Police release body camera videos of college students being pulled over at gunpoint

[GOPerfect]

Now one eye witness has become multiple I was aware of only one in this situation ... was their another cut out of the video in the link?

Because as we know police can lie all they want during a "serious" investigation and FYI for those following they are allowed too lie all they want .. you on the other hand can have a lie used against you.

Watch all of the videos.

 

[Shadow2]

For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of FACTS to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime.

I think you can see where police start loosing support these days. the incremental steps taken to get the next phase aren't based on facts, facts are corroborated. Your Investigation is an attempt to corroborate facts. If your trying to corroborate facts it pretty much means you didn't have any facts to begin with to full-fill probable cause to begin with.

I don't have the information of this particular case , but if you allow me to assume for demonstration , We could say the plate and make was given to the officers or the car fit the description of the suspects car . the officer would have probable cause to search.


""Not every police search must be made under a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment, so long as it's reasonable under the circumstances.

So, when can police search your car? Generally, under the following circumstances:

1. You have given the officer consent;
2. The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle;
3. The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary for their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example); and
4. You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs).

 

[holdover]

He does. It's has committed , or about to commit a crime.

 

[holdover]

For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of FACTS to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime.

I think you can see where police start loosing support the incremental steps taken to get the next phase aren't based on facts facts are corroborated.

Says who? Just for demonstration purposes, because we don't have the details of the case, we assumed the car and occupants fit the description of the suspects. That's enough for a search, the witness who wrongly claimed he had a gun is also PC to search. Im not sure where your headed with this.

""a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of FACTS to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime.""

He does. The witness's provided information that lead the officer to believe He has identified the correct person/s

 

[Shadow2]

He has an allegation which which by definition is unsupported by facts. Leading an officer to believe an allegation doesn't make it fact.

Says who? Just for demonstration purposes, because we don't have the details of the case, we assumed the car and occupants fit the description of the suspects. That's enough for a search, the witness who wrongly claimed he had a gun is also PC to search. Im not sure where your headed with this.

""a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of FACTS to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime.""

He does. The witness's provided information that lead the officer to believe He has identified the correct person/s

 

[holdover]

We shouldn't kill them for being wrong, but a good stint in prison will keep them him haphazardly pointing guns at unarmed people.

This is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

 

[holdover]

He has an allegation which which by definition is unsupported by facts. Leading an officer to believe an allegation still doesn't make it fact.

it illeviates the officer

The allegation is the fact. Witness claimed man had gun. true or false? True. witness gave description of suspect and vehicle. True or false? True

Officer identifies suspect car fitting description by witnesses. true or false? true.

Does officer have enough articulable facts that lead him to believe suspect committed crime? YES.

Does officer have probable cause to search? yes.

Did the witness wrongly accuse the suspect of having a weapon? yes

Without an investigation and search could the officer have any other way to know this ?NO

Based on the witness's account does the officer have reason to believe suspect was armed? Yes.

Is the officer wrong because the eyewitness lied or was mistaken? no.

Based on the information that the officer had at the time did he do anything wrong? NO

Did the officer follow the procedures of his dept of apprehending an armed suspect? Yes.

 

[holdover]

Then they were grossly mistaken, and in violation of the same law we would be.
.

Really? when was the last time you had to arrest an armed suspect?

 

[Shadow2]

The allegation is the fact. Witness claimed man had gun. true or false? True. witness gave description of suspect and vehicle. True or false? True

Officer identifies suspect car fitting description by witnesses. true or false? true.

Does officer have enough articulable facts that lead him to believe suspect committed crime? YES.

Does officer have probable cause to search? yes.

Did the witness wrongly accuse the suspect of having a weapon? yes

Without an investigation and search could the officer have any other way to know this ?NO

Based on the witness's account does the officer have reason to believe suspect was armed? Yes.

Is the officer wrong because the eyewitness lied or was mistaken? no.

Based on the information that the officer had at the time did he do anything wrong? NO

Did the officer follow the procedures of his dept of apprehending an armed suspect? Yes.

And because the dumb led the blind and no one meant any harm, the persons rights where not violated?

 

[Shadow2]

If i had to make a citizens arrest i assure you id have corroborated facts. Not allegations. I however would not do what was done to these kids because i would have committed multiple felonies.

Really? when was the last time you had to arrest an armed suspect?

 

[Celt]

The person who falsely (apparently) reported the gun needs to be held accountable. Otherwise, you keep giving ammo to the BLM crowd. NO ONE (black or any color) should have to go through what those people had to deal with as a result of a false report.

This was basically going to be my comment as well. And I also blame a media for making people so jumpy and afraid of guns in general.

 

[holdover]

And because the dumb led the blind and no one meant any harm, the persons rights where not violated?

No ones rights were violated at any time.

 

[holdover]

If i had to make a citizens arrest i assure you id have corroborated facts. Not allegations. I however would not do what was done to these kids because i would have committed multiple felonies.

