Kennedy

People who watch too much TV think that way. Reality just ain't so. During a traffic stop, you are not under arrest, but you are not free to leave. If you have some interaction with an officer and he decides to write you a ticket, you are not under arrest, but you are not free to leave. During a criminal investigation if someone points you out as the suspect, you are not under arrest, but you are not free to leave. If you are a material witness or in possession of evidence and an officer stops you,you are not under arrest, but you are not free to leave. If you are instructed not to move/leave by an officer, you are not under arrest, but you are not free to leave. The examples go on and on. DO I need to continue? Educate yourself on what your rights are and aren't and more importantly what an officer can and cannot do to you. Otherwise you become just another asshole screaming that you know your rights while being stuffed into the backseat of a police car. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You really need some help. And regardless of what Black Law has to say, current court decisions state that being handcuffed does not automatically constitute a custodial arrest. If you bothered to educate yourself, you'd see that being detained is very different from being arrested. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Excellent post, Kennedy. The liberals will probably insist that little old white ladies be stopped and frisked in order to even up the racial statistics, just like they do at airports. That's the only way to make it "fair". Maybe I'm reading into this too much but for clarification...Are you saying it's ok for the police to stop and search citizens for no reason other than they're in the wrong neighborhood? Not at all, but again you need to be clear about the difference between a search and a frisk. Officers can talk to anyone they want any time they want. If they order a person to stay, or frisk without consent, they need reasonable suspicion. If they search without consent, they need a warrant (or they can search if they make an arrest) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

arrest, n. 1. A seizure or forcible restraint. 2. The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, esp. in response