TexasCHLforum.com

Labrat, a police officer is legally allowed to initiate a conversation with any pedestrian for any reason or no reason at all. This is no different than you or I initiating a conversation with a person.

A police officer can ask another person any question they want to ask, just like you or I can ask another person a question.

So long as the interaction remains voluntary, such that a reasonable person would know or should know that they do not need to interact with the police officer, there is no requirement for reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) or for probable cause (PC).

Once the interaction becomes non-voluntary, where a person is detained for example, then the requirement for RAS or PC comes into play.

If an officer walks up to you and says, "What's your name and what are you doing here", you are free to say you don't feel like talking to him. He can ask and you can refuse, are there are no issues with "rights".

However, if he says, "hand against the wall, spread your legs, I am going to frisk you", then a reasonable person would conclude they are being detained and RAS/PC becomes an issue.

If an LEO asks, "how 'ya doin'?", and you react by running, then RAS was just created for a detention.

Jumping Frog wrote:Labrat, a police officer is legally allowed to initiate a conversation with any pedestrian for any reason or no reason at all. This is no different than you or I initiating a conversation with a person.

A police officer can ask another person any question they want to ask, just like you or I can ask another person a question.

So long as the interaction remains voluntary, such that a reasonable person would know or should know that they do not need to interact with the police officer, there is no requirement for reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) or for probable cause (PC).

Once the interaction becomes non-voluntary, where a person is detained for example, then the requirement for RAS or PC comes into play.

If an officer walks up to you and says, "What's your name and what are you doing here", you are free to say you don't feel like talking to him. He can ask and you can refuse, are there are no issues with "rights".

However, if he says, "hand against the wall, spread your legs, I am going to frisk you", then a reasonable person would conclude they are being detained and RAS/PC becomes an issue.

If an LEO asks, "how 'ya doin'?", and you react by running, then RAS was just created for a detention.

Jumping Frog:

I don't believe a "reasonable" person will always and without error be able to tell when an encounter progresses from "voluntary" to "involuntary"...that distinction exists only in the mind of the police officer from moment to moment. Some signs are self-evident, however many are not.

I doubt there is a line that officers use to alert a citizen about the moment when the encounter changes. Once the officer makes up his mind about a RAS or PC, I'm doubt he will tell the citizen that information at the first possible moment.

I believe that a reasonable person might conclude that ANY encounter with a police officer is not a "Hi, how'r ya doin'?" chance encounter. I believe that a reasonable person would conclude that if an officer just walks up and starts talking (like you or I would), they would not consider ignoring the officer or refusing to speak as an option they could exercise freely.

Running from a voluntary encounter with me would be fine. I could care less. It wouldn't mean to me that a crime was in progress or that a person had any criminal transaction information at all. But cops don't think like that. While I understand the point you're attempting to make; it's not possible to draw parallels between voluntary citizen-to-citizen experiences and those with the police.

The basis for my original comment was that I would like to have more information about what happened before I label the dead person as a "thug" and the officer as absolutely, positively correct and in the right. There are always two sides to any story and usually more than that - all need to be examined before drawing a conclusion.

LabRat

LabRat wrote:There are always two sides to any story and usually more than that - all need to be examined before drawing a conclusion.

LabRat

I hope this same reservation of judgement is exercised when the media is covering a story about an LEO that has allegedly overstepped his/her bounds or has otherwise been accused of wrongdoing. Otherwise, it is just a biased agenda.

gigag04 wrote:

LabRat wrote:There are always two sides to any story and usually more than that - all need to be examined before drawing a conclusion.

LabRat

I hope this same reservation of judgement is exercised when the media is covering a story about an LEO that has allegedly overstepped his/her bounds or has otherwise been accused of wrongdoing. Otherwise, it is just a biased agenda.

I tend to side with the LEO in things like this, but in this conversation with Labrat, that statement is unfair.

LabRat wrote:Jumping Frog:

I don't believe a "reasonable" person will always and without error be able to tell when an encounter progresses from "voluntary" to "involuntary"...that distinction exists only in the mind of the police officer from moment to moment. Some signs are self-evident, however many are not.

