I've had it with race baiting "Black Lives Matter"

[TexasRedNeck]

Its time we call a spade a spade (no intentional double entendre).

I've had it with race baiting politicians stirring up the low information voters to keep them worrying about the white man instead of the financial plantation they want to keep them on by handing them welfare in exchange for a 98% democrat voting record.  I'm tired of standing in line behind someone driving a new Escalade but with 2 piles of groceries; those that qualify for the EBT card purchase and those that don't. And then watching those same people run off at the mouth about how they "deserve" more or how we "owe them" something.

Guess what?  America is the land of opportunity.  The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Not the right to happiness and free loading because of something that happend to your ancestors hundreds of years ago.  I don't see masses of Asian and Indian immigrants with 5 generations on welfare.  You know what I see??  I see them working 2-3 jobs and learning English, putting their kids through school and watching them become business leaders, lawyers, and doctors.  Why can't you do it???  I'll tell you why. Laziness, a lack of work ethic and a huge sense of entitlement because of the load of crap shoveled at you by the so called black leaders in this country.

You want welfare?  How about this?  Each month on the first of the month, the government trucks will roll up and drop you off a 50lb bag of beans and a 50lb bag of rice along with some government cheese.  No EBT.  You can have a vegetable voucher to go to your local store and its only good for fruits and veggies to supplement your beans and rice.

And each quarter you must pass a drug screening.  I'm not providing crap for you if your a dope head.  You can go live under a bridge and ruin your life without my assistance.

Oh, and as for the police and the white man being the biggest problem faced by blacks:  Black lives only matter when killed by a white cop.  Dozens of black kids and young adults murdered in Chicago are just the way it is when they are murdered by other blacks.  This means you, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Quanell X, Louis Farakan and Obama and the rest.  You all cry out thinly veiled (and in Farakan's case not veiled at all) calls for violence against non black and police and then condemn the police when they aren't "doing enough" to stop murder in Baltimore, other crime ridden black neighborhoods.

You want to know what racism really is???  Its lowering standards of conduct and behavior and excusing bad behavior.  Admitting that blacks are incapable of living and performing to socially acceptable norms.  THAT'S what is racist.

Dammit, stop blaming others.  Its your own communities lack of morals, ethics, and parenting that is the reason for abject poverty, crime and violence.  76% of black children born to single moms?  Think it makes you a man to be a "baby daddy"?  No it makes you an amoral animal contributing to the further destruction of your community.

Think it's the police's fault?  Think again.  You weren't raised with enough sense to know you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESIST ARREST.  Get it?  You resist arrest and you should be beat down and choked if necessary to comply.  Hands Up Don't Shoot?  Really?  I just wish Officer Darren Wilson had been a better shot and put that thug Mike Brown down with one shot to the occular cavity.

You want a race war in America?  You damn well better be careful what you wish for because the silent majority is not going to tolerate much more of your crap.  We're working too hard for what we have to have the government take more of it and hand it to a worthless bunch of entitlement rats who just demand more and then rob and loot and kill at the first sign of some excuse provided by the poverty pimps in this country.

You want respect?  Earn it.  Get off your ass and get a job, obey the law, start a real family.


drops mike.....

[EL TATE]

Whoo hoo! Folks we have a winner! RN for pres anyone? I remember the day I became a republican. I worked for a west coast tire Co. and was really good at selling custom wheels and tires. A woman and her 3 kids came in with a brand new 2002 Escalade, looking for wheels and tires. I talked her into the 22" bad boys at the time, the high end toyo tires, all the add on packages like upgraded brakes to handle the bigger wheels and tires, alignment to protect her investment etc. I noticed that her kids were all mixed race, very close in age, one clearly latino, one clearly black, and the other looked pacific islander, maybe Samoan. (this comes into play later). With my $6k sale in hand I proudly set up the appointment and did the work myself, taking great care to make sure the vehicle was clean, worthy of the price tag I had put on it. When she came back to pay, I was out to lunch, feeling pretty dang good about myself. When I got back there was a lot of snickering and whispering and the store manager called me up front. I thought he was going to congratulate me but instead showed me the DSHS voucher she used to pay for the bulk of the sale. This woman had convinced the state that she NEEDED a brand new Cadillac escalade to cart her 3 kids w/ 3 different baby daddies around and she NEEDED new wheels and tires since she got a flat... I was sick and furious that she could get away with something like that, and at 22 realized what my taxes were for; paying someone else's way that was lazy or cheating the system. Not to help anyone in need. I had been talking about mandatory drug tests and mandatory birth control since that day. You just echoed everything I had been thinking RN. Nice work.

[Flyin6]

Man, you guys are on a roll!
Just finish up a Frappe'?

[husker77c]

Did you guys here the recording of one of the BLM guys saying, and i'm paraphrasing.  "The killing of the deputy in Houston is a signal that it is open season on all white folks, crackas, and cops."  It was all over talk radio today.  kept saying how it was no longer safe to be white in America.  Sean Hannity kept playing it over and over along with them chanting Pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon.  The whole "movement" has been allowed to get way to far out of control.  Its snowballing at this point and I'm afraid it will not end well.  It's all been designed to divide the country along racial lines.  I'm half thinking now that Trump is in on it by turning Hispanics against Whites.  Then you've got Sharpton and the like Fueling the black on white hatred and what we have is an extremely volatile situation that could explode with one idiot from any side doing something stupid.

If you really want to feel your blood boil look up FYF911.

[Sammconn]

Yup, that'll make blood boil.

[TexasRedNeck]

Lets keep our active duty LEs in our prayers, people.

[Sammconn]

Lets keep our active duty LEs in our prayers, people.

Amen.
Lookin like there is some rough times coming.

[Wilbur]

All of this is so awful. And agree LE need our prayers. I agree with your OP TRN!

[Nate]

RN is now sitting on a nice padded carpet, legs folded, soothing music playing in the background, eyes closed, repeating woo saa!

[Dawg25385]

want a race war in America?  You damn well better be careful what you wish for because the silent majority is not going to tolerate much more of your crap.

Especially this ^

Kettles gonna start a'whistlin soon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TexasRedNeck]

RN is now sitting on a nice padded carpet, legs folded, soothing music playing in the background, eyes closed, repeating woo saa!

Yoga. Happy Baby position. Ravi Shankar playing sitar in the background.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Nate]

ROFLFMAO

[KensAuto]

LOL

[Sammconn]

Sheesh! as I LOL.

[JR]

That is just plain scary and I have seen it coming. Heard someone on a conservative radio show saying how we don't need the police anymore,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Gunned down while filling up, I am so glad I retired when I did!

