Court: Cops have the right to frisk everyone
- Thread starter Dr. Evil
- Start date
S
stuck in ny
Guest
Ship the POS cops to N. Korea so they can be with their friends.
Magnus
6.5 Creedmoor
But where are the limits? What gives them the justification to pull me out of my car and search me?
Exactly, there appears to be no limit - it's totally subjective.
99.99999999999% of LE wouldn't abuse this in the least. But there are assholes everywhere, and just one can ruin your day or your life.
That practice if wide spread will certainly endear the LE community to the public.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
"The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a lower court in a 58-page ruling determining that officer safety should always trump personal privacy and the right to self defense."
No thanks.
Our country is founded on the exact opposite, in fact -- that the rights of the individual are paramount.
I'm all for safety, but the line is drawn at personal liberty.
Last edited:
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
This isn't news, we don't have rights and haven't had any for some time.
"Reasonable suspicion" "probable cause" its all Bullshit, and sorry my privacy trumps officer safety. Welcome to the embodiment of Tyranny. The loss of rights for "government interest" and the courts support it.
"Reasonable suspicion" "probable cause" its all Bullshit, and sorry my privacy trumps officer safety. Welcome to the embodiment of Tyranny. The loss of rights for "government interest" and the courts support it.
Last edited:
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
IF your not one of them your a criminal. Plan and simple. Look at that douche Clark and the crap he pulled with the guy on the plane.
POWER TRIPS and it's a vast majority of the police force.
POWER TRIPS and it's a vast majority of the police force.
Last edited:
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Not ok. My privacy trumps their fear.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If he has cause to believe you have committed a crime, then he can arrest you and search. If he doesn't have cause for an arrest, then he doesn't have cause to be afraid enough to justify the search. It really is that simple. If he's got a "bad feeling" but not enough cause for an arrest, then be should steer clear until he finds enough evidence to qualify as cause.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
As a society, we've lost our appreciation for personal privacy and just how important a right it is. Social media (and the narcissism it tends to bring out in people) has had a lot to do with this as well as the fear mongering that has happened since 9/11. We've lost historical perspective on why the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments were written. They, along with the 1st and 2nd amendments, are absolutely paramount to keeping the government as a subordinate to the people. I feel that just as we have been witnessing repression and prosecution and then subsequent back lash and re-realization of our rights under the 2nd amendment, so too will we see a resurgence of asserting our rights to privacy.
Last edited:
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
You have no idea what is like to walk up
On a scene with little to no information, so sorry a minute inconvenience to save my life is not to much to ask.
Imagine if you roll up on a scene where a man has a gun pointed at another man who is shot. Should I take the man's word for it that he shot the man in self defense or disarm both of them and determine what happened.
Remember how many criminals are caught on small stuff like a speeding ticket or less. Remember this case is about a convicted felon who was stopped for a seatbelt violation who had a gun.
This is just staying if the cop reasonable suspicion that you have a weapon, legal or illegal , can disarm you during the stop and return it to you at the end of it. Nothing has changed by this case.
A bad feeling is not enough. He has to be able to articulate why he suspected it. It could be small but he has to be able to explain it. It is not as easy as it sounds.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Violating my rights is not "a moments inconvenience". I recognize that you have a difficult job, but I shouldn't be asked to sacrifice my rights to make it easier. If you need to hang back and wait for backup, that's fine, but expecting me to cede my rights is a neverending trip down the road to tyranny, it just is.
Violating people's rights is often a very effective way to catch criminals, that doesn't make it an acceptable one.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Save your life? You have arresting powers. You have TRAINING, you carry a GUN, taser, pepper spray and have a radio linked to an entire department of fellow officers and the force of law and the advantage of being a sworn officer verse just a no name citizen. You could with minimal effort, easily ruin an otherwise innocent persons life. This is why private citizens have rights which you are forbidden to violate despite what risks to your safety may arise. You have official status, weapons, training and fraternity to protect you. If these aren't enough for you to do your job and determine who is a threat and who is not, that is not the citizenry's problem. The citizenry is under no obligation to make your job easier. WE HAVE RIGHTS, WHICH HAPPEN TO BE THE PILLARS OF FREE SOCIETY, DEAL WITH IT.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
You can continue to sell the fact this guy was a felon having a gun, ends does not justify the means and it sets precedent that should have never existed with Terry vs Ohio It's not as easy as it sounds to articulate his suspicion? Those on the police force know exactly what phrase to use to "justify" a search, lets not be disingenuous.
