It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
From your own source:
originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
There is a supreme court case, Terry V. something er other, that upholds what the cop did.
It's even called a "Terry Stop"
The cop had the right to search him even, if he wanted to. IMO the cop handled the situation beautifully.
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
A terry stop requires criminal activity to have taken place. No crime happened.
Please, dont cite legal precedence unless you know what you are talking about.
Please, check ya facts before discrediting
Terry Stop Wiki
police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity
This is ABSOLUTELY just that. It is another simple step toward authoritarian power.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: captaintyinknots
I'm not arguing that there is a problem with abuse of authority from the police. I agree, it is a situation that is in serious need of addressing in this country. But THIS situation is not an example of that. It's just a police officer doing his duty.
you are. You just dont want to admit it.
originally posted by: Grovit
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Thats fear my friend.
im not afraid
my friend
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
This is ABSOLUTELY just that. It is another simple step toward authoritarian power.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: captaintyinknots
I'm not arguing that there is a problem with abuse of authority from the police. I agree, it is a situation that is in serious need of addressing in this country. But THIS situation is not an example of that. It's just a police officer doing his duty.
Dont worry about it though. Like I said before, people wont get it until it is too late.
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
From your own source:
originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
There is a supreme court case, Terry V. something er other, that upholds what the cop did.
It's even called a "Terry Stop"
The cop had the right to search him even, if he wanted to. IMO the cop handled the situation beautifully.
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
A terry stop requires criminal activity to have taken place. No crime happened.
Please, dont cite legal precedence unless you know what you are talking about.
Please, check ya facts before discrediting
Terry Stop Wiki
police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Tell me, what criminal activity waht there ANY evidence of?
Wow, now Im embarrassed for you.....
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
A terry stop requires criminal activity to have taken place. No crime happened.
originally posted by: Morningglory
I agree with your take on this. I can understand the shop owner being nervous but no crime was committed.
Women who are stalked or have violent ex's often have a tough time getting restraining orders. Verbal threats aren't enough. I believe physical contact is required. Even if the guy is hanging around outside that's not enough to arrest him or detain him.
but the cops dont just hang up the phone and go back to their snack. the cops come out and talk to the guy. just like what happened here. then they talk to the lady and tell her what needs to be done to detain him or get a protection order
Don't see why protecting business assets is more important than protecting defenseless scared women.
originally posted by: jimmyx
c'mon....can't anyone admit that the black guy was near the shop when the cop went by, and thus the cop automatically thought that he was suspicious.
The sheriff said that before McKean was questioned, a business owner called 911,