- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
2
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:44 pm to Antonio Moss
I already conceded this point on your previous point that the activity giving rise to reasonable suspicion doesn't have to be illegal, but there still has to be specific, articulable facts giving rise to suspicion of illegal activity. Conspicuously filming a building in the middle of the day doesn't get you there.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:45 pm to Dizz
quote:
You have to be able to articulate what crime the reasonable suspicion is related to.
That isn’t accurate.
The officer must be able to articulate specific inferences and facts given the circumstances but they do not have to articulate a specific crime.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:46 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:That the person is or is about to do something criminal.
The officer must be able to articulate specific inferences and facts given the circumstances
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:47 pm to PearlJam
quote:
if reasonable suspicion exists
correct, but you have to have reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop in the first place
You keep saying they didn't have reasonable suspicion.
I'm here to tell you, "reasonable suspicion" is like the old "identict a ham sandwich"... it is a rather low threshold to achive... especially when one is video taping a federal building.
Here's a random sample guidline for reasonable suspicion....
quote:
“Reasonable Suspicion” can include a number of separate factors that when taken together combine to support a police officer’s belief that criminal activity may be occurring. These factors may include but not be limited to: time of day, reputation of the geographical area, reputation of the person to be detained (a known gang member, for example), furtive or evasive behavior, flight, confrontational or abrasive attitude, clothing, etc.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:47 pm to Russ337
quote:the guy knew exactly what would happen and he invited it. He's a douchebag.
But, what do you think would happen is you film a federal building lol
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:49 pm to Antonio Moss
The suspicion has to relate to a crime it can’t just be general suspicion.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:52 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:I know the bar is relatively low, but here the cop can't articulate specific facts for reasonable suspicion based on the info in the video. Indeed, he tries at the end to justify by the guys comments on the fallen officer memorial, but that comment came well after the guy was detained and being searched.
I'm here to tell you, "reasonable suspicion" is like the old "identict a ham sandwich"... it is a rather low threshold to achive... especially when one is video taping a federal building
Feel free to articulate the facts this cop could state that would satisfy the low threshold for a Terry stop. I might be wrong.
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:55 pm to Dizz
quote:
The suspicion has to relate to a crime it can’t just be general suspicion.
Correct but the police don’t have to articulate a specific crime, just criminal activity.
For instance, if a cop stops a man with a knife following a woman down a dark alley, he doesn’t have to declare that the suspect was going to commit murder. That’s out of his purview of knowledge. But it is certainly reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:57 pm to PearlJam
quote:
I know the bar is relatively low, but here the cop can't articulate specific facts for reasonable suspicion based on the info in the video.
Feel free to articulate the facts this cop could state that would satisfy the low threshold for a Terry stop. I might be wrong.
Again, I haven't watched the video.
But if what Speeds said about the time, place and circumstances are correct, the reasonable suspicion threshold would be deemed to have been met.
Again, I'm only speaking of the guy being approached, stopped, detained and possibly continually detained and to whether that is lawful or violating the guys rights.
I didn't watch the video so I have no input on if any further actions within the detention were rights-violating.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:57 pm to TSLG
quote:
TSLG
You just sound like s gapping vagina.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:58 pm to OweO
quote:
What does it matter if you have nothing to hide?
Liberty, some have forgotten its value.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:58 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
What are the non-criminal motivations for videotaping a federal building?
What are the non-criminal motivations of videotaping any building that isn’t a tourist attraction?
Google Maps, Mapquest, etc seem to get away with it. Call law enforcement and report those suspicious orgs.
The Dept of Homeland Security has issued a public memo clarifying that it’s okay to film the exterior of federal buildings. Even when the memo is produced, LEO quite often ignore it.
How does finding out my identity determine my intentions? Even if you are a known terrorist, who can say why you are filming? When you are ID’d, you get put on a list of “usual suspects” for any crime that occurs in the area.
So many of these videos are out there and public photography law training is administered to more and more LEO’s, it’s harder for officers to classify this as a suspicious activity.
Many of these videos end with the LEO arresting the photographer with disturbing the peace, which seems to be the catch all charge to use when you realize that a person knows their rights.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 1:59 pm to Antonio Moss
Correct he can easily articulate that there is reasonable suspicion that a crime may immediately occur such as a robbery. That is more than just general suspicion. With a lot of these videos the police are unable to articulate what reasonable suspicion exists that criminal activity has occurred or is going to immenatley occur.
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 2:00 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Right. But here we have a guy in plain view during sunlight hours on a street with traffic videoing a building conspicuously. He isn't hiding in the bushes or doing so under cover of darkness. He isn't carrying an rpg on his shoulder.
man with a knife following a woman down a dark alley,
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 2:01 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Correct, the act itself isn’t illegal but that has no bearing as to whether to rises to the level of reasonable suspicion in terms of likelihood of a crime being committed in the imminent future.
So, doing something that is legal still equates to a reasonable suspicion that a crime is going to be committed?
With this logic, any activity could be construed by a motivated officer as being reasonably suspicious.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 2:02 pm to Catman88
quote:
f someone reports suspicious activity and the police show up and ask for ID and the suspicious person refuses all questions. What do you want to occur?
If he has done nothing illegal and nothing to suggest he is about to commit a specific crime then nothing should happen to the suspicious person.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 2:02 pm to Dizz
quote:close
immenatley occur
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 2:03 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
I didn't watch the video
Cliff's notes:
Guy filming: "There is the FBI building in Baton Rouge"
FBI agent and Police officer: "What are you doing?"
Guy filming: "I'm shooting a video of that building"
FBI agent and Police officer: "What for?"
Guy filming: "It's for my use. What am I doing wrong?"
FBI agent and Police officer: "Well it's weird. Do you have ID on you?"
^^^^there's your reasonable suspicion by the way^^^^
Guy filming: "If you first tell me what I'm doing wrong"
blah blah blah...
you know how the rest goes
Posted on 12/31/18 at 2:04 pm to RealityTiger
quote:
I don't give a frick if a cop asks me for my ID. Sure, here you go officer.
Good for you, you have that right. However, you do not seem to support the rights of the person that does not want to give that information absent a legal compulsion to do so.
Ego trip or not, we have rights for a reason. Cops should be very happy to respect and honor those rights as they are part of the same law he swore to uphold.
Page 9 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News