18 y/o Black male shot dead by Police in St Louis suburb of Berkeley MO

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

Thanks for that. I had seen some of the craziness on twitter but just chalked that up to the normal cast of characters. Some nuts on all sides on social media. The dash cams and body cams not being on bothers me, but not in determining justification in this case. I think at some point, the law has to be set up where there is a presumption of wrong doing if an officer doesn't have such cameras turned on and something bad happens. That's just a presumption, though, and can be overcome with other evidence, i.e. other video. Thanks for the info and saving me from reading all however many pages.

Since you are aware of some of the "craziness" LOL! on twitter, you may already know this, but my understanding is that the dash cam was not on because the vehicle emergency lights were not on. I believe there were issues regarding storage, etc. so the decision to tie them to lights was probably made to address both storage issues and the "human" element, i.e., the need for the officer to remember to turn them on. This may be something that needs to be looked at in the future. As to the bodycam, it is my understanding, once again from MSM (can find link if needed), that the officer had received his bodycam that day but had not yet been trained on it. In that case, I don't fault him especially since there is video footage from the store, although I DO wish he had it for video from his perspective. I actually think if there was dash cam and/or bodycam footage that supported the officer's version of events, there would still be claims of doctored footage. Video from a third party (store) would seem less biased in that case. Whatever...it's just frustrating all around and common sense seems to get thrown out the windw on all sides!

 

[leah]

I highly doubt there was any kind of ambush planned. There would have been much easier ways to do that. Simply call 911 from a house. Call in a heart attack or something. I think ambush talk is just the crazies on twitter on the LE side kind of like the crazies on the thugs side talking about using a taser. Bottom line is, the guy pulled a gun and the officer shot him. Justified IMO.

I was one of the crazies who thought it was an ambush, but now that I'm reading the safety was on the gun, I no longer think it was an ambush.

 

[sonjay]

BBM
You would know better than me, but that just doesn't seem to be what Terry vs. Ohio says

Again, this is why I keep harping on getting Police Departments to educate the public. It just isn't that clear.

So if I get pulled over for a traffic violation, I can be frisked?

Have you read Terry v. Ohio? Have you read any of the subsequent case law?

The answer to your question, if you get pulled over for a traffic violation, and if the LEO has reasonable suspicion that you may be armed and dangerous, then yes, you can be frisked.

Terry frisks, along with what are commonly referred to as Terry stops, are a surface pat-down of the person for the purpose of discovering any possible weapons, in order for the LEO to ensure his own safety. They are different from a regular search that is conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime; they are for the purpose of ensuring the safety of LEOs. Therefore, there is a fairly broad latitude on the part of police officers to conduct such a pat-down.

Antonio Martin provides a good example of why LEOs must constantly be so concerned about people that they stop suddenly pulling a gun and shooting them. The Antonio Martins of the world are why Terry frisks are needed.

 

[ontheclock]

Have you read Terry v. Ohio? Have you read any of the subsequent case law?

The answer to your question, if you get pulled over for a traffic violation, and if the LEO has reasonable suspicion that you may be armed and dangerous, then yes, you can be frisked.

Terry frisks, along with what are commonly referred to as Terry stops, are a surface pat-down of the person for the purpose of discovering any possible weapons, in order for the LEO to ensure his own safety. They are different from a regular search that is conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime; they are for the purpose of ensuring the safety of LEOs. Therefore, there is a fairly broad latitude on the part of police officers to conduct such a pat-down.

Antonio Martin provides a good example of why LEOs must constantly be so concerned about people that they stop suddenly pulling a gun and shooting them. The Antonio Martins of the world are why Terry frisks are needed.

Double, what you said.

 

[reedus23]

Since you are aware of some of the "craziness" LOL! on twitter, you may already know this, but my understanding is that the dash cam was not on because the vehicle emergency lights were not on. I believe there were issues regarding storage, etc. so the decision to tie them to lights was probably made to address both storage issues and the "human" element, i.e., the need for the officer to remember to turn them on. This may be something that needs to be looked at in the future. As to the bodycam, it is my understanding, once again from MSM (can find link if needed), that the officer had received his bodycam that day but had not yet been trained on it. In that case, I don't fault him especially since there is video footage from the store, although I DO wish he had it for video from his perspective. I actually think if there was dash cam and/or bodycam footage that supported the officer's version of events, there would still be claims of doctored footage. Video from a third party (store) would seem less biased in that case. Whatever...it's just frustrating all around and common sense seems to get thrown out the windw on all sides!

No need to go digging for links. I'm not as concerned about the cams in this specific instance. I do think it is something that needs to be discussed and looked into in the future. I do think there has to be consequences for not turning them on when interacting with the community. But that is neither here nor there as to whether or not this shooting was justified.

