Interesting

[G26ster]

Whew, ten pages (and counting!) of back and forth.

I sincerely doubt the notion that EEllis is a Law Enforcement Officer. The thing is, while the courts do recognize the subjectivity of an officer's observations on a stop, and take them into account during deliberations of what is reasonable or not, it remains that the officer has to have a little thing called "articulable facts" to back up Reasonable Suspicion. A man standing on a street corner with a rifle in hand or slung counts as an articulable fact. I, as the responding officer, can articulate that we received a call of a man with a rifle, and I observed a man with a rifle.

Now, if openly carrying a rifle is NOT a crime, then I have an articulable fact that goes nowhere. The fact supports a legal conclusion. Legally, I can do nothing against him. As a gunnie, I may walk up to him to ask what it is, and keep my eyes/ears open just in case he -might- be doing something, but I have absolutely zero justification to detain him, place him in cuffs, take his gun, or search his pockets. If he says he doesn't want to talk to me, and walks away, I can legally do nothing, no matter how rude or confrontational his attitude may be, no matter whether or not I think he's showing "contempt of cop."

If I receive a report that he aimed the rifle at someone, that would warrant a more serious investigation, request for ID, what is he doing, etc. A report that he fired the weapon would step it up another notch. Him aiming the weapon at me takes it even further. But none of this happened.

By the way, a Terry frisk is indeed a frisk for weapons, if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for his safety. A man with a rifle, engaged in legal, lawful activity, is not reasonable justification. Nor, since he's HOLDING A RIFLE, is that justification to search for a pistol! I already know he's armed, and if he was going to do something, would he waste time with drawing a pistol when the rifle's already out and ready? No, of course not. Therefore, if I cannot justify drawing my own gun and pointing it at him while he drops the rifle, I cannot justify a Terry search; I'm obviously not all that worried about the rifle.

Terry frisks are not intended to find identification. It's not a search for contraband, or a wallet, or money. Yes, these are found during Terry frisks, but that's incidental to the search; a NAA Mini revolver is a lot smaller than a wallet, so if I pat someone down looking for a gun that tiny, or a pocketknife, of course I'm going to find the wallet. But a pat-down for a wallet isn't kosher.

Therefore, with this guy in question, if the officer didn't have reason to draw his gun for the rifle the guy was holding, there was no reason to go through his pockets, and no reason to go through his wallet.

For the record, yes, I am an LEO. Yes, rude confrontations with people displaying "contempt of cop" drive me nuts. No, I can't, and won't, do anything about it except wish them a good day, and move on. I certainly won't make up any fake "laws" or "charges," or declare that the law doesn't matter. I've been on the bad end of a bogus search as a teenager. I've been the guy staring at the badge of an arrogant or overconfident cop who thought he had a "sure thing" arrest, when all he had was straw, and no wrongdoing or crime ever committed. I've also been the guy with a bit of a bad attitude toward said cop, and laughed in his face when he found nothing where there was nothing.

Any officer who is unable to act courteously in the face of contempt, or who believes "badge makes right," needs to leave this line of work yesterday. Anyone who supports that kind of officer, well, I can fairly well guarantee your support for them will fade if you ever wind up the recipient of said officer's tender courtesies, and you'll realize there's a reason for the restrictions placed upon us, the authority we wield, and how we can - and cannot - use it.

Thank you for your intelligent and insightful post!!!

[baldeagle]

Whew, ten pages (and counting!) of back and forth.

I sincerely doubt the notion that EEllis is a Law Enforcement Officer.

You may be right. OTOH, as I suspect, he may be one just like the one involved in this case, which would explain why he has labored so diligently to justify his behavior.

The thing is, while the courts do recognize the subjectivity of an officer's observations on a stop, and take them into account during deliberations of what is reasonable or not, it remains that the officer has to have a little thing called "articulable facts" to back up Reasonable Suspicion. A man standing on a street corner with a rifle in hand or slung counts as an articulable fact. I, as the responding officer, can articulate that we received a call of a man with a rifle, and I observed a man with a rifle.

Now, if openly carrying a rifle is NOT a crime, then I have an articulable fact that goes nowhere. The fact supports a legal conclusion. Legally, I can do nothing against him. As a gunnie, I may walk up to him to ask what it is, and keep my eyes/ears open just in case he -might- be doing something, but I have absolutely zero justification to detain him, place him in cuffs, take his gun, or search his pockets. If he says he doesn't want to talk to me, and walks away, I can legally do nothing, no matter how rude or confrontational his attitude may be, no matter whether or not I think he's showing "contempt of cop."

Thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you for articulating the law as you see it and as you've been trained.

[EEllis]

But none of this happened.

And you know this how? You know exactly what was reported?These cops should be familiar with the area judges and know what they accept as RS and are trained to be able to "articulate" RS should easily be able to justify RS. Or they ignored what is truly a low standard and will not be able to come up with RS that anyone who has TCLOSE cert should be able to do in their sleep.

By the way, a Terry frisk is indeed a frisk for weapons, if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for his safety. A man with a rifle, engaged in legal, lawful activity, is not reasonable justification. Nor, since he's HOLDING A RIFLE, is that justification to search for a pistol! I already know he's armed, and if he was going to do something, would he waste time with drawing a pistol when the rifle's already out and ready? No, of course not. Therefore, if I cannot justify drawing my own gun and pointing it at him while he drops the rifle, I cannot justify a Terry search; I'm obviously not all that worried about the rifle.

Terry frisks are not intended to find identification. It's not a search for contraband, or a wallet, or money. Yes, these are found during Terry frisks, but that's incidental to the search; a NAA Mini revolver is a lot smaller than a wallet, so if I pat someone down looking for a gun that tiny, or a pocketknife, of course I'm going to find the wallet. But a pat-down for a wallet isn't kosher.

Therefore, with this guy in question, if the officer didn't have reason to draw his gun for the rifle the guy was holding, there was no reason to go through his pockets, and no reason to go through his wallet.

I everything you say is accurate then fine but obviously the officer making the contact would disagree that is the case. You are assuming things that you can't know, stating possibilities as fact. For one thing who said anything about this being a Terry stop? You use that as an explanation as to why this incident isn't "Kosher" but I see no reason to believe any of this has to do with a Terry stop.

For the record, yes, I am an LEO. Yes, rude confrontations with people displaying "contempt of cop" drive me nuts. No, I can't, and won't, do anything about it except wish them a good day, and move on. I certainly won't make up any fake "laws" or "charges," or declare that the law doesn't matter. I've been on the bad end of a bogus search as a teenager. I've been the guy staring at the badge of an arrogant or overconfident cop who thought he had a "sure thing" arrest, when all he had was straw, and no wrongdoing or crime ever committed. I've also been the guy with a bit of a bad attitude toward said cop, and laughed in his face when he found nothing where there was nothing.

Any officer who is unable to act courteously in the face of contempt, or who believes "badge makes right," needs to leave this line of work yesterday. Anyone who supports that kind of officer, well, I can fairly well guarantee your support for them will fade if you ever wind up the recipient of said officer's tender courtesies, and you'll realize there's a reason for the restrictions placed upon us, the authority we wield, and how we can - and cannot - use it.

The law doesn't require professionalism, respect,or courtesy. Hopefully the department sort that out.

[Originalist]

JSThane,
Well said. I hope you'll stick around contribute more in some of our other discussions.

But none of this happened.

And you know this how? You know exactly what was reported?These cops should be familiar with the area judges and know what they accept as RS and are trained to be able to "articulate" RS should easily be able to justify RS. Or they ignored what is truly a low standard and will not be able to come up with RS that anyone who has TCLOSE cert should be able to do in their sleep.

By the way, a Terry frisk is indeed a frisk for weapons, if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for his safety. A man with a rifle, engaged in legal, lawful activity, is not reasonable justification. Nor, since he's HOLDING A RIFLE, is that justification to search for a pistol! I already know he's armed, and if he was going to do something, would he waste time with drawing a pistol when the rifle's already out and ready? No, of course not. Therefore, if I cannot justify drawing my own gun and pointing it at him while he drops the rifle, I cannot justify a Terry search; I'm obviously not all that worried about the rifle.

Terry frisks are not intended to find identification. It's not a search for contraband, or a wallet, or money. Yes, these are found during Terry frisks, but that's incidental to the search; a NAA Mini revolver is a lot smaller than a wallet, so if I pat someone down looking for a gun that tiny, or a pocketknife, of course I'm going to find the wallet. But a pat-down for a wallet isn't kosher.

Therefore, with this guy in question, if the officer didn't have reason to draw his gun for the rifle the guy was holding, there was no reason to go through his pockets, and no reason to go through his wallet.

