View Single Post
Old August 30, 2012, 03:39 PM   #95
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 2,609
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Actually the court adopted essentially the same standard I did suggest.
Frank, that isn't correct. The court set forth the basis for the POs reasonable suspicion. Seeking a confrontation wasn't the basis for the RS. The defendant in that case displayed specific behavior (like displaying a weapon one could reasonably conclude was not legally possessed or painting the item in a way that suggested an attempted deception) that gave rise to articulable RS.

The difference is material. If I seek a confrontation, but do nothing to provide RS, I am not subject to detention. One could give a PO a hard time with a bad attitude, maybe call him names and be an all around jerk, but that wouldn't be RS.

In the cited case, the defendant provided RS.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
No, it is because we have assigned to the police certain responsibilities and have decided at some point that carrying out those responsibilities reasonably requires that they go about carrying firearms.
If you believe that people think that each time they see a PO, and that is why they are not alarmed, we do not agree.

that observation doesn't argue against the proposition that making an event routine tends to allow people to become more familiar with it and less alarmed by it.
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Even that isn't always true.
I don't belive we disagree on that.
zukiphile is offline  
Page generated in 0.03878 seconds with 7 queries