That town will pay the man well for his trouble.

"Always remember the difference between economic power and political power: You can refuse to hire someone's services or buy his products in the private sector and go somewhere else instead. In the public sector, though, if you refuse to accept a politician's or bureaucrat's product or services you go to jail. Ultimately, after all, all regulations are observed and all taxes are paid at gunpoint. I believe those few who can't even see that have been short-sighted sheep, and I suggest they learn how to think conceptually, develop consistency and grasp principles soon." ~ Rick Gaber

Cop haters! Every officer on this site would have handled it exactly the same way!!

Sure. How else handle a guy who's just looking to piss off a cop by insisting on his fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution?

Wonder What Would Have Happened If The Officer Had Been Shooting Video.And The Gentleman And Stop The Officer And Ask For His I.D.

That's not good enough. Criminal charges need to be filed and cops need to go to jail like anyone else would who did that to some stranger they met on the street.

PS Cops just messing with pedestrians they don't like are reluctant to say that they are detaining the person with whom they're messing because once they say that, certain definite restrictions on their conduct kick in, i.e., at the moment someone is detained, the cop acquires powers illegally granted him by the US Supreme Court, but those powers come with the obligation to later demonstrate to a court that the facts they observed at the time provided a reason for them to believe that the detained person was, or had been, behaving criminally, and that a judge who observed the same facts would agree once explained to him by the officer.

At the point someone is detained, the officer can demand answers and the handing over of identification. Absent detaining a pedestrian, however, which requires a reason to suspect a crime that will satisfy a judge later on, the cop is permitted to ask whatever he likes (just as anyone else is so permitted), but the non-detained pedestrian isn't obliged to provide any information or documentation, no more than he would be had any other stranger approached him and asked for same.

This is why they try to gain complete compliance from pedestrians (i.e., anyone who's not operating a motor vehicle on public roads) without "detaining" them, i.e., this way they can mess with anyone they choose, for any reason, even based merely on a hunch, or just for the heck of it, i.e., exercise arbitrary power.

Most folks don't know their rights, and thus think they're obliged to obey any time a cop requests it. When someone comes along that knows his rights, this pisses the cops off. Cops are so accustomed to routinely gaining compliance, that they usually forget the limits (and they are limits far more easily overcome than intended by the framers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution) that the law currently places on them when they choose to mess with people, like these two cops obviously did.

Yeah, "Officer, may I see your identification?" The cop would tell him to piss off or, worse, figure a way to get him arrested for something.

What if a pedestrian, once engaged with the cop, decided he wanted to conduct a Terry frisk for his own personal safety? Then, when the cop informed him that he was authorized by the county/city/state to carry a sidearm, the pedestrian would explain that he wanted to take it from him for the duration of their contact anyway, just for his personal safety. I bet the cop would feel imposed upon, to say the least.

I dont hate cops but believe they need to be held to the same standards they set, and enforce.

in the video, the guy asked for the cop's name and badge number, which the officer gave.

Why all the hoopla, the guy got what he wanted, on video to boot.

Curious what he was doing prior to this clip. Not that it justifies anything.

Just curious.

That's not the scenario I suggested, since the cop was already the aggressor and attempting to gain compliance with his "requests." Trading his ID number for a pedestrian's compliance seemed an easy price to him.I predicted you'd say something like that.Cop said he wanted his ID because he was recording the events in the area.

On one hand I agree the guy got what he wanted
On the other hand this should concern ALL Americans

I don't think either is right
I would not want to be a Cop and I also avoid them and most cost
Just let me be

Hank

try, "that's not the hyperbole I dramatized". It would suit you better.





And? I don't think I implied anything that absolved the cop from wrongdoing, just that the guy went out of his way to be a dick, and the idiot with a badge fell for it.




Recording events in the area.

I see.

Just normal behavior that would not justify even a little concern.

Kind of like carrying a firearm in hand when shopping at walmart.

A cop is free to be concerned all he likes, just like anyone else. What he's not permitted to do is use force to acquire ID when he has informed the person that he's not being detained. The pedestrian made clear that should the officer wish to detain him, he'd provide ID. Cop chose to assault and arrest him for this. That's a crime.

Why are you trying to convince me? I know the law.

You implied the cop's actions were "justified."

This should be shown at every junior and senior high school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

"Recording events in the area.

I see.