I doubt there is a line that officers use to alert a citizen about the moment when the encounter changes. Once the officer makes up his mind about a RAS or PC, I'm doubt he will tell the citizen that information at the first possible moment.

I believe that a reasonable person might conclude that ANY encounter with a police officer is not a "Hi, how'r ya doin'?" chance encounter. I believe that a reasonable person would conclude that if an officer just walks up and starts talking

We do not need to rely upon some secret signal or handshake from an LEO to see where a line crosses from voluntary interaction to being detained. I figure my decisions and behavior are up to me: "Officer, respectfully, am I free to leave or am I being detained?"

He doesn't need to tell me why I am being detained and I am not going to argue with him on the sidewalk. But he will have to explain to a judge.

Similarly, if I am told that I am going to be searched, my answer is a simple, "I do not consent to a search, but I will comply."

He can explain the legal justification for the search to the judge.

In neither scenario will my choice be to flee the officer or to shoot at him.

It appears the "sandwich" was stolen....


"The officer, who was wearing a Metropolitan Police Department uniform, drove through the streets after them, then left his car and chased the group on foot. One of the men then turned toward the officer and approached him “in an aggressive manner,” Dotson said. The 18-year-old and the officer got into a physical altercation.

Dotson said the man then ran up a hill and fired three times at the officer before the officer returned fire. Investigators recovered a 9mm Ruger at the scene, which Dotson said was used by the 18-year-old, whom he described as “no stranger to law enforcement.” Police said the weapon was reported stolen on Sept. 26.

“The suspect continued to pull the trigger on the gun … we learned that that gun had malfunctioned and it was jammed,” Dotson said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... e-officer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jumping Frog wrote:Labrat, a police officer is legally allowed to initiate a conversation with any pedestrian for any reason or no reason at all. This is no different than you or I initiating a conversation with a person.

A police officer can ask another person any question they want to ask, just like you or I can ask another person a question.

So long as the interaction remains voluntary, such that a reasonable person would know or should know that they do not need to interact with the police officer, there is no requirement for reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) or for probable cause (PC).

Once the interaction becomes non-voluntary, where a person is detained for example, then the requirement for RAS or PC comes into play.

If they weren't free to leave without being chased by a man with a gun, it wasn't a voluntary interaction.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Investigators recovered a 9mm Ruger at the scene, [...] "The suspect continued to pull the trigger on the gun … we learned that that gun had malfunctioned and it was jammed,” Dotson said."

Kinda OT, but I'm surprised that a Ruger jammed. Aren't they typically pretty reliable?

Jumping Frog wrote:

LabRat wrote:Jumping Frog:

I don't believe a "reasonable" person will always and without error be able to tell when an encounter progresses from "voluntary" to "involuntary"...that distinction exists only in the mind of the police officer from moment to moment. Some signs are self-evident, however many are not.

I doubt there is a line that officers use to alert a citizen about the moment when the encounter changes. Once the officer makes up his mind about a RAS or PC, I'm doubt he will tell the citizen that information at the first possible moment.

I believe that a reasonable person might conclude that ANY encounter with a police officer is not a "Hi, how'r ya doin'?" chance encounter. I believe that a reasonable person would conclude that if an officer just walks up and starts talking

We do not need to rely upon some secret signal or handshake from an LEO to see where a line crosses from voluntary interaction to being detained. I figure my decisions and behavior are up to me: "Officer, respectfully, am I free to leave or am I being detained?"

He doesn't need to tell me why I am being detained and I am not going to argue with him on the sidewalk. But he will have to explain to a judge.

Similarly, if I am told that I am going to be searched, my answer is a simple, "I do not consent to a search, but I will comply."

He can explain the legal justification for the search to the judge.

In neither scenario will my choice be to flee the officer or to shoot at him.

If you have no indication of when an encounter progresses from "voluntary" to "involuntary", then the entire encounter must be considered "involuntary" based on the progression.