Based on what you have told me so far, I doubt it. Allegations of witness's are facts. whether they are true or not cannot always be determined without an investigation. To say that an officer cannot investigate a potential crime because a witness may be lying or inaccurate is asinine .

The accuracy of those allegations will be determined by the investigation of the officer and the courts.
Your saying the officer must prove the crime before he investigates it. That's not how it works.

 

[Airborneguy]

OK now here is where it gets sticky ... unlike the teens i don't give permission to search my car. And for those following

Credible: is basically the persons ability to convince a cop something is happening ..

Ok i decline search of my vehicle. what next


\

Credible is based on specific levels of proof established by law and the courts. It is not based on a person's persuasive abilities. Much of policing is viewed by uniformed parties through a myriad of misconceptions, this certainly being one of them.

I've had to inform numerous complainants over the years that what they're demanding I do is illegal. "I'm not calling you a liar ma'am, but I cannot legally do what you are asking me to do." We cannot act upon all information given, and contrary to media sensationalism, we don't. I'd venture more often than not, we don't.

Which by the way adds to the "can't win" mindset which eventually leads cops to not really care how civilians view us. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Best to just follow the law and tune out the noise,

 

[Airborneguy]

Now one eye witness has become multiple I was aware of only one in this situation ... was their another cut out of the video in the link?

Because as we know police can lie all they want during a "serious" investigation and FYI for those following they are allowed too lie all they want .. you on the other hand can have a lie used against you.

One witness/complainant is enough to establish probable cause.

In a situation like this, I'd have ensured that at least one officer stayed behind to obtain the complainant's pedigree info and a detailed description. Those two elements are enough to legally establish probable cause. Now the burden is on their statements.

 

[Airborneguy]

For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of FACTS to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime.

I think you can see where police start loosing support these days. the incremental steps taken to get the next phase aren't based on facts, facts are corroborated. Your Investigation is an attempt to corroborate facts. If your trying to corroborate facts it pretty much means you didn't have any facts to begin with to full-fill probable cause to begin with.

Corroborating facts is the hallmark of good investigative work. It's mind-boggling to suggest otherwise. Are you saying that you prefer that investigations be conducted using as little information as possible? Otherwise I can only take this as a statement that you view any proper investigation as an attempt to justify lies. If so, let me know so I can stop wasting my time because that is a ridiculous statement.

 

[Airborneguy]

If i had to make a citizens arrest i assure you id have corroborated facts. Not allegations. I however would not do what was done to these kids because i would have committed multiple felonies.

You're not charged with enforcing laws though. You have zero police powers. Like it or not, as much as Darth says it, the police are endowed with specific powers necessary to investigate crimes and make arrests. So yes, if you did what they did, you'd be arrested most likely, because unlike Darth's fantasy world, the police can do things that you cannot. The same laws DO NOT apply.

If I have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, I can detain or arrest a person, using force if necessary. That person cannot leave. A civilian can only do the same under very specific circumstances.

This is a concrete fact encoded in our nation's laws. Nothing said on the internet to the contrary is remotely true.

 

[Shadow2]

In this case thats exactly what I'm saying the investigation was to justify what amounted to be nothing but a lie. You can legitimize what law enforcement does all you like in the name of policing but to say ts not a violation of rights is disingenuous. Even the Supreme court acknowledges its a violation and deems it OK as long as its not to evasive to begin with. Its ridiculous!

Historically policing was the the act of catching people who flat out performed a criminal act. Now its turning into mini which hunts based on probability.

Sorry no matter which was you wrap a shit sandwich it still shit when you go to eat it.

Corroborating facts is the hallmark of good investigative work. It's mind-boggling to suggest otherwise. Are you saying that you prefer that investigations be conducted using as little information as possible? Otherwise I can only take this as a statement that you view any proper investigation as an attempt to justify lies. If so, let me know so I can stop wasting my time because that is a ridiculous statement.

 

[Shadow2]

The natural rights of the individuals where violated ... just because nobody is held responsible for it doesn't mean they where not violated. It pains Police to admit they violate people rights on a daily basis ... renaming it procedural, reasonable and probable helps clear the conscience.

One witness/complainant is enough to establish probable cause.

In a situation like this, I'd have ensured that at least one officer stayed behind to obtain the complainant's pedigree info and a detailed description. Those two elements are enough to legally establish probable cause. Now the burden is on their statements.

 

[Airborneguy]

Stop thinking for other people. It doesn't pain me at all to state that. The nature of law enforcement is to revoke the rights of persons accused of crimes, doing so under the laws and precedent established by our legal system.

There exist causes to violate a persons rights. During war, to kill them. During criminal investigations, to hold them accountable, during violent confrontations, to harm them, etc. Again, not rocket science.

Not every violation of rights is illegal. Maybe that is what you were trying to say?

 

[GOPerfect]

In this case thats exactly what I'm saying the investigation was to justify what amounted to be nothing but a lie. You can legitimize what law enforcement does all you like in the name of policing but to say ts not a violation of rights is disingenuous. Even the Supreme court acknowledges its a violation and deems it OK as long as its not to evasive to begin with. Its ridiculous!

