That isn't how it works. He doesn't have to break any laws for there to be RS and unless you know what the officer says RS was then you can't even start to discuss fact. It's just theory. In theory the RS could be shots reported earlier, the way he was carrying the gun, that the guy fit a description of someone else, who knows. Here is something else just to mess with your head. There is no real standard for RS but that the officer articulate the suspicion and a judge believe it was reasonable for the officer to have that suspicion. Not you me or Joe Blow but that officer. If the cop is eloquent and well spoken then he is much more likely to be able to convince a judge as to the "reasonableness" of his suspicion. That is one issue. The other is interference. The guy was physically resisting, wouldn't answer or keep silent, and yes just making noise can be interference, and generally being as uncooperative as possible. What do you think interference is? You can refuse to talk, withhold permission, things like that, but you can't make the cops drag you rather than move. Physically block access even without resistance.C-dub wrote: I am also neither a LEO or lawyer and have not been either in a past life.
All of this is why I don't understand what duty he interfered with. I still don't know or understand what RS they had to start with.
Also, BTW, Charles knows at least as much as I do about this case and even he is unaware of any laws the guy broke.
Mind you it's barely more than a nuisance charge and designed as much to allow the cops to just jail someone who is causing problems and get them out of the way as much as anything else.