Just normal behavior that would not justify even a little concern.

Kind of like carrying a firearm in hand when shopping at walmart."

"Kind of like"?

REALLY?

no, you predicted and noticed and whatever else you do, because that's what you do.

All I indicated that the man's behavior warranted a level of concern, but not the type of reaction he received.

You read otherwise into it, because you assume that's the response I would give.

This is that self fulfilling prophesy your "type" gets, about how all the supporters aren't there to condemn an action, thereby implying support for the action, when its apparent that I cannot even be objective in pointing out wrong doing without you jumping to conclusions.

Well done.

Which of those pointers did this fellow fail to follow?

Sure, they lit that brother up in Ohio and he wasn't doing nothing wrong.

At least, nothing that should've caused any concern type response.

That's what they tell me at least.

Your implication, in context, was quite clear.

Have not seen that in a while
Truthful and funny as it gets
Hank

No my implication is that the douchenozzle on the video decided to do something that was as close as being totally suspicious as possible, in order to goad a cop into breaking the law, and he succeeded.

contrast to a true pedestrian walking down the street and a cop thinking he looked suspicious and getting the same treatment.

I don't know why you think intentionally fomenting confrontation is warranted. You obviously justify the guy in the video, and, right or wrong, you certainly do it here.

Hawkeye will tell you what you were implying. You don't have a say in the matter.

Equating a video camera to a firearm - leave Ohio out of it - seems a bit of a stretch.

The cop was responding to a complaint about someone acting suspiciously and recording everything in the area. He found the person that was the subject of the complaint.

The person with the video camera got what he wanted, which was a confrontation with the police. He was asked for ID and refused without being detained. He asked the officers for their identification and badge number, which he got.

Right before he was checked for weapons, with is appropriate under a Terry stop for a suspicious person/activity (brief detention of a person for reasonable suspicion of suspicious or criminal activity), he was informed that he was possibly going to be detained. At that point, he resisted and due to the struggling likely did enough thrashing about that he gave the cops what they wanted: justification for arrest for assault on a police officer and resisting arrest.

In some jurisdictions, persons are required to identify themselves during a Terry stop (upheld by SCOTUS in 2004).

This is what happens when idiots meet.

You probably missed the other thread. I'll drop this line. It was sarcasm on my part, and certainly not warranted here, given the gold nuggets that are forthcoming.

Can I put him on retainer to 'splain stuff to my wife?

I can't see the video and am curious. What was the guy taking video of?

Some trashy looking parking lot with some trashy looking white people in it.

Everything prior to the encounter has been edited out, so those facts are not in evidence. There is no indication as to what was being videoed, for how long, why, or anything else. The sign board that the camera operator is holding or leaning against seems to say something about abortion. His T-shirt has enough verbiage on the front to be a front page ad, but it's unclear as to text or context.

The video as presented is presented only to show the detention, and that is done on purpose by the presenter.

Gotcha. SOS.

CLASSIC!

The originator of the video, Robert Weiler Jr, who has the video entitled "Assault by Berwyn Heights and Prince George's Police" was previously sent to the big house for plotting to bomb an abortion clinic.

Wonder what he was video taping.....

Looks like there are some people in front of the white building wearing nothing but orange towels. At least one is female. In other words, something most guys would video.

As for the officer, he clearly states he is searching the guy for weapons. This is clearly a violation of US v Terry as the officer clearly states he does not suspect the individual has committed, or is about to commit a crime and just wants to check him for warrants.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Take a close look at that sign he's holding up. It says something about abortion.

Location of the incident would shed a LOT of light onto what was actually being video taped, and why.

Where are TRH and Rovering to defend him, now?

That's too awesome.

Wrong. Read the Terry decision and subsequent cases. This is a classic Terry stop.

So, a convicted terrorist is detained and arrested after being reported as a suspicious person, for taking video of (what sounds like) some sort of potential terrosist target and refusing to identify himself to police?

Wrong. Read the Terry decision and subsequent cases. This is a classic Terry stop.
============

Precisely.

And a legitimate one, as well.

He was taking video outside the abortion clinic on greenbelt road in Berwyn Heights, maryland.

Here if the streetview doesn't load, go to it, and you'll see that its the same locale.

A quick little Google search shows that Jr was once again video taping an abortion clinic (across the road from the parking lot in the video we are shown). This is in violation the restraining order Jr is under from other instances.