 

[reedus23]

I was one of the crazies who thought it was an ambush, but now that I'm reading the safety was on the gun, I no longer think it was an ambush.

I hear ya. I become crazy myself all the time. I just think that where "stories" come from tell a lot about the stories themselves. Crazies was probably a bit strong of a word and I apologize for using it. I do think that an ambush argument is an over statement from one side to strengthen their position just as planted gun is an over statement on the other side to strengthen their position.

 

[CoolJ]

I will probably regret getting into the discussion but I think that the question being discussed is:

Is LE entitled to search during every stop or every detention even if there is no articulable basis to believe that the person stopped or detained has a weapon? In other words, is there ever a scenario possible where there is reasonable suspicion to justify a stop but there isn't sufficient suspicion to justify a search?

Yes I think that is the discussion. But what I am trying to get across is that most folks do not understand their rights when interacting with LE? And, I think there are likely many LEO's who don't fully understand a persons rights when they are interacting with them. That leads to problems where problems don't already exist. My argument is for educating the public. But as you said, that is likely not going to happen.

 

[reedus23]

Have you read Terry v. Ohio? Have you read any of the subsequent case law?

The answer to your question, if you get pulled over for a traffic violation, and if the LEO has reasonable suspicion that you may be armed and dangerous, then yes, you can be frisked.

Terry frisks, along with what are commonly referred to as Terry stops, are a surface pat-down of the person for the purpose of discovering any possible weapons, in order for the LEO to ensure his own safety. They are different from a regular search that is conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime; they are for the purpose of ensuring the safety of LEOs. Therefore, there is a fairly broad latitude on the part of police officers to conduct such a pat-down.

Antonio Martin provides a good example of why LEOs must constantly be so concerned about people that they stop suddenly pulling a gun and shooting them. The Antonio Martins of the world are why Terry frisks are needed.

So they have to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed? And that suspicion is separate from the reasonable suspicion that led to the stop in the first place? Are those accurate/reasonable characterizations?

 

[Archangel7]

BBM
You would know better than me, but that just doesn't seem to be what Terry vs. Ohio says

Again, this is why I keep harping on getting Police Departments to educate the public. It just isn't that clear.

So if I get pulled over for a traffic violation, I can be frisked?

The short answer is yes depending on thousands of legal variables. For most traffic stops no.

I will do this in the spirit of cooperation....if you will open a separate thread on that subject, we can go thru different scenarios.

As I posted before, a US LEO can't just interrupt a citizen's freedom willy nilly. A citizen has a right to freedom from interference from the law. So if a LEO has reason(legal reason AND can articulate that reason in court if needed) to interrupt your movement he can frisk for weapons for his own and your safety.

Tricia has asked nicely that we stay on topic in this thread and you and I seem to get off it frequently. I suggest we take her kind/friendly hint.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Not sure what you're talking about. I read an article or two. I watched 2 of the views of the video. It all seemed to me to be a justified shooting so I paid it no more attention until I saw there was a thread here discussing it. Should I not now comment? Is that what you are suggesting or am I misreading?

<<<<go back and read YOUR post I replied to.

hahaaaaa i personally don't care if you post or not. Exactly what are you implying?:thinking: imoo

 

[sonjay]

So they have to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed? And that suspicion is separate from the reasonable suspicion that led to the stop in the first place? Are those accurate/reasonable characterizations?

You should feel free to read the decision for yourself:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

There's also subsequent case law that further clarifies the Terry decision.

I'm not qualified to give any sort of definitive opinion on whether your characterization is accurate or reasonable, and I'm not sure it's even possible. Police officers make Terry-related decisions every single day, based on the exigencies of the specific situation and the totality of the circumstances. Some of those actions are challenged in court. Some of those court decisions add yet more case law to expand on, restrict, or clarify the Terry decision. There are lots and lots of words used in those decisions. I doubt that two questions consisting of 31 words could possibly give an accurate characterization of the entire Terry opinion and the many subsequent decisions based on Terry.

 

[CoolJ]

So they have to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed? And that suspicion is separate from the reasonable suspicion that led to the stop in the first place? Are those accurate/reasonable characterizations?

This is what I am getting at reedus23. This is different from what our verified LEO is saying, and different from what I read in the case law. So who knows. But it sure would be nice to know what your rights are when interacting with LE. That is all I am getting at here. It has nothing to do with this case because there was no frisk or search in this case. Someone else brought it up and I am just making suggestions for improving things. That's all I have been doing lately and continually get attacked for it.

