The above is a link to the case. I encourage everyone to read it for themselves so they can fully understand what I am about to say; and the mental midgets (Nightmare & Walking Wolf) that I am saddled with today.
To the Law Firm of M&M’s 1&2:
(1) Fortunately for me and my reputation (and unfortunately for your reputation), many people on on this forum already know that the law only recognizes 3 types of police encounters; and a ‘consensual detainment’ is not one of them, you fools.
(2) If you had bothered to read the case, or had more than a 3rd grade reading comprehension, you would understand that the holding of the case was that the encounter before Douglass drove off was ruled a ‘voluntary encounter’, not your mythical ‘consensual detainment’.
Did you two M&M’s also go to Mr. Charlatan’s law school? Or did you learn how to misrepresent cases all on your own? Oh, that’s right, you did not go to law school! You cannot read past the 3rd grade!
So, since you have a comprehension problem, let me make things simple for you. Let me put things in terms your simple minds can understand. You have just been cocked without any lubricant. LOL. And you can’t make this sh*t up!
I don't have a problem, you do. If a person is detained(not free to go) and are not told they are detained, and they do not question it is consensual. In the case clearly the officers did not intend for the suspect to be free to leave, to the point of drawing their guns. HE WAS DETAINED, but the courts ruled that the stop was consensual. Stop trying to act like you are a god on a forum, you are not. People with common sense know that if they are questioned by police they may not be free to go, yet many will not voice their concerns. Many times they will be right, they are not free to go, SO THEY ARE DETAINED.