TexasCHLforum.com

AcesFull wrote:

EEllis wrote:

AcesFull wrote: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?

AcesFull wrote: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.

Originalist wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote: 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.

Originalist wrote: 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.

JSThane wrote: 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.

puma guy wrote: What I can discern in your various arguments is that the police had RS suspicion for a stop where a citizen in full accordance with his statutorily protected right and ability to openly carry a long arm in Texas and then PC to take it away, remove his personal property, and then handcuff and arrest him. I can't wait for open carry in Texas. I can only hope you are a proponent of OC, then do so, if it passes, and are near the Temple Police so you can allow them to exercise on you all the legal magic you've been spouting. I guess we have a new legal standard: pass laws that provoke and provide "RS" and "PC" for illegal police stops when the citizenry abide by them.

Well I think it's very possible that the police would be able to give a RS for the stop and that assuming they can't have RS is more wish fulfillment than based on any objective reasoning. If they did have RS then I believe the man's own actions in response to a legal stop would have provided PC for an arrest. At the time of an arrest of course the man would be searched and weapons seized. There would've been no other PC for seizing the gun before the PC for the arrest, except it's my belief that most courts would view it acceptable for the police to temp remove even legal firearms in a legal police stop. It is also fair to note that to word seizing would technically fit even a 5 second exam of a firearm to check to see if it had been recently fired, and this is just as an example, but courts have acknowledged there are different degrees to stops, searches, custody, etc. They generally tend to require more proof the more obtrusive an activity is. Since allowing officers a quick check of a firearm is less obtrusive than it being removed from you control for days at end and requiring a legal battle to recover it, well I think the burden on the police will be lower. What might prevent this is a law that states the exercise of the right to open carry where legal to do so cannot in and of itself be used as RS for a stop but even with such a law the RS for this stop may have been possible without having anything to do with the rifle. As to open carry, yes I would be for it and would be happy if it passes and as to Temple PD I have a feeling I would've walked away about 5 min after the initial stop. I understand he might be upset but his failure to control himself is what cause his arrest from my viewpoint. Not that I am giving the cops a pass exactly but you can control yourself you can't control others actions.

jimlongley wrote:
Your quotes seem to have lost sequence, so it's a little confusing, but I think above you state that carrying a rifle across the chest is not normal. I ask, considering the wealth of picture in the media showing people doing just that, how is it not normal?

Actualy I think that I said if someone said a person was carrying a rifle slung in a "normal manner" I would assume it was slung over the sholder. The pictures of people carrying rifles across the chest are of people using what I would consider combat rigs and I have no idea if it played any part in the officers RS

And even if it was not "normal" it still doesn't rise to the level of RS, which means there was no PC, which means even if he was resisting, which the video shows no real evidence of, he was not only well within his rights to do so, but the cops in this case need to be arrested. Being disagreeable about an illegal stop, search, and seizure, is pretty much a natural reaction.

I never said it played any part in the RS so the fact that it doesn't effect RS does not mean there is no RS. I also think you are stuck on viewing RS thru your own eyes which isn't how it works. If the officer can articulate to the court an explanation for RS that a judge believes a reasonable person would believe then there is RS. You are right though if there is no RS then everything after is done because without RS then there is no legal police action for him to obstruct. As to arresting the cops, even if the court finds the RS insufficient that does not automatically that the cops did something legally actionable.

Do you ever actually just answer a question presented to you?

I try but most have been statements not questions and a lot of the questions are of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of deal.

Originalist wrote:You keep muddying the waters between RS and PC... RS is needed for a Terry Stop (including a simple frisk for weapons for Officer safety). However PC is needed in every circumstance (other then a consent search). Whether that PC has to be relayed to a judge for a warrant is excepted in few circumstances called exigent circumstances BUT they have to be executed in good faith and within reason. One's reason would be left up to a judge to decide and an appeals court to consider (no doubt).

Searches incident to apprehension have even been limited in scope since 2009. They must meet one of a two part test... To search me, my belongings, etc. One would need PC that I committed a crime BUT if the detention is ruled a detention without RS then EVERYTHING is a wash. If the detention is ruled a consenual encounter, then you get what you get and you dont throw a fit. That is why the first question should always be "Am I being detained" followed by "What crime am I suspected of committing" and lastly "I do not consent to this encounter and I do not consent to any search or seizure of my person or property" After you establish your lack of consent, anything further to limit your free movement is a detention and RS is needed.