I everything you say is accurate then fine but obviously the officer making the contact would disagree that is the case. You are assuming things that you can't know, stating possibilities as fact. For one thing who said anything about this being a Terry stop? You use that as an explanation as to why this incident isn't "Kosher" but I see no reason to believe any of this has to do with a Terry stop.

For the record, yes, I am an LEO. Yes, rude confrontations with people displaying "contempt of cop" drive me nuts. No, I can't, and won't, do anything about it except wish them a good day, and move on. I certainly won't make up any fake "laws" or "charges," or declare that the law doesn't matter. I've been on the bad end of a bogus search as a teenager. I've been the guy staring at the badge of an arrogant or overconfident cop who thought he had a "sure thing" arrest, when all he had was straw, and no wrongdoing or crime ever committed. I've also been the guy with a bit of a bad attitude toward said cop, and laughed in his face when he found nothing where there was nothing.

Any officer who is unable to act courteously in the face of contempt, or who believes "badge makes right," needs to leave this line of work yesterday. Anyone who supports that kind of officer, well, I can fairly well guarantee your support for them will fade if you ever wind up the recipient of said officer's tender courtesies, and you'll realize there's a reason for the restrictions placed upon us, the authority we wield, and how we can - and cannot - use it.

The law doesn't require professionalism, respect,or courtesy. Hopefully the department sort that out.

You keep saying we don't know if the cops had RS or not but I submit, if they had RS of a violation of law, when asked why would they not indicate what section of law tehy suspected him of violating? Why would they blurt out "rudely displaying a firearm?" I mean doens't that go to credibility and them trying to justify there actions after the fact??

Being in LE, I can tell you that my RS would be based on an actual statute to make our encounter legally sustainable and I would articulate, if asked BUT I wouldn't make something up.

[jimlongley]

. . . The law doesn't require professionalism, respect,or courtesy. Hopefully the department sort that out.

And that applies to the victim of this abuse too.

[EEllis]

You keep saying we don't know if the cops had RS or not but I submit, if they had RS of a violation of law, when asked why would they not indicate what section of law tehy suspected him of violating? Why would they blurt out "rudely displaying a firearm?" I mean doens't that go to credibility and them trying to justify there actions after the fact??

Being in LE, I can tell you that my RS would be based on an actual statute to make our encounter legally sustainable and I would articulate, if asked BUT I wouldn't make something up.

First we know one officer did say something like that but I don't know if that was the original officer, the one that would have needed the RS, do you know? If it wasn't then the whole question is moot. Two while it may be considered correct by you, heck by me, there is no legal obligation for an officer to give RS and as a point of fact I'm not aware of any obligation in Texas for a person to be informed of a charge when being arrested. SCOTUS has even said it doesn't matter what you are told you are being charged with if in fact there is PC for an arrest on any charge. Clearly it shows it isn't required by SCOTUS to be informed of PC so certainly that must also hold for RS. I don't know of any reason in Texas that an officer must give RS and while that officer statement very well be used by the defence to attack RS is it really that different form being told you are arrested for "stupidity" or other comments that have been made many times by officers everywhere? As to why why wouldn't an officer inform CJ in this case. Well maybe he was trying to give him a dumbed down version, because lets face it police and courts tend to use jargon and phrases that are not part of everyday speech, but by that time any officer could have articulated PC for an obstruction charge based on what I viewed. Now that doesn't mean he is or will be found guilty of obstruction or interference or whatever the charge might be, but that isn't the standard for PC for an arrest so him being able to beat the charge doesn't mean PC isn't there.

[Originalist]

You keep saying we don't know if the cops had RS or not but I submit, if they had RS of a violation of law, when asked why would they not indicate what section of law tehy suspected him of violating? Why would they blurt out "rudely displaying a firearm?" I mean doens't that go to credibility and them trying to justify there actions after the fact??

Being in LE, I can tell you that my RS would be based on an actual statute to make our encounter legally sustainable and I would articulate, if asked BUT I wouldn't make something up.

First we know one officer did say something like that but I don't know if that was the original officer, the one that would have needed the RS, do you know? If it wasn't then the whole question is moot. Two while it may be considered correct by you, heck by me, there is no legal obligation for an officer to give RS and as a point of fact I'm not aware of any obligation in Texas for a person to be informed of a charge when being arrested. SCOTUS has even said it doesn't matter what you are told you are being charged with if in fact there is PC for an arrest on any charge. Clearly it shows it isn't required by SCOTUS to be informed of PC so certainly that must also hold for RS. I don't know of any reason in Texas that an officer must give RS and while that officer statement very well be used by the defence to attack RS is it really that different form being told you are arrested for "stupidity" or other comments that have been made many times by officers everywhere? As to why why wouldn't an officer inform CJ in this case. Well maybe he was trying to give him a dumbed down version, because lets face it police and courts tend to use jargon and phrases that are not part of everyday speech, but by that time any officer could have articulated PC for an obstruction charge based on what I viewed. Now that doesn't mean he is or will be found guilty of obstruction or interference or whatever the charge might be, but that isn't the standard for PC for an arrest so him being able to beat the charge doesn't mean PC isn't there.

