Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott - Page 12
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 114 of 114

Thread: Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott

  1. Terry v. Ohio - The Supreme Court Decision

    By an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the stop and frisk practice. Though it was determined that Officer McFadden did not in fact have "probable cause" for a full search, the Court made an important distinction between a "stop and frisk" search and a full search. A frisk was deemed to be "an intrusion upon the sanctity of the person" and bound by Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

    Even on the original case the court used the words "stop and frisk" and full search describe a Terry Stops. The ruling stated that as long as the officer has articulable and reasonable suspicion that a criminal is about to be committed, has been committed, or in progress of committing a crime.

    My department uses a pat down of the outer closes for weapons, for officer safety proposes.

    Read more:*Terry v. Ohio - Significance, The Supreme Court Decision, Stop And Frisk Searches - Officer, Constitutional, Petitioner, and Encyclopedia - JRank Articleshttp://law.jrank.org/pages/13012/Terry-v-Ohio.html#ixzz4NU8H4eT7

    I don't particularly like open carry, mainly because it draws the eyes to it and people with bad intentions know where the guns are. With concealed carry, unless the person carrying know how and doesn't let everyone in the area know he/she is in fact carrying; by continuously touching or adjusting it.

    Let me give you a scenario. 23 year old non military male goes out and buys a gun. He has shot a gun before and can hit targets just fine out to 25 yards, no problem. Takes a concealed weapon permit calls and learns the law. He walk into a grocery store and didn't notice the no concealed weapons sign on the front door. He is confronted by police and find that his gun was not as concealed as he thought, and was quite visible to the officer and he is detained. At this point has the officer violated any rights yet?

    Another scenario, this one involving open carry. Same guy as before, 23 yoa non Military is open carrying and is all alone on a side street, and his ex wife see him with the open carry gun. She is still angry with him, calls the police and says he threatened her with the gun. What do you think happens next.

    I hope that someday you get a more positive outlook on life and figure out the best way to get pass these struggles and negative thoughts. It must be hard to go through life not trusting anyone. You know, they make a pill for that. Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  2.   
  3. #112
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    I don't particularly like open carry, mainly because it draws the eyes to it and people with bad intentions know where the guns are.
    I like OC for the same reason - it draws the eyes of someone looking for a defenseless victim to the fact that I am anything but a defenseless victim. Other than that, why would I give crap-1 about what you think of my method of carry?

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Let me give you a scenario. 23 year old non military male goes out and buys a gun. He has shot a gun before and can hit targets just fine out to 25 yards, no problem. Takes a concealed weapon permit calls and learns the law. He walk into a grocery store and didn't notice the no concealed weapons sign on the front door. He is confronted by police and find that his gun was not as concealed as he thought, and was quite visible to the officer and he is detained. At this point has the officer violated any rights yet?
    Depends. Does the no-guns sign have force of law in that jurisdiction, because it doesn't here. Since it doesn't here, the cops detaining on their own volition because of what they themselves witnessed rather than having the property owner reporting a trespass to rely on, then absolutely, the cops have no authority to detain in the scenario you created.

    Obviously, if the sign does have force of law in the jurisdiction your hypothetical scenario is created for, then no, the cops haven't violated the carrier's rights.

    What this has to do with anything is anybody's guess, but there ya go.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Another scenario, this one involving open carry. Same guy as before, 23 yoa non Military is open carrying and is all alone on a side street, and his ex wife see him with the open carry gun. She is still angry with him, calls the police and says he threatened her with the gun. What do you think happens next.
    Oh, no doubt the cop will take the ol' lady's word for everything, especially if it gives them the chance to disarm the innocent open carrier whose ol' lady just lied on him. Is that your point? That cops take the word of liars whenever guns are involved and treat the guy exercising his rights as a criminal and the lyin' ol' lady as pure as the wind-driven snow? I guess we can agree on that at least.

    My GW (Gorgeous Wife) open carries too, so I'm not particularly concerned about your ridiculous and relates-to-nothing-we've-been-discussing hypothetical scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    I hope that someday you get a more positive outlook on life and figure out the best way to get pass these struggles and negative thoughts. It must be hard to go through life not trusting anyone. You know, they make a pill for that.
    BWAhahahahahahaha! A cop who just belched a ridiculous hypothetical scenario where a guy's ol' lady is telling lies on him to get him arrested or shot is now saying how negative it is that I don't trust my fellow man! You're a real piece of work there, Officer trmac. Everybody on this site has distrust of his fellow man, lest they wouldn't be carrying a gun for self defense against whom you might ask? Their fellow man!

    Your verbal Jiu Jitsu skills are in dire need of remedial training. You provide a hypothetical that, if rational, reasonable, and possibly realistic at all, clearly shows why people should be distrusting of other people, and then come off with this paternalistic nonsense about how negative it is, or what a struggle it must be to always remain prepared to deal with what makes humanity untrustworthy. It was your hypothetical, and you just rear-naked-choked-out your own verbal Jiu-Jitsu! It's hilarious!

    Whatever, the following is what stop and frisk is, whether or not the words are mentioned in the Terry ruling as a shorthand for the wider principles discussed within the ruling. Two guys walkin' down the street get rousted for talkin' to another human being sitting on a step just before the camera gets turned on. Listen to these "protectors" and public "servants" as they try to "help" these two men get through their day safely and securely, and then come back and tell us all how what these cops are doing is perfectly well within the confines of a Terry stop because the words "stop and frisk" appear in quotation marks within the ruling itself.

    Language warning ahead. NSFW thanks to the wonderful examples of Philadelphia cops. This is how America is routinely "served" and "protected" by cops across the country, and why they are viewed by so many as untrustworthy and as a credible threat to one's safety and security:



    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #113
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Cops going through pockets, searching vehicles, interrogating on the street all with absolutely zero RAS or PC.

    The beginning shows what I describe above. The most educational part though is the conversation between the victim of this illegal harassment and the citizen-journalist who videotaped it starting at about 5:04.



    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Inept cop tries to do a stop and ID on open carrier who knows the law and knows his rights. Open carrier wins hands down. This is precisely what I meant when I used the word "resist" earlier in the thread. No ID, no cooperation, and no respect given to law-breakers who think their uniforms and badges somehow make me obligated to be subservient and submissive to them.


    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast