Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate

[Disir]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

 

[danielpalos]

In my opinion, it is more about the lack of an express Prohibition clause since the repeal of that Bad idea, last millennium. It simply needs to be litigated better.

 

[SavannahMann]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

No corner of the globe is unaffected by his efforts. No policy area is left untouched. On the surface, the vast number of groups and people he supports seem unrelated. After all, what does climate change have to do with illegal African immigration to Israel? What does Occupy Wall Street have to do with Greek immigration policies? But the fact is that Soros-backed projects share basic common attributes. They all work to weaken the ability of national and local authorities in Western democracies to uphold the laws and values of their nations and communities.“ She illustrates this with Black Lives Matter whose role it is to divide the population, to create hatred and to intimidate the police:

 

[Disir]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

 

[SavannahMann]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come up with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

 

[Disir]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come p with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

I'm well acquainted with the Fourth Amendment.

Let me make myself very clear. Any man with a gun outside of a women's shelter is cause for alarm. That's why the call was made in the first place. The anonymous person in the background was not crying or screaming. She was not panicking. I find that disturbing. If you call 911 from a women's shelter...........be sure to panic or it doesn't count.

 

[SavannahMann]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come p with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

I'm well acquainted with the Fourth Amendment.

Let me make myself very clear. Any man with a gun outside of a women's shelter is cause for alarm. That's why the call was made in the first place. The anonymous person in the background was not crying or screaming. She was not panicking. I find that disturbing. If you call 911 from a women's shelter...........be sure to panic or it doesn't count.

Nonsense. Absolute garbage. So let me understand your position. I am a licensed concealed carry person. I am walking from one place, to another and passing in front of a women’s shelter. A gust of wind exposes my gun from it’s concealed position. Your assertion is that the women should panic, and the cops should roll the SWAT team and then what?

In Georgia, about 10% of the people have Concealed Carry Licenses. They all don’t carry all the time. So let’s say that one in 20 who pass in front of the women’s shelter are armed.

Now I guess we could set up checkpoints. Locations where you have to be screened by security before you walk on the street. Crap.

A random fellow walking by is not a threat. If you want to really help those women, teach them to shoot. Do not argue that a random person walking by with no known connection to anyone inside is a threat and we have to find yet another exception to the 4th Amendment. Because that is what you are arguing. There is a Women’s shelter on the next block and the a Supreme Court has granted police special authority to search people at random. Nonsense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

It doesn't mean he should be subject to an unwarranted search and arrest, either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come p with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

I'm well acquainted with the Fourth Amendment.

Let me make myself very clear. Any man with a gun outside of a women's shelter is cause for alarm. That's why the call was made in the first place. The anonymous person in the background was not crying or screaming. She was not panicking. I find that disturbing. If you call 911 from a women's shelter...........be sure to panic or it doesn't count.

Law enforcement can keep a woman in a shelter safe absent arrest.

This is a sound ruling.

Limiting government authority is always beneficial to society.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come up with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

I stopped a man I know who was a child molester, no reason, he was carrying a real badge and a gun. I got a conviction. So what the problem, subject running form the cops and he has a gun is enough reason to shoot as far as I am seeing it.

 

[SavannahMann]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come up with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

I stopped a man I know who was a child molester, no reason, he was carrying a real badge and a gun. I got a conviction. So what the problem, subject running form the cops and he has a gun is enough reason to shoot as far as I am conserved.

And the Congress is trying to take control of every little puddle right?

 

[Disir]

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come p with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

I'm well acquainted with the Fourth Amendment.

Let me make myself very clear. Any man with a gun outside of a women's shelter is cause for alarm. That's why the call was made in the first place. The anonymous person in the background was not crying or screaming. She was not panicking. I find that disturbing. If you call 911 from a women's shelter...........be sure to panic or it doesn't count.

Nonsense. Absolute garbage. So let me understand your position. I am a licensed concealed carry person. I am walking from one place, to another and passing in front of a women’s shelter. A gust of wind exposes my gun from it’s concealed position. Your assertion is that the women should panic, and the cops should roll the SWAT team and then what?

In Georgia, about 10% of the people have Concealed Carry Licenses. They all don’t carry all the time. So let’s say that one in 20 who pass in front of the women’s shelter are armed.