Should you disarm all parties if you pull up to a scene with a guy holding another guy at gun point? If you didn't shoot his ass as soon as you get out of the squad car a normal guy will most likely start to stand down as soon as you arrive.
A "minute of inconvenience" has turned into a dissolution of rights at the will of law enforcement in this country. And yes people are finding it too much to ask.
Everyone here can appreciate how difficult the job of law enforcement is. But we also are well aware what the weakening of rights has done as a whole, so there is no longer any respect for the courtesy that where once given. Because now it's expected.
I hate talking about this, it's an unfortunate divide, to be in law enforcement and claim you respect the rights of others, well the two can not coexist. Cognitive dissidence.
Should you disarm all parties if you pull up to a scene with a guy holding another guy at gun point? If you didn't shoot his ass as soon as you get out of the squad car a normal guy will most likely start to stand down as soon as you arrive.
A "minute of inconvenience" has turned into a dissolution of rights at the will of law enforcement in this country. And yes people are finding it too much to ask.
Everyone here can appreciate how difficult the job of law enforcement is. But we also are well aware what the weakening of rights has done as a whole, so there is no longer any respect for the courtesy that where once given. Because now it's expected.
I hate talking about this, it's an unfortunate divide, to be in law enforcement and claim you respect the rights of others, well the two can not coexist. Cognitive dissidence.
Last edited:
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
The last time I looked, (and no disrespect to LE intended, but...) police are civilians with prescribed police powers, tasked to keep the peace and uphold the law, not "neutralize threats" to themselves or others, as tasked to the military. When we elevate one or more classes of civilians to special protections under the law, then we are simply creating Orwell's "Animal Farm". Weapons, magazine, 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, 14th amendment and other "carve-outs" for LE promote an "us vs. them" mentality no matter how you try to spin it, which is detrimental to a civilized society. Just my brain fart, but maybe that "equal protection under the law" thing would go a long way toward stabilizing things.
Bananabandit
.338 Win Mag
I thought I smelled bacon.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Ruin your life? A frisk ruins your life? I promise you that I have been stopped and frisked than most of people on this forum combined. Stopping, frisking and disarming someone saves lives. Not just the cop but the person stopped as well. It keeps a bad move on the person stopped for being interrupted as going for gun because the cop knows he doesn't have one. I can have all the people and training around me and still get shot and killed. There is plenty of videos of cops getting killed. Official status, etc etc didn't help them right?
Okay, i see a part of a shoulder holster or something that tells me you are armed. Maybe just the bulge of the gun butt. I frisk you, disarm you and get your paperwork. You are a CCW and I return your weapon. How is your life ruined?
You say determine who is a threat? Okay, you tell me how? Maybe the guy with the gun is the biggest threat until proven otherwise? That's what the training would tell you. But you tell me how would you determine it . Please tell me.
By your standard, I should arrest the person for the violation of the law I observed such as a speeding ticket, then search and disarm if I suspected a weapon. Oh, wait it wasn't a weapon or it was a legally owned weapon yet I just arrested the person for a ticketabke offense. What should I do now? He is already in handcuffs and told he is under arrest before searching him. Do you think he would rather have been frisked , let go with a ticket? Do you think his life is ruined then ?
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Just to add a little more history to this subject, the surpreme court case of Terry v Ohio that spells out the stop and frisk powers actually was a court decision to limit police powers. Before that case, a cops could and did stop and search without a reason, just on a feeling.
You talk of erosion of civil rights to the police? Compared to what? Before Mapp, the constitutional rights to search and seizure only applied to federal law enforcement. Go look up the year that case was decided.
Look up Miranda v AZ, or other cases and the years it was decided.
Come on , guys . Let's have some sense about this. A frisk when the guy you are confronting has a weapon is not or ever been unconstitutional even by the framers of it. Go look at their police actions and court after it was ratified and they still ran the government.
