Interesting

[EEllis]

RS of a crime being committed.... There is no crime with OCing a rifle AND that is evident by the lack of a gun charge. You don't think after all this, they wouldn't jam him up with anything and everything they could? The cop made himself look like an idiot when he said Rudely Displaying a Gun and that IS FACT...

While the cop may have looked stupid for the Rudely Displaying a Gun comment, and of course the defense can use that statement to challenge the RS all it takes is being able to state RS for the court. If the cop stated a non offence at the time of arrest but can provide RS and PC to the court then there is no false arrest.

The justices, voting 8-0, threw out a suit against Washington state police officers who stopped a motorist and then told him he was being arrested for tape-recording their conversation. Although the recording was legal, the high court said the arrest was valid because the man could have been arrested instead for impersonating a police officer.

In an opinion for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the officers didn't have to provide a reason for arresting the man at all, as long as they had probable cause to do so.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... o&refer=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[baldeagle]

He didn't go to jail for the gun. He went to jail for not cooperating with police when they stopped him. You continue your childish insults if you wish, unless you come up with something factual I'm done wasting my time.

Think about what you're saying. The gun was the pretense for the stop. No law was violated. But, because the citizen asked what law he had violated and by what law they were justified in seizing his weapon, he can now be charged with obstruction. IOW, there really doesn't need to be PC or RS. All you have to do is stop someone, claim you're seizing your weapon for some bogus reason, and when you protest, you've now committed a violation for which you can be arrested.

That's baloney, pure and simple, and you are wrong, no matter how right you might think you are. You can't manufacture a confrontation and then claim that the citizen resisted and arrest them for that. You can only charge someone with obstruction if they are resisting a lawful arrest. The chicken doesn't come before the egg.

[Originalist]

Now we are comparing apples and oranges. Arrest is one thing based on PC. A detention is based on RS, which may or may not lead to PC for an arrest. Being in LE, I believe there is a significant difference.

[Originalist]

How can you articulate that I am being detained if you don't tell me what crime you suspect me of? Whats supposed to stop me from walking off? Just because you tell me I'm detained? How long are we going to stand there and stare at each other?

[EEllis]

He didn't go to jail for the gun. He went to jail for not cooperating with police when they stopped him. You continue your childish insults if you wish, unless you come up with something factual I'm done wasting my time.

Think about what you're saying. The gun was the pretense for the stop. No law was violated. But, because the citizen asked what law he had violated and by what law they were justified in seizing his weapon, he can now be charged with obstruction. IOW, there really doesn't need to be PC or RS. All you have to do is stop someone, claim you're seizing your weapon for some bogus reason, and when you protest, you've now committed a violation for which you can be arrested.

That's baloney, pure and simple, and you are wrong, no matter how right you might think you are. You can't manufacture a confrontation and then claim that the citizen resisted and arrest them for that. You can only charge someone with obstruction if they are resisting a lawful arrest. The chicken doesn't come before the egg.

That isn't how the law works. I'm sorry you just don't understand. You can be doing something perfectly legal and circumstances can still cause your behavior to rise to the level of RS. One cop even said that they would just check the guy out and he could be on his way but the guy tried his best to disrupt the police and went to jail for it. And no when writing the arrest report for obstruction they still must give RS for the stop. If they cannot then there was no legal police activity for him to obstruct and he's off the hook. RS must come before obstruction but the fact that the gun was legal doesn't eliminate the possibility of RS.

[EEllis]

How can you articulate that I am being detained if you don't tell me what crime you suspect me of? Whats supposed to stop me from walking off? Just because you tell me I'm detained? How long are we going to stand there and stare at each other?

Not to you, they must be able to do so for a court. To you "stop" is considered good enough.

[baldeagle]

So we're not comparing apples to oranges, here is Texas Law.

Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.

Before an officer can search someone, he has to have effective consent of the party to be searched, unless there are exigent circumstances. Effective consent is defined in the Penal Code section1.

(19) "Effective consent" includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if:

(A) induced by force, threat, or fraud;

(B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;

(C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable decisions; or

(D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense.

A police officer cannot use force or the threat of force to get a citizen to provide effective consent for a search. When the officer withdrew his wallet, CJ stated clearly that he did not consent. The officer didn't care. He had CJ in handcuffs and he was going to do what he wanted, regardless of what the law says. He even stated that.

[Originalist]

How can you articulate that I am being detained if you don't tell me what crime you suspect me of? Whats supposed to stop me from walking off? Just because you tell me I'm detained? How long are we going to stand there and stare at each other?

Not to you, they must be able to do so for a court. To you "stop" is considered good enough.

So your argument is an alleged RS stop would never end because you would tell me stop and I would just stand there and stare at you.... Really? And after 20 minutes of staring at you, what would you do if I walked away?

[baldeagle]

He didn't go to jail for the gun. He went to jail for not cooperating with police when they stopped him. You continue your childish insults if you wish, unless you come up with something factual I'm done wasting my time.