If the cops did get the call, the correct thing should be to drive by, maybe even engage in a consensual encounter, but given his actions hadnt violated any law, there isnt much more the cop could do... Do we not live in a society where I am considered lawful unless I demonstrate otherwise? Why should I, who never committed a crime, be forced to give up my rights (while I am performing lawful activities) because of other peoples crimes?

I'm not muddiying anything. I will say that almost everything you say here about RS and PC I've said in one form or another except where you said that PC is needed in every circumstance. I don't understand how people are assuming there is no RS. We have idea what the officers RS was. Maybe someone reported shots, threats, etc. the cop could of been getting out of the car to approach and observed behavior that gave RS. We don't know so saying there isn't proper RS is an obvious intellectual dishonesty. Mind you at least one of the cops comes off like an idiot and there could very well be an issue with the RS and I'd have to eat a bit of crow. As to proper behavior for the police officers legally they don't have to be professional. I have never said that I approved or agreed with this stop or how it ended up, just on the legality as I see it. I don't see the benefit to pretending that the courts think like we do. Now that someone would attempt to make a case changing some or any of the generally accepted standards is fine by me, we need some things rolled back, but even there it seems common sense to acknowledge that is what one is doing, attempting to change precedent, rather than pretending precedent favors you.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote: Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that, if you have RS, then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can only be done after an arrest has been effected.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?

Because it is true you don't need a warrant which is what you claimed repeatedly.

I have never claimed that. I didn't claim that in the post you quote. In fact I gave you SCOTUS cites for all four cases that address what officers can do without a warrant in the field in the circumstances that surround this case.

Oh but you did when you said

So you think RS gives the police the right to seize your property and search your person without a warrant. You're wrong, but you clearly don't think so, so there's not much point in arguing any further.

But you did contradict yourself later and admit that RS could justify some search and seizures without warrants, but then you try and link Terry with this stop and since it doesn't fit Terry you say is legal. The fact that it doesn't fit Terry means That it doesn't fit Terry, that is not an indicator of it's legality.

EEllis wrote:Terry shows one set of limited circumstances where you don't need a warrant but there are others.

All of which I gave you above - unless you're contending there is one I didn't address, in which case please cite the case and precedent.

Are you honestly saying you think you addressed every case possible or acceptable? And how would it matter? I say I'm using Terry as an example and you say "I gave a buch of examples!" So?

EEllis wrote:That I keep calling you on that doesn't mean that I think this stop is a Terry stop just that Terry is the most well know thus easily mentionable exemption. The officer did and does need RS for their stop, which people seem to ignore that I have prob mentioned more than anyone else, but they don't have to tell anyone what their RS is until later. If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them, again if they have reason to do so.

Officers may disarm you during a stop if they feel threatened. The rifle was slung across his chest in the normal manner of carry. At no time did he threaten the officers, which he pointed out. The officer didn't even know about his .45 until he told him about it. Or are you contending that the mere presence of the rifle is threatening? If so, that's an interesting claim, because that seems to be precisely the reason the officer chose to disarm him.

I don't know and I fail to see how you could. Unless we go back to the internet mind reading thing. SCOTUS has said that RS is entirely subjective and it matters what the cop know or believes more than what the actual facts are. Until the RS for the stop is expressed, to a court not an aside by an office at the scene, pretending you know what an individual judge will decide about it is absurd. I wouldn't call slinging a rifle across your chest "The normal way to carry a rifle" I would of thought that slinging over the shoulder would be though I have no idea if it had any effect on the officers RS. I never said he threatened the officers but he doesn't have to if they have RS. I don't care about the .45 because at the time I think the cops had decieded they had PC for an arrest and thus could do a full and complete search.

EEllis wrote:After a certain point when a person obstructs officers in an attempt to investigate because of the RS it becomes a crime in and of itself obstruction

Precisely at what point did he obstruct the officers? Please be specific.

The whole time on the tape he was being as disagreeable as possible. He yells, physically resist , fails to follow orders, the whole video I saw.

EEllis wrote:and while they may or may not arrest for PC, obstruction I mean, as soon as they believe they have that PC then they can search and seize to their hearts content just like they can after the person has been formally arrested. Given the video starts with what could easily be considered obstruction I don't see the legitimacy of claiming illegal search or seizure. The RS led to the contact his actions lead to PC for an arrest. I'm not saying the deck isn't stacked but ignoring the realities as they stand now is not something I'm interested in doing.

