Family Of Victim Killed By Police; Awarded $15 Million Settlement -- Who Should Pay??

[Superbadbrutha]

He can't do a full search but can a pat for weapons.

He can stop them and ask question in while conducting an investigation. If the person stopped refuses to answer questions and/or cooperate in that investigation, that person is likely to become a suspect, and the police can hold them for a period of time while they investigate further.

But, I agree that they cannot be searched other than a pat down for weapons (SCOTUS ruled it was not unreasonable to pat for weapons for the safety of all involved).

A huge majority of these police shoot/brutality issue start with the belief that police do not have the authority to stop people and investigate, LIKE WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO.

But I ask you the same question--**** tha police and we all protect ourselves?

What's it gonna be?

I am good either way.

He has to have a legitimate reason for patting you down.

 

[alang1216]

If you struggle for even a second, the cops should blow your ******* head off. You should at least get your teeth smashed in with his nightstick.

Does that same rule apply to the Jan 6 people who broke into the Capitol?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He has to have a legitimate reason for patting you down.

He can pat down in the course of an investigation if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person could be armed.


Pat-Down Searches

Pat-Down Search​

A pat-down search is when a police officer pats down the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons. A pat-down searchconstitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pat-down searches, incident to an investigatory stops, are usually made without a warrant and justified if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person being searched is armed and dangerous. The reasonableness of suspicion is reviewed based on the totality of circumstances and both the subjective individual experience of the officer and the objective factors at the time would be taken into consideration. For instance, in Rogue v. States, 311 Ga. App. 421, 715 S.E. 2d 814 (2011), the court found that because the police lacked specific information about the vehicle passenger during a valid traffic stop, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous; therefore the police officer was not justified in the pat-down search of the passenger.​

Pat-down searches serve to ensure the officer’s safety, and thus, the conduct should not exceed what is necessary to serve that purpose. Objects obtained during a pat-down searchshould be immediately identifiable to be admissible evidence. If, during a pat-down, the officer feels an object he reasonably suspects may be a weapon by its contour, the officer may reach for the object and remove it. The officer may also seize the objects during an otherwise legitimate pat-down search if by plain feel he reasonably believes it to be contraband.


You know what gives reasonable suspicion?

Not cooperating. That is almost universally going to be considered suspicious behavior by a court.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

He can pat down in the course of an investigation if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person could be armed.


Pat-Down Searches

Pat-Down Search​

A pat-down search is when a police officer pats down the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons. A pat-down searchconstitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pat-down searches, incident to an investigatory stops, are usually made without a warrant and justified if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person being searched is armed and dangerous. The reasonableness of suspicion is reviewed based on the totality of circumstances and both the subjective individual experience of the officer and the objective factors at the time would be taken into consideration. For instance, in Rogue v. States, 311 Ga. App. 421, 715 S.E. 2d 814 (2011), the court found that because the police lacked specific information about the vehicle passenger during a valid traffic stop, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous; therefore the police officer was not justified in the pat-down search of the passenger.​

Pat-down searches serve to ensure the officer’s safety, and thus, the conduct should not exceed what is necessary to serve that purpose. Objects obtained during a pat-down searchshould be immediately identifiable to be admissible evidence. If, during a pat-down, the officer feels an object he reasonably suspects may be a weapon by its contour, the officer may reach for the object and remove it. The officer may also seize the objects during an otherwise legitimate pat-down search if by plain feel he reasonably believes it to be contraband.


You know what gives reasonable suspicion?

Not cooperating. That is almost universally going to be considered suspicious behavior by a court.

What crime did the police tell Elijah he was committing??

Why do you folks keep failing to answer the question??

There is a reason why the independent investigation concluded the officers had no legal grounds to detain him..

 

[Godboy]

Does that same rule apply to the Jan 6 people who broke into the Capitol?

Yes. Shoot all rioters on sight.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

He can pat down in the course of an investigation if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person could be armed.


Pat-Down Searches

Pat-Down Search​

A pat-down search is when a police officer pats down the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons. A pat-down searchconstitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pat-down searches, incident to an investigatory stops, are usually made without a warrant and justified if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person being searched is armed and dangerous. The reasonableness of suspicion is reviewed based on the totality of circumstances and both the subjective individual experience of the officer and the objective factors at the time would be taken into consideration. For instance, in Rogue v. States, 311 Ga. App. 421, 715 S.E. 2d 814 (2011), the court found that because the police lacked specific information about the vehicle passenger during a valid traffic stop, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous; therefore the police officer was not justified in the pat-down search of the passenger.​

Pat-down searches serve to ensure the officer’s safety, and thus, the conduct should not exceed what is necessary to serve that purpose. Objects obtained during a pat-down searchshould be immediately identifiable to be admissible evidence. If, during a pat-down, the officer feels an object he reasonably suspects may be a weapon by its contour, the officer may reach for the object and remove it. The officer may also seize the objects during an otherwise legitimate pat-down search if by plain feel he reasonably believes it to be contraband.


