User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:46:14 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What exactly is wrong with talking with someone a police officer feels is suspicious? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, drunk dude got out of the car he was seen driving and got a DUI. Cop had no reason to go talk to him except he "felt" it was "suspicious." That said, the DUI guy is an idiot. What would the cops have done if the guy had pulled into the motel then right back out and went the opposite way? Is it still "legal" to pull them over for "avoiding a checkpoint?" What exactly is wrong with talking with someone a police officer feels is suspicious? Ya I have no problem with this. I don't agree with check points, but even if it wasn't there, and a cop saw a guy pull into a vacant business and get out, I'd ask questions too. Imagine if that guy decided to run a red light and kill a family or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:47:42 AM EDT
[#2]
roadblocks are BS
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:48:10 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=45624 You're comparing apples to dildo's dude...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Probably should have killed all those iraqis who turned around at our checkpoints. Suspicious as hell http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=45624 You're comparing apples to dildo's dude...... Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:50:29 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably should have killed all those iraqis who turned around at our checkpoints. Suspicious as hell http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=45624 You're comparing apples to dildo's dude...... Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. No, no it isn't. The cop went to see if the guy was up to something, you are advocating being judge, jury and executioner (Not that I give two shits about the Iraqis, mind you) and they are not even closely related points. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 11:51:09 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly what I think of your post. But hey, since he was actually caught doing something illegal, right? Your reply simply does not make sense. There was no violation of his rights. It was a consensual encounter. There is no "ends justify the means argument." There were no "ends" to justify. You said you were curious why it was suspicious to the officer. Well only he knows that, but his suspicions were accurate. I'm sorry if my simple logic is too complicated for you bud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:00:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, no it isn't. The cop went to see if the guy was up to something, you are advocating being judge, jury and executioner (Not that I give two shits about the Iraqis, mind you) and they are not even closely related points. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably should have killed all those iraqis who turned around at our checkpoints. Suspicious as hell http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=45624 You're comparing apples to dildo's dude...... Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. No, no it isn't. The cop went to see if the guy was up to something, you are advocating being judge, jury and executioner (Not that I give two shits about the Iraqis, mind you) and they are not even closely related points. Pro-tip: I wasn't referring to the killing, that wasn't the idea, that was the execution of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:02:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud.  I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:03:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably should have killed all those iraqis who turned around at our checkpoints. Suspicious as hell http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=45624 You're comparing apples to dildo's dude...... Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. Please explain? I'm not following... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:05:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Once upon a time we only arrested people who actually committed a crime, like hurting others or breaking shit. Now it's turned into a politically charged excuse to generate revenue for the courts and their cronies in the insurance, legal and substance abuse industries and to curry favor with the MADD crowd.
I was once on board with DUI laws until they implied consent for blood alcohol. Now they want warrantless blood draws and take away your DL if you refuse to dance like a monkey alongside the road. Now in many places you can get a DUI without even putting the car in drive or even starting the damn thing! Meanwhile we see nearly just as many vehicle deaths at the hands of sober idiots that are simply written off as "tragedies" with zero repercussions short of higher insurance premuims, maybe. Fuck that. Fuck every DUI law ever written and every fool who supports them. If a cop can't make enough of a case against a driver who's been drinking from the myriad of traffic laws we have besides the DUI laws then he probably shouldn't have stopped the drunk to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:06:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pro-tip: I wasn't referring to the killing, that wasn't the idea, that was the execution of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably should have killed all those iraqis who turned around at our checkpoints. Suspicious as hell http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=45624 You're comparing apples to dildo's dude...... Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. No, no it isn't. The cop went to see if the guy was up to something, you are advocating being judge, jury and executioner (Not that I give two shits about the Iraqis, mind you) and they are not even closely related points. Pro-tip: I wasn't referring to the killing, that wasn't the idea, that was the execution of it. Fuck. I fail at threading. So... how about them bears? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:07:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your reply simply does not make sense. There was no violation of his rights. It was a consensual encounter. There is no "ends justify the means argument." There were no "ends" to justify. You said you were curious why it was suspicious to the officer. Well only he knows that, but his suspicions were accurate. I'm sorry if my simple logic is too complicated for you bud. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Exactly what I think of your post. But hey, since he was actually caught doing something illegal, right? Your reply simply does not make sense. There was no violation of his rights. It was a consensual encounter. There is no "ends justify the means argument." There were no "ends" to justify. You said you were curious why it was suspicious to the officer. Well only he knows that, but his suspicions were accurate. I'm sorry if my simple logic is too complicated for you bud. And if his suspicions had been wrong, would you be on here praising his work? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:08:32 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please explain? I'm not following... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably should have killed all those iraqis who turned around at our checkpoints. Suspicious as hell http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=45624 You're comparing apples to dildo's dude...... Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. Please explain? I'm not following... Just because someone turns around at a checkpoint, doesn't mean they're guilty nor does it mean they should be questioned. The act of turning around in of itself is not suspicious unless that PERSON viewing it makes it suspicious in their own mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:10:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud. I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Whoa chief, no one is saying the guy's rights were violated, so your question is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:34:48 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whoa chief, no one is saying the guy's rights were violated, so your question is irrelevant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud. I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Whoa chief, no one is saying the guy's rights were violated, so your question is irrelevant. My apologies. I did assume that is where you were heading with this. Serious apology.....I realize internet discussions leave alot of room for error in terms of translation & understanding. In rephrasing......If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would you have had a problem with the officer's actions and if so, why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:45:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once upon a time we only arrested people who actually committed a crime, like hurting others or breaking shit. Now it's turned into a politically charged excuse to generate revenue for the courts and their cronies in the insurance, legal and substance abuse industries and to curry favor with the MADD crowd. I was once on board with DUI laws until they implied consent for blood alcohol. Now they want warrantless blood draws and take away your DL if you refuse to dance like a monkey alongside the road. Now in many places you can get a DUI without even putting the car in drive or even starting the damn thing! Meanwhile we see nearly just as many vehicle deaths at the hands of sober idiots that are simply written off as "tragedies" with zero repercussions short of higher insurance premuims, maybe. Fuck that. Fuck every DUI law ever written and every fool who supports them. If a cop can't make enough of a case against a driver who's been drinking from the myriad of traffic laws we have besides the DUI laws then he probably shouldn't have stopped the drunk to begin with. DUI is illegal and therefore, DUI is breaking the law, precisely because in many cases it involved hurting or killing people and breaking shit. The only revenue generated by DUI is for the defense attorney's and the insurance companies. State of Missouri doesn't get that much and most likely loses money on the deal when prison/incarceration costs are factored in. I don't like MAAD very much either. Implied consent is how the State deals with non compliance on breath/blood tests. The other option is to forcibly take blood from a subject which IMO (and thankfully that of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals) requires a search warrant. The only recourse to the increase in driver fatalities not involving alcohol that I can think of offhand is to increase the requirements for driver's training like many other countries do. I'm not a "Lets become Europe" kinda guy, but most of the drivers & motorcyclists in Europe and Japan are far better trained and thus far better driver's than those in the US. I'm sure there is alot more involved in that, but I'm just spit balling here. If you've got a better way of reducing it, I'm willing to listen. I think you have things confused. The traffic laws are what generally, (check points not withstanding, I dont like them, dont agree with them, and I have not seen cop in this thread advocating them....and there are several cops in this thread....I'm the only one with the obvious avatar) get you to stop the subject who later ends up being DUI. The traffic laws and the violation of them is the cause for the stop and is grounds to show impairment and subsequent arrest for DUI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:47:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud. I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:52:00 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud. I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Yes. How? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:54:38 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My apologies. I did assume that is where you were heading with this. Serious apology.....I realize internet discussions leave alot of room for error in terms of translation & understanding. In rephrasing......If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would you have had a problem with the officer's actions and if so, why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud. I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Whoa chief, no one is saying the guy's rights were violated, so your question is irrelevant. My apologies. I did assume that is where you were heading with this. Serious apology.....I realize internet discussions leave alot of room for error in terms of translation & understanding. In rephrasing......If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would you have had a problem with the officer's actions and if so, why? Like I said, I'm just curious as to the officer finding someone turning around suspicious unless it was dept. policy to pull people over who avoid checkpoints. Yes, I have a problem with police pulling people over who avoid checkpoints, due to the fact that checkpoints are a waste of time and impede traffic. Just avoiding a checkpoint is not RS nor should it be so yes, I have a problem with it. You should not be stopping people for no reason at all. Avoiding a checkpoint is no reason at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:56:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And if his suspicions had been wrong, would you be on here praising his work? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly what I think of your post. But hey, since he was actually caught doing something illegal, right? Your reply simply does not make sense. There was no violation of his rights. It was a consensual encounter. There is no "ends justify the means argument." There were no "ends" to justify. You said you were curious why it was suspicious to the officer. Well only he knows that, but his suspicions were accurate. I'm sorry if my simple logic is too complicated for you bud. And if his suspicions had been wrong, would you be on here praising his work? If by "his work" you mean having a casual encounter with a citizen, then yes of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:57:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because someone turns around at a checkpoint, doesn't mean they're guilty nor does it mean they should be questioned. The act of turning around in of itself is not suspicious unless that PERSON viewing it makes it suspicious in their own mind. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably should have killed all those iraqis who turned around at our checkpoints. Suspicious as hell http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=45624 You're comparing apples to dildo's dude...... Actually, while fairly far-reaching, no....the actual underlying idea behind it is comparable. Please explain? I'm not following... Just because someone turns around at a checkpoint, doesn't mean they're guilty nor does it mean they should be questioned. The act of turning around in of itself is not suspicious unless that PERSON viewing it makes it suspicious in their own mind. It doesn't matter if you consider it suspicious or not. Reasonable suspicion is not needed for a consensual encounter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:57:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud. I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Yes. How? You cant pull someone without a violation of some sort. Legal turn and no violations seen according to your scenario. Unless I misread. If you cant legally pull them everything that happens after they are pulled is a violation of their rights. Again this is what we are talking about in this hypothetical right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:57:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, I'm just curious as to the officer finding someone turning around suspicious unless it was dept. policy to pull people over who avoid checkpoints. Yes, I have a problem with police pulling people over who avoid checkpoints, due to the fact that checkpoints are a waste of time and impede traffic. Just avoiding a checkpoint is not RS nor should it be so yes, I have a problem with it. You should not be stopping people for no reason at all. Avoiding a checkpoint is no reason at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud. I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Whoa chief, no one is saying the guy's rights were violated, so your question is irrelevant. My apologies. I did assume that is where you were heading with this. Serious apology.....I realize internet discussions leave alot of room for error in terms of translation & understanding. In rephrasing......If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would you have had a problem with the officer's actions and if so, why? Like I said, I'm just curious as to the officer finding someone turning around suspicious unless it was dept. policy to pull people over who avoid checkpoints. Yes, I have a problem with police pulling people over who avoid checkpoints, due to the fact that checkpoints are a waste of time and impede traffic. Just avoiding a checkpoint is not RS nor should it be so yes, I have a problem with it. You should not be stopping people for no reason at all. Avoiding a checkpoint is no reason at all. What's your position on investigative stops? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 12:59:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, I'm just curious as to the officer finding someone turning around suspicious unless it was dept. policy to pull people over who avoid checkpoints. Yes, I have a problem with police pulling people over who avoid checkpoints, due to the fact that checkpoints are a waste of time and impede traffic. Just avoiding a checkpoint is not RS nor should it be so yes, I have a problem with it. You should not be stopping people for no reason at all. Avoiding a checkpoint is no reason at all. He didn't pull the guy over. It was not a traffic stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:02:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He didn't pull the guy over. It was not a traffic stop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Like I said, I'm just curious as to the officer finding someone turning around suspicious unless it was dept. policy to pull people over who avoid checkpoints. Yes, I have a problem with police pulling people over who avoid checkpoints, due to the fact that checkpoints are a waste of time and impede traffic. Just avoiding a checkpoint is not RS nor should it be so yes, I have a problem with it. You should not be stopping people for no reason at all. Avoiding a checkpoint is no reason at all. He didn't pull the