[cudakidd53]

RN- where'd ya get a picture if Richard Simeon's brother?

[Flyin6]

This is all revolting.

Well, we all have to decide where we stand on this.

If I see an officer assaulted with deadly force or threatened I will respond. I just pray my aim is still as good as it has been. I will protect what is good, and right.

This black hatred thing is so un-American. It needs to be stopped. They think they are so frightening, and so invincible...

No real Black patriotic American would be found in their ranks

[Atkinsmatt]

I couldn't stand and watch or drive by an officer in trouble and find it disgusting that anyone could. 

It is hard to believe that people will go as far as espousing the idea that any of this crap they spew is a good idea or that a large segment of the population agree that it is the right thing to do. 

However, with a disintegrating family structure in the black community, in-bread hatred and distrust, a sense of entitlement, and leaders like Sharpton, Farakan, and Obama as examples, it is no wonder that these type of things are happening. 

I wonder if the person raising funds on gofundme for the FYF911 thing was to be anonymously reported to DFCS, how big the uproar would be.

[TexasRedNeck]

This is all revolting.

Well, we all have to decide where we stand on this.

If I see an officer assaulted with deadly force or threatened I will respond. I just pray my aim is still as good as it has been. I will protect what is good, and right.

This black hatred thing is so un-American. It needs to be stopped. They think they are so frightening, and so invincible...

No real Black patriotic American would be found in their ranks

Don, I want to be clear.  I am not putting ALL people in any category but like the Muslims, we need those of that crowd that don't agree to denounce it.  Like I would David Duke if that dummy were to rear his ugly head and spew white supremacy.

In many cases, silence is acceptance if you don't speak up and denouce bad behavior.

[cudakidd53]

Well, all the above triggered a Google search- I can honestly say I'm thankful I picked up two new Magpul 30 rd. mags in a different color the other day, loaded one up with Hornady TAP and another with soft points.......and I pray that no mouth breathing hate monger is dumb enough to necessitate their use anytime soon!

[Flyin6]

This is all revolting.

Well, we all have to decide where we stand on this.

If I see an officer assaulted with deadly force or threatened I will respond. I just pray my aim is still as good as it has been. I will protect what is good, and right.

This black hatred thing is so un-American. It needs to be stopped. They think they are so frightening, and so invincible...

No real Black patriotic American would be found in their ranks

Don, I want to be clear.  I am not putting ALL people in any category but like the Muslims, we need those of that crowd that don't agree to denounce it.  Like I would David Duke if that dummy were to rear his ugly head and spew white supremacy.

In many cases, silence is acceptance if you don't speak up and denouce bad behavior.

Let me clarify
I wasn't saying anything about your comments Charles, not at all
What I find revolting is the azimuth of this fringe black hatred movement.
Tonight I was at church with a new "Black" friend of mine. Funny, but I wouldn't think of him as any particular color, he is just a fellow Christian and ex soldier. I am sickened by these hate groups fueled by ignorance racism and big name leaders like Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan and the like. None of them could produce anything including a quality body part to be used for a transplant in anything more important than a pig.
I share your frustration. When this nation takes a nosedive probably from an economic crisis, expect these forces to run unfetted. You will have to do what is necessary to protect your family and property. It will potentially get very ugly

[OldKooT]

Although I agree with much of what was said above and then some. I'd like to mention this country has been through similar "rough stretches" on many occasions. In some cases positive change has evolved from it, in some not so much.

What we have to all keep in mind is the Lords expectations of us, and the examples we set.

[Flyin6]

What we have to all keep in mind is the Lords expectations of us, and the examples we set.

I agree, God is in charge
We should raise our praise to him first and always.

For those of you and those who don't know your bible, in the old testament do you know what praising God before battle was?
I would liken it to a battlefield tactical nuclear weapon. When God sent his people against invading armies or the Jews defended themselves against the assyrians, Babylonians and a host of unfortunate aggressors, they would send their praise and worship team in first. In one case God had two armies, opposing the Jews simply kill each other leaving huge plunder for the Jews without the loss of a single soldier.

There is a war coming. The war of good vs evil is here, Evil has gathered a mighty headwind and is clearly seemingly winning the battles. But we win in the end. We should stand fast on the word, wherever that may lead. And we should organize so that through what is to come we have strength through supporting each other.

I could go on and on here, but the time has come to not only prepare to survive, but also to organize and prepare to defend as well, if you are one of those called out to do so.

Nuff said on that. If you hear the call, then answer it. The wolf is not going away, he is gaining strength. Time for you to do so as well.

[TexasRedNeck]

Don, sorry if it came across as insinuating you were taking exception to my comments. I felt the need to clarify that we can't group all of any people together. You just happened to be the last poster. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Higher Caliber]

That is just plain scary and I have seen it coming. Heard someone on a conservative radio show saying how we don't need the police anymore,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Gunned down while filling up, I am so glad I retired when I did!

Is this the article?

http://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ftom-mullen%2Fa-practical-solution-run-police-departments-like-fire-departments_b_7871434.html&h=KAQEqZWDC&s=1

Here is my letter to that guy-

Mr. Mullen,
I recently read your piece, “A Practical Solution: Run Police Departments Like Fire Departments”. I have served as a Peace Officer in the United States in several capacities for over a decade. I am also a US Army veteran as are many of my brother’s and sister’s in blue. I preface my rebuttal with this only to inform you through our service we have a unique perspective on policing and the balancing act of defending our constitution.

Many of your arguments have a certain merit; however I would like to invite you on a ride-a-long some night to bear witness to why the “Practical Solution” isn’t very practical at all. Only then would you gain a clear understanding of the populace we are sworn to protect. Although I am sure you don’t live in a bubble, the experience is best in person. While our Supreme Court has held statutorily we have no duty to protect and thus are generally protected from liability when our efforts fail, the fact a case to this effect reached the Supreme Court is my first presentation of evidence to you.

Jurisdictional administrators and governments, even Police Officer’s themselves have been party to litigants who fell victim to crime when they felt they should have somehow been protected from it. I know you are aware enough to realize a growing faction of our society today values its entitlements over earnings tenfold. A growing populace demands the government not only offer them services needed for daily sustenance but also that of protection. While I myself, like you, whole heartedly support the second amendment and local legislation which offers us a means to self-protection, we are embattled with a growing opposition who wishes the only protection afforded to them are afforded by the government. While I believe personally this is merely a means to re-direct the blame away from their failed utopia, the fact remains the burden of their defense is ours to bear.