You know what gives reasonable suspicion?

Not cooperating. That is almost universally going to be considered suspicious behavior by a court.

What is reasonable suspicion? Also the argument was anytime a police officer approaches you, you must comply.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So they were detained and no one fought with the cops? GREAT! Keep doing that and youll be just fine.

They didn't comply with the officer's unlawful demand like you have stated repeatedly that they are required by law to do. What other reason could there be that they didn't end up dead?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It has been the law since 1968 you ignorant scrub.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Why does your citation have a note stating "see flags on bad law"?

 

[Rigby5]

Where the **** did you come up with that?! The moment a cop decides to detain you, you are obligated to follow his every instruction. Whether or not the cop was right to stop you is irrelevant at that point. How can you people not understand this simple rule?

Seriously, whats your IQ?

Totally and completely wrong.
Police have ZERO authority of their own, but ONLY have the weak delegated authority they borrow from defending the rights of others.
Police do not have the authority to detain innocent people at all, for any reason.
If you have harmed someone else, then it is the rights of those you harmed that authorized your being detained.
NOT the police.

 

[Rigby5]

Your ignorance on this basic law in the US is concerning. Are you people really this stupid? Is this why you retards keep getting shot by cops? Ignorance of basic laws?

We did fine before there were any significant police before 1900 or so, and that is likely what we should go back to, since police are so obviously corrupt.

 

[Rigby5]

It has been the law since 1968 you ignorant scrub.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Terry stops require an actual violation and reasonable suspicion that the suspect is guilty.
It does not imply a random stop and frisk like NYC did.
That is and always was illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

Even though no crime has been committed, they can still detain and search him.

Wrong.

{...

Elements of a Terry stop[edit]​

The United States Supreme Court held that where: (1) a Police Officer observes unusual conduct by a Subject; (2) The Subject’s conduct leads the Officer reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, and that the Subject may be armed and presently dangerous; (3) the Officer identifies himself as a policeman; (4) the Officer makes reasonable inquiries; and (5) Nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel the Officer’s reasonable fear for safety, the Officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of the Subject in an attempt to discover weapons, and that such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourteenth Amendment, so that any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence.[11]
...}

There has to be reasonable suspicion of an actual crime.
And it does not allow for a full search, but just a "carefully limited search of outer clothing" for a weapons search.

 

[Rigby5]

That isnt what happened.

The cops were called by a concerned citizen and they were sent by dispatch to check him out. You think they should have ignored that call?

A call by someone else is not first hand evidence, so can not be used.

 

[Crepitus]

Denver suburb of Aurora agrees to pay $15M to settle Elijah McClain lawsuit

Elijah McClain died after suburban Denver police stopped him on the street and put him in a neckhold two years ago.

www.usatoday.com

"The Denver suburb of Aurora has agreed to pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the parents of Elijah McClain, a Black man who died after suburban Denver police stopped him on the street and put him in a neckhold two years ago, the city and a family attorney have announced. The lawsuit alleged the police’s violent treatment of McClain amounted to torture and was part of a pattern of racially biased policing that has involved aggression and violence against Black people.

The local prosecutor declined to file charges against the three officers who confronted McClain, However, a grand jury indicted the officers and two paramedics in September following an investigation by Attorney General Phil Weiser. An outside investigation commissioned by the city faulted the police for not pressing for answers about how officers treated him. It found there was no evidence justifying officers’ decision to stop McClain."

15 million dollars?? Who is going to pay for it?? The taxpayers?? The police unions? An insurance company?? Now to recap what happened.......this man was stopped by police with no probable cause. The man did not cooperate with the police; nor did he have an obligation to -- he was later put into a chokehold and shot with horse tranquilizer...and died...maybe it was self-defense?? --- However, to remove all benefits of a doubt a reasonable person would have given these officers -- we find out that one of the arresting officers; along with 2 other officers were fired for taking a photo re-enacting the chokehold on Elijah, at his memorial....as some sort of goofy gag for laughs...because you know, that's professional...

Firings upheld for 3 officers in case of photo taken near Elijah McClain memorial

The Aurora Civil Service Commission rejected the appeals of former officers Erica Marrero, Kyle Dittrich and Jason Rosenblatt for reinstatement, documents show.

www.9news.com

With some bad news like this dropping on a day that one of the best verdicts in US history came down; it's obvious the timing of this decision was orchestrated by the left to try to throw shade on a glorious day for America....

Their insurance company.

 

[Rigby5]

Why?

Do we not have an obligation to comply with lawful police orders or is that only a rule for white people?