Now I guess we could set up checkpoints. Locations where you have to be screened by security before you walk on the street. Crap.

A random fellow walking by is not a threat. If you want to really help those women, teach them to shoot. Do not argue that a random person walking by with no known connection to anyone inside is a threat and we have to find yet another exception to the 4th Amendment. Because that is what you are arguing. There is a Women’s shelter on the next block and the a Supreme Court has granted police special authority to search people at random. Nonsense.

1. He didn't have a license.
2. You have nothing that says that the wind pulled his shirt up.
3. You don't know if he didn't have a connection to anyone inside. That's why the call was made to begin with. That's my issue with it. I don't give a shit about you, your other cases or your gun.

 

[Disir]

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come p with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

I'm well acquainted with the Fourth Amendment.

Let me make myself very clear. Any man with a gun outside of a women's shelter is cause for alarm. That's why the call was made in the first place. The anonymous person in the background was not crying or screaming. She was not panicking. I find that disturbing. If you call 911 from a women's shelter...........be sure to panic or it doesn't count.

Law enforcement can keep a woman in a shelter safe absent arrest.

This is a sound ruling.

Limiting government authority is always beneficial to society.

By sitting outside? That is a jacked up ruling.

 

[the other mike]

Seattle has become one big experiment in and of itself.
If you have to go up there, you're better off about 100 miles east of Seattle in Moses Lake or someplace.
(the climate is better there too)

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Being black, having a gun and running from police is not a crime, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has reversed a federal judge and suppressed evidence used to convict a Seattle man on federal gun and drug charges.

The unanimous, precedent-setting opinion by a three-member panel of judges on the San Francisco-based appellate court likely means the 2017 convictions of 38-year-old Daniel Derek Brown — and his six-year prison term — will be thrown out and Brown will be freed, according to his attorney. The judges found that two King County Sheriff’s Office Metro Transit officers did not have sufficient reason to chase him down and arrest him at gunpoint after an anonymous tipster called 911 to report seeing a black man with a gun.

Brown ran after the deputies followed him in a vehicle for several blocks through Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood. They found a loaded handgun, drugs and cash on him after his arrest.

The stop was particularly tenuous, according to the court’s 18-page opinion issued this week, because some citizens — particularly people of color — may have good reason to run from police in these times of heightened racial tension. By itself, it does not form the sort of “reasonable suspicion” an officer needs to justify stopping someone, the court found.
Being black, having a gun and fleeing is not reason enough for police to stop someone, appellate court rules in Seattle case

Hmmmm...........chasing man with gun with crack and cash thus proving the suspicion can no longer be enough based on race. I haven't read the opinion yet.

The Court is saying the ends do not justify the means. It is legal to carry concealed in Oregon. So a black man with a gun report, third hand, is not enough without some other crime, like brandishing or threatening someone. The police had no reason to follow him. No probable cause for the pursuit. It was not a traffic violation that gave them an excuse.

The police had no information on any crime before they executed the traffic stop. Psychic don’t cut it.

Then Cops should not respond to a gun call in any matter. Drugs do not count. OK I will just have to shoot the SOB and lose him in the dark. Right. Or wait a hour to answer the call.

How do you not have reasonable suspicion with a guy walking around with a gun outside a shelter? Walking away doesn't mean he isn't walking back.

The Fourth Amendment. Allow me to quote it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

Now what probable cause did the police have? Is it illegal to carry a gun? Did someone see it inadvertently? A gust of wind blew the concealing clothing and allowed it to be glimpsed? That is not against the law. There was no crime yet.

This fellow took matters into his own hands, and was the one who went to jail. Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally permitted to have

But back to this case. There was no probable cause, none, for the police to follow the individual. No crime had been committed. Unless you are in favor of police being able to stop people to see what they might be doing. Perhaps we can come up with an appropriate phrase for those stops. I know. “Papers Comrade?”

It was an illegal stop. So the evidence has to be thrown out, and with it the verdict. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

I stopped a man I know who was a child molester, no reason, he was carrying a real badge and a gun. I got a conviction. So what the problem, subject running form the cops and he has a gun is enough reason to shoot as far as I am seeing it.

Any person running with a gun can file wildly behind him killing you so I would cap him in a heart beat.