These “sheeple”, as they are commonly referred, are by no means prepared to defend their selves physically or psychologically. So while the black robes sit in high courts determining in mostly obscure circumstances policing should be Ex post facto. Locally the majority of the populace, while not lying awake at night worrying about it, is appreciative of their friendly neighborhood Police Officer.

Therefore, I concede your “practical solution” is, as you admit, “radical”.
The reactive policing model failed us exponentially every year from the 1960’s until the 1990’s when more proactive measures were introduced to curb an increasingly violent society. As we became more modern and more evolved, we got softer and less apt to defend ourselves. Thusly we were more apt to falling victim to crime. Rather than at that time, placing an emphasis on self-defense, policing was changed to make up for the evolving society. Some would opine our moral decay had a lot to do with the problem. The issue here with reverting to a reactive policing model overnight is the simple fact that while people don’t lay awake at night worrying about fires, people do roam the streets at night looking for targets of opportunity and those targets aren’t ready or willing to combat them.

There are literally no statistics on the number of crimes which didn’t happen because I was in the right place at the right time. The would-be criminals simply fail to report this bit of information to the FBI. However, an argument can be made for the decrease in criminality over the last twenty years and it’s co-witness to a proactive policing model. Secondary to this, I can only imagine the use of radar detectors, police scanners, and diversions represent strong evidence as mitigation to police intervention and most importantly show us in some capacity, our patrols are deterrent in nature.

My second rebuttal to your piece is in reference to your comments about warrants. While judges may sign off on warrants, you would be hard pressed to find a judge out collecting evidence, determining facts and witnessing circumstances which culminate into probable cause to write the said warrant. This is job of the police. A reactive police force, only available for call out would be hard pressed to come up with enough pieces to amount to a reasonable belief criminal activity was afoot therefore in order to pursue some sorts of criminal activity we must be slightly less restrained.

This is most certainly true in drug crimes as well as crimes involving child pornography and child and adult exploitation or trafficking. These are not by your definition emergencies and the general public lacks the resources to counter or curb these offenses. Most of these operations are clandestine in nature and would go un-noticed without a proactive approach from Law Enforcement. There are actually quite a few crimes which fall into this category where there is a clear and present risk to public or personal safety that is not readily apparent.

Many people refer to drug crimes as victimless crimes. In my experience, drug abuse leaves a wake of victims. Growing up to a drug addicted mother I myself was placed as a small child into dangerous situations of which I had no control or ability to defend myself. I believe the same could be said for my mother, had she been un-polluted and within her clear mind, my sister and I would never have been placed into the danger we were. I have never met a recovered meth addict who told me they didn’t want me to do everything in my power to eliminate the drug from existence.

Prostitutes contract disease and pass it on to their customers who pass it on to their innocent spouses. It’s not just the guy travelling “66 in a 55 and getting away with it”. It is about the truck driver with 90,000 lbs of freight driving 75 high on speed. It is about the guy driving the wrong way down a divided highway who smashes in to your wife and kids. I don’t go to a whole lot of bars anymore but when the bug gets in folks ears there is a drunken driving enforcement lane in the area, people listen. They call cabs and otherwise find safer rides. You take away the fear of being caught driving while intoxicated; you are the catalyst to an epidemic of drunken driving fatalities.

The people will not self-police as much as we would like them to. Your statement regarding people being able to call 911 when they see a reckless driver is a scenario which is too good to be true. People just don’t report like you would like them to. It’s not in their nature. The populace as a whole overwhelmingly does not wish to get involved in that capacity. For example, I was on patrol several years back on an interstate in Southwest Missouri. We had a single call of a wrong way vehicle on an interstate moderately involved with traffic. My assumption is every other driver felt as if one of the other driver’s was calling in the infraction. With several officers on patrol, I was the closest to the interstate; I quickly closed on and intercepted the driver who was intoxicated and oblivious to his error. How many extra miles could that vehicle travel had we all responded to the incident from our bunks? Chances are he would be outside of our jurisdiction and inside and even more rural jurisdiction where there would be no officer’s able to respond. How many more near misses would you accept if your family was traveling the same interstate?

I appreciate your arguments were not “anti-cop”. You made that clear and did your best not to bash us. You do however have it wrong. We didn’t just join the job to protect the public from crimes you consider as real, “murder, assault, rape and robbery”. With your policing model, we wouldn’t be a protective force at all. We would be an investigative force. These crimes, you mentioned, would still occur and we would be powerless to avert them. I can speak for a lot of cops when I say this; it’s not always about making the high profile collars. It is about making a difference every chance you get. We are inherently protectors by nature. The few bullies in our ranks are the exception, not the rule. If you are half as intelligent as you appear in print, you can surely come to this conclusion on your own.

There is a way to accomplish our mission of maintaining public safety while still upholding our constitution. I along with thousands of other officers operate in this capacity every day. Don’t let yourself fall victim to or perpetrate the sensationalism of a handful of high profile policing incidents.

Thank You for your time,
Blaine Cornelius


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JR]

Excellent is all I can say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

THX

[TexasRedNeck]

Well said, my friend. Well said. The other option is self policing via vigilantism which would be as bad as reactive policing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Flyin6]

Well said, my friend. Well said. The other option is self policing via vigilantism which would be as bad as reactive policing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Unfortunately...very unfortunately, I fear it will soon come to exactly that

[KensAuto]

Great job Blaine.
Very professional.

[OldKooT]

Yes Blaine I agree, well said.

And in saying that, I firmly know we need to "overhaul" law enforcement as it is these days in many areas of this country.
There are many good officers in LE, there are sadly many who are not at all concerned with upholding the law as well.

Much like the public doesn't self police worth a darn, neither does the LE community within their ranks. It's time that changes, for the better of all.

I just don't at all agree with how the press and others are sensationalizing situations. When in effect the real problem goes unchecked.

[Atkinsmatt]

Great response. Very well written.

[JR]

Most agencies have gotten political, that is a huge issue. Smaller tend to be better.

In general, Sheriff agencies are better as they are elected and are not doing there job at the "whim" of who appoints them.

The next issue is good old $$$$$, they follow the $$$$ and look for grants and have to have results in that area to keep them going.

However any LE agency has to follow certain rules as they do there job. They don't try cases on the spot via mob rule.

I do see the day when we will have to protect our own and I feel sorry for those who have no clue.

[Wilbur]

Blaine- what an exceptional and well thought out response! VERY well said!