He is charged with disorderly conduct and 2nd degree assault on a police officer: http://www.truebluepolitics.com/2014/06/20/home-grown-terrorist-robert-f-weiler-jr/

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=816_1410999514

I would DEFINITELY go to that place for a medical procedure.

Seriously, is there a bigger dumbphuck than TRH that you know of?

Well, that sounds like a poster boy for our resident fools to rally behind.

it just keeps getting better and better.



I'm going to have to retract all the mean things I said about the cops...

It would have been so much easier if TRH had just passed and gotten admittance into the academy�.

I bet TRH has already removed the Jesse Ventura action figure from his ass in preparation of taking a load from Robert Weiler Jr

You wrong fa dat...LOL.

I hope he was on probation somewhere for something.

The address of the clinic he was filming at is "5915", as seen on the Google street view provided by RWE.

That's the same clinic he was sent to prison for plotting to blow up.

SOURCE

Check the floor.

I think I just laughed my balls off (LMBO)

Last night, a valediction for Jim Traficant. Today, a reach-around for Robert Weiler.

TRH knows how to pick his friends.

In hindsight, had I have known the OP in question was a convicted felon, wannabe abortion clinic bomber, who was video taping an abortion clinic, whereby violating probation by proximity to the very clinic he tried to blow up,.... I probably would not have changed my first few posts much, but it would have made TRH's "implication" statement correct.

Odd bit of kizmit there...

All we need is sherp-a-pee..

He must still be grounded, or his feel bad is hurting from getting grounded.

I wonder if Hawkeye has ever been tempted to put on a body camera and provoke a violent response from a police officer so he can post it on Youtube and get some actual street-cred for the schidt he posts here.

Nah. He doesn't have the balls.

He doesn't really go outside.

when he does, crazed negroes just chase him back in.

If I was going to blow up an abortion clinic, I don't think I'd need to stand around filming it beforehand.

This guy was fishing for trouble, or completely stupid.

Really friggin SIMPLE!

When an officer asks for your ID....SHOW IT!! And no matter what his age....reply "Yes sir...No sir"! Course you Yankees haven't been taught to reply correctly so you can say "Yeah and Naw"!!

bump, for TRH.

Are ypu fuggin kidding. He won't even go to his town meetings.....after all he is a realist

damn you can't even video an abortion clinic you want to blow up?


and they call this a free country? (where's that freakin sarcasm emoticon gotten to?)

If the cop knew the guy had been convicted of such plots in the past, why didn't he simply detain him, following which the man said he'd comply by showing his ID. Assuming he was a bomb plotter, however, does that justify abuse of authority by the police? I'm certain that if cops threw out all the laws restricting their conduct, they could stumble on all sorts of criminal activities, but that's not the sort of society in which most would want to live.

It was a proper Terry stop, as explained in the other thread (that you are avoiding, quite obviously). During a Terry stop, the officers have the proper authority to frisk the subject for weapons (as upheld by the SCOTUS many times). During that proper frisk, the subject flailed around enough to warrant arrest for disorderly conduct and 2nd degree assault. After the fact, once his identification was run - gosh, I wonder why he didn't want to produce it earlier? - it was found that he had plotted to bomb the exact same clinic he was video taping in 2006 and was in violation of court orders and parole by video taping it and being within 1000 feet of the clinic in the first place.

If you knew half as much about the law as you claim to know, you'd have figured this part out quickly as well as run as quick google search on the videographer before posting the original link.

As long as we are "if"ing, maybe the cops wanted him to voluntarily confirm his ID so they could advise him that he is in violation of his restraining order, and give him the option to leave, without having a major incident on their hands. That would be nice, would it not?

As opposed to having to put the smack down on him.

BY THE WAY. As part of his plea deal he also admitted to having the 40 cal pistol to shoot abortion doctors.

So, TRH:

How was the situation in that video NOT a proper Terry stop? You had an individual acting in a suspicious manner that prompted clinic employees to call the police. They were concerned because that clinic had been the target of an attempted bombing before, so they were reasonably concerned. During a Terry stop, the police are justified in patting down the individual in question for weapons.

So, again, how is this not a proper Terry stop?

Well done sir. Nailed it!

