- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BRPD releasing the Koy Moore bodycam footage this afternoon.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 11:58 am to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 4/7/21 at 11:58 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
What standard do you want?
Don't touch your firearm until you are fired upon?
They didn’t even have their hand in their pockets when he pulled his firearm.
Moore had his hands out in the air and the other guy was turning around to put his hands on the hood.
0
Posted on 4/7/21 at 11:59 am to Froman
quote:
knew this board would be the only place on the internet defending the cops in this situation. I think what Moore said was exaggerated, but the cop yelling out a command then pulling his gun before the kid can even comprehend what he is saying is pretty bad policing. His explanation for why he did it was weak af too. Koy and his buddy were definitely harassed for no reason, and possibly embellished a bit on the details to make it seem even worse than it was.
Koy Moore lied and weaponized race. He's a piece of shite.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:09 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
They assumed the worse when they were safely in their carsZ they assumed they were hiding because they were commiting some unknown crime that could have happened.
They put checkpoints in white areas of the city on the assumption that every driver at night is committing a crime.
Get the frick out of here.
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:11 pm to ell_13
quote:
Link? This isn't a requirement. Why did you make it up?
That’s what a Terry stop entitles an officer to. They can only frisk (not go into their pockets) if there is reasonable suspicion they are committing a crime where they’re likely to be armed.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:17 pm to dgnx6
quote:
They put checkpoints in white areas of the city on the assumption that every driver at night is committing a crime.
What the frick do checkpoints have to do with this situation?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:24 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
I mean If I quizzed You on what happened to you while a gun was pointed at you you may get some details wrong. But again, people said it was made up and something actually happened.
People said he was doing something wrong and he wasn’t.
I might get the story wrong, but that’s NOT what happened.
Moore was not quizzed. He told a story that was not true after the episode. He wasn’t under duress.
And Moore didn’t do anything “wrong” in that he didn’t break any laws, but by hiding he made a mistake that drew unwarranted attention from the cops.
But he was wrong to publicly call out the cops and tell a lie to make them look bad.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:32 pm to doubleb
quote:
I might get the story wrong, but that’s NOT what happened.
Moore was not quizzed. He told a story that was not true after the episode. He wasn’t under duress
He was under duress when it happened and got some details wrong. That’s not uncommon
quote:
And Moore didn’t do anything “wrong” in that he didn’t break any laws, but by hiding he made a mistake that drew unwarranted attention from the cops.
But he was wrong to publicly call out the cops and tell a lie to make them look bad.
I dont Think they look too much better in actuality if you aren’t in the crowd that thinks cops can do whatever.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:34 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Yes. But it’s not a requirement. You wrote your sentence like it was the first part of some written procedure for the stop. It’s not.
That’s what a Terry stop entitles an officer to
quote:Again. Words matter. “Likely” is wrong. It doesn’t have to be likely. Just a reasonable suspicion.
They can only frisk (not go into their pockets) if there is reasonable suspicion they are committing a crime where they’re likely to be armed.
Why do you keep lying?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:35 pm to ell_13
quote:
Yes. But it’s not a requirement. You wrote your sentence like it was the first part of some written procedure for the stop. It’s not.
You’re right it’s not required. You can just not do the stop.
quote:
Again. Words matter. “Likely” is wrong. It doesn’t have to be likely. Just a reasonable suspicion.
Words do matter and when defining what a reasonable suspicion of a person being armed courts have used the word likely.
The grounds for reasonable suspicion someone is armed is usually they see a bulb in their clothes, or have reasonable suspicion that the crime they are about to commit is one where people are likely armed.
And if you even if you’re entitled to frisk them, you aren’t entitled to go into their pockets unless you feel a gun or obvious contraband. Not a cell phone like our perfect officer here grabbed.
quote:
Why do you keep lying?
So not lying.
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:38 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Link? Because reasonable suspicion is initiated by the actions of the person in question. That includes hiding and failure to immediately comply. The cops had reasonable suspicious in every sense of the meaning based on what they witnessed and what we saw on film. If they hadn’t, this would have gone further right?