I think some data exist for your proactive model versus reactive model- look at NYC in the years prior to Guliani getting elected. I lived there for a time then (worked in WTC Tower 2) and remember being out with friends in Times Square getting surrounded and harassed by hookers and crack dealers. Guiliani instituted the "stop and frisk" tactic which made Times Square (and all of NYC) a VERY different place. Modern businesses moved in, renovated the area in an amazing way and families and all sorts of (law abiding) people roamed the streets. When DiBlasio got elected he stopped the "stop and frisk" tactic and crime is now back on the rise dramatically.

Just like concealed carry laws protect all the citizens because criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't (for those of you youngsters who don't remember- look at why tourists were being robbed in FL in the 90's- it was due to a change in FL's carry laws so criminals went after people who didn't have guns- those who had just flown to FL for vacations) "stop and frisk" stopped a lot of crimes because it kept criminals away from more public places because they knew cops could (and did) stop them and frisk them any time.   

[TexasRedNeck]

Unfortunately stop and frisk flies in the face of the fourth amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Higher Caliber]

I disagree Redneck. A lot of nights I'm out on beat alone patrolling higher crime areas riddled with property crimes and catalyzed by drug abuse. I know the actors on my beat and I know the locals.

As a LEO, on patrol, I notice an individual on the stroll at a quarter past three carrying a back pack through a nicer neighborhood where he doesn't belong that has experienced an uptick in criminality recently, (vehicle burgs, home burgs, misc thefts etc...) I can articulate based upon my familiarization with my beat, the recent activity, and the time of night, whether or not facts and circumstances exist to lead me, a reasonable officer, to suspect there is criminal activity afoot and make a temporary detention to confirm or discredit my suspicion. The "stop". Once I've made that stop, I may or may not be able to articulate whether this individual is armed or not. Or I *may* have spied an inherent trait exhibited by an armed person, (change of gate, weapon bump, sagging pocket, familiar bulge, known to be armed actor, etc...) At that point if again, if i, a reasonable officer, can justifiably articulate, again based upon, facts circumstances and evidence at hand, suspicion this dude is illicitly armed, I can do a limited pat down, (not a search) of his person, to protect myself while I conclude my investigation. If and when at any point my suspicions become invalidated, the detention is over.

I really *do* understand people's reservations with stop and frisk but I can only hope that the boys patrolling my neighborhood protecting my family as they sleep at night are operating in the same capacity. While you and I are more than willing and ready to investigate the bumps in the night without LE intervention, the fact remains, as I pointed out in my reply to mr Mullen, there are many that aren't emotionally or physically capable for that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Higher Caliber]

Yes Blaine I agree, well said.

And in saying that, I firmly know we need to "overhaul" law enforcement as it is these days in many areas of this country.
There are many good officers in LE, there are sadly many who are not at all concerned with upholding the law as well.

Much like the public doesn't self police worth a darn, neither does the LE community within their ranks. It's time that changes, for the better of all.

I just don't at all agree with how the press and others are sensationalizing situations. When in effect the real problem goes unchecked.

This is the same narrative pushed by the media. I'll tell you, if you do some research, you will see that when it comes to policing our own, we are MUCH harder on each other than any citizens advisory committee or civilian review board that could ever be established. Law Enforcement as a whole does not need to be overhauled anymore than any other profession. We can cherry pick dozens of incidents of corruption from literally every profession there is. But hearing about your local CPA office getting a handful of patrons busted for tax evasion isn't near as sexy as hearing about a cop on the take. So what makes the front page? The cop story! Every time.

What personal experience do you have that leads to such generalized statements about not policing our own? I can google a dozen examples for you but the representative sample would *still* be the exception, not the rule; because I could turn around and pull Open Records Act, disciplinary reports demonstrating the exact opposite from a singular agency within the same time period that proves yours, a bunk hypothesis.

I spent the last week in training with some new coppers from one of my old agencies and bared witness to a new culture metabolizing within larger agencies. Cops are spending more time becoming professionals at insulating themselves from getting in trouble for the slightest infraction, than they are spending time busting mopes. Those are the only ones who I fear are forgetting how to uphold the law, and it's not corruption related, it's because they are scared to act! That's a scary damn thing when you think about some nutcase shooting up your wife's work and having cops more worried what race the perp is than the difference between cover and concealment.

The fact of the matter is, it's us guys that live it every single day that are the subject matter experts in how to fix problems in policing. But only the talking heads and politicians get your ear. That's not your fault. It's our culture to shut up and take it, shake it off, and drive on. You can't expect a guy who's dumb enough to run toward gun fire to be able to systematically change the view upon his profession in a forty second sound bite on Fox News.

I'm just ranting right now mostly, so I'll shut up! I'm not mad or anything.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JR]

Well said again Blaine.

It is not hard to contact almost anyone, and profiling is used and legal, regardless of what the media says. Heck, that is cop 101. Let the police do their job.

Even retired I live in the yellow all the time.

[cudakidd53]

The majority of the American public dont see a problem with Police or the way they do their jobs...I DO think there is a problem with media and the way they do theirs.  When I was a kid, FCC had rules and regs. that the media actually had to abide by, news articles were actually verified before going to print and off color/vulgar material was forbidden (if not all together) until after 9pm.

I truly wish that EVERYONE would demand the type of scrutiny placed on Law Enforcement and Public Schools were shifted to Politicians and Government.  The amount of scrutiny is detrimental to doing the very job each is supposed to do, while Politicians operate with impunity braking and ignoring the very laws they're supposed to uphold with attitudes of stereotypic Royal Tyrants!

I think the French actually got things right way back when!

[OldKooT]

Mr TRN..... if I may reply in like fashion.

My position on LE self policing is not at all derived from TV. (I refuse to call today's "news" news)  I have not always been a farmer, I will leave it at that for now.

Law Enforcement goes far beyond the patrol officer, the detective, or even his superiors. Your local BLM officer, your Judges, the Mayors, Governors, and even a president all sworn to uphold the law......

I will leave it at that thought...

 


 

[Higher Caliber]

Mr TRN..... if I may reply in like fashion.

My position on LE self policing is not at all derived from TV. (I refuse to call today's "news" news)  I have not always been a farmer, I will leave it at that for now.

Law Enforcement goes far beyond the patrol officer, the detective, or even his superiors. Your local BLM officer, your Judges, the Mayors, Governors, and even a president all sworn to uphold the law......

I will leave it at that thought...

That's an entirely different story. And one I have gone in to depth on before. But the jest of your post put a spot light on policing in every paragraph as it rebutted to my own stance on policing. I don't agree that any of what you just listed, save the poor BLM guy, should fall in to "law enforcement" at all. "Enforcement" stops with the prosecutor.