This guy obviously has a screw loose and the clinic folks probably knew it was him from the git-go.

geez TRH c'mon, unless the cop was Dionne Warwick, how the hell is he sposed to know whether the guy had ever had a conviction in the past?

here's the way I see it, I'm filming the joint, cause I really like the building or I'm gonna open up my own abortion clinic or whatever reason.

the abortion clinic has been threatened in the past, most likely one of their employees called it in.

so cop shows up, asks for ID, show it to him and he asks me why I'm filming the place, I give him my reason...no problemo

and while it may be wrong in your eyes the fact that this guy got roughed up a bit won't cause me to lose any sleep this evening.

azzhole needs to be in jail

The clinic employees may not have known, but they certainly could have and likely did suspect that it was him or someone like him, thus prompting the call the cops. That prompted the cops to respond and execute a proper and legitimate Terry stop, during which the nutcase flailed around, resisted, and got himself popped for an assault charge. The violation of parole and court order charges came down after they had a proper ID on him.

Well, in this situation, had the guy produced ID when it was requested, he'd have been arrested for violation of parole and violation of a court order. Rather a sticky wicket, eh?

Yep. Not too bright to be standing around filming this clinic under those circumstances, or, he was looking for trouble, which he got.

I'm sure Hawkeye knows perfectly well why the guy was arrested. This is one of Hawkeye's snow jobs, where he wants people to believe the guy was arrested merely because he refused to show his ID.

Did he have knowledge aforethought of posting this, or was he simply too giddy with excitement over having another cop video to +1 over, that he failed to vet?

Either he intended to mislead, which is typical, or he was poorly prepared?

That would be intentionally presenting a position that is factually incorrect. Would that be the same as a lie?

"I'm sure Hawkeye knows........... ".

It'll take you awhile to live THAT down.

In all fairness, the video was copied to another youtube channel that specializes in videos like how Ron Paul was cheated out of the Presidency, chem trails, the sandy hook conspiracy, and much much more.

I can see how TRH took it for granted that this was police over reach.

It took me two extra clicks to get to the actual owner of the video, and then some searching after that to find out he was a convicted wannabe abortion clinic bomber, and wannabe murderer.

Bad guys getting roughed up isn't the issue. The issue is cops roughing people up in the process of abusing their authority. The laws aren't there to protect the guilty, but the innocent. If you give cops the discretion to determine with whom they will abuse their authority and with whom they won't, then lots of innocent folks are going to get roughed up, or worse, as well, not just bad guys. That's why the rules restricting cop behavior are there, and are meant to be applied to both the guilty and the innocent.

It's tough trying to come back when you've lost all credibility,isn't it?

It's a bed you made. You get to lay in it.

How is this not a proper Terry stop?

That question has been asked repeatedly, and you've yet to answer.

In the course of a proper Terry stop, the suspect began flailing around and the rest followed.

If the Terry stop is invalid, then you have a point. If it is a valid stop, then you have no point at all.

I've read Terry several times. Of course if the call came in as "Hey that guy we have a restraining order against is outside filming our location", that changes the facts, and they would have a reason to believe he was breaking the law, and conduct a Terry stop.

So, if the call came in as "we have a strange person outside video taping everything here and with an anti-abortion placard and T-shirt on", how would that not still justify a Terry stop? Please explain how this falls outside of the Terry stop justification of a suspicious person or a person whose activities are suspicious given time, place, or circumstances?

You could try challenging Hawkeye to explain why his position should not be considered dishonest - a lie, if you will.

All you'll get back from Hawkeye is a long, convoluted explanation that the Terry frisk in this case was pretextual and therefore invalid. IOW, the officer was offended by the guy's initial refusal to hand over his ID, and so he invented a bogus reason for being concerned enough to initiate a Terry stop, leading to the frisk.

So, you could call Hawkeye a liar, but he'll come right back and call you a liar for calling him a liar, because he, Hawkeye, was merely commenting on the validity of this Terry frisk, not the validity of Terry frisks in all cases.

And then he'll say you are not intelligent enough to follow his reasoning, you need to do your homework, and your reading skills could use some improvement.

I would call him a unreliable reporter of facts, though. That's pretty hard for him to refute.

Terry is merely the start. To truly get a handle on Terry issues, you have to read the important state supreme court decisions (for each state) to see how its applied in greater detail, in different factual situations.