Think about what you're saying. The gun was the pretense for the stop. No law was violated. But, because the citizen asked what law he had violated and by what law they were justified in seizing his weapon, he can now be charged with obstruction. IOW, there really doesn't need to be PC or RS. All you have to do is stop someone, claim you're seizing your weapon for some bogus reason, and when you protest, you've now committed a violation for which you can be arrested.

That's baloney, pure and simple, and you are wrong, no matter how right you might think you are. You can't manufacture a confrontation and then claim that the citizen resisted and arrest them for that. You can only charge someone with obstruction if they are resisting a lawful arrest. The chicken doesn't come before the egg.

That isn't how the law works. I'm sorry you just don't understand. You can be doing something perfectly legal and circumstances can still cause your behavior to rise to the level of RS. One cop even said that they would just check the guy out and he could be on his way but the guy tried his best to disrupt the police and went to jail for it. And no when writing the arrest report for obstruction they still must give RS for the stop. If they cannot then there was no legal police activity for him to obstruct and he's off the hook. RS must come before obstruction but the fact that the gun was legal doesn't eliminate the possibility of RS.

And for the umpteenth time, the RS was what? According to the police it was "rudely displaying a weapon", which is not even a law, much less RS for a lawful arrest. So what was the RS that initiated the encounter?

You seem to think the police have unlimited power to arrest anyone they want, and all they have to do is make up some plausible RS after the fact and they're good to go. Under that standard anyone at any time can be arrested for anything and the law becomes meaningless. The police are our servants, not our masters.

[baldeagle]

One cop even said that they would just check the guy out and he could be on his way but the guy tried his best to disrupt the police and went to jail for it.

Have you even bothered to watch the video? He was cooperating even when the police became abusive. He never resisted. He got verbally loud, but that was it.

[EEllis]

How can you articulate that I am being detained if you don't tell me what crime you suspect me of? Whats supposed to stop me from walking off? Just because you tell me I'm detained? How long are we going to stand there and stare at each other?

Not to you, they must be able to do so for a court. To you "stop" is considered good enough.

So your argument is an alleged RS stop would never end because you would tell me stop and I would just stand there and stare at you.... Really? And after 20 minutes of staring at you, what would you do if I walked away?

No the officer should investigate his RS and let you go on your way. He does not have to say why you were stopped or what factors make up the RS and there is no specific span of time that an officer must complete his "investigations" based on RS but he can be required to justify it to a court who would decided if it were "reasonable". I imagine it would be based on how long it took to complete the actions brought on by the stop. ie in a Terry stop it would just be the length of time to make a search not the time it would take to count nose hair.

[Originalist]

I believe we are at an impasse. Clearly we have 2 different ideologies and must agree to disagree. I believe in Terry v. Ohio, 10 minutes was considered unreasonable...

[EEllis]

And for the umpteenth time, the RS was what? According to the police it was "rudely displaying a weapon", which is not even a law, much less RS for a lawful arrest. So what was the RS that initiated the encounter?

You seem to think the police have unlimited power to arrest anyone they want, and all they have to do is make up some plausible RS after the fact and they're good to go. Under that standard anyone at any time can be arrested for anything and the law becomes meaningless. The police are our servants, not our masters.

I don't know what the RS and neither do you. The cop doesn't have to say. The way the law reads they can arrest someone for the wrong reason but if the person could of been correctly charged with something else then it's a good arrest. Don't like the facts? Blame Scotus not me.

[Originalist]

A search based on what? Better get a warrant!!!

[Gat0rs]

How can you articulate that I am being detained if you don't tell me what crime you suspect me of? Whats supposed to stop me from walking off? Just because you tell me I'm detained? How long are we going to stand there and stare at each other?

Not to you, they must be able to do so for a court. To you "stop" is considered good enough.

So your argument is an alleged RS stop would never end because you would tell me stop and I would just stand there and stare at you.... Really? And after 20 minutes of staring at you, what would you do if I walked away?

No the officer should investigate his RS and let you go on your way. He does not have to say why you were stopped or what factors make up the RS and there is no specific span of time that an officer must complete his "investigations" based on RS but he can be required to justify it to a court who would decided if it were "reasonable". I imagine it would be based on how long it took to complete the actions brought on by the stop. ie in a Terry stop it would just be the length of time to make a search not the time it would take to count nose hair.

As far as I can tell, your argument is not based in law, but is based on something like: the cop can just make something up and its your word against the cop's word. Sorry, that may be how some people operate, but it is not based in the law.

The officer does have to tell you why you were stopped. Also, if you can show the officer s topped you without reasonable cause and there is some damage, you can sue them under federal law for violation of civil rights under color of law. That what they used to convict police in the south that were violating the rights of blacks, but it is equally applicable to every person's civil rights.

Further, if the police officer gets a call (recorded of course) that a person is walking around with a gun (not in violation of the law) then drives to that person and stops them (recorded on their dash cam, which you can get a copy of) then they have stopped you with no RS because walking around is not cause to stop someone.

But please, continue your arguments as to why the law doesn't work the way the law works.