Historically policing was the the act of catching people who flat out performed a criminal act. Now its turning into mini which hunts based on probability.

Sorry no matter which was you wrap a shit sandwich it still shit when you go to eat it.

Hum, so years ago, not sure when. the Police did not investigate crimes based on eye witness accounts? Interesting.

 

[Robin]

You Commit Three Felonies A Day
The study is from an ACLU commie dipshit so you must take that into consideration, but the point is, like that stated on the first page, we live in a police state.
As for this specific incident, the cops got what seemed a valid complaint and acted on it appropriately. There is enough real bad shit out there including abuse of power, abuse of position. This isn't one of them. I feel bad for those folks but their issue is with the one that falsely accused them, not the cops.
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

As much as I do not like it, I have to admit that besides the looking for a gun to charge them with that goes against 2A, they did nothing wrong. What I do not like is the 2A violation they were looking to charge the accused with.

For everything else, they acted on a call that they believed to be right based on a witness. They properly took the accused into custody and investigated the situation. Afterwards when the investigation proved unfounded, they released the accused.

Had the accused not cooperated, things would have turned out different but they did cooperate and no one lost their life.

Afterwards, the police should have gone after the the witness and charged him appropriately though. I don't like that they didn't do that but besides the continued search for the gun to charge them with and the not going after the false accuser, they did nothing wrong.

 

[Airborneguy]

We can’t charge the accuser unfortunately because there’s not enough information to prove it was done purposefully. I wish we could more easily charge for false allegations, but I do understand why we can’t most of the time.

 

[Truebeliever]

What Victim? the imaginary one along with the imaginary gun? Todays policing is a farce and i can only hope someday Terry vs Ohio gets kicked to the curb. Either a crime is happening or its not ... the suspension of rights because something may be happening is a dam joke.

So what you are saying is that suspicious activity should not be investigated by the police. It’s either criminal or not. The terry stop is to determine it. If a cop sees someone in a chokehold, does the cop have wait until there is a complaint? It could be just guys horsing around . And yes, people do do that in front of cops. A terry stop is stopping people who fit the description. So are you saying that in Fugerson, the cop sees Mike Brown, who fits the description and sees him carrying the what was to have been stolen in his hand , shouldn’t have stopped him? That’s a terry stop.

 

[Truebeliever]

He was suspected of shoplifting . a minor crime, But he was also suspected of being armed. which is not a crime. But it drastically changes the situation and approach. Because the police may have to apprehend an armed man suspected of a crime.

Dude, cops are assaulted, shot and killed by suspects of minor crimes. Carrying of the gun , not a crime? Maybe. The search for the gun can also be about safety.

A suspect of crime should be allowed to remain armed? That’s your logic.

 

[Truebeliever]

For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of FACTS to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime.

I think you can see where police start loosing support these days. the incremental steps taken to get the next phase aren't based on facts, facts are corroborated. Your Investigation is an attempt to corroborate facts. If your trying to corroborate facts it pretty much means you didn't have any facts to begin with to full-fill probable cause to begin with.

“Facts” of probable cause aren’t the same as actual facts. The “fact” that someone accused someone of something doesn’t make it a actual fact it occurred.

It’s “more probable than not” is that standard which governs car stops.

It’s to possibly lead to enough facts to establish probable cause for an arrest. Again, a different standard than “in fact committed “. A different legal standard.

 

[holdover]

Dude, cops are assaulted, shot and killed by suspects of minor crimes. Carrying of the gun , not a crime? Maybe. The search for the gun can also be about safety.

A suspect of crime should be allowed to remain armed? That’s your logic.

WTF are you talking about? No, I never even implied that. The point I was making was that The officer had reason to believe the suspect was armed and took appropriate action .

As far as minor crimes , Is it standard procedure to draw down on a shoplifter ? How about issuing a ticket? Do you normally draw your weapon? Unless you have some reason to believe there is threat that you can articulate, You really shouldn't draw your weapon at all .In this case the officer had good reason to draw , and good reason to search the car. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

 

[Truebeliever]

WTF are you talking about? No, I never even implied that. The point I was making was that The officer had reason to believe the suspect was armed and took appropriate action .

As far as minor crimes , Is it standard procedure to draw down on a shoplifter ? How about issuing a ticket? Do you normally draw your weapon? Unless you have some reason to believe there is threat that you can articulate, You really shouldn't draw your weapon at all .In this case the officer had good reason to draw , and good reason to search the car. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Minor shoplifter, sometimes. Multiple people in car , yep.

Shoplifting often turns into robbery. Look at the Mike Brown video. The cop goes to stop him and he attacks the cop and goes for his gun.

Cops are shot for less. Cops are killed for stopping to see if the motorist on the side of the road needs help. Cops are killed over speeding tickets

 

[holdover]

I agree, But you don't draw down on everyone you encounter right? You use caution , and in the case of somebody having a gun , extreme caution. I hope your not walking around with a gun in your hand until your shift is over.