TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?

If you think that was an attack you're not going to fair very well here.

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?

If you think that was an attack you're not going to fair very well here.

No but I'm suspicious that he wanted to know so he could try diminish my beliefs without having to bother with confronting those beliefs with logic..

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?

If you think that was an attack you're not going to fair very well here.

No but I'm suspicious that he wanted to know so he could try diminish my beliefs without having to bother with confronting those beliefs with logic..

I suspect he is curious because you repeatedly trend to grant search and seizure powers to cops that they do not have. It takes more than just a cop's curiosity or a desire to search someone or to seize a homeowners weapon when the person is not suspected of wrong doing.

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?

If you think that was an attack you're not going to fair very well here.

No but I'm suspicious that he wanted to know so he could try diminish my beliefs without having to bother with confronting those beliefs with logic..

You're too full of yourself. I've confronted your beliefs (and I'm glad you finally admit they are beliefs) with facts and you've sidestepped answering them.

I asked if you were a LEO or related to a LEO for the reasons that mojo84 articulated, which was apparently obvious since he picked up on it.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?

If you think that was an attack you're not going to fair very well here.

No but I'm suspicious that he wanted to know so he could try diminish my beliefs without having to bother with confronting those beliefs with logic..

You're too full of yourself. I've confronted your beliefs (and I'm glad you finally admit they are beliefs) with facts and you've sidestepped answering them.

I asked if you were a LEO or related to a LEO for the reasons that mojo84 articulated, which was apparently obvious since he picked up on it.

And I'm not all that bright.

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?

If you think that was an attack you're not going to fair very well here.

No but I'm suspicious that he wanted to know so he could try diminish my beliefs without having to bother with confronting those beliefs with logic..

From what I have seen several people have refuted what you said with Logic but that is not good enough for you.

mojo84 wrote: I suspect he is curious because you repeatedly trend to grant search and seizure powers to cops that they do not have. It takes more than just a cop's curiosity or a desire to search someone or to seize a homeowners weapon when the person is not suspected of wrong doing.

Maybe it is just that he sees me as pro law enforcement but as I have said, I'm not saying what I want or believe just the way it is backed up by SCOTUS. And you're making a strawman argument because that's (what you claim) never been stated by me. I say the cops need RS but everyone seems to ignore it or twist the meaning to what they believe it should be instead of what the courts have ruled.

baldeagle wrote: You're too full of yourself. I've confronted your beliefs (and I'm glad you finally admit they are beliefs) with facts and you've sidestepped answering them.

Sidestepped my rosey red patootie, If the cop had RS then he could do what he did plain and simple. The only way to know is a ruling by a court or the DA thinking the RS might be weak so asking the court to drop or dismiss all charges leading from the stop. Mind you the DA can also drop charges for any number of other reasons but it would make me suspicious, at the least, if he did. RS does not require that everyone who views the event perceive the same level, or any suspicious behavior at all, just that he be able to make the judge believe that a reasonable person could think so. You may want there to be a higher burden of proof but right now there isn't.

wconn33 wrote: From what I have seen several people have refuted what you said with Logic but that is not good enough for you.

Yep for the most part that logic has consisted of I'm wrong because I'm wrong. Circular logic shouldn't be confused with real logic.

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote: You're too full of yourself. I've confronted your beliefs (and I'm glad you finally admit they are beliefs) with facts and you've sidestepped answering them.

Sidestepped my rosey red patootie, If the cop had RS then he could do what he did plain and simple. The only way to know is a ruling by a court or the DA thinking the RS might be weak so asking the court to drop or dismiss all charges leading from the stop. Mind you the DA can also drop charges for any number of other reasons but it would make me suspicious, at the least, if he did. RS does not require that everyone who views the event perceive the same level, or any suspicious behavior at all, just that he be able to make the judge believe that a reasonable person could think so. You may want there to be a higher burden of proof but right now there isn't.