When prosecutors are motivated by anything *but* upholding the law, there is a miscarriage of justice, (Freddy Grey). When executives of the government involve themselves where they shouldn't, it's an issue, but it's an issue ABOVE, the pay grade of your lowly patrolman or any of his/her bosses. I would say most Judges do the best they can with what they are presented. There are however cases of judicial impurity. When judges operate in regard to political affiliation they fail us.

Mayors and governors, they're elected executives and the entire electoral system needs an "overhaul" as you put it. All should be held to term limits and there should be a cap on candidate spending and contingent donations to even the playing field. This would be a healthy start to repairing our system.

We need not debate semantics as long as we both agree it's *not* a policing/enforcement issue but rather an issue specific to corruption in politicians and law *makers*.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OldKooT]

We need not debate semantics as long as we both agree it's *not* a policing/enforcement issue but rather an issue specific to corruption in politicians and law *makers*.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 A LEO is responsible for investigating and gathering evidence and many other aspects of "law enforcement" This includes crimes committed against citizens by "any" person or persons.

 I am sure you Blaine are a fine example of a man doing his job with integrity. Your example above of a "stop and frisk" in your explanation, is to the letter of the Texas law, and if in the same position as you, I'd not argue it's a valuable tool in enforcing the law. (Constitutionally it's a little grey I feel) Nor do I at all envy your "beat" or the many great men/women who have/live those situations daily.

Where I disagree with you is where you seem to feel all officers take the law and their job/responsibility with the same level of pride/integrity as you sir. Since the advent of the cell phone camera, it's become a reality the action of a few, are more than tarnishing those with pure intent. (it shouldn't, but it's happening) I don't agree with the mind set I have heard with my own ears from some officers regarding how John Q Public is the enemy. In fact I will share an example of a traffic stop in your very State of residence last March.

I was totally in the wrong. It was 2am in the outskirts of Austin, and I had just turned left into what would have been oncoming traffic had there been any. The signage, along with me being in a strange place had caused a moments confusion, that and the GPS as well... If there had been traffic I'd have obviously understood, but there wasn't and I screwed up. I realized it almost immediately and exited into a gas station within 75' of my turn. My wife was giving me a earful playfully for my screw up as we exited the car and slowly headed towards the gas station so she could use the facilities. I was dressed in Jeans and a button up shirt, she in a snug body dress. We had just left her sisters Bday party 20 minutes earlier. Neither of us had drank any alcohol all evening. 

As we walked to the store the cruiser pulled up and parked to our left. For a moment I thought he was going to bust me as he sure could have, but when he parked as he did, it looked like maybe he was just after a snack or using the facilities himself so we kept walking.

He then asks us to stand where we are, we did. He approached us and says "I saw your cute move at the intersection, have you been drinking?" I said the following "No sir we have not been drinking, I turned the wrong way into traffic, I ducked in here to remedy the issue and then my wife said she needed to use the restroom" He looks at me, looks at her and then says he needs to see some id. But first lets move back to the vehicle...so we did. (his needing to return us to an area between his car and ours bothered me...very much a odd choice in his position, dangerous even)... I replied "My wallet is in my right front pocket, my car keys are in my left front pocket along with a small Swiss Army knife. (My dad gave it to me when I was 8 I have always carried it since when I can) I gave him this information because I am well aware of his situation as well. I expected he may frisk me and welcomed that vs the possibility of spooking him. He didn't disappoint me, and he did as expected. He then tells me to stay where I am and tells my wife he is going to pat her down lightly. She followed his request to raise her arms and he starts....and he was extremely unprofessional about it, (use your imagination a little) and went so far as to even mention her dress was small enough it couldn't hide much, and she was clearly by the looks of it cold.

At which point he then tells us that maybe folks from Nebraska shouldn't drive in the big city, gets in his car and leaves quickly.

My wife stood and just looked at me...I am scanning the parking lot for cameras as it was becoming clear what just happened. He was smart enough to do his pat down on the opposite side of the car from the two cameras. His cruiser blocking the view from the street, I told her to get in the car and we left. In the end I could have pushed the issue with his superiors if I could have gotten a ID on his cruiser.... but out of state, and so on, it was hardly worth the headache. Besides I was angry enough at this point it was best to walk away. And my main priority was my wife who was very shook up being pawed like that.

Sorry Blaine, I don't trust that all men in your profession are good men. Common sense says otherwise as does that experience, and many others in my past career capacity.

My point is that good people are loosing faith in good officers, and we rely on those good officers to put a stop to such behavior. It's not happening enough, the distrust of police you used to see only in inner city areas, is starting to become common almost everywhere. Some of it from hype, some deserved...

I know many officers that agree with that position completely, and know full well it's going to sadly get worse. As a side note, my wife is now unsure if she is comfortable carrying concealed due to the jumpiness of police. It's a tense situation for all involved. I don't envy anyone in your capacity right now. Regardless if "Law enforcement" doesn't includes Judges, Mayors and Presidents by definition....the corruption and lack of trust in people of authority today is not something people are imagining. And it carries from the top.... right down to the men and women we NEED to trust to have our back. Every instance of another violating rights, or just flat being criminal is creating more and more of a divide.

A woman is jailed in Kentucky for not doing her job. By all description it sounds like she was also denied due process. If she was or wasn't isn't my call, but it clearly will shine poorly on all aspects of the law, right down to the Bailiff that took her into custody.

 

[Higher Caliber]

Koot,
I don't intend to change your mind. You have good reason to be skeptical about us. It's an indoctrinated effect. I *too* have had horrible experiences with cops AND have witnessed cops do terrible things.

The science however is this-
There are nearly 1m sworn LEO's in this nation and if you had a bad contact every day, for ten years with a different cop, you would *still* only be talking about an infinitesimal percentage of all cops and at best you could sustain, you have really bad luck with cops! ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TexasRedNeck]

I disagree Redneck. A lot of nights I'm out on beat alone patrolling higher crime areas riddled with property crimes and catalyzed by drug abuse. I know the actors on my beat and I know the locals.