Seriously, I think this comment right here is the root of all this "police violence."

If there's no obligation to comply with lawful police orders, as you suggest, Ice Cube was right. **** tha Police. We don't need them. We are all armed up anyway.

What's it gonna be?

If you are not doing something suspicious or look like someone else who did just commit a crime, then ANY police order is UNLAWFUL.
And YES, we should get rid of the police, who obviously have always been a corrupt tool of the wealthy elite.
We did better before 1900 when there were essentially no police.

 

[Rigby5]

He can pat down in the course of an investigation if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person could be armed.


Pat-Down Searches

Pat-Down Search​

A pat-down search is when a police officer pats down the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons. A pat-down searchconstitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pat-down searches, incident to an investigatory stops, are usually made without a warrant and justified if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person being searched is armed and dangerous. The reasonableness of suspicion is reviewed based on the totality of circumstances and both the subjective individual experience of the officer and the objective factors at the time would be taken into consideration. For instance, in Rogue v. States, 311 Ga. App. 421, 715 S.E. 2d 814 (2011), the court found that because the police lacked specific information about the vehicle passenger during a valid traffic stop, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous; therefore the police officer was not justified in the pat-down search of the passenger.​

Pat-down searches serve to ensure the officer’s safety, and thus, the conduct should not exceed what is necessary to serve that purpose. Objects obtained during a pat-down searchshould be immediately identifiable to be admissible evidence. If, during a pat-down, the officer feels an object he reasonably suspects may be a weapon by its contour, the officer may reach for the object and remove it. The officer may also seize the objects during an otherwise legitimate pat-down search if by plain feel he reasonably believes it to be contraband.


You know what gives reasonable suspicion?

Not cooperating. That is almost universally going to be considered suspicious behavior by a court.

Wrong.
Not cooperating is not grounds for police suspicion.
There has to some sort of observed actions, such as loading a suspicious looking cargo into the car trunk, etc.

 

[MizMolly]

I assume there will be more demand to remove the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial than there is to remove any prosecutor that refuses to charge officers guilty of killing an unarmed man....especially a black one....

Rittenhouse case wasn’t racial, not the same at all.

 

[theHawk]

Denver suburb of Aurora agrees to pay $15M to settle Elijah McClain lawsuit

Elijah McClain died after suburban Denver police stopped him on the street and put him in a neckhold two years ago.

www.usatoday.com

"The Denver suburb of Aurora has agreed to pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the parents of Elijah McClain, a Black man who died after suburban Denver police stopped him on the street and put him in a neckhold two years ago, the city and a family attorney have announced. The lawsuit alleged the police’s violent treatment of McClain amounted to torture and was part of a pattern of racially biased policing that has involved aggression and violence against Black people.

The local prosecutor declined to file charges against the three officers who confronted McClain, However, a grand jury indicted the officers and two paramedics in September following an investigation by Attorney General Phil Weiser. An outside investigation commissioned by the city faulted the police for not pressing for answers about how officers treated him. It found there was no evidence justifying officers’ decision to stop McClain."

15 million dollars?? Who is going to pay for it?? The taxpayers?? The police unions? An insurance company?? Now to recap what happened.......this man was stopped by police with no probable cause. The man did not cooperate with the police; nor did he have an obligation to -- he was later put into a chokehold and shot with horse tranquilizer...and died...maybe it was self-defense?? --- However, to remove all benefits of a doubt a reasonable person would have given these officers -- we find out that one of the arresting officers; along with 2 other officers were fired for taking a photo re-enacting the chokehold on Elijah, at his memorial....as some sort of goofy gag for laughs...because you know, that's professional...

Firings upheld for 3 officers in case of photo taken near Elijah McClain memorial

The Aurora Civil Service Commission rejected the appeals of former officers Erica Marrero, Kyle Dittrich and Jason Rosenblatt for reinstatement, documents show.

www.9news.com

With some bad news like this dropping on a day that one of the best verdicts in US history came down; it's obvious the timing of this decision was orchestrated by the left to try to throw shade on a glorious day for America....

Why not $15 billion?

 

[Godboy]

They didn't comply with the officer's unlawful demand like you have stated repeatedly that they are required by law to do. What other reason could there be that they didn't end up dead?

If you dont attack a cop or put people at risk, you wont ever get shot. Its such a simple concept that you retards never seem to grasp.

 

[Godboy]

Totally and completely wrong.
Police have ZERO authority of their own, but ONLY have the weak delegated authority they borrow from defending the rights of others.
Police do not have the authority to detain innocent people at all, for any reason.
If you have harmed someone else, then it is the rights of those you harmed that authorized your being detained.
NOT the police.

Youre an idiot. I DARE you to walk away after a cop has detained you. I DARE you to give him ^ that horseshit response.