Words do matter and when defining what a reasonable suspicion of a person being armed courts have used the word likely.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:40 pm to SammyTiger
Honestly impressed that you have posted this much in this thread? How do you have this much time in your day?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:46 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
He was under duress when it happened and got some details wrong. That’s not uncommon
you've got to be trolling. How can you say this with a straight face?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:47 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
He was under duress when it happened and got some details wrong. That’s not uncommon
Give him the benefit of doubt and say he made an honest mistake accusing the officers of doing things that they did not do; don’t you think Moore owes the officers he mischaracterized an apology.
Furthermore, if you are correct and believe that people make mistakes when recalling stressful incidents then why did you immediately believe his initial story?
And if you think Moore has a legitimate excuse for being factually incorrect how can you believe anyone blaming a cop for wrongdoing in such situations? Don’t you think Moore by crying wolf has undermined the next legitimate accuser?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:52 pm to ell_13
1. Terry V Ohio separates the two elements of a stop and frisk. A cop can stop someone the suspect of committing a crime but they also have to have reasonable suspicion they’re armed to frisk them.
2. Again in Terry Vs Ohio when applying the reasonableness standard the court noted they suspected Terry of plotting a burglary:
3. The court required them to point to specific articulable facts that lead them to reasonable believe someone was armed. I think “he was hiding” is pretty weak to jump to them being armed.
What does that mean?
2. Again in Terry Vs Ohio when applying the reasonableness standard the court noted they suspected Terry of plotting a burglary:
quote:
The actions of Terry and Chilton were consistent with McFadden's hypothesis that these men were contemplating a daylight robbery—which, it is reasonable to assume, would be likely to involve the use of weapons—and nothing in their conduct from the time he first noticed them until the time he confronted them and identified himself as a police officer gave him sufficient reason to negate that hypothesis
3. The court required them to point to specific articulable facts that lead them to reasonable believe someone was armed. I think “he was hiding” is pretty weak to jump to them being armed.
quote:
If they hadn’t, this would have gone further right?
What does that mean?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:52 pm to doubleb
Sammy defended Moore for the tweet and thought the cops deserved being called out. He did, however, think that everyone who posted in the original thread said Moore was totally lying... which, ironically, is another lie from Sammy.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:54 pm to SammyTiger
You quote things but don’t link them. Was what you quoted in a ruling (like you claimed) or was it an analysis from someone else?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 12:57 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
I mean If I quizzed You on what happened to you while a gun was pointed at you you may get some details wrong. But again, people said it was made up and something actually happened.
The video speaks for itself. Your characterization of it is absurd, but that doesn't matter. People can watch and make their own determination.
Since Moore hasn't come out to clarify his statements, or back off them once he saw the police were suspended, no reasonable person would conclude that he simply made a mistake. No, this was intentional.
I thought Moore and LSU could have ended this by simply issuing an "apology". It's too late now. Moore can't stay at LSU. He's going to be hammered by fans everywhere he goes. This was handled very poorly.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 1:05 pm to SammyTiger
Except that’s not the standard the ruling set. Paragraph 5:
However, the court denied the defendants' motion on the ground that Officer McFadden, on the basis of his experience, 'had reasonable cause to believe * * * that the defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, and some interrogation should be made of their action.' Purely for his own protection, the court held, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe might be armed.
The threshold is “reasonable cause”. Not “likely”. The likely term is only specific to McFadden’s reasoning.
However, the court denied the defendants' motion on the ground that Officer McFadden, on the basis of his experience, 'had reasonable cause to believe * * * that the defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, and some interrogation should be made of their action.' Purely for his own protection, the court held, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe might be armed.
The threshold is “reasonable cause”. Not “likely”. The likely term is only specific to McFadden’s reasoning.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 1:06 pm to SammyTiger
quote:I do know something. That the threshold set wasnt “likely” but “reasonable suspicion.” All you have to be is be reasonable suspicious that someone is hiding a weapon. Acting suspiciously (hiding) and ignoring orders create that suspicion reasonably. There’s nothing left to argue in terms of the frisk. No court would rule against the officers.
you acted like you knew something.
Page 36 of 43
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News