As a LEO, on patrol, I notice an individual on the stroll at a quarter past three carrying a back pack through a nicer neighborhood where he doesn't belong that has experienced an uptick in criminality recently, (vehicle burgs, home burgs, misc thefts etc...) I can articulate based upon my familiarization with my beat, the recent activity, and the time of night, whether or not facts and circumstances exist to lead me, a reasonable officer, to suspect there is criminal activity afoot and make a temporary detention to confirm or discredit my suspicion. The "stop". Once I've made that stop, I may or may not be able to articulate whether this individual is armed or not. Or I *may* have spied an inherent trait exhibited by an armed person, (change of gate, weapon bump, sagging pocket, familiar bulge, known to be armed actor, etc...) At that point if again, if i, a reasonable officer, can justifiably articulate, again based upon, facts circumstances and evidence at hand, suspicion this dude is illicitly armed, I can do a limited pat down, (not a search) of his person, to protect myself while I conclude my investigation. If and when at any point my suspicions become invalidated, the detention is over.

I really *do* understand people's reservations with stop and frisk but I can only hope that the boys patrolling my neighborhood protecting my family as they sleep at night are operating in the same capacity. While you and I are more than willing and ready to investigate the bumps in the night without LE intervention, the fact remains, as I pointed out in my reply to mr Mullen, there are many that aren't emotionally or physically capable for that.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blaine, as a matter of practical application I don't disagree with you.   However the courts have ruled in several cases that there are limits.  You observations constitute probably cause in many cases,however the burden is on you as the officer to have specific observable reasons for suspicion.  There are always shades of gray with the law and Bloomberg's version was over the line.  It is unfortunate that you are forced to justify what most of us see as common sense.  Because you are an extension of the government, there is an inherent distrust by some, and by others, the need to make sure that our founding documents are preserved to avoid an over reach by a tyrannical government.

If we don't have clearly defined guides, we risk what the founding fathers feared, which is a tyrannical government that abuses power. The fact that I own NFA items and espouse some very conservative views expressed here on this site, could lead some to believe that I need to be investigated closely.  Its not a long leap from where you are to what I illustrate as an abuse of power by the government.

So I guess thanks and sympathy are in order.  Thanks for your service to our society and sympathy that you are the tip of the spear and the scapegoat for lawyers when your actions appear to be in that gray area.

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk.—Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence.183 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause.184 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.185 In Terry v. Ohio,186 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved "patting down" the subject of the investigation for weapons.

183 United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976).

184 Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 16-17 (1948); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62-63 (1968).

185 "The police may not arrest upon mere suspicion but only on 'probable cause."' Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 454 (1957).

186 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Only Justice Douglas dissented. Id. at 35.

The case arose when a police officer observed three individuals engaging in conduct which appeared to him, on the basis of training and experience, to be the "casing" of a store for a likely armed robbery; upon approaching the men, identifying himself, and not receiving prompt identification, the officer seized one of the men, patted the exterior of his clothes, and discovered a gun. Chief Justice Warren for the Court wrote that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the situation, applicable "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away."187 Since the warrant clause is necessarily and practically of no application to the type of on-the-street encounter present in Terry, the Chief Justice continued, the question was whether the policeman's actions were reasonable. The test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police officer can point to "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts," would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a "frisk" was required.188 Inasmuch as the conduct witnessed by the policeman reasonably led him to believe that an armed robbery was in prospect, he was as reasonably led to believe that the men were armed and probably dangerous and that his safety required a "frisk." Because the object of the "frisk" is the discovery of dangerous weapons, "it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer."189 In a later case, the Court held that an officer may seize an object if, in the course of a weapons frisk, "plain touch" reveals presence of an object that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband, the officer may seize that object.190 The Court viewed the situation as analogous to that covered by the "plain view" doctrine: obvious contraband may be seized, but a search may not be expanded to determine whether an object is contraband.191 Also impermissible is physical manipulation, without reasonable suspicion, of a bus passenger's carry-on luggage stored in an overhead compartment.192

187 Id. at 16. See id. at 16-20.

188 Id. at 20, 21, 22.

189 Id. at 23-27, 29. See also Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (after policeman observed defendant speak with several known narcotics addicts, he approached him and placed his hand in defendant's pocket, thus discovering narcotics; this was impermissible because he lacked a reasonable basis for frisk and in any event his search exceeded permissible scope of a weapons frisk); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (stop and frisk based on informer's tip that defendant was sitting in parked car with narcotics and gun at waist); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (after validly stopping car, officer required defendant to get out of car, observed bulge under his jacket, and frisked him and seized weapon; while officer did not suspect driver of crime or have an articulable basis for safety fears, safety considerations justified his requiring driver to leave car). Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 413 (1997) (after validly stopping car, officer may order passengers as well as driver out of car; "the same weighty interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver or passenger"); Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781, 786 (2009) (after validly stopping car, officer may frisk (patdown for weapons) both the driver and any passengers whom he reasonably concludes “might be armed and presently dangerous”).

190 Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

191 508 U.S. at 375, 378-79. In Dickerson the Court held that seizure of a small plastic container that the officer felt in the suspect's pocket was not justified; the officer should not have continued the search, manipulating the container with his fingers, after determining that no weapon was present.

192 Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) (bus passenger has reasonable expectation that, while other passengers might handle his bag in order to make room for their own, they will not "feel the bag in an exploratory manner").

Terry did not pass on a host of problems, including the grounds that could permissibly lead an officer to momentarily stop a person on the street or elsewhere in order to ask questions rather than frisk for weapons, the right of the stopped individual to refuse to cooperate, and the permissible response of the police to that refusal. The Court provided a partial answer in 2004, when it upheld a state law that required a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop.6 Questions about a suspect’s iden- tity “are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops,” the Court explained.7

After Terry, the standard for stops for investigative purposes evolved into one of "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." That test permits some stops and questioning without probable cause in order to allow police officers to explore the foundations of their suspicions.193 While not elaborating a set of rules governing the application of the tests, the Court was initially restrictive in recognizing permissible bases for reasonable suspicion.194 Extensive instrusions on individual privacy, e.g., transportation to the stationhouse for interrogation and fingerprinting, were invalidated in the absence of probable cause,195 although the Court has held that an uncorroborated, anonymous tip is insufficient basis for a Terry stop, and that there is no "firearms" exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement.196 More recently, however, the Court has taken less restrictive approaches.197

6 Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

7 542 U.S. at 186.

193 In United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), a unanimous Court attempted to capture the "elusive concept" of the basis for permitting a stop. Officers must have "articulable reasons" or "founded suspicions," derived from the totality of the circumstances. "Based upon that whole picture the detaining officer must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." Id. at 417-18. The inquiry is thus quite fact-specific. In the anonymous tip context, the same basic approach requiring some corroboration applies regardless of whether the standard is probable cause or reasonable suspicion; the difference is that less information, or less reliable information, can satisfy the lower standard. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).