You talk of erosion of civil rights to the police? Compared to what? Before Mapp, the constitutional rights to search and seizure only applied to federal law enforcement. Go look up the year that case was decided.
Look up Miranda v AZ, or other cases and the years it was decided.
Come on , guys . Let's have some sense about this. A frisk when the guy you are confronting has a weapon is not or ever been unconstitutional even by the framers of it. Go look at their police actions and court after it was ratified and they still ran the government.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
It's real simple. Your authority only extends to people who are breaking the law. Someone who isn't suspected of a crime has every bit as much a right to keep their holstered weapon as you do.
I get that you think you're special, but that's the problem.
Imagine the scenario you describe, but the person arriving on scene is not an LEO. Who searches who, who disarms who ? You literally should not have any power that every other law abiding citizens has. If you can't do your job because of that, we either need to change your job, give *everyone* that authority, or find someone who can do the job without it.
One of the fundamental tenants of a free society is that no one gets special privileges or immunities, no one.
minderasr
6.5 Creedmoor
I'm just going to leave this here.
U.S. v. Robinson: Have Concealed Carriers Lost the 4th Amendment?
U.S. v. Robinson: Have Concealed Carriers Lost the 4th Amendment?
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Reminder every once and a while is good, even for a judge.
Robin
Robin
What makes this a suspicious, potentially criminal activity. By law of ratio, the ARMED person that can be made, is in all probably legal to possess. Not withstanding additional factors, ie, standing on a corner of a known drug den, gangbanger hang out, etc. Standing outside a bank and seeing a shoulder holster, do you then think a robbery is about to commence?
You could simply have a conversation, but once you think you have the power to relive a person of their property for safety reasons absent mitigating factors, not just 'safety', then this would demonstrate an expansion of powers that shouldn't be taken. Does every vehicular stop have the driver exit the vehicle and the keys secured - for safety? It's not that I'm in disagreement that LE safety shouldn't be a concern, but it is a choice or vocation. If I work on a ladder all day, and I feel at some point that the potential consequence of doing so is not worth the risk, well then, I have a choice to make. I can't go around expecting there be fall protection comfort pillows placed all around me to soften my fall. And don't think people don't die from such an innocuous activity. Falls is the #1 cause of death (OSHA) from employment.
Obviously, generalizing these scenarios only compounds the problem. Most LE demonstrate good discretion and examples like this are designed to just inflame sensitivities on the subject. A stop, frisk, search rendered under the appropriate circumstances is justified. A Blatant across the board broad scope acceptance that I can stop and frisk/search you anytime I please for my own safety is not. It's abusive and outside the spectrum of balancing safety and the Right to not be encumbered unnecessarily while exercising a Right in a Lawful Manner. Possessing firearm is not an unlawful or in its most rudimentary form, cause for safety concern. This is an unacceptable programming into the consciousness of the LE community.
Again and again, I'll keep saying it...
Strict Scrutiny!
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Means just that...
That all said, I truly believe now that the POS Barack Hussein Obama is no longer in office, the I Hate anything Blue mentality will fade away... My post in no way should be interpreted as anti-LE, but to the contrary...
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
@Truebeliever, I truly know you mean well. But I suspect your mentality comes from the NYC state of mind where you are used to nobody being armed.
So if you see a butt of a gun in your city, the person more than likely is carrying illegally. That's not the case everywhere else and that type of policing doesn't usually happen everywhere else.
So if you see a butt of a gun in your city, the person more than likely is carrying illegally. That's not the case everywhere else and that type of policing doesn't usually happen everywhere else.
Last edited:
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
I was around people with legal guns all the time growing up and when I am in PA.
But when an officer has an encounter with someone, it is different.
Legal gun owners have shot and killed officers as well while doing something illegal.
And I might add, off duty cops get stopped too, And we have go through the same procedure to determine if we are carrying legally. Same with retired cops
This case has not set any new precedent as the defendant in this case was trying to establish. Quite the opposite.
Basically if I see someone crawling out of house window at midnight with a laptop. Do you think I should stop him. Reasonable suspicion is all I have at this point now right?
Do you think maybe I should cover him with my gun in case he is armed ?
Still not probable cause yet right?
I shouldn't disarm him while I determine if it's house or not right?
Last edited: