WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Statists are like liberals they just like to make stuff up...
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
Last edited:
Please provide the actual words in the case where the courts have said that a police officer does not have to inform of RAS?
I believe the fact that the courts have used the word articulate, not secret, or even leaving the words out indicates they must be able to give reason/articulate the purpose of the detention. This is not the case for probable cause for arrest which is given in court, but again many states a officer must inform why the person is arrested. RAS is necessary for a Terry stop, and it has to be there at the time, so it must be able to be articulated, if it cannot, it is not valid.
Why does common sense always elude statists?
Please provide the actual words in the case where the courts have said that a police officer does not have to inform of RAS?
Actually, the courts use the word Articulable. Or able to be articulated. That means that it needs to be able to be articulated, not that it must be articulated at the time of the stop.
Also, since McBeth always likes to say it's up to a judge, then it's the judge, not you on the street who needs to be articulated to.
They have to have all elements AT THE TIME of the stop for it to be legal, otherwise it would just be RS. PC is only needed for a arrest, but must be later articulated in court, RAS is at the time of the stop, though the courts may later decide if it was reasonable. David is correct that it is finally determined in court whether the officers/s acted reasonably, but the elements must be there at the time of the stop. If the police cannot articulate their suspicion for the stop then it is not legal. This is not the Soviet Union!
Read the recent decision in NC regarding felon in possession where the suspicion(hunches, and policy) were found to be unreasonable. And because the defendant followed David's advice not to submit, he was later cleared of the charges. There was also not any indication by the case that the officers even told the defendant why. Blanket searches for no reason in the US are not legal, there must be a reason and that reason has to be reasonable and articulated.
BTW where in that clip does it say the officer can search for no reason? You are trying to claim a officer can search anyone so he will be safe, and that is a lie.
Actually, the courts use the word Articulable. Or able to be articulated. That means that it needs to be able to be articulated, not that it must be articulated at the time of the stop.
Also, since McBeth always likes to say it's up to a judge, then it's the judge, not you on the street who needs to be articulated to.
And in some cases the judge or appellate court judges rule that RAS did not exist and that it did not exist AT THE TIME OF THE STOP. Which is all mute if the search is CONSENSUAL. David is correct!It is indeed up to the judge (whose decision is also subject to oversight) to oversee the decisions of the officer. However, if the judge agrees LATER that the RAS existed, the RAS will have existed at the time of the stop, contrary to what a certain poster is stating here. The judge does not bring the RAS into existence; he merely confirms or denies its existence AT THE TIME OF THE STOP.
If that RAS existed, making the stop lawful, and if the State laws require informing the LEO that one is armed, and if one then does not so inform, then he has committed a crime. Folks, be wary of legal puffery coming from some basement out over the Internet, such as wild boasts that one will never inform a LEO of his armed status. Check the law for yourselves!
You sir are out of line with this constant harassment of David.
Again, folks, do not take this poster's stupidly posted words seriously. Taking that stance could get you killed and eventually will get you jailed. .
Not harassing it. Just calling out its horrible "legal" advice. It is going to get someone jailed, or worse, when someone does what it suggests can be done--such as never informing the police when it is armed.
Check the laws for yourself, folks. Heeding to some things posted on this forum can be hazardous to your legal health or to your life!
Statists are like liberals they just like to make stuff up...
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
I bet I'm being dense here, but to whom and how is this directed?
Again, folks, do not take this poster's stupidly posted words seriously. Taking that stance could get you killed and eventually will get you jailed. Some States require that you inform an officer if you are armed when he has detained you. Again, since you have no way of knowing at the time whether a detention is lawful, claiming that it wasn't may fail in court, and you may find yourself convicted of a crime.
Don't take STUPID advice on the law from the Internet. There are too many boastful people who don't know it near as well as they claim they do, trying to get you to try out their stupidity for them. Let them make the bone-headed choices. Some of them NEED to be in jail!
Do not even take any poster's word, not even my word, for the law. Ask a lawyer, or read the law for yourself.
BTW, the quoted sentence seems to be advocating breaking the law. That is against OCDO rules.
Remember this is the Maine forum. There is no law in Maine that requires a person to inform an officer that he is armed.
So you believe that David Mcbeth and I need to be in jail for advocating that people not break the law and not tell an offier that they are armed?
Remember this is the Maine forum. There is no law in Maine that requires a person to inform an officer that he is armed.
So you believe that David Mcbeth and I need to be in jail for advocating that people not break the law and not tell an offier that they are armed?
Remember this is the Maine forum. There is no law in Maine that requires a person to inform an officer that he is armed.
So you believe that David Mcbeth and I need to be in jail for advocating that people not break the law and not tell an offier that they are armed?
So, no, I don't believe that YOU should be in jail.