194 E.g., Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (individual's presence in high crime area gave officer no articulable basis to suspect him of crime); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (reasonable suspicion of a license or registration violation is necessary to authorize automobile stop; random stops impermissible); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (officers could not justify random automobile stop solely on basis of Mexican appearance of occupants); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980) (no reasonable suspicion for airport stop based on appearance that suspect and another passenger were trying to conceal the fact that they were travelling together). But cf. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (halting vehicles at fixed checkpoints to question occupants as to citizenship and immigration status permissible, even if officers should act on basis of appearance of occupants).

195 Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979). Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (unprovoked flight from high crime area upon sight of police produces "reasonable suspicion").

196 Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (reasonable suspicion requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not merely in its identification of someone).

197 See, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (reasonable suspicion to stop a motorist may be based on a "wanted flyer" as long as issuance of the flyer has been based on reasonable suspicion); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9 (1989) (airport stop based on drug courier profile may rely on a combination of factors that individually may be "quite consistent with innocent travel").

It took the Court some time to settle on a test for when a "seizure" has occurred, and the Court has recently modified its approach. The issue is of some importance, since it is at this point that Fourth Amendment protections take hold. The Terry Court recognized in dictum that "not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves 'seizures' of persons," and suggested that "

• nly when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred."198 Years later Justice Stewart proposed a similar standard, that a person has been seized "only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave."199 This reasonable perception standard was subsequently endorsed by a majority of Justices,200 and was applied in several cases in which admissibility of evidence turned on whether a seizure of the person not justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion had occurred prior to the uncovering of the evidence. No seizure occurred, for example, when INS agents seeking to identify illegal aliens conducted workforce surveys within a garment factory; while some agents were positioned at exits, others systematically moved through the factory and questioned employees.201 This brief questioning, even with blocked exits, amounted to "classic consensual encounters rather than Fourth Amendment seizures."202 The Court also ruled that no seizure had occurred when police in a squad car drove alongside a suspect who had turned and run down the sidewalk when he saw the squad car approach. Under the circumstances (no siren, flashing lights, display of a weapon, or blocking of the suspect's path), the Court concluded, the police conduct "would not have communicated to the reasonable person an attempt to capture or otherwise intrude upon [one's] freedom of movement."203

198 392 U.S. at 19, n.16.

199 United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).

200 See, e.g., Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), in which there was no opinion of the Court, but in which the test was used by the plurality of four, id. at 502, and also endorsed by dissenting Justice Blackmun, id. at 514.

201 INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984).

202 Id. at 221.

203 Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 (1988)

Soon thereafter, however, the Court departed from the Mendenhall reasonable perception standard and adopted a more formalistic approach, holding that an actual chase with evident intent to capture did not amount to a "seizure" because the suspect did not comply with the officer's order to halt. Mendenhall, said the Court in California v. Hodari D., stated a "necessary" but not a "sufficient" condition for a seizure of the person through show of authority.204 A Fourth Amendment "seizure" of the person, the Court determined, is the same as a common law arrest; there must be either application of physical force (or the laying on of hands), or submission to the assertion of authority.205 Indications are, however, that Hodari D. does not signal the end of the reasonable perception standard, but merely carves an exception applicable to chases and perhaps other encounters between suspects and police.

Later in the same term the Court ruled that the Mendenhall "free-to-leave" inquiry was misplaced in the context of a police sweep of a bus, but that a modified reasonable perception approach still governed.206 In conducting a bus sweep, aimed at detecting illegal drugs and their couriers, police officers typically board a bus during a stopover at a terminal and ask to inspect tickets, identification, and sometimes luggage of selected passengers. The Court did not focus on whether an "arrest" had taken place, as adherence to the Hodari D. approach would have required, but instead suggested that the appropriate inquiry is "whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter."207 "When the person is seated on a bus and has no desire to leave," the Court explained, "the degree to which a reasonable person would feel that he or she could leave is not an accurate measure of the coercive effect of the encounter."208

204 499 U.S. 621, 628 (1991). As in Michigan v. Chesternut, supra, the suspect dropped incriminating evidence while being chased.

205 Adherence to this approach would effectively nullify the Court's earlier position that Fourth Amendment protections extend to "seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975), quoted in INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 215 (1984).

206 Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991).

207 Id. at 2387.

208 Id. The Court asserted that the case was "analytically indistinguishable from Delgado. Like the workers in that case [subjected to the INS 'survey' at their work-place], Bostick's freedom of movement was restricted by a factor independent of police conduct—i.e., by his being a passenger on a bus." Id. See also United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002), applying Bostick to uphold a bus search in which one officer stationed himself in the front of the bus and one in the rear, while a third officer worked his way from rear to front, questioning passengers individually. Under these circumstances, and following the arrest of his traveling companion, the defendant had consented to the search of his person.

A Terry search need not be limited to a stop and frisk of the person, but may extend as well to a protective search of the passenger compartment of a car if an officer possesses "a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts . . . that the suspect is dangerous and . . . may gain immediate control of weapons."209 How lengthy a Terry detention may be varies with the circumstances. In approving a 20-minute detention of a driver made necessary by the driver's own evasion of drug agents and a state police decision to hold the driver until the agents could arrive on the scene, the Court indicated that it is "appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant."210

Similar principles govern detention of luggage at airports in order to detect the presence of drugs; Terry "limitations applicable to investigative detentions of the person should define the permissible scope of an investigative detention of the person's luggage on less than probable cause."211 The general rule is that "when an officer's observations lead him reasonably to believe that a traveler is carrying luggage that contains narcotics, the principles of Terry . . . would permit the officer to detain the luggage briefly to investigate the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided that the investigative detention is properly limited in scope."212 Seizure of luggage for an expeditious "canine sniff" by a dog trained to detect narcotics can satisfy this test even though seizure of luggage is in effect detention of the traveler, since the procedure results in "limited disclosure," impinges only slightly on a traveler's privacy interest in the contents of personal luggage, and does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.213 By contrast, taking a suspect to an interrogation room on grounds short of probable cause, retaining his air ticket, and retrieving his luggage without his permission taints consent given under such circumstances to open the luggage, since by then the detention had exceeded the bounds of a permissible Terry investigative stop and amounted to an invalid arrest.214 But the same requirements for brevity of detention and limited scope of investigation are apparently inapplicable to border searches of international travelers, the Court having approved a 24-hour detention of a traveler suspected of smuggling drugs in her alimentary canal.215

209 Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (suspect appeared to be under the influence of drugs, officer spied hunting knife exposed on floor of front seat and searched remainder of passenger compartment). Similar reasoning has been applied to uphold a "protective sweep" of a home in which an arrest is made if arresting officers have a reasonable belief that the area swept may harbor another individual posing a danger to the officers or to others. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990).