guy over. It was not a traffic stop. No one said he did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:04:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It doesn't matter if you consider it suspicious or not. Reasonable suspicion is not needed for a consensual encounter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just because someone turns around at a checkpoint, doesn't mean they're guilty nor does it mean they should be questioned. The act of turning around in of itself is not suspicious unless that PERSON viewing it makes it suspicious in their own mind. It doesn't matter if you consider it suspicious or not. Reasonable suspicion is not needed for a consensual encounter. Learn to read, we're not talking about the specific case in teh OP right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:04:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If by "his work" you mean having a casual encounter with a citizen, then yes of course. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly what I think of your post. But hey, since he was actually caught doing something illegal, right? Your reply simply does not make sense. There was no violation of his rights. It was a consensual encounter. There is no "ends justify the means argument." There were no "ends" to justify. You said you were curious why it was suspicious to the officer. Well only he knows that, but his suspicions were accurate. I'm sorry if my simple logic is too complicated for you bud. And if his suspicions had been wrong, would you be on here praising his work? If by "his work" you mean having a casual encounter with a citizen, then yes of course. Mhm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:06:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You cant pull someone without a violation of some sort. Legal turn and no violations seen according to your scenario. Unless I misread. If you cant legally pull them everything that happens after they are pulled is a violation of their rights. Again this is what we are talking about in this hypothetical right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And that's fine......I just don't see it the same way. /shrug Course, I think checkpoints are a fuckin waste of time and stupid as fuck so anything people can do to avoid them I applaud. I don't agree with check points either. But its only because the officer followed up the subject who turned around at the check point and was later found to be drunk that this is even being discussed. Let me ask you this: If the subject had just turned around, driven off, and been stopped by the police officer due solely to avoiding the check point, and it turned out the subject wasn't DUI, just lost and trying to get somewhere...with the whole interaction being less than 5 minutes from start to finish, and ending with the subject driving away...would his rights have been violated? Yes. How? You cant pull someone without a violation of some sort. Legal turn and no violations seen according to your scenario. Unless I misread. If you cant legally pull them everything that happens after they are pulled is a violation of their rights. Again this is what we are talking about in this hypothetical right? No. You are incorrect. I can stop and have stopped people for investigative reasons before and made good arrests from them. Most of the time investigative stops turn out to be nothing. I stopped a gentleman who standing at a street corner at 130 am last week. He was having a pretty serious disagreement with a street sign, and based on his body language, he was losing. Turns out he was drunk, high on heroin, and had a couple of buttons of heroin in his pockets. That was an investigative stop that turned into a felony arrest. Had another one where a car had driven past a closed jewelry store at 2 am two times in a 15 minute period. Each time he slowed as he passed the store, but did not commit any traffic violations. I stopped him and it turns out he had intended on burglarizing the store, and had warrants for other similar burglaries. I could go on with other examples, but you get the idea. If the investigative stop takes a short period of time and the subject detained is not issued citations/summonses or arrested for something that did not occur....how are their rights violated? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:08:28 PM EDT
[#28]
They got the decision correct, but as an aside, checkpoints are anathema to liberty and a free populace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:10:27 PM EDT
[#29]
In VA if you pull over a car without witnessing a violation anything that comes from that stop is getting thrown out, obviously this isn't the case in you AO. Sorry for not quoting for continuity but fuck the new quote system.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:10:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Learn to read, we're not talking about the specific case in teh OP right now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because someone turns around at a checkpoint, doesn't mean they're guilty nor does it mean they should be questioned. The act of turning around in of itself is not suspicious unless that PERSON viewing it makes it suspicious in their own mind. It doesn't matter if you consider it suspicious or not. Reasonable suspicion is not needed for a consensual encounter. Learn to read, we're not talking about the specific case in teh OP right now. Like I said, I'm just curious as to the officer finding someone turning around suspicious unless it was dept. policy to pull people over who avoid checkpoints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:10:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mhm. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:12:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In VA if you pull over a car without witnessing a violation anything that comes from that stop is getting thrown out, obviously this isn't the case in you AO. Sorry for not quoting for continuity but fuck the new quote system. You missed the point, or didn't read the article. This was a tier one "consentual" encounter at the beginning that led to an arrest later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:13:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You missed the point, or didn't read the article. This was a tier one "consentual" encounter at the beginning that led to an arrest later. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In VA if you pull over a car without witnessing a violation anything that comes from that stop is getting thrown out, obviously this isn't the case in you AO. Sorry for not quoting for continuity but fuck the new quote system. You missed the point, or didn't read the article. This was a tier one "consentual" encounter at the beginning that led to an arrest later. Nope, side discussion brought on by a hypothetical scenario posted by op. Not discussing the case. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:14:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In VA if you pull over a car without witnessing a violation anything that comes from that stop is getting thrown out, obviously this isn't the case in you AO. Sorry for not quoting for continuity but fuck the new quote system. So, investigative stops in VA are illegal? Interesting. Do you have a link or cite for that? Genuinely curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:15:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope, side discussion brought on by a hypothetical scenario posted by op. Not discussing the case. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: In VA if you pull over a car without witnessing a violation anything that comes from that stop is getting thrown out, obviously this isn't the case in you AO. Sorry for not quoting for continuity but fuck the new quote system. You missed the point, or didn't read the article. This was a tier one "consentual" encounter at the beginning that led to an arrest later. Nope, side discussion brought on by a hypothetical scenario posted by op. Not discussing the case. apologies, you're correct
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:16:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:17:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, investigative stops in VA are illegal? Interesting. Do you have a link or cite for that? Genuinely curious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In VA if you pull over a car without witnessing a violation anything that comes from that stop is getting thrown out, obviously this isn't the case in you AO. Sorry for not quoting for continuity but fuck the new quote system. So, investigative stops in VA are illegal? Interesting. Do you have a link or cite for that? Genuinely curious. I have no clue over the legality of an investigative stop. I have personally seen cases tossed for not providing a proper reason for initiating a stop in va. Smart Va cops will simply follow a suspicious vehicle until they commit a violation. Keeps it simple.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:20:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
apologies, you're correct Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In VA if you pull over a car without witnessing a violation anything that comes from that stop is getting thrown out, obviously this isn't the case in you AO. Sorry for not quoting for continuity but fuck the new quote system. You missed the point, or didn't read the article. This was a tier one "consentual" encounter at the beginning that led to an arrest later. Nope, side discussion brought on by a hypothetical scenario posted by op. Not discussing the case. apologies, you're correct Not your fault bud. I was unable to continue quoting the relevant discussion because of the wacky quote trimming mechanism at arf currently. Go BRAVES. No wildcard shenanigans this year. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:20:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Actually, it did. Just not at the time of the first encounter. Since you seem to be all over the place, referring to this specific incident, what exactly is your issue with it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:20:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Diasgree. The incident in the OP that the case is about is saved IMO, by the subject pulling into a known to be closed business and exiting the vehicle. When approached by a curious police officer who is investigating a suspicious person, the subject states he trying to get a room at the closed hotel. That is a very clear cut investigative stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:27:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Checkpoints are stupid and unconstitutional. Shame on the SCOTUS for allowing them. Slippery slope. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:47:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Diasgree. The incident in the OP that the case is about is saved IMO, by the subject pulling into a known to be closed business and exiting the vehicle. When approached by a curious police officer who is investigating a suspicious person, the subject states he trying to get a room at the closed hotel. That is a very clear cut investigative stop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Diasgree. The incident in the OP that the case is about is saved IMO, by the subject pulling into a known to be closed business and exiting the vehicle. When approached by a curious police officer who is investigating a suspicious person, the subject states he trying to get a room at the closed hotel. That is a very clear cut investigative stop. Officer had no RS, therefore, no IS. Officer didn't see the person get out and be suspicious until he already followed the non-suspicous vehicle on a hunch...so it cannot be IS. Had he seen the person get out of the vehicle and be suspicious before driving over there, I would agree. But he did not so I cannot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:48:15 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, it did. Just not at the time of the first encounter. Since you seem to be all over the place, referring to this specific incident, what exactly is your issue with it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Actually, it did. Just not at the time of the first encounter. Since you seem to be all over the place, referring to this specific incident, what exactly is your issue with it? Not adept at common sense, reading comprehension, and logic, eh? I've already stated what my concern is regarding the OP. If you can't find it, that's not our fault. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:52:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Tried to check into a closed motel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 1:54:25 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Officer had no RS, therefore, no IS. Officer didn't see the person get out and be suspicious until he already followed the non-suspicous vehicle on a hunch...so it cannot be IS. Had he seen the person get out of the vehicle and be suspicious before driving over there, I would agree. But he did not so I cannot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Diasgree. The incident in the OP that the case is about is saved IMO, by the subject pulling into a known to be closed business and exiting the vehicle. When approached by a curious police officer who is investigating a suspicious person, the subject states he trying to get a room at the closed hotel. That is a very clear cut investigative stop. Officer had no RS, therefore, no IS. Officer didn't see the person get out and be suspicious until he already followed the non-suspicous vehicle on a hunch...so it cannot be IS. Had he seen the person get out of the vehicle and be suspicious before driving over there, I would agree. But he did not so I cannot. He also didn't stop the guy until he saw something that gave him RS. Following someone is not the same as stopping them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:00:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He also didn't stop the guy until he saw something that gave him RS. Following someone is not the same as stopping them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Diasgree. The incident in the OP that the case is about is saved IMO, by the subject pulling into a known to be closed business and exiting the vehicle. When approached by a curious police officer who is investigating a suspicious person, the subject states he trying to get a room at the closed hotel. That is a very clear cut investigative stop. Officer had no RS, therefore, no IS. Officer didn't see the person get out and be suspicious until he already followed the non-suspicous vehicle on a hunch...so it cannot be IS. Had he seen the person get out of the vehicle and be suspicious before driving over there, I would agree. But he did not so I cannot. He also didn't stop the guy until he saw something that gave him RS. Following someone is not the same as stopping them. And my point is that I don't think he should have been there to do a stop in the first place, simply because the guy pulled into a parking lot. 
Therefore, no IS should have happened because there should have been no RS because he shouldn't have followed him. Thank you for helping prove my point. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:00:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably should have killed all those iraqis who turned around at our checkpoints. Suspicious as hell 
You win the internets..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:00:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not adept at common sense, reading comprehension, and logic, eh? I've already stated what my concern is regarding the OP. If you can't find it, that's not our fault. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Actually, it did. Just not at the time of the first encounter. Since you seem to be all over the place, referring to this specific incident, what exactly is your issue with it? Not adept at common sense, reading comprehension, and logic, eh? I've already stated what my concern is regarding the OP. If you can't find it, that's not our fault. If you say so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:02:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you say so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's your position on investigative stops? Q: What is an investigative stop? A: An investigative stop occurs when a police officer briefly detains you because of a “reasonable suspicion,” based upon explainable, objective facts that you are engaged in criminal activity. A modest amount of suspicion is enough for a brief stop, but a vague hunch is not. I fully agree with them. The incident in the OP, however, had nothing of the sort. Actually, it did. Just not at the time of the first encounter. Since you seem to be all over the place, referring to this specific incident, what exactly is your issue with it? Not adept at common sense, reading comprehension, and logic, eh? I've already stated what my concern is regarding the OP. If you can't find it, that's not our fault. If you say so. It's not me.....it's the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2013 2:03:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And my point is that I don't think he should have been there to do a stop in the first place, simply because the guy pulled into a parking lot.
Therefore, no IS should have happened because there should have been no RS because he shouldn't have followed him. Thank you for helping prove my point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Diasgree. The incident in the OP that the case is about is saved IMO, by the subject pulling into a known to be closed business and exiting the vehicle. When approached by a curious police officer who is investigating a suspicious person, the subject states he trying to get a room at the closed hotel. That is a very clear cut investigative stop. Officer had no RS, therefore, no IS. Officer didn't see the person get out and be suspicious until he already followed the non-suspicous vehicle on a hunch...so it cannot be IS. Had he seen the person get out of the vehicle and be suspicious before driving over there, I would agree. But he did not so I cannot. He also didn't stop the guy until he saw something that gave him RS. Following someone is not the same as stopping them. And my point is that I don't think he should have been there to do a stop in the first place, simply because the guy pulled into a parking lot.
Therefore, no IS should have happened because there should have been no RS because he shouldn't have followed him. Thank you for helping prove my point. Except that the officer didn't stop the guy until he was heading for the door of a closed building. That's not RS? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