Dumb it down? Like dumb down "unlawful possession," Disorderly conduct? Why would those terms, which could have been used, need to be dumbed down? My 6 year old can tell you what unlawful means... I have seen the beginning when the officer was the only one on scene (evident my CJ's actions in the video when the next officer showed up). I am not sure which version you are referencing... I agree, if I am arresting you for PC of a crime, I dont necessarily have to tell every charge PLUS we all know DAs will add and take away given circumstances, etc.

Like I said, it isnt unreasonable to want to know why the cop is stopping you... At the very least they need to articulate why its a lawful detention and not a consensual encounter. Otherwise, how are you supposed to know if you are free to go?

Again, RS and PC are two totally different things.

You are incorrectly inferring what the SCOTUS said about charges pertaining to arrests where PC was evident to substantiate an arrest applies with RS needed for a cop to make contact and detain me. The actual charges are always fluid (added if justified, deleted if pleading out, etc).

I ask you, If you are a cop and approach me and I ask you if I am being detained and tell me yes and your answer to my next of question of what crime am I suspected of committing, if you don't answer me and I walk off, what would you do? Would you arrest me? For what? How am I supposed to determine if we are engaged in a detention or a consensual encounter? Am i supposed to just guess or let you indefinitely hold me there until you are satisfied?

[EEllis]

You keep saying we don't know if the cops had RS or not but I submit, if they had RS of a violation of law, when asked why would they not indicate what section of law tehy suspected him of violating? Why would they blurt out "rudely displaying a firearm?" I mean doens't that go to credibility and them trying to justify there actions after the fact??

Being in LE, I can tell you that my RS would be based on an actual statute to make our encounter legally sustainable and I would articulate, if asked BUT I wouldn't make something up.

First we know one officer did say something like that but I don't know if that was the original officer, the one that would have needed the RS, do you know? If it wasn't then the whole question is moot. Two while it may be considered correct by you, heck by me, there is no legal obligation for an officer to give RS and as a point of fact I'm not aware of any obligation in Texas for a person to be informed of a charge when being arrested. SCOTUS has even said it doesn't matter what you are told you are being charged with if in fact there is PC for an arrest on any charge. Clearly it shows it isn't required by SCOTUS to be informed of PC so certainly that must also hold for RS. I don't know of any reason in Texas that an officer must give RS and while that officer statement very well be used by the defence to attack RS is it really that different form being told you are arrested for "stupidity" or other comments that have been made many times by officers everywhere? As to why why wouldn't an officer inform CJ in this case. Well maybe he was trying to give him a dumbed down version, because lets face it police and courts tend to use jargon and phrases that are not part of everyday speech, but by that time any officer could have articulated PC for an obstruction charge based on what I viewed. Now that doesn't mean he is or will be found guilty of obstruction or interference or whatever the charge might be, but that isn't the standard for PC for an arrest so him being able to beat the charge doesn't mean PC isn't there.

Dumb it down? Like dumb down "unlawful possession," Disorderly conduct? Why would those terms, which could have been used, need to be dumbed down? My 6 year old can tell you what unlawful means... I have seen the beginning when the officer was the only one on scene (evident my CJ's actions in the video when the next officer showed up). I am not sure which version you are referencing... I agree, if I am arresting you for PC of a crime, I dont necessarily have to tell every charge PLUS we all know DAs will add and take away given circumstances, etc.

Like I said, it isnt unreasonable to want to know why the cop is stopping you... At the very least they need to articulate why its a lawful detention and not a consensual encounter. Otherwise, how are you supposed to know if you are free to go?

It isn't unreasonable at all but show me where the law requires it.

Again, RS and PC are two totally different things.

You are incorrectly inferring what the SCOTUS said about charges pertaining to arrests where PC was evident to substantiate an arrest applies with RS needed for a cop to make contact and detain me. The actual charges are always fluid (added if justified, deleted if pleading out, etc).

