Originally Posted by SAM57
I will try and make this easier for you to understand.
I think we understand quite adequately, and there seems to be a consensus that THIS case did not involve profiling.
Here is the definition:
Profiling, according to the State Legislature’s current policies,
occurs when law enforcement targets an individual exhibiting
characteristics of a class that an officer believes more likely than others to
commit a crime. The practice of targeting an individual because they are
riding a motorcycle or wearing motorcycle paraphernalia is a perfect
example of profiling. (Definition of profiling in SB 5852 passed in 2002.)
But the biker in this case was not stopped because he was riding a motorcycle or because he was wearing motorcycle paraphernalia. According to your opening post, he was stopped because he was wearing Hell's Angels paraphernalia while riding in Pagans' turf. That gave the officer a suspicion (which he considered to be reasonable -- apparently the court subsequently disagreed) that the biker was probably armed and probably did not have a DE permit to carry.
That's not profiling. That's acting on a suspicion of potential criminal activity. In Terry v. Ohio
the Supreme Court made it clear that what constitutes a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" is not etched in granite. The same conditions encountered at noon on a Wednesday might not arouse suspicion but when encountered at 03:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning WOULD arouse suspicion.
Like others, I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. You started off saying you'd love to have our opinion. We gave it to you -- including an opinion from an experienced attorney. Now that you have the opinions you asked for, you seem to think you need to "educate" us about something.
Did you really want our opinion, or did you come here seeking an argument?