S_O_Laban
Member
It would be very interesting to know what the 911 caller might have said , had they been questioned about what law they thought Mvpeel was breaking. Unfortunatly we'll probably never know....
UPDATE:Seized By Manchester PD For Carry - 911 & Dispatch Transcript
- Thread starter d-mac
- Start date
- Status
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
NO pc to detain!
For all the LEO's on here preaching about what they can and can't do:
There was NO pc to detain. Now as you are blowing a gasket let me point out to you why you are wrong. Enter Florida vs. JL.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1993
The jbt's DID NOT have authority to perform a terry stop.
I.C.
For all the LEO's on here preaching about what they can and can't do:
There was NO pc to detain. Now as you are blowing a gasket let me point out to you why you are wrong. Enter Florida vs. JL.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=98-1993
The jbt's DID NOT have authority to perform a terry stop.
I.C.
S_O_Laban
Member
After listening to the audio file of the 911 call, one thing seems clear to me. The only reason this woman called this in was because she felt " uncomfortable".
She clearly didn't give any information that suggested any law had been broken, given that open carry is legal. If open carry was not legal, then PC would have existed, but that clearly isn't the case.
( this thread feels like it needs a few more smilelys)
edited for creative spelling.
She clearly didn't give any information that suggested any law had been broken, given that open carry is legal. If open carry was not legal, then PC would have existed, but that clearly isn't the case.
( this thread feels like it needs a few more smilelys) edited for creative spelling.
Gunsnrovers
Member
insidious_calm,
I don't see how your example applies here. MVpel was carrying openly. In the original posts from way back, he was carrying small of the back with out a jacket or the benefit of any concealment.
There is no assumption of a weapon, it was visible to the officers.
I don't agree with the stop either. I just don't see how your case law example applies in this situation.
I don't see how your example applies here. MVpel was carrying openly. In the original posts from way back, he was carrying small of the back with out a jacket or the benefit of any concealment.
There is no assumption of a weapon, it was visible to the officers.
I don't agree with the stop either. I just don't see how your case law example applies in this situation.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Once again -- there cannot be a "suspect" without there being an offense, a crime, for him/her to be suspected of having committed.
WHAT WAS THE OFFENSE HERE? C'mon, LEO people -- forget about where you work and focus on the facts of THIS case. THE GUN WAS LEGAL. Being an "armed man with a gun" was LEGAL. What was the offense? Absent some offense to suspect him of, there can be no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion.
Is this or is this not fundamentally correct?
Not true; they are a suspect until the investigation shows otherwise. I don't know how many times I have to say that. You are looking at this with 20/20 hindsight in typical LEO-bashing style. We don't KNOW that no crime has been committed until the investigation has been conducted.
That doesn't fall within their job description , nor are they legally empowered to do s
ur job is to respond and investigate.The same cannot be said of them.
ojibweindian
Member
People try to kill others for a measly $20. Spare me the hyperbole.
You will never get a straight answer to this. All you wil get is something that makes it very clear that the LEO's on this thread consider everyone a suspect, possibly guilty of a crime, until they convince themselves that there was no crime.
And they see that as perfectly acceptable. That someone doing nothing wrong is harrassed by the police, physically assaulted no less, until the cops are happy and when the 'suspect' complains, he's unreasonable and we are all LEO-bashers and hate-mongers for crying foul.
This argument is getting nowhere. I am waiting, I am begging for one of the LEO's defending this garbage to post some law, some reference, anything tangible that cites their power to manhandle and detain someone who's reason for coming under scrutiny is that some soccer mom doesn't like him.
Anything tangible. Even one single court-supported bit of evidence. Terry stop? You have to be kidding. 'Suspect' because an anonymous 911 whiner complained that he made them 'uncomfortable'? Is that what passes for 'probable cause' these days?
- Gabe
GRD,
GOOD POST!
I agree 100%.
I do want to support LEO's firmly, but some of the badge heavy thoughts posted and personal encounters have diminished my respect greatly.
What I will never understand is why some cops are so damn short sighted, and why their fellows or superiors don't curtial their actions or boot their fannies off the various forces...
BB62
GOOD POST!
I agree 100%.
I do want to support LEO's firmly, but some of the badge heavy thoughts posted and personal encounters have diminished my respect greatly.
What I will never understand is why some cops are so damn short sighted, and why their fellows or superiors don't curtial their actions or boot their fannies off the various forces...
BB62
Justin Moore
Member
Well of course, that makes total sense. Everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise. How could any sensible person even argue that point?
Your logic seems to be that he was a 'suspect' until the 'investigation' showed otherwise. Since its perfectly LEGAL to open carry in this situation, what EXACTLY was there to investigate? What CRIME was being investigated?
