to me)He ran, so we were right to arrest him because he was guilty of CRIIIIIME and because he is GUILTY! he deserved to be beaten to death.
Thats the part that requires x ray vision. Along with enough head desking logical problems to wreck an entire ikea superstore.
He ran. That means they were legally allowed to chase and search him. Not to arrest him.
When they searched him they found the knife. Since it wasn't illegal, that should have been the end of it.
They're going to claim they thought it was illegal or there's reasonable doubt it was illegal or some such, justifying the arrest. Even if the charges would have been dropped when a judge looked at them .
Obviously he didn't deserve to be beaten to death - that was a tragic accident.
Still no x-ray vision required.That'll be the actual story. You're exactly on target for the narrative and impression they're trying to create. Smear the dead black man so people hearing about it think "maybe they didn't follow procedure, but he was a dangerous armed thug and it's good he's off the streets". It's worked before.
no. He can leave in any way he so wishes.
They aren't there for him today.
What if he jumped into a car? Would they then be able to get into a high speed vehicle chase because he drove off from the cops?
Legally, they could stop and search him. When they did so, they found the knife. At that point they could tell what it was.The narrative they're going to go with is he was a dangerous criminal breaking the law and we brought down a black man armed with AN ILLEGAL WEAPON. (although how the hell a knife is illegal when i can buy an ar 15 knockoff with no more id than the beard of my face is a mystery to me)He ran, so we were right to arrest him because he was guilty of CRIIIIIME and because he is GUILTY! he deserved to be beaten to death.
Thats the part that requires x ray vision. Along with enough head desking logical problems to wreck an entire ikea superstore.
He ran. That means they were legally allowed to chase and search him. Not to arrest him.
When they searched him they found the knife. Since it wasn't illegal, that should have been the end of it.
They're going to claim they thought it was illegal or there's reasonable doubt it was illegal or some such, justifying the arrest. Even if the charges would have been dropped when a judge looked at them .
Obviously he didn't deserve to be beaten to death - that was a tragic accident.
Still no x-ray vision required.That'll be the actual story. You're exactly on target for the narrative and impression they're trying to create. Smear the dead black man so people hearing about it think "maybe they didn't follow procedure, but he was a dangerous armed thug and it's good he's off the streets". It's worked before.
no. He can leave in any way he so wishes.
They aren't there for him today.
What if he jumped into a car? Would they then be able to get into a high speed vehicle chase because he drove off from the cops?
Running is suspicious. Suspicion lets the cops question you. If he'd jumped in a car, they would have been justified to pull him over. If he didn't pull over, they'd be justified in chasing him.
Legally...
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.
The old "ran off when I looked him in the eye" thing has no legal standing and smacks of spaghetti westerns and bigotry.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.
The old "ran off when I looked him in the eye" thing has no legal standing and smacks of spaghetti westerns and bigotry.
Sadly, courts disagree with you.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.
Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
then I better become a statue whenever the cops show up.
Leaving is apparently illegal.
Does the supreme court know what they did when they made this legal? Because they just made a huge step towards a police state.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
Which really goes back to "officer discretion" which really needs to be completely eliminated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.
The old "ran off when I looked him in the eye" thing has no legal standing and smacks of spaghetti westerns and bigotry.
It's not a crime. They can't charge him or arrest him for it.
They can however use it as a reason to question him, which requires them to catch him and stop and search him. Illinois v. Wardlow
this makes little to no sense.
According to the case, if I'm reading everything right, we all have the right to avoid the police if we so wish.
But now the cops can override that right if we leave in any way they don't like.
This is a poorly defined decision.
"The US Supreme Court reversed both the Appellate and Illinois Supreme Court decisions, with the Supreme Court stating that fleeing in a high crime area at the sight of police is enough to create reasonable suspicion. Indicating that reasonable suspicion rest heavily on normal human behavior, stating that flight at the mere sight of police is a sign that there exists reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot."
Translation: Your right to avoid police contact only exists in the white/rich neighborhood, not the "wrong side of the tracks".
Given the opposite verdicts in the lower courts and 4/5 split in the supreme court, I wouldn't expect it to be upheld if the circumstances were slightly different. That doesn't prevent it fro being used as case law unfortunately.
Which really goes back to "officer discretion" which really needs to be completely eliminated.I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
And replaced with...what? It's not like you can program officers like robots.
And I imagine the goal of trying to write laws that have no leeway or mitigating circumstances or any such thing will not result in something anyone will like.
Which really goes back to "officer discretion" which really needs to be completely eliminated.I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
And replaced with...what? It's not like you can program officers like robots.
And I imagine the goal of trying to write laws that have no leeway or mitigating circumstances or any such thing will not result in something anyone will like.
Replaced with, "did you directly witness a crime being committed and can that be verified with your body camera?" If no, then you are not permitted to chase or detain.
Replaced with, "did you directly witness a crime being committed and can that be verified with your body camera?" If no, then you are not permitted to chase or detain.Which really goes back to "officer discretion" which really needs to be completely eliminated.I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
And replaced with...what? It's not like you can program officers like robots.
And I imagine the goal of trying to write laws that have no leeway or mitigating circumstances or any such thing will not result in something anyone will like.
I imagine that will likely not work out as you wish it as well. "Conspiracy to commit murder" is a crime for a reason.
I imagine that will likely not work out as you wish it as well. "Conspiracy to commit murder" is a crime for a reason.Replaced with, "did you directly witness a crime being committed and can that be verified with your body camera?" If no, then you are not permitted to chase or detain.Which really goes back to "officer discretion" which really needs to be completely eliminated.I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
And replaced with...what? It's not like you can program officers like robots.
And I imagine the goal of trying to write laws that have no leeway or mitigating circumstances or any such thing will not result in something anyone will like.
Did you witness the conspiracy and can that be verified with your body camera?
Did you witness the conspiracy and can that be verified with your body camera?I imagine that will likely not work out as you wish it as well. "Conspiracy to commit murder" is a crime for a reason.Replaced with, "did you directly witness a crime being committed and can that be verified with your body camera?" If no, then you are not permitted to chase or detain.Which really goes back to "officer discretion" which really needs to be completely eliminated.I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
And replaced with...what? It's not like you can program officers like robots.
And I imagine the goal of trying to write laws that have no leeway or mitigating circumstances or any such thing will not result in something anyone will like.
Which is essentially changing the law to "you can plan to commit murder as long as you do so in the privacy of your own home or car or just if you do it really quietly" since officers cannot now search the premises or your self based on reasonable doubt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bite someone in the junk during a drunken brawl you started by jumping someone alley who backed up their friend's decision to refuse to sleep with you? Paid vacation!
That one needs time before its insanity. You can't realistically have cops getting suspended without pay every time something happens, making police TOO hesistant to use force is just as bad as having them use it too often.
Which is essentially changing the law to "you can plan to commit murder as long as you do so in the privacy of your own home or car or just if you do it really quietly" since officers cannot now search the premises or your self based on reasonable doubt.Did you witness the conspiracy and can that be verified with your body camera?I imagine that will likely not work out as you wish it as well. "Conspiracy to commit murder" is a crime for a reason.Replaced with, "did you directly witness a crime being committed and can that be verified with your body camera?" If no, then you are not permitted to chase or detain.Which really goes back to "officer discretion" which really needs to be completely eliminated.I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Unless the cops told him he was under arrest or something applicable, he can go anywhere he wants, however he wants.Certainly he can.
But if he goes somewhere and/or leaves in a manner that in and of itself constitutes reasonable suspicion, the police can then stop him and question him.
And replaced with...what? It's not like you can program officers like robots.
And I imagine the goal of trying to write laws that have no leeway or mitigating circumstances or any such thing will not result in something anyone will like.
Beat cops? Yeah, that's right. They can't come into my f+&~ing house to snoop around "just incase" I'm planning murder.
Detectives with arrest warrant? That's another story. But we aren't talking about that, we are talking about beat cops.
You just said "officer discretion" so I wasn't sure where you drew the line there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the outcome as far as Gray was concerned we are most definitely dealing with "beat cops".
Regardless, we also come back to my original point made way back when that police officers these days are acting like predators in the wild moving through herds of herbivores. This sort of nonsense has to stop.
You just said "officer discretion" so I wasn't sure where you drew the line there.
I don't concider an arrest warrant to be officer discretion.
You just said "officer discretion" so I wasn't sure where you drew the line there.I don't consider an arrest warrant to be officer discretion.
That does not make for a functional legal system then, if I'm understanding you right.
You can't get an arrest (or even search) warrant unless you suspect someone of a crime and have evidence which you can't get unless you suspect someone of a crime which you can't unless you have evidence...
You just said "officer discretion" so I wasn't sure where you drew the line there.I don't consider an arrest warrant to be officer discretion.That does not make for a functional legal system then, if I'm understanding you right.
You can't get an arrest (or even search) warrant unless you suspect someone of a crime and have evidence which you can't get unless you suspect someone of a crime which you can't unless you have evidence...
I didn't say anything about investigating or asking questions. I said you can't chase or detain.
Edit: removed a jerkish comment.
You just said "officer discretion" so I wasn't sure where you drew the line there.I don't consider an arrest warrant to be officer discretion.That does not make for a functional legal system then, if I'm understanding you right.
You can't get an arrest (or even search) warrant unless you suspect someone of a crime and have evidence which you can't get unless you suspect someone of a crime which you can't unless you have evidence...
I didn't say anything about investigating or asking questions. I said you can't chase or detain.
Edit: removed a jerkish comment.
I'm just confused as to how exactly you think this is going to work out. You can't detain anyone unless you have proof they did a crime, which is often done by asking questions of people, who you can't detain if they flee, so you can't ask them questions...
Break it down for me in some way that doesn't assume everybody in the coutry is going to cooperate with the police in the answering of questions during an investigation.
You just said "officer discretion" so I wasn't sure where you drew the line there.I don't consider an arrest warrant to be officer discretion.That does not make for a functional legal system then, if I'm understanding you right.
You can't get an arrest (or even search) warrant unless you suspect someone of a crime and have evidence which you can't get unless you suspect someone of a crime which you can't unless you have evidence...
I didn't say anything about investigating or asking questions. I said you can't chase or detain.
Edit: removed a jerkish comment.
That's why they're chasing. So they can ask questions.
"I heard a gunshot and here's a guy running down the road with a gun. (Which is legal in this state, for the sake of argument.) No crime on my bodycam, so I guess I can't try to chase him."
That's right, you can't chase him. You can ask questions to people about who he is, if you are able to find out who he is then you can go question him. You can conduct crime scene investigation to attempt to determine who committed the crime. You can collect evidence and investigate in other ways. If it turns out someone in particular may have answers but they are being evasive then you can subpoena them. If they don't obey the subpoena then they can be charged with contempt of court and have an arrest warrant issued.
(Which is legal in this state, for the sake of argument.)
Also, for the sake of argument, open carry laws are stupid too. I don't intend to get pushed into a corner trying to defend a theory in the face of stupid laws. If states want an open carry law, then they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. That includes politely tipping your hat to someone running away from a murder with a gun in their hands.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(not the city, upstate, yes there is part of New York that is NOT one giant stinking hole of greed and narcissism
Hehehe.
When I was in the islamic republic of mauritania, I was walking with some locals in between a stretch of desert in between two sections of the town. The begging got a little aggresive and started to cross the line into a mugging. I pointed out that I weighed more than three of them combined, and I was from new york.
Middle of the sahara desert the three of them in unison go "Oh, New york" put their hands up and back away like I'm about to pull out a glock
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TBone: You haven't given any indication that your alternative is any less stupid though.
'm just confused as to how exactly you think this is going to work out. You can't detain anyone unless you have proof they did a crime, which is often done by asking questions of people, who you can't detain if they flee, so you can't ask them questions...
Reasonable suspicion. Which shouldn't include running away from people with baltimore pds record.