Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Assaulted & Arrested For Not Showing ID To Cops

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.