Well oh wait, everyone is a criminal until they are properly investigated.
Why not be intellectualy honest, and just come out and say that's how you feel.
Its fairly obvious at this point after all, don't you think?
El Tejon
Member
GRD, well, for a Terry stop the officer just needs reasonable suspicion.
That said, I believe this case raises a valid point. Can police officers stop someone who is merely carrying a pistol? If they cannot pull over a motorist who needs a license to operate a motor vehicle over soley to check their license, why should they be able to stop someone for merely carrying a pistol?
That said, I believe this case raises a valid point. Can police officers stop someone who is merely carrying a pistol? If they cannot pull over a motorist who needs a license to operate a motor vehicle over soley to check their license, why should they be able to stop someone for merely carrying a pistol?
Mixlesplick
Member
Grabbing someone from behind and taking their gun when that person has done nothing to suggest he is breaking any laws may make him more docile while he is lectured about why he doesn't need to carry a gun. Or it might have the opposite effect. At least the officers knew the law well enough to let him go afterwards but he shouldn't have been approached in this manner in the first place. He was minding his own business until the 911 caller sicced the police on him.
At least the officers knew the law well enough to let him go afterwards but he shouldn't have been approached in this manner in the first place. He was minding his own business until the 911 caller sicced the police on him.The people that decide what your rights are are just that, the people. You and me and every other citizen decide as a group what our rights are... It is a close argument to the one we had a while back about open carry whereby my point was that if we end up frightening the non carrying citizens of VA, they will vote to remove our "Right" to open carry. The people, through our elected representatives can remove what we consider a right.
As to how we should go about disarming someone on a routine contact, I have to respectfully disagree with allowing the potential suspect to hand the officer his firearm. Action beats reaction every time and unless I am aimed in on his head in Single Action from behind cover, the suspect would have an advantage with his gun in his hand. The last thing anyone dealing with an LEO should ever do is put their hand on a gun. I don't even do that on traffic stops after I ID myself and tell them that there is a weapon on me. The officer has the be the one to do the disarm and that works best if the potential suspect is a little off ballance/unaware since it is all over before he knows what is going on. It is safer that way for all concerned as was demonstrated in this contact...no ground fighting, no shots fired.
As to how we should go about disarming someone on a routine contact, I have to respectfully disagree with allowing the potential suspect to hand the officer his firearm. Action beats reaction every time and unless I am aimed in on his head in Single Action from behind cover, the suspect would have an advantage with his gun in his hand. The last thing anyone dealing with an LEO should ever do is put their hand on a gun. I don't even do that on traffic stops after I ID myself and tell them that there is a weapon on me. The officer has the be the one to do the disarm and that works best if the potential suspect is a little off ballance/unaware since it is all over before he knows what is going on. It is safer that way for all concerned as was demonstrated in this contact...no ground fighting, no shots fired.
One last thing-
Before anyone else quotes a case about PC, please learn the difference between Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and what both of those standards allow the officers to do.
Also, PC is not required for a stop, only reasonable suspicion. Terry Stop doctrine is very flexible and could easily be used to cover this case.
Before anyone else quotes a case about PC, please learn the difference between Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion, and what both of those standards allow the officers to do.
Also, PC is not required for a stop, only reasonable suspicion. Terry Stop doctrine is very flexible and could easily be used to cover this case.
Aguila Blanca
Member
The Florida case applies because it holds "that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person."
First, the anonymous tip in the MVPel case did not assert ANY illegality, and second, there WAS NO illegality. Ergo === probable cause did not exist.
Aguila Blanca
Member
You can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it true or correct or legal. Police do not have authority to stop people at random to determine if a crime MAY have been committed. If you want to apply a standard of "We don't know that no crime has been committed until the investigation has been completed" you would have to stop every person you encounter to investigate if they MIGHT have committed a crime.
Get serious. If you actually believe what you wrote, I find that very frightening ... and I don't mean that as "cop bashing," I mean that in the most fundamental sense of "What depths has this country fallen to?"
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
A terry stop was not justified....
No FedDc, a terry stop was not justified. The case SPECIFICALLY deals with ANONYMOUS TIPS. Which is exactly what we have here. THERE IS NO GUN EXCEPTION TO THE TERRY REQUIREMENTS. Terry requires REASONABLE SUSPICION that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed. Mere possession of a gun in a legal manner clearly does meet that criteria. Furthermore, the USSC specifically stated that there will be no gun exception to those requirements. Period.
In order for officers to make a terry stop on an anonoymous tip the tip must be "RELIABLE IN IT'S ASSERTION OF ILLEGALITY". This caselaw is exactly about what happened here except that in this case the anonymous tipster was asserting that someone was obeying the law! These officers would be felons in my state, aggravated battery, and they should be treated as such.