It's true that if SCOTUS doesn't require a person to be told PC if they are arrested, and or even be told correctly what they are arrested for that it would be illogical to expect there to be a higher standard for RS then PC. If a cop doesn't have to mention PC when it's being used for an arrest then they can't be required to provide RS for a stop. True I am inferring but much of law is just that. While you say I'm making an incorrect inference I don't have much faith in you analysis since you aren't correctly applying it in your example. Oh and while the charges might change the PC shouldn't

I ask you, If you are a cop and approach me and I ask you if I am being detained and tell me yes and your answer to my next of question of what crime am I suspected of committing, if you don't answer me and I walk off, what would you do? Would you arrest me? For what? How am I supposed to determine if we are engaged in a detention or a consensual encounter? Am i supposed to just guess or let you indefinitely hold me there until you are satisfied?

If a cop says yes then you are detained. If you walk off you get at the least an obstruction charge like CJ or maybe a fleeing charge. Police don't have to tell you why you were detained. I know some states have specific laws about giving the reason for an arrest but iI don't know that Texas is one. If a cop tells you you are not free to go then you should assume and act as if you are under arrest for your own protection. If there was no basis then you use the justice system to rectify the problem.

[jmra]

[handog]

The decision in the NRA case ( D'Costa I believe) in Lubbock handed down in January 2012 - recognized that Texas law ALLOWS the open carry of a long gun. This is Texas law. Subjective "discomforts" with the excercise of this right NOT YET INFRINGED UPON by the high powers of State government notwithstanding - this man should not have been molested by the POPO. Also 911 operators needing some tutorials on the law in Texas. We don't trump the LAW with feelings.

If you want TEXAS to turn into another KALIFORNIA - continue this touchy feely nonsense. The LAW is the LAW.

Well said.

"Any one with a gun is dangerous!" From a Sergeant! With a gun on his hip!!

What has happened to the land of the free home of the brave? Seriously? The officer "felt" threatened?

" Sorry excuse for an officer."

" I'm going to file a complaint."

Internal investigations are a joke.

[handog]

What changes with numerous citizen complaints? If multiple people are calling in, they have to investigate, no?
Brian

Hypothetical. 911 calls come in reporting a man walking down the street with a rifle. The 911 operator has a choice. They can ask more questions (is he shooting? Is he doing anything threatening?) Or they can simply dispatch officers.

If they ask more questions, they might determine that the man's actions appear to be lawful and there's no cause to dispatch officers to the scene.

If they dispatch officers, the officers will investigate. (That's their job.) When they arrive in the vicinity they should observe the man. If they don't see him do anything threatening, they can approach, ask his name and what he's doing. So long as his answers and behavior aren't cause for alarm, the officers should then call in to dispatch and tell them the many is acting lawfully. There was a beautiful example of that posted here not that long ago. These officers acted as though they could do anything they want regardless of the law (they even stated that) and they acted as though the man had no rights at all. That's what happens in totalitarian countries. It's not supposed to happen in America.

I've noticed a conspicuous absence of any comments from our LEO's on this forum with regard to this. I find that interesting.

Amen.

Whew, ten pages (and counting!) of back and forth.

I sincerely doubt the notion that EEllis is a Law Enforcement Officer. The thing is, while the courts do recognize the subjectivity of an officer's observations on a stop, and take them into account during deliberations of what is reasonable or not, it remains that the officer has to have a little thing called "articulable facts" to back up Reasonable Suspicion. A man standing on a street corner with a rifle in hand or slung counts as an articulable fact. I, as the responding officer, can articulate that we received a call of a man with a rifle, and I observed a man with a rifle.

Now, if openly carrying a rifle is NOT a crime, then I have an articulable fact that goes nowhere. The fact supports a legal conclusion. Legally, I can do nothing against him. As a gunnie, I may walk up to him to ask what it is, and keep my eyes/ears open just in case he -might- be doing something, but I have absolutely zero justification to detain him, place him in cuffs, take his gun, or search his pockets. If he says he doesn't want to talk to me, and walks away, I can legally do nothing, no matter how rude or confrontational his attitude may be, no matter whether or not I think he's showing "contempt of cop."

If I receive a report that he aimed the rifle at someone, that would warrant a more serious investigation, request for ID, what is he doing, etc. A report that he fired the weapon would step it up another notch. Him aiming the weapon at me takes it even further. But none of this happened.

