So, we are to take your 'proned out' story based on your word alone? But, the linked story in the OP is not to be believed absent more facts?
....got it.
i don't care what you take at face value
but generally speaking, absent evidence, whether you choose to believe a NON self serving story of mine is up to you.
iow, nothing in my story BENEFITS me. it's simply something that happened to me about 25 yrs ago. it's also consistent with **** that happens every day
it's also consistent with what happens all the time - people get stopped, even at gunpoint, when they have done NOTHING wrong.
the issue is not - did they do anything wrong, when evaluating whether the conduct was legal by the cops
the ISSUE is - what the did the cops reasonably/believe suspect based on their vantage point, etc. (see also Aguilar Spinelli test etc.)
if a cop randomly stopped you and found 3 stolen guns, a murder weapon, and evidence of homicide on you, that no more justifies the stop ex post facto, than if a cop does have a legitimate reason to stop you, but finds nothing
it's a process analysis, not a results analysis
this is about rule of law, not anecdotes.
if you doubt my story, then consider that people get stopped ALL THE TIME, who did nothing wrong. the TEST is not what the person did, it's what did the officers reasonably believe/suspect based on totality of circ's known to them
this is the exact same standard used when anybody, cop or joe blow, uses force to include deadly force.
if a kid pulls a realistic looking pellet gun on you, and you shoot him, it will be ruled justified
the fact it was NOT a gun is irrelevant. it's what you reasonably believed
the cops REASONABLY suspected i had committed an armed robbery, based on proximity, description of suspect, vehicle description, etc
the fact that i DID NOT commit an armed robbery is irrelevant as to the justification for the stop
hth
this is also why i fully support videotaping of cops and audiotaping of them, and the cops doing the same of others.
because that way, people can VERIFY stories with hard evidence, and bad cops get punished, good cops get exonerated and people who make false complaints can (at least sometimes) be punished.
there was a case just recently of some very prominent attorney completely fabricating his account of a traffic stop and the cop was looking at some serious allegations, until he pulled out his audio tape upon being questioned
iirc, the attorney ended up being disbarred, which sounds reasonable. as an officer of the court, that was grossly dishonest