For a Terry stop the officer must believe "mischief is foot" i.e. that the person is committing, or about to commit a crime. Speech in the form of a T-shirt and filming are activities covered under the first amendment, so a call saying "this person is out here exercising multiple First Amendment rights, I want you to come out here and search him" is a little more problematic.

Laughin'...

Not if he's suspected of violating a fugging restraining order it ain't.



Travis

Maybe if the dumbazz would have shown his ID and not been such a Prick, there would not have been a problem. Got what he deserved.

Why was he filming? A lot of you people say that he had the right to film. I bet if the camera was pointed at you, you would say that your right to privacy was being infringed. I would no more like a person standing there filming me as I would a damned drone flying overhead, doing the filming.
would actually want to shoot the damned thing down.

That guy was there for one reason and that was to harass people.
He got what he wanted. Too bad that he did not get a tad more.
I bet that nothing much happened to him. He was just a crying and screaming little wimp, acting it up for the camera.

It's textbook Terry.

I can assure you he won't put it before a jury.

well, a lot of the guess work would be removed from the debate if someone were to obtain a copy of the police report.

TRH?

Context is everything. The officers only need "reasonable suspicion" that the subject may be engaged in current or planned criminal activity.

In this case, we don't know what the officers did or did not know prior to the engagement. What we do know is that they repeatedly asked for identification. A reasonable assumption, being that this is a rather small population area in MD and that the clinic in question has been a literal target of the suspect before, is that the officers suspected that the person was in fact Jr and in violation of parole and court orders. His refusal to produce identification further exacerbated the situation (as producing ID would have resulted in him being arrested regardless).

A Terry stop simply needs reasonable suspicion of engagement in current or planned criminal activity. Making the case that video taping a clinic that has once before been the target of a bomb and shooting plot raises questions about planned criminal activity doesn't take much of a leap, does it? That reasonable suspicion justifies a Terry stop.

Now, how much would you like to bet that the officers were receiving information from dispatch that the clinic in question had been a target before of a particular person and the description of that person was being relayed out to the officers on the scene? Does THAT justify a Terry stop? Certainly.

A call as what I stated, from a clinic that has been the target of a bombing and shooting plot before, would justify a Terry stop of the individual in question. Please explain how it would not? That set of facts is about the most benign plausible in this situation (generic call from a clinic previously targeted). Any additional facts inserted into the situation simply makes the justification for the stop stronger.

You expect TRH to believe a police report?

Also, is some states, such as Colorado, Stop and ID is the Law. In CO if a cop asks for your papers you have to provide them.

Hell, I took his shoddy propaganda OP at face value for a while.

It's the least he could do.

I'll bet your left nut they knew exactly who they were dealing with before they asked for his ID.

Highly likely.

Embarrassing, isn't it.

Have you noticed he has ignored the calling out of his carrying weapons on school property

That's the second time I've asked him about that, and I know he peeks at my posts.

I doubt he'll ever answer, even if you quote me in one of yours.

Yes,

at risk of having him go off topic about my world view, I had to slam my pecker in the desk drawer for atonement.

That's all very well, but the next person who gets that desk is going to wonder about the hazmat sticker.

Won't help....he has me on iggy too

More accurate heading fo this thread would be "Potential Terrorist cries and whines that he got his ass kicked while casing the Joint"

In all likelihood, I broke the desk.

Maybe now

Well, he'll have to avoid the question a third time around.

Quite likely, which makes the stop/frisk even more valid.

in a nutshell there it is


well played Jim

Thanks! Haven't seen that in a while - so funny.

Let's assume that he was filming or acting in a way that would cause suspicion to a police officer. The officer walks up and immediately asks for ID. Why?

Here's a cup of "None of Your Damn Business".

However, if the cop walks up and engages in a professional and service-oriented manner and engages in casual discussion, the session may not escalate. That being said. The cops were 100% in the wrong. The guy knew his rights.

The cops can ask every person they meet on the street to see an ID. And every person is under no obligation to provide it unless they are told they are under suspicion of a crime, were a witness to a crime, or were observed committing a crime.

Would it have gone better if he just gives the cop his ID? Of course. In a couple of minutes he would be on his way, sans scrapes and bruises. But it is his RIGHT to not have to do that.

So, uh, did ya read the whole thread or just skip straight to replying?

Hear hear.

Nope, didn't read the whole thread. But the officer still blew it.

