TexasCHLforum.com

If you draw a gun in my vicinity I'd consider it aimed. If you weren't a cop and you drew a firearm on my family (but not aimed) you'd be very very dead.

Note: I am in no way condoning or recommending in any way acting in a seflf defense mode with police. Thats what "I refuse all consent" and the lawyer is for.

How does a LEO observing an likely underage person, exiting a store with what may likely (often is in that area?, time of night, that store selling to minors previously??) be a package of alcohol not meet the reasonable suspicion intent of the 4th?

Fair question.
Likely underage- Why? Thats opinion
Likely package-Why? because its a package? Isn't the store a government store?

Under this standard, anyone leaving a grocery in this state has PC to be stopped. Thats overlybroad in the extreme.

To be clear, I'm not saying it wouldn't pass some judge somewhere.
I'm saying in a free society this concept eviscerates the 4th Amendment.

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:hardly. His standard appears to be, if they have a bag, they are subject to a stop. Thats no standard at all as anyone with a bag can be stopped. Thats not reasonable in a free country.

Nope doesn't even come close to my standard but I wasn't talking about my standard anyway I was talking about the standard for law enforcement in Virginia which I should not be ragged on for stating what I believe are facts regardless how one feels about them. I didn't write the law, make any of the legal decisions, set the agency policy, I just stated what I believe those things are. Heck most of the time I don't even state if I agree with it or not.

To be clear I'm not ragging on you EEllis. I'm ragging on that nonstandard standard. It makes a mockery of the 4th and 5th Amendments when there's literally no cause for a search.

hardly. His standard appears to be, if they have a bag, they are subject to a stop. Thats no standard at all as anyone with a bag can be stopped. Thats not reasonable in a free country.

EEllis wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote: And they would not cause me to instinctively think "beer.". As I said, it appears to me they applied the "assume crime and make the citizen prove otherwise" approach. I suspect the same group would initiate a stop if they saw a driver drinking from a can but could not identify the brand.

Maybe so but you're not an ABC cop who has to justify the RS for a stop.

You've basically said they don't have to either.

EEllis wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:

EEllis wrote:...see what they believed was a minor carrying what appeared to be a 12 pack of beer.

This is the problem I am having. What made them "believe it was beer? They obviously did not positively identify it, so what made them believe it was beer instead of water or soda? I suspect it was a preformed bias toward believing it.
This just sounds a lot like the citizen having to prove innocence.

they don't have to positively identify it as beer it just has to be reasonable to them that it is. We, the courts, don't require law enforcement to be positive before allowing them it investigate or initiate a stop. There been no hint, except from people who in absolutely no position to know, that there was anything wrong with the RS for this stop.

Just for those who don't know this particular brand of water is canned not bottled and does not use the primarily single color packaging that soda uses. While soda and beer are not the only items that come in 12 pack cans these would certainly not cause me to instinctively think water.

It was wrong. In nonDear Leader land its not befitting a free people to be stopped for no reason.

But cited right? Thats not exactly Bonnie and Clyde requiring a full team.

EEllis wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: I'll repeat. Per the article when someone hit them with police lights they stopped. So it actually worked.

So moral of the story-swarming teenage girls because they might have a six pack is bad. Pulling up with marked patrol car and flashing lights better.

Ok and you think kids have never panicked and ran when hit with lights? Died in doing so? But because these particular girls were panicked by one approach and not lights and sirens, which have been documented many times to make kids panic, it is obvious which tactic is automatically better and should guide ABC in all their approaches to minors? Ok I'm done

Considering this is the actual scenario I'd say prudent use of marked vehicle at the get go would have worked.
Not bothering would have worked so much better. As noted seven cops, swarming college girls (that sounds bad right there) for what? At most a ticket? Were they waiting for the kids to get into the vehicle so they could seize and sell the vehicle? What exactly is the point?

Has anyone ever been arrested for that? (not the shop owners - the teenagers) who weren't being a nuisance in the first place?

mamabearCali wrote:I have good life insurance, but the point is citizens should not be put in this situation. If the LEO's want to interact with me, fine, but they need to be properly attired and identify themselves clearly from the start in a calm manner. That protects them and me. If a LEO wants to be undercover, then that is where he needs to stay (Absent life and limb situations) until a uniformed officer arrives. None of this "read my mind and know that I am a LEO because I am acting in an aggressive manner.

While I don't disagree evidently they do. Now I could see this for more serious offenses with uniformed/marked police and vehicles arriving Hollywood style, or in better environs (inside a store or something). But for a beer, with seven unknown persons advancing. Its...wo.

Still trying to figure out why they needed a whole pack of officers to take down Autumn and her sororiety compatriots. Where were they all hiding? Where they hanging on the corner like thugs and just wandered over. Whats going on?

Edit: is this offense even a misdemeanor?

mamabearCali wrote:On The VA gun forum I am a part of we are all sick to our stomachs over this. This could have happened to any one of us. A bunch of people run out at someone shouting un-intelligable things in the dark, waving things around, jumping on people cars.....yeah that is not good. Could have so easily been a lethal series of mistakes. Then what?

Hope you have good life insurance?

mamabearCali wrote:It was in VA so those girls could have been legally armed (open carry legal for 18+). Had then been armed I think it would have gone down much much worse. Poor things.

Exactly. When thinking about this situation, put it in that light as well.

Panda wrote:On one hand we have college girls buying water and cookie dough.

On the other hand we have people frightening those college girls by screaming at them, pounding on windows, and waving at least one gun around.


Decisions. Decisions.

Maybe they really just wanted the coookie dough>

What happens in this scenario if that were Texas and those college gals were legally armed?

I'll note back in ancient times when I was younger, I was passing bottle of water to a youngster in the back. Police lit us up. They asked what was in the bottle (I think open container laws may have been very recently put in place).

When they saw the youngster they mellowed quickly. We also offered them the bottle.
The whole thing lasted maybe 90 seconds. It was professional and businesslike. More than half of that was the officer talking the youngster to calm him (and us as the youngster was starting to freak) down. After he was calm (this included a promise by the officer to kill all the lights and sirens for the youngster before he left so he could "see the show") the officer said good night and split (to a great cacaphony of noise and lights much to our boy's delight). It was all good and none of us had any negative feelings about it.