So you consider a law abiding citizen asking an officer why they are being detained and disarmed obstruction?

And BTW, he was not charged with obstruction. He was charged with interfering with public duties.

Sec. 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:

(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

Please describe where the criminal negligence occurred.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are a LEO. (No offense meant to the many fine LEO members of this forum, for whom I have the greatest respect.)

[/quote]

You do realise that criminal negligence is an amazingly low bar right? It sounds bad but in legal speak it actually shows the lowest level of culpability in a crime. That you don't have to intend to violate a law but you do so thru negligence, ignorance, or recklessness not direct intent. So yes he impeded the officers the whole time.

baldeagle wrote: Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that, if you have RS, then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can only be done after an arrest has been effected.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?

Because it is true you don't need a warrant which is what you claimed repeatedly. Terry shows one set of limited circumstances where you don't need a warrant but there are others. That I keep calling you on that doesn't mean that I think this stop is a Terry stop just that Terry is the most well know thus easily mentionable exemption. The officer did and does need RS for their stop, which people seem to ignore that I have prob mentioned more than anyone else, but they don't have to tell anyone what their RS is until later. If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them, again if they have reason to do so. After a certain point when a person obstructs officers in an attempt to investigate because of the RS it becomes a crime in and of itself obstruction, and while they may or may not arrest for PC, obstruction I mean, as soon as they believe they have that PC then they can search and seize to their hearts content just like they can after the person has been formally arrested. Given the video starts with what could easily be considered obstruction I don't see the legitimacy of claiming illegal search or seizure. The RS led to the contact his actions lead to PC for an arrest. I'm not saying the deck isn't stacked but ignoring the realities as they stand now is not something I'm interested in doing.

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote: You're too full of yourself. I've confronted your beliefs (and I'm glad you finally admit they are beliefs) with facts and you've sidestepped answering them.

Sidestepped my rosey red patootie, If the cop had RS then he could do what he did plain and simple. The only way to know is a ruling by a court or the DA thinking the RS might be weak so asking the court to drop or dismiss all charges leading from the stop. Mind you the DA can also drop charges for any number of other reasons but it would make me suspicious, at the least, if he did. RS does not require that everyone who views the event perceive the same level, or any suspicious behavior at all, just that he be able to make the judge believe that a reasonable person could think so. You may want there to be a higher burden of proof but right now there isn't.

So you think RS gives the police the right to seize your property and search your person without a warrant. You're wrong, but you clearly don't think so, so there's not much point in arguing any further.

Terry says Scotus also thinks so.

wconn33 wrote: From what I have seen several people have refuted what you said with Logic but that is not good enough for you.

Yep for the most part that logic has consisted of I'm wrong because I'm wrong. Circular logic shouldn't be confused with real logic.

baldeagle wrote: You're too full of yourself. I've confronted your beliefs (and I'm glad you finally admit they are beliefs) with facts and you've sidestepped answering them.

Sidestepped my rosey red patootie, If the cop had RS then he could do what he did plain and simple. The only way to know is a ruling by a court or the DA thinking the RS might be weak so asking the court to drop or dismiss all charges leading from the stop. Mind you the DA can also drop charges for any number of other reasons but it would make me suspicious, at the least, if he did. RS does not require that everyone who views the event perceive the same level, or any suspicious behavior at all, just that he be able to make the judge believe that a reasonable person could think so. You may want there to be a higher burden of proof but right now there isn't.

mojo84 wrote: I suspect he is curious because you repeatedly trend to grant search and seizure powers to cops that they do not have. It takes more than just a cop's curiosity or a desire to search someone or to seize a homeowners weapon when the person is not suspected of wrong doing.

Maybe it is just that he sees me as pro law enforcement but as I have said, I'm not saying what I want or believe just the way it is backed up by SCOTUS. And you're making a strawman argument because that's (what you claim) never been stated by me. I say the cops need RS but everyone seems to ignore it or twist the meaning to what they believe it should be instead of what the courts have ruled.

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?

If you think that was an attack you're not going to fair very well here.

No but I'm suspicious that he wanted to know so he could try diminish my beliefs without having to bother with confronting those beliefs with logic..