By the way, a Terry frisk is indeed a frisk for weapons, if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for his safety. A man with a rifle, engaged in legal, lawful activity, is not reasonable justification. Nor, since he's HOLDING A RIFLE, is that justification to search for a pistol! I already know he's armed, and if he was going to do something, would he waste time with drawing a pistol when the rifle's already out and ready? No, of course not. Therefore, if I cannot justify drawing my own gun and pointing it at him while he drops the rifle, I cannot justify a Terry search; I'm obviously not all that worried about the rifle.

Terry frisks are not intended to find identification. It's not a search for contraband, or a wallet, or money. Yes, these are found during Terry frisks, but that's incidental to the search; a NAA Mini revolver is a lot smaller than a wallet, so if I pat someone down looking for a gun that tiny, or a pocketknife, of course I'm going to find the wallet. But a pat-down for a wallet isn't kosher.

Therefore, with this guy in question, if the officer didn't have reason to draw his gun for the rifle the guy was holding, there was no reason to go through his pockets, and no reason to go through his wallet.

For the record, yes, I am an LEO. Yes, rude confrontations with people displaying "contempt of cop" drive me nuts. No, I can't, and won't, do anything about it except wish them a good day, and move on. I certainly won't make up any fake "laws" or "charges," or declare that the law doesn't matter. I've been on the bad end of a bogus search as a teenager. I've been the guy staring at the badge of an arrogant or overconfident cop who thought he had a "sure thing" arrest, when all he had was straw, and no wrongdoing or crime ever committed. I've also been the guy with a bit of a bad attitude toward said cop, and laughed in his face when he found nothing where there was nothing.

Any officer who is unable to act courteously in the face of contempt, or who believes "badge makes right," needs to leave this line of work yesterday. Anyone who supports that kind of officer, well, I can fairly well guarantee your support for them will fade if you ever wind up the recipient of said officer's tender courtesies, and you'll realize there's a reason for the restrictions placed upon us, the authority we wield, and how we can - and cannot - use it.

Very well said

[AcesFull]

Eellis wrote: These cops should be familiar with the area judges and know what they accept as RS and are trained to be able to "articulate" RS should easily be able to justify RS.

Yep...that right there explains everything I need to know about you. Are you one of the officers in the video or are you going to put this on your résumé to get hired there?

[EEllis]

Eellis wrote: These cops should be familiar with the area judges and know what they accept as RS and are trained to be able to "articulate" RS should easily be able to justify RS.

Yep...that right there explains everything I need to know about you. Are you one of the officers in the video or are you going to put this on your résumé to get hired there?

What kind of crap is this? I disagree so it's time for smart remarks, insults, and innuendo? Grow up.

[AcesFull]

Eellis wrote: These cops should be familiar with the area judges and know what they accept as RS and are trained to be able to "articulate" RS should easily be able to justify RS.

Yep...that right there explains everything I need to know about you. Are you one of the officers in the video or are you going to put this on your résumé to get hired there?

What kind of crap is this? I disagree so it's time for smart remarks, insults, and innuendo? Grow up.

My apologies. For some reason I thought y'all were supposed to be looking for RS of a crime. I didn't know it was actually RS an area judge would accept.

[EEllis]

Eellis wrote: These cops should be familiar with the area judges and know what they accept as RS and are trained to be able to "articulate" RS should easily be able to justify RS.

Yep...that right there explains everything I need to know about you. Are you one of the officers in the video or are you going to put this on your résumé to get hired there?

What kind of crap is this? I disagree so it's time for smart remarks, insults, and innuendo? Grow up.

My apologies. For some reason I thought y'all were supposed to be looking for RS of a crime. I didn't know it was actually RS an area judge would accept.

First off it isn't "y'all". I'm not speaking of myself or even my personal opinions but rather my thoughts on the legality of the stop. As to your outrage at officers concerned with their judges ideas on RS, well you just can't have it both ways. RS is all about a judges call. If a judge says there is no RS then legally no matter how sure the officer is about the correctness of a stop is, it's not legal. Our legal system says that officers cannot be trusted to act without review so you must then expect them to consider that review when making their decisions. To do otherwise would be the problem, not to take into consideration what you know about the judge. That doesn't mean officers should or do lower their own personal standards on RS, I would have no way of knowing that, just that they should have arrested enough people to get a better than fair idea what the court they go through accepts as RS.

On another note, what is with all the hostility? I understand this is a pro gun site but why all the bashing? I have stated what I believe the law is. Not if I agree, believe it correct, or what I personally want, just objectively what I think it is. Why would that be a bad thing to so many on here?