If the guy was under a restraining order and the cop knew it, then he could confirm his identity. If someone told him the man was under a restraining order, that is probable cause. There's no evidence that he was told that. He's just going for an ID and Pat-down without probable cause which is illegal.

Hawkeye didn't read the whole thread either. He has too many of us on ignore.

Wrong. Context sets the Terry stop. Read the thread and take a few steps away from the cup of stupid TRH served up and you're happily drinking from.

There's no evidence of that.

That's the funny thing about these threads. One side says, "I don't know what happened and neither do you, but I wish we did." The other side says, "I don't know what happened, but it must be whatever I imagined happened."

And then there's the side that says they didn't read the whole thread so let's go over the whole thing again from the beginning.

Then there's the side that will get some popcorn and watch the coming clusterfoxtrot.

That's four sides....you fuggers are square



But i'm voting for the guy who says we need PROBABLE CAUSE for a terry stop

You realize the only reason I'm quoting you,is to piss a certain someone off.

Like he doesn't have you on ignore too

Yep, the laws are written so police officers can do anything they want with little to no repercussions and attorneys who make it to prosecutor, etc. know that cops are useful for their purposes so they aren't apt to go after them very hard even when they doo violate laws. Don't know why you cop haters have a problem with that.

Well schit.

+1

Mog75,this is what Gitem-12 and I are referring too.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...206246/Got_a_PM_this_morning#Post9206246

How about a nice cup of THE GUY PLEAD GUILTY TO PLANNING TO BOMB THE VERY SAME ABORTION CLINIC 8 YEARS AGO WHERE HE WAS VIDEO TAPING FOR THIS EVENT, AND PLEAD GUILTY TO PLANNING ON SHOOTING THE DOCTORS THERE, AND HAS PROBATION CONDITIONS TO KEEP HIS DISTANCE FROM ABORTION CLINICS, BUT SHOWED UP THERE ANYWAY TO BE AN ASS, AND THE COPS PROBABLY KNEW WHO THE GUY WAS ANYWAY, BUT WERE ACTUALLY BEING POLITE, AND TRH PRESENTED THIS DEBACLE AS HIS CAUSE DUJOUR, AND YOU FELL FOR IT, HIP DEEP, AS WELL.

OK, I think I've got it. But just in case let's go over everything again, just start at the beginning.

Hear hear?

Don't expect the comments of one person who didn't get to the money shot to pull this debacle out of the [bleep].

If ever an epic fail meme was needed, you get it here.

This appears to be a set up to me & well planned. It seems some people are just looking for a way to discredit law enforcement. Under the circumstances it doesn't seem inappropriate to me to ask for ID. The cop was not aggressive until the jerk got the confrontation he staged.
I work in armed security at so called secure facilities in DC & the surrounding area. One facility had a meeting with many flag officers & politician's attending. As the dignitaries began to be picked up by limos a black man walked up carefully staying on public property. He began glaring at everyone & furiously texting on his phone. He was also glancing at a group of people at a Metro stop down the street. Probably, at someone using a camera phone. We called 911 & several of us began acting as a barrier between said dignitaries & jerk. Cops & SWAT arrived & the jerk ran away. Another example of someone trying to create a LE controversy. After about 30 minutes the jerk returned on public property as we monitored his movement on security cameras. The point is that with todays unstable nut jobs who is a risk & who isn't.

You didn't read the thread either.

It may well have been, but we either have our rights or we don't. If we do, and if they are routinely being violated, certain people will begin making intentional test cases of themselves in order to get legal resolution that will be applicable to the population at large.

It was the same with lunch counter sit-ins in the South when the signs said Whites Only. Blacks would come in in large numbers and sit there just so the police would be called, arrests would be made, and charges filed, thus putting the issue in the courts for resolution as to whether the police could be used to enforce racially discriminatory policies in business.

You have got to be kidding me.

This has NOTHING to do with civil rights. This was a legitimate Terry stop of a domestic terrorist video taping the abortion clinic he planned to bomb once before and him in violation of court orders and parole.

Many Americans consider Terry stops a civil rights issue. See, for example, how they are routinely abused in New York City.

Take that up with the SCOTUS or go to MD to defend this domestic terrorist who was in violation of parole and court orders video taping the same abortion clinic he plotted to bomb once before.

Explain how this was an invalid Terry stop, too, since you have refused to address that question many times over.