210 United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). A more relaxed standard has been applied to detention of travelers at the border, the Court testing the reasonableness in terms of "the period of time necessary to either verify or dispel the suspicion." United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 544 (1985) (approving warrantless detention for more than 24 hours of traveler suspected of alimentary canal drug smuggling).

211 United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983).

212 Id. at 706.

213 462 U.S. at 707. However, the search in Place was not expeditious, and hence exceeded Fourth Amendment bounds, when agents took 90 minutes to transport luggage to another airport for administration of the canine sniff. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (a canine sniff around the perimeter of a car following a routine traffic stop does not offend the Fourth Amendment if the duration of the stop is justified by the traffic offense).

214 Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). On this much the plurality opinion of Justice White (id. at 503), joined by three other Justices, and the concurring opinion of Justice Brennan (id. at 509) were in agreement.

215 United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).


http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/13-stop-and-frisk.html

[Higher Caliber]

You just expounded on what I was saying with a ton of case law! This is one of the first things I go over with any new officer. I always, as many FTO's do, hit the gray areas of our practice hard, heavy and often. Terry stops, knock and talks, consent searches, etc... The fact these case laws exist, are prima facie evidence our system works in favor of constitutional procedure.

I want to expound on one more thing here, had I not taken the time to read case precedence on my own, I wouldn't be as versed in it as I am. In most academies nation wide you are subjected to less than 80 clock hours of legal block in an average of 14 week police academy. In that 14 weeks cops are expected to maintain a level of legal intellect congruent to an attorney who spent up to six years in higher education! Oh and I make less than $13 an hour. But I couldn't imagine doing anything else!

Would you mind sending me a certificate for your presentation? Maybe I can squeeze a CEU hour out of it! ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TexasRedNeck]

Ha. Only certificates I have are ones from "roadside chats" with our boys in blue....I do tend to get warnings more now that I have grey hair.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OldKooT]

I completely agree that the percentage of lets call them "unflattering to LE" officers is very small when compared to the overall force.

As for my personal level of trust regarding Law Enforcement officers...Since we have many close friends that wear a badge, local and federal, I'd say it's rather healthy. I tend to operate on a case by case basic with trust...so I'd say overall, I trust our men and women in blue to be good honest folks. I am aware, as per human nature some are not. Like any other profession or situation in life.

LE, Ministers, Professors, farmers, fast food employees, we all have bad seeds midst our ranks. It's time people take responsibility for that and police our own. Up the standard, that's whats needed in the country across the ranks.


 

[TexasRedNeck]

HOUSTON - The suspect wanted in the fatal shooting of a Texas Southern University student was arrested Friday night after a SWAT standoff in north Houston.

According to Houston police, Jartis Leon LeBlanc Jr. was taken into custody around 11:30 p.m. after he barricaded himself inside a home on Knox near Homer.

Authorities said SWAT surrounded the house, started talking to him over their speakers, and he surrendered peacefully.

LeBlanc has been charged with murder. He is accused of shooting and killing Brent Randall, and wounding his brother, Lawrence Flowers, in retaliation for a shooting after a basketball game the night before.

According to court documents, Randall, a TSU freshman, and Flowers were involved in a basketball game against another group on Oct. 8.  The teams were playing for money, and Randall's team won.

LeBlanc was supposed to turn himself in Thursday with the help of community activist, Quanell X, but that didn’t happen.

“What I can say is that he does want to turn his self in, he's afraid for his life, he's afraid that if law enforcement comes up on him, they may want to do something to him,” said Quanell.

Witnesses said a crowd was later gathered at the Courtyard Apartments on Blodgett, an off-campus TSU housing facility, when an argument erupted over the basketball game.  During the argument, someone began shooting.

Derrick White, who had been playing against Randall's team, was shot in the right leg.  He was taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital for treatment.

White, also known as "Uno," was joined at the hospital by a friend whom witnesses called "Jay Money."

After White was treated and released, he and Jay Money went back to the campus apartments and gathered with several other young men and women in one of the rooms on the fourth floor .

One witness said the talk turned to retaliation.

At the end of the evening, witnesses said Jay Money left the dorm room wearing a girl's George Bush High School cheerleader letter jacket.

Gunshots rang out around 11:30 a.m. on Oct. 9 at almost the same shooting location as the night before, and the campus was immediately placed on lockdown.

Both Randall and Lawrence were shot.  Randall died at the scene and his brother was taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital in critical condition.

According to HPD, three black men ran inside the student housing building after the shooting and up to the fourth floor.  Two of them were detained by police, but one remained at large.

Police began to interview a number of witnesses, who linked the shootings to the basketball game.  Surveillance video was also released of the suspected shooter.

Surveillance video showed a man with dreadlocks wearing a letter jacket that witnesses said matched the description of the jacket Jay Money wore the night before.

Video showed the man going off exterior surveillance, then running back to the entrance of the dorm with a semi-automatic, 9-mm pistol in his right hand.  The video shows the man looking around first, then entering the building.  The man is seen walking back and forth.  The man runs to one dorm room on the fourth floor, but it is locked.  He then tries another door, which is open, and enters. He was still wearing the letter jacket at the time.

When the man left the room, he was no longer wearing the jacket, but had on a backpack.  The video shows the man using the fire exit stairwell at the end of the hallway and leaving the building.

Witnesses told investigators that the man seen on the video, Jay Money, was LeBlanc.  Police found LeBlanc's Facebook page, which included his profile picture and the name "Jayy Moneyy WunnHunnet."

Investigators interviewed Flowers at the hospital after the shooting.  He told police that he and his brother were witnesses to White's shooting after the basketball game, but were not involved.

Flowers told investigators that he and Randall were walking in the back parking lot of the apartments when they saw White and several other people arguing over the game.  Flowers said they saw someone step out of some bushes, holding a handgun, and began firing into the crowd. Flowers said everyone ran and White was struck in the right leg.

Flowers did not identify White's shooter, but identified LeBlanc from a photo lineup as the person who shot him.

Witnesses also identified LeBlanc as the person who shot the brothers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TexasRedNeck]

You just can't make this stuff up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flyin6]

One less idiot

[JR]

Day to day in Chicago, but we don't count that.

Coming to a GUN FREE SCHOOL near you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,