Now, the next thing the LEO's on here are going to say is that they can go up and talk to whomever they choose. This is true, but they cannot disarm someone simply because they want to ask him a few questions. Terry "officer safety" matters only apply if reasonable suspicion exists.
Go read the courts opinion. An anonymous tip that does not RELIABLY assert illegality does not amount to reasonable suspicion.
I.C.
No FedDc, a terry stop was not justified. The case SPECIFICALLY deals with ANONYMOUS TIPS. Which is exactly what we have here. THERE IS NO GUN EXCEPTION TO THE TERRY REQUIREMENTS. Terry requires REASONABLE SUSPICION that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed. Mere possession of a gun in a legal manner clearly does meet that criteria. Furthermore, the USSC specifically stated that there will be no gun exception to those requirements. Period.
In order for officers to make a terry stop on an anonoymous tip the tip must be "RELIABLE IN IT'S ASSERTION OF ILLEGALITY". This caselaw is exactly about what happened here except that in this case the anonymous tipster was asserting that someone was obeying the law! These officers would be felons in my state, aggravated battery, and they should be treated as such.
Now, the next thing the LEO's on here are going to say is that they can go up and talk to whomever they choose. This is true, but they cannot disarm someone simply because they want to ask him a few questions. Terry "officer safety" matters only apply if reasonable suspicion exists.
Go read the courts opinion. An anonymous tip that does not RELIABLY assert illegality does not amount to reasonable suspicion.
I.C.
ctdonath
Member
As I tried to point out before:
Those on one side of this argument see the act in question (open carry) as something absolutely legal, harmless, and righteous; they do it themselves and expect no consequences for doing so. They see no reason to manhandle/detain/question someone who simply carries openly - no more reason than to force a breathalyzer on someone simply for having car keys.
Those on the other side of this argument are faced with punishment, including job termination, for open carry; they expect bad consequences for doing so. They frequently see reason to manhandle/detain/question someone solely based on weapon possession - just as they see a significantly higher percentage of people drunk or otherwise about to endanger society, with the tip-off being possession of car keys.
Those who expect personal harm for simply and reasonably exercising a right are more likely to seek to hinder others from exercising that right.
MVpel expected no harm in open carry.
Shield expects harm in open carry.
Hence the difference in perception & opinion . That's fine - until someone holding Shield's view acts upon someone holding MVpel's view. Then we get long argumenative threads and lawsuits.
Those on one side of this argument see the act in question (open carry) as something absolutely legal, harmless, and righteous; they do it themselves and expect no consequences for doing so. They see no reason to manhandle/detain/question someone who simply carries openly - no more reason than to force a breathalyzer on someone simply for having car keys.
Those on the other side of this argument are faced with punishment, including job termination, for open carry; they expect bad consequences for doing so. They frequently see reason to manhandle/detain/question someone solely based on weapon possession - just as they see a significantly higher percentage of people drunk or otherwise about to endanger society, with the tip-off being possession of car keys.
Those who expect personal harm for simply and reasonably exercising a right are more likely to seek to hinder others from exercising that right.
MVpel expected no harm in open carry.
Shield expects harm in open carry.
Hence the difference in perception & opinion . That's fine - until someone holding Shield's view acts upon someone holding MVpel's view. Then we get long argumenative threads and lawsuits.
Another meaningless post from FedDC asserting, as I predicted, that we don't know what we're talking about and stating that the disarm was proper. But yet again, also exactly as predicted, with nothing to back it up. Not one single shred of substantiating material.
Nothing except another "I'll do whatever I feel like doing until I feel secure or am satisfied" and "you people don't know the difference between X and Y".
Fine. Please explain how Terry applies here. Plenty of people have presented arguments how it does not, yet you insist it does. You must have some knowledge everyone else lacks, or at least you keep insisting you are the only one who gets it. Lets put this to rest: explain yourself. Provide anything to back up your assertion. ANYTHING AT ALL.
- Gabe
Nothing except another "I'll do whatever I feel like doing until I feel secure or am satisfied" and "you people don't know the difference between X and Y".
Fine. Please explain how Terry applies here. Plenty of people have presented arguments how it does not, yet you insist it does. You must have some knowledge everyone else lacks, or at least you keep insisting you are the only one who gets it. Lets put this to rest: explain yourself. Provide anything to back up your assertion. ANYTHING AT ALL.
Fine (see, FedDC how easy that was?). Just the same, there was no reasonable suspicion here of any wrongdoing. None.
- Gabe
That is all irrelevant, ct. What is relevant is the law and the powers the law gives the police. The law is clear: open carry is legal in Manchester, NH. The personal opinions of those involved in this discussion are irrelevant.