BTW - you are, in fact, now defending a domestic terrorist; a convicted felon who was in violation of parole and court orders and who was video taping the same clinic he plotted to bomb (and carried with the intent to commit murder) a firearm to in order to kill the doctors who worked there.

As long as members don't get to page 4 before typing, TRH may get someone to provide a hint of redemption.

At least rover had the decency to read the whole thing and quietly retreat.

He'll be back now.

I find it interesting that in this thread, TRH is bloviating about civil rights because a domestic terrorist got caught in a legitimate Terry stop while violating court orders near the abortion clinic he once tried to bomb, and yet in one of the Ebola threads the same TRH is advocating for tossing anyone suspected of being exposed to Ebola in a government quarantine for several weeks. So much for civil rights there, eh?

Y'all are [bleep]' with Hawk again by pointing out facts aren'tcha....

" It seems some people are just looking for a way to discredit law enforcement."

That's akin to setting Hawkeye up to make a fool of himself.

I'll oppose the police when they abuse their authority regardless against whom they abuse it, because otherwise said abuse will be directed in my direction one day, or in the direction of folks I care about personally.

"Domestic terrorist???" You get your talking points from Janet Napolitano??

when you get in over your head you should stop digging....

Mofo was in violation of a court order, and the dumbshit thinks police were abusing their authority.

What part of what I said do you believe requires a retraction on my part? Please quote.

So, plotting to bomb an abortion clinic in order to kill their staff and terrorize others out of performing abortions is not terrorism? Again, that's a legal definition.

You've yet to address the valid Terry stop.

With the exception of Americans flying home from Liberia.

Let's start with you declaring the subject was assaulted by the police.



Travis

Hawkeye is playing the "what did I say?" game. He spends a lot of time with teenage girls.

He wont.

obtuse= TRH




Clyde

"Domestic Terrorism," applied to any but Islamic terror cells operating in the US, is right out Janet Napolitano's playbook.

So timothy McVeigh wasn't a domestic terrosist?

I really thought he was going to answer that question..

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

Is TRH 6 years old?

What about Mossad agents from Israel setting off bombs during the Boston Marathon and blaming innocent Chechens for it?

Wouldn't that be an act of "Domestic Terrorism"?

I think we had all just better get used to it, we have no rights.

Speak for yourself. I have no active court orders...

You haven't read the whol thread either...this was a legitimate stop

I don't think Hawkeye really accepts the Supreme Court as a valid authority on constitutional rights and exceptions.

He only accepts what supports his agenda, he is a realist after all

Muslims aren't at issue here. Islamic radicals are terrorists regardless. That red herring doesn't swim.

Well, yes they should but its a lot harder than you may think.

I'm guessing you didn't read the entire thread either.

Bump

Instigator

No retraction needed. It is a free country and you can be as stupid about this as you wish. The crickets are at ground level. The hole you've dug for yourself is so deep I'm surprised you can still hear them. Sorry I did not reply sooner but I have a life...

You claimed I was digging a hole, which implies that there's something I said that cannot be supported. Please back up your claim with a quotation. If you cannot, I will assume you were typing out of your ass.

Sorry Hawk , Travis had had it covered nicely...

And yet, the lunch offer stands

What lunch offer

I'm in on free lunch.

Assault:

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Assault is an unlawful act. The Terry stop was lawful in this instance.

That was a very poor try on your part.

In Barakistan I'd hire myself a judge to tell y'all what for.

I'd just hire myself out as a private enforcer and take a few as a bonus.

Judge Jeanine Pirro would be a good choice.

What kind of credentials do these judges need?

Will posting errant boondogglery exempt one from judgery?

Too funny. You throw the common law up into the air and completely ignore application under statutory law, which is what the rest of America lives under.

The common law interpretation is the only one that fit the narrative.

Even Hammurabi couldn't help him here.

Even common law requires the act to be unlawful. A legitimate Terry stop, as in this instance, is a lawful act.

I hate tyranny and its servants.

I'm not fond of folks that attempt to elicit a response under false or fraudulent pretenses.

Orange okie, did your ever reply why you used a stock photo from a health systems women's health website and it was labeled to infer it was the three accusers of one of the Oklahoma police rape suspects?

Didn't know if you just cut and pasted or if you did that for affect.

Not as bad as wannabe bomber/killers foisted on us but deceptive nonetheless