- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 2:12 pm to SammyTiger
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:12 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
The only fact they’re relying on is that they were hiding which is a weak grounds for resonance suspicion.
Except I laid out multiple facts related to what happened and you choose to ignore them because you want to know what crime was committed. You keep harping on a non issue. For the last time, the officers don’t even need reasonable suspicion in a circumstance like this where they have an absolute right to engage people hiding from them and give them verbal commands to make sure they are safe and prevent a potential ambush situation from a possible threat to them. They do not have to know a specific crime being committed and they do not have to take a chance in being ambushed either. You clearly would rather see the cops get killed as opposed to them detaining two guys for a brief period of time to ensure their safety. Speaking of case law. There’s plenty of case law that allows for officers to do just that. So your feelings don’t make precedent.
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 2:15 pm
1
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:14 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Then I have to ask, what did the officers do that was illegal? We'll come back to your emotions afterwards.
Are you simple?
Legally a seizure means it was a seizure by legal definition.
I didn’t say this was a seizure that was legal.
And again, you can break the lw without it being criminal.
Cops violate the 4th amendment all the time, most of them aren’t arrested for it. They courts just throw out evidence.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:17 pm to TexasTiger08
Again, all empathy reserved for the cops.
BTW, this didn’t happen in NBR. Happened right off campus. Literally a street over from the Nat.
I’ve walked home drunk on Alvin Dark, bruh I ain’t scared of patrolling a luxury apartment complex.
BTW, this didn’t happen in NBR. Happened right off campus. Literally a street over from the Nat.
I’ve walked home drunk on Alvin Dark, bruh I ain’t scared of patrolling a luxury apartment complex.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:18 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
quote:
Then I have to ask, what did the officers do that was illegal? We'll come back to your emotions afterwards.
I already explained it.
You understand illegal and criminal aren’t the same word. Correct?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:20 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Where did you explain it?
I already explained it.
You understand illegal and criminal aren’t the same word. Correct?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:20 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
I’ve walked home drunk on Alvin Dark, bruh I ain’t scared of patrolling a luxury apartment complex.
Again, you’re so brave. If only we could have police like you who can wave their magic wand and solve every solution just with your brilliant mind. I’ve got a feeling you would freeze up in most situations
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:21 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
quote:
Aside from "being mean", what did those officers do that was either illegal or unethical?
Personally, I didn’t think they did anything unethical and certainly not illegal.
But there’s nothing wrong with discussing what cops should and shouldn’t do.
These cops appeared to have done a good job.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:22 pm to GoneFishing21
quote:
Except I laid out multiple facts related to what happened and you choose to ignore them because you want to know what crime was committed.
Because they’re generalization and not about the situation at hand.
Or just made up by you.
quote:
You keep harping on a non issue. For the last time, the officers don’t even need reasonable suspicion in a circumstance like this where they have an absolute right to engage people hiding from them and give them verbal commands to make sure they are safe and prevent a potential ambush situation from a possible threat to them.
What law is this based on? You need reasonable suspicion to stop anyone. That’s the law.
quote:
They do not have to know a specific crime being committed and they do not have to take a chance in being ambushed either. You clearly would rather see the cops get killed as opposed to them detaining two guys for a brief period of time to ensure their safety. Speaking of case law. There’s plenty of case law that allows for officers to do just that. So your feelings don’t make precedent.
Bring it. Lay it out there. Because the USSC doesn’t agree with you.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:22 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
BTW, this didn’t happen in NBR. Happened right off campus. Literally a street over from the Nat.
No shite. We all know the story.
quote:
I’ve walked home drunk on Alvin Dark, bruh I ain’t scared of patrolling a luxury apartment complex.
Ok ‘bruh’, and none of this is relevant to the argument.
May I ask, what experience do you have in the legal field?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:23 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
BTW, this didn’t happen in NBR. Happened right off campus. Literally a street over from the Nat.
I’ve walked home drunk on Alvin Dark, bruh I ain’t scared of patrolling a luxury apartment complex.
Living in the past. Checkout how many murders there have been in Tigerland the last 3 yrs. As for the Northgates, you are never more than 1 block from abject poverty and lawlessness.
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:23 pm to GoneFishing21
quote:
Again, you’re so brave. If only we could have police like you who can wave their magic wand and solve every solution just with your brilliant mind. I’ve got a feeling you would freeze up in most situations
Maybe I would Just pull my gun, which is apparently a-ok
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:26 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Where did you explain the officers' illegal actions?
I already explained it.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:27 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Again, all empathy reserved for the cops.
Who wouldn’t empathize with these two cops? Only someone who is passionately anti cop.
They saw two individuals acting suspiciously, they stopped them to see what they were doing, they found nothing, smoothed things over, left the two boys to go about their business, and woke up the next day to find out that Moore lied about the incident and the mayor, governor and football coach was on their asses.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:28 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:29 pm to doubleb
quote:
Who wouldn’t empathize with these two cops? Only someone who is passionately anti cop.
Are you any black kids? Why no empathy for them?
quote:
They saw two individuals acting suspiciously, they stopped them to see what they were doing, they found nothing, smoothed things over, left the two boys to go about their business, and woke up the next day to find out that Moore lied about the incident and the mayor, governor and football coach was on their asses.
That’s less accurate than Moore’s statement.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:30 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Are you any black kids? Why no empathy for them?
It’s sucks guns were pulled on them. It’s a shame they didn’t immediately place their hands upon the vehicle.
Second time I’ll ask: what is your experience in the legal field and/or police work?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:30 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Now we're getting somewhere.
Here
Tell me about the search that you say took place. Did they get consent from either of the two suspicious guys to go in their pockets? Do we know for sure that they even went into their pockets, or is that just their side of the story?
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:33 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
quote:
Now we're getting somewhere.
If by now you mean 40 Minutes ago in a a reply to you asking the same fricking question, sure
quote:
Tell me about the search that you say took place
The patted Moore down and went into his pocket. By legal definition (don’t mistake this for saying the search was legal) that is a search.
quote:
Did they get consent from either of the two suspicious guys to go in their pockets?
I didnt Hear any on the video.
quote:
Do we know for sure that they even went into their pockets, or is that just their side of the story?
Yes because I saw It happen on the video.
Did you watch the video? If not why are you in this conversation?
3 downvotes. 0 legal knowledge.
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:37 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Are you any black kids? Why no empathy for them?
I had empathy for them until they lied
.
quote:
That’s less accurate than Moore’s statement.
Or about the same, but the point is cops are in a tough spot. They get set up, they get ambushed, and they have to be extremely careful in all situations. That’s why I have empathy for cops as a whole.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 2:45 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Because they’re generalization and not about the situation at hand.
No I gave you FACTS that were present and could be added together to be any number of crimes. That does reach reasonable suspicion. You want a specific crime being committed which is not a requirement.
quote:
Bring it. Lay it out there. Because the USSC doesn’t agree with you.
Graham v. Connor for one.
Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.
(a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force, and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp. 490 U. S. 393-394.
(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.
(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.
Since you’re such a great attorney and know the Supreme Court doesn’t agree then you should reach out to Koy Moore. I’d love to see you challenge whether the facts presented to them and their training and experience related to the behavior they saw, was not reasonable suspicion. I’d also love to see you challenge how a cop has not ability to protect themselves from a potential unknown threat. That’ll go over well for y’all.
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 2:53 pm
Page 38 of 43
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News