You can ask if you're being detained if you want to force the officer's hand in the encounter. That may or may not work in your favor. The individual police officer's receptiveness to such a request is as variable as there are people in the world. I would say that in many cases, the judge you decide to tell your side of the story to will most likely give the police officer the benefit of the doubt - a move that is likely to be detrimental to your case.

Most folks develop a view of dealing with the police from watching TV or getting a traffic citation. On TV, the cops always get the suspect to talk and tell them what they want to know and in traffic court, the driver always loses the case (well, 99% of the time....but, conviction rates are pretty high). So, people don't have any experience in dealing with the police. They don't know when an encounter becomes "involuntary".

Fleeing the police is not the way to handle the situation. However, if you think that you will always lose when you come up against a police officer or are subjected to a court system where the outcome is always bad for you, then running might seem to be a natural response. Even if you're not guilty of anything and the encounter is voluntary, running may seem to be the only option you have given the other possible outcomes.

You've given this a lot of thought about asking if you're being detained, am I free to go, etc. Most folks don't do that because they're caught up in their lives. So them being unaware of what their rights and liberties are is not something that can be changed on a moments notice. Even you said "I don't consent to any searches, but I will comply." I bet there's a police officer and a DA that could persuade a judge you consented when you said you'd comply.

Nothing is ever cut and dried and comes out the way it should.

LabRat

Dave2 wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Investigators recovered a 9mm Ruger at the scene, [...] "The suspect continued to pull the trigger on the gun … we learned that that gun had malfunctioned and it was jammed,” Dotson said."

Kinda OT, but I'm surprised that a Ruger jammed. Aren't they typically pretty reliable?

They are very reliable, however if your shooting too fast, running or otherwise not able to keep a firm grip on any Auto loading pistol it will "jam" or try to double feed/not chamber a round

There may have been more involved in the gun jamming than mechanics and user error.

Dragonfighter wrote:There may have been more involved in the gun jamming than mechanics and user error.

It was probably the peanut butter and jelly that caused the gun to jam.

Dragonfighter wrote:There may have been more involved in the gun jamming than mechanics and user error.

Those who posses weapons illegally are not known for keeping them in pristine working condition. They carry with no holster, just tucked in a waistband and sweat on them. They don't wipe them down after handling, etc. They don't oil them or worry about their finish. I have seen some weapons confiscated off of individuals that were so corroded they looked like they had been sitting in the ocean for months.

rbwhatever1 wrote: "The officer, who was wearing a Metropolitan Police Department uniform, drove through the streets after them, then left his car and chased the group on foot. One of the men then turned toward the officer and approached him “in an aggressive manner,” Dotson said. The 18-year-old and the officer got into a physical altercation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... e-officer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder who was paying for Hi Tech Security to patrol the neighborhood? Usually the officers are hired to protect a particular business or property. According to the story, he was one of a group of uniformed St.Louis PD officers hired by that company to actually patrol "the neighborhood". It says he was in official uniform and carrying department issued weapon, but didn't make it clear if he was patrolling in SLPD vehicle or one provided by Hi Tech Security. I've seen some private security companies hired by neighborhood associations to patrol some high end real estate developments in their own company vehicles, but doubt that was the case in a blighted neighborhood. Not that it has any bearing on the incident, just curious.

Still crazy in Missouri with a bunch of morons having nothing better to do with their lives. It appears the "Ballistic Evidence" is in so that was one heck of a 9mm sandwich.


Angry protesters face off with riot police:

ST. LOUIS – Protesters angered by the fatal shooting of a black 18-year-old by police faced off with officers in south St. Louis for a second night as accusations of racial profiling prompted calls for a federal investigation ahead of a weekend of planned peaceful rallies.

State and city leaders have urged the Justice Department to investigate the death of Vonderrit D. Myers in the Shaw neighborhood Wednesday night, fearing he was targeted because he was black. Police say the white officer who killed Myers was returning fire, but Myers' parents say he was unarmed.

Some protesters burned the American flag, while others banged on drums and shouted "This is what democracy looks like!" Some slammed the sides of police vans. Broken glass littered the street.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/10/an ... -year-old/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;