Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:If she did

It still wouldn't stop a lawyer from pressing a claim to the contrary.

Ok?

I mean when is that not the case? People are allowed to sue for that, yes.

Rented Tritium wrote:Yep. Again like I said, if she didn't have reasonable suspicion, this wasn't right. Handcuffing during detainment doesn't actually require any imminent belief of harm, though. It can also be because you are about to search them or turn your back on them or whatnot.

But yes, if she didn't have reasonable suspicion, she's got nothing. If she did, she's probably in the clear.

I don't think there's any question that she had reasonable suspicion that he was violating the law - walking his dog off leash.

But really, do you think she had reasonable suspicion to think that the man was armed or posed any harm to her or bystanders sufficient for a Terry frisk? Even handcuffing him (which is below the taser level of force) would be excessive use of force for walking a dog off leash.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:If she did

It still wouldn't stop a lawyer from pressing a claim to the contrary.

Ok?

I mean when is that not the case? People are allowed to sue for that, yes.

It's never not the case. My point was just because someone ain't off the hook doesn't mean that they've done anything wrong.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Yep. Again like I said, if she didn't have reasonable suspicion, this wasn't right. Handcuffing during detainment doesn't actually require any imminent belief of harm, though. It can also be because you are about to search them or turn your back on them or whatnot.

But yes, if she didn't have reasonable suspicion, she's got nothing. If she did, she's probably in the clear.

I don't think there's any question that she had reasonable suspicion that he was violating the law - walking his dog off leash.

But really, do you think she had reasonable suspicion to think that the man was armed or posed any harm to her or bystanders sufficient for a Terry frisk? Even handcuffing him (which is below the taser level of force) would be excessive use of force for walking a dog off leash.

You really don't understand the terry stop if you think you have to have suspicion that they'd do harm. The terry stop allows you to handcuff and check for weapons if you have RS of another crime. You don't need suspicion that they'll hurt you, you just need suspicion for another crime. Then terry automatically allows for the weapons check. The handcuffs are allowed in the weapons check for general safety regardless of who the subject is.

So yes, I think she most likely had what she needed for terry. Maybe you should read terry again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:If she did

It still wouldn't stop a lawyer from pressing a claim to the contrary.

Ok?

I mean when is that not the case? People are allowed to sue for that, yes.

It's never not the case. My point was just because someone ain't off the hook doesn't mean that they've done anything wrong.

I've completely lost the thread of your argument. Could you restate your thesis so I don't accidentally strawman you?

Rented Tritium wrote:You really don't understand the terry stop if you think you have to have suspicion that they'd do harm. The terry stop allows you to handcuff and check for weapons if you have RS of another crime. You don't need suspicion that they'll hurt you, you just need suspicion for another crime. Then terry automatically allows for the weapons check. The handcuffs are allowed in the weapons check for general safety regardless of who the subject is.

So yes, I think she most likely had what she needed for terry. Maybe you should read terry again.

"Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 at 27 (1968) (emphasis added, internal citations removed).

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You really don't understand the terry stop if you think you have to have suspicion that they'd do harm. The terry stop allows you to handcuff and check for weapons if you have RS of another crime. You don't need suspicion that they'll hurt you, you just need suspicion for another crime. Then terry automatically allows for the weapons check. The handcuffs are allowed in the weapons check for general safety regardless of who the subject is.

So yes, I think she most likely had what she needed for terry. Maybe you should read terry again.

"Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 at 27 (1968) (emphasis added, internal citations removed).

Oh shoot. I'm sorry I got it swapped with one of the warrantless exceptions.

Yeah, you're correct. She needs to establish him as potentially dangerous. So some level of physical belligerence at the very least would need to have been achieved. Do we have any other news stories about this? The first one was quite light on details.

They all pretty much have similar facts. Some say he was argumentative and said he had a heart condition so couldn't tase him. Sounds like a jerk.

The more I think about it the more this sounds like big heaping spoons of justice. It screams Reno 911...

Rented Tritium wrote:Oh shoot. I'm sorry I got it swapped with one of the warrantless exceptions.

It's still an exception to the warrant requirement. I'm not aware of any exceptions (inventory search possibly) that would allow a stop and frisk of the type you're describing.

Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, you're correct. She needs to establish him as potentially dangerous. So some level of physical belligerence at the very least would need to have been achieved. Do we have any other news stories about this? The first one was quite light on details.

Physical belligerence would be sufficient even without Terry.

Frazzled wrote:The more I think about it the more this sounds like big heaping spoons of justice.

Yeah. Don't be a dick and you won't get tazed.

That doesn't mean she wasn't abusing her authority.

Biccat wrote:Yeah. Don't be a dick and you won't get tazed.

This is the rule in my house too.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Oh shoot. I'm sorry I got it swapped with one of the warrantless exceptions.

It's still an exception to the warrant requirement. I'm not aware of any exceptions (inventory search possibly) that would allow a stop and frisk of the type you're describing.

It wouldn't. I had a part of terry confused with a totally unrelated bit of warrantless exception. I was explaining my screwup. It's not actually relevant.

I rarely side with the popo but he gave a false name, and walked away.

Given that the guy didn't have identification how exactly is the Ranger going to prove it's false?

AustonT wrote:

Biccat wrote:Yeah. Don't be a dick and you won't get tazed.

This is the rule in my house too.

The Wife uses a variant of this on me, as my Mom did on Dad.
"Don't be a dick and you won't get run over. Twice."
Dad didn't learn...

Tyyr wrote:

I rarely side with the popo but he gave a false name, and walked away.

Given that the guy didn't have identification how exactly is the Ranger going to prove it's false?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the name he offered may have contained some profanity.

biccat wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

I rarely side with the popo but he gave a false name, and walked away.

Given that the guy didn't have identification how exactly is the Ranger going to prove it's false?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the name he offered may have contained some profanity.

I.P. Freelie?

biccat wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

I rarely side with the popo but he gave a false name, and walked away.

Given that the guy didn't have identification how exactly is the Ranger going to prove it's false?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the name he offered may have contained some profanity.

Alternately, if there were complaints about him, she may have already asked around about him in advance.