So you think RS gives the police the right to seize your property and search your person without a warrant. You're wrong, but you clearly don't think so, so there's not much point in arguing any further.

EEllis wrote:

wconn33 wrote: From what I have seen several people have refuted what you said with Logic but that is not good enough for you.

Yep for the most part that logic has consisted of I'm wrong because I'm wrong. Circular logic shouldn't be confused with real logic.

I'm sure Obama would say 90% of Americans agree with you.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote: You're too full of yourself. I've confronted your beliefs (and I'm glad you finally admit they are beliefs) with facts and you've sidestepped answering them.

Sidestepped my rosey red patootie, If the cop had RS then he could do what he did plain and simple. The only way to know is a ruling by a court or the DA thinking the RS might be weak so asking the court to drop or dismiss all charges leading from the stop. Mind you the DA can also drop charges for any number of other reasons but it would make me suspicious, at the least, if he did. RS does not require that everyone who views the event perceive the same level, or any suspicious behavior at all, just that he be able to make the judge believe that a reasonable person could think so. You may want there to be a higher burden of proof but right now there isn't.

So you think RS gives the police the right to seize your property and search your person without a warrant. You're wrong, but you clearly don't think so, so there's not much point in arguing any further.

Terry says Scotus also thinks so.

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote: You're too full of yourself. I've confronted your beliefs (and I'm glad you finally admit they are beliefs) with facts and you've sidestepped answering them.

Sidestepped my rosey red patootie, If the cop had RS then he could do what he did plain and simple. The only way to know is a ruling by a court or the DA thinking the RS might be weak so asking the court to drop or dismiss all charges leading from the stop. Mind you the DA can also drop charges for any number of other reasons but it would make me suspicious, at the least, if he did. RS does not require that everyone who views the event perceive the same level, or any suspicious behavior at all, just that he be able to make the judge believe that a reasonable person could think so. You may want there to be a higher burden of proof but right now there isn't.

So you think RS gives the police the right to seize your property and search your person without a warrant. You're wrong, but you clearly don't think so, so there's not much point in arguing any further.

Terry says Scotus also thinks so.

Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that, if you have RS, then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can only be done after an arrest has been effected.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?

baldeagle wrote: Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that, if you have RS, then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can only be done after an arrest has been effected.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?

Because it is true you don't need a warrant which is what you claimed repeatedly. Terry shows one set of limited circumstances where you don't need a warrant but there are others. That I keep calling you on that doesn't mean that I think this stop is a Terry stop just that Terry is the most well know thus easily mentionable exemption. The officer did and does need RS for their stop, which people seem to ignore that I have prob mentioned more than anyone else, but they don't have to tell anyone what their RS is until later. If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them, again if they have reason to do so. After a certain point when a person obstructs officers in an attempt to investigate because of the RS it becomes a crime in and of itself obstruction, and while they may or may not arrest for PC, obstruction I mean, as soon as they believe they have that PC then they can search and seize to their hearts content just like they can after the person has been formally arrested. Given the video starts with what could easily be considered obstruction I don't see the legitimacy of claiming illegal search or seizure. The RS led to the contact his actions lead to PC for an arrest. I'm not saying the deck isn't stacked but ignoring the realities as they stand now is not something I'm interested in doing.

EEllis wrote:
If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them

I agree with this, which was what my original point was regarding the video, which is that walking down the street with a firearm in a state that allows you to do so is not RS, neither is a bunch of people calling the police to say you are walking down the street with a firearm. If they then confront you to question you because you are walking down the street with a firearm, you cannot be arrested for obstruction, because they have no reason to question you or order you to do anything.

Now say a bunch of people call the police and say a man is walking down the street with a firearm and waving it around and pointing it at people, then you probably have RS because pointing a gun at people could be a crime, depending on the facts, which they could stop and ask you about.

As for Terry, I think you can only do a pat down, but if the police feel anything in your pockets that could arguably be a weapon, they can take it out. Pretty much anything could be a weapon when felt through your clothes.