 

[CHERIE.T]

That has NOTHING to do with this case. Seems like an attempt to derail the discussion IMO and the mods have narrowed the discussion down to ONLY the facts in THIS CASE.

Agreed, it's quite obvious imvhoo.

 

[sonjay]

This is what I am getting at reedus23. This is different from what our verified LEO is saying, and different from what I read in the case law. So who knows. But it sure would be nice to know what your rights are when interacting with LE. That is all I am getting at here. It has nothing to do with this case because there was no frisk or search in this case. Someone else brought it up and I am just making suggestions for improving things. That's all I have been doing lately and continually get attacked for it.

When it comes to interactions such as that between Antonio Martin and LE, some of us would rather focus on the obligations of people to not shoot, try to shoot, or otherwise attack police officers. We, every last one of us, has that obligation. And if you want to talk about rights, we also have the right to not shoot police officers. However, if we do attempt to shoot a police officer, he generally has the right to shoot us first.

 

[Archangel7]

I was one of the crazies who thought it was an ambush, but now that I'm reading the safety was on the gun, I no longer think it was an ambush.

I'm not big on the ambush theory either. However the gun being "on safe" would neither positively prove the theory one way or another as a stand alone piece of evidence.

I'm not sure of what firearm the LEO was carrying but I carry different ones and some don't have a safety, some do and sometimes I don;t carry the ones with a safety "on safe." So if the LEO had or didn't have a firearm "on safe" means nothing by itself.

 

[reedus23]

Yes I think that is the discussion. But what I am trying to get across is that most folks do not understand their rights when interacting with LE? And, I think there are likely many LEO's who don't fully understand a persons rights when they are interacting with them. That leads to problems where problems don't already exist. My argument is for educating the public. But as you said, that is likely not going to happen.

Citizens need to be educated but so do some LE. Most LE are knowledgeable but I can't say I was surprised to read an officer on coptalk saying he shouldn't be crucified for not knowing the laws under various amendments. In other words, how is it his fault he doesn't know what acts are constitutional and what is not. Scary proposition.

 

[CoolJ]

When it comes to interactions such as that between Antonio Martin and LE, some of us would rather focus on the obligations of people to not shoot, try to shoot, or otherwise attack police officers. We, every last one of us, has that obligation. And if you want to talk about rights, we also have the right to not shoot police officers. However, if we do attempt to shoot a police officer, he generally has the right to shoot us first.

I think it is pretty obvious that we have an "obligation" not to shoot or attack police officers. What is not so obvious is what rights you have when interacting with police officers. Our verified LEO brought up Terry vs. Ohio. That has nothing to do with this case in particular but has lots to do with what has been going on the last 3 or 4 months. So I responded as to what I think is needed to fix the problems that we are facing today.

 

[ontheclock]

When it comes to interactions such as that between Antonio Martin and LE, some of us would rather focus on the obligations of people to not shoot, try to shoot, or otherwise attack police officers. We, every last one of us, has that obligation. And if you want to talk about rights, we also have the right to not shoot police officers. However, if we do attempt to shoot a police officer, he generally has the right to shoot us first.

Im def shooting first. Police officer or not. Point a gun at me, I'm shootin you first.

 

[sonjay]

I think it is pretty obvious that we have an "obligation" not to shoot or attack police officers. What is not so obvious is what rights you have when interacting with police officers. Our verified LEO brought up Terry vs. Ohio. That has nothing to do with this case in particular but has lots to do with what has been going on the last 3 or 4 months. So I responded as to what I think is needed to fix the problems that we are facing today.

This case in particular has nothing to do with our rights when interacting with LEO.

Antonio Martin tried to shoot a cop. The cop shot him first. That's what this case is about.

If Antonio Martin had exercised his right to not try to shoot a cop, he would still be alive today. I think the attitude that it's okay to shoot a cop is a major problem that we're facing today, and I've love to see that attitude get fixed.

 

[reedus23]

You should feel free to read the decision for yourself:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

There's also subsequent case law that further clarifies the Terry decision.

I'm not qualified to give any sort of definitive opinion on whether your characterization is accurate or reasonable, and I'm not sure it's even possible. Police officers make Terry-related decisions every single day, based on the exigencies of the specific situation and the totality of the circumstances. Some of those actions are challenged in court. Some of those court decisions add yet more case law to expand on, restrict, or clarify the Terry decision. There are lots and lots of words used in those decisions. I doubt that two questions consisting of 31 words could possibly give an accurate characterization of the entire Terry opinion and the many subsequent decisions based on Terry.

Oh I have read it and I've read more cases interpreting it than I care to admit, though I haven't read them for months and longer in some cases.