If only we could get past that and address the issue: police authority and where it ends. This is a legal question, it does not matter if you despise or love open carry. The law is the law. Open carry is legal, the 911 caller was ignorant of this fact (maybe), there is no 'reasonable suspicion' or anything even remotely approaching it to suggest that a crime is being committed. Yet the man was treated as if he was under suspicion of having committed a crime: in clear violation of his rights.
The problem is that the cops defending the assault have dug themselves a hole: they want to have the power to disarm (or more generally to render any situation they come into safe from their perspective) but that power runs afoul of the law, and they want to be on the side of the law. This is the dilemma. Instead of coming to a conclusion on this topic by getting the legal line defined, we get arguments that pertain to how the officers feel about a certain situation and base the justifications for their actions on that instead of what they are allowed to do by law. This leads to all the discussions about 'officer safety' and 'you don't know how hard it is' and 'open carry invites this sort of thing' and on and on. An endless circle of tangetial and irrelevant discussions that miss the point.
The role of the police in this event should have been to protect the rights of the man falsely accused by the 911 whiner. If upon observing the man they came to believe he was reasonably suspected of breaking the law, then I would be more inclined to accept the disarm. In the absence of any suspicion at all, they assaulted him illegally.
If that is incorrect, legally incorrect, I wish someone would cite something concrete to refute it and put this to rest. Opinions are irrelevant.
- Gabe
If only we could get past that and address the issue: police authority and where it ends. This is a legal question, it does not matter if you despise or love open carry. The law is the law. Open carry is legal, the 911 caller was ignorant of this fact (maybe), there is no 'reasonable suspicion' or anything even remotely approaching it to suggest that a crime is being committed. Yet the man was treated as if he was under suspicion of having committed a crime: in clear violation of his rights.
The problem is that the cops defending the assault have dug themselves a hole: they want to have the power to disarm (or more generally to render any situation they come into safe from their perspective) but that power runs afoul of the law, and they want to be on the side of the law. This is the dilemma. Instead of coming to a conclusion on this topic by getting the legal line defined, we get arguments that pertain to how the officers feel about a certain situation and base the justifications for their actions on that instead of what they are allowed to do by law. This leads to all the discussions about 'officer safety' and 'you don't know how hard it is' and 'open carry invites this sort of thing' and on and on. An endless circle of tangetial and irrelevant discussions that miss the point.
The role of the police in this event should have been to protect the rights of the man falsely accused by the 911 whiner. If upon observing the man they came to believe he was reasonably suspected of breaking the law, then I would be more inclined to accept the disarm. In the absence of any suspicion at all, they assaulted him illegally.
If that is incorrect, legally incorrect, I wish someone would cite something concrete to refute it and put this to rest. Opinions are irrelevant.
- Gabe
DigitalWarrior
Member
FED, please explain this
What crime was he reasonably suspected of committing?
What crime was he reasonably suspected of committing?
Aguila Blanca
Member
GRD --
That about sums it up. Well stated.
That about sums it up. Well stated.
DigitalWarrior
Member
I was taught in school that you never ask two questions is a letter. You will only get one answer, and it is not to the question you thought most important.
It's Funnie wen mine sk00lin comes bak to I!
It's Funnie wen mine sk00lin comes bak to I!
Finally, an advancement of the discussion! A clarification which led to a better question. Stop the presses.
- Gabe
PS: Don't hold your breath waiting for a clear answer, DW. I have another prediction: obfuscation mixed with skirting the issue. That or alot of "talkin' loud, saying nothing" on the way.
firearms_instructor
Member
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a law-abiding citizen has more to fear from the police than from criminals.
I don't know what percentage of the police think like FedDC, tcsd1236, or lilysdad, but I dearly hope it's a very small minority. However, reading their posts has convinced me that the wise thing to do is suspect all police of putting their comfort, convenience, and safety above my rights and safety. What happened to the presumption of innocence in my country?! How about common manners and decency? How would you like it if the public at large automatically assumed you were a jackbooted scumbag just because you're a police officer?
I think the basic problem here is that our pesky Constitutional rights are just too inconvenient for some of the police. We must all adjust for their laziness.
I don't know what percentage of the police think like FedDC, tcsd1236, or lilysdad, but I dearly hope it's a very small minority. However, reading their posts has convinced me that the wise thing to do is suspect all police of putting their comfort, convenience, and safety above my rights and safety. What happened to the presumption of innocence in my country?! How about common manners and decency? How would you like it if the public at large automatically assumed you were a jackbooted scumbag just because you're a police officer?
I think the basic problem here is that our pesky Constitutional rights are just too inconvenient for some of the police. We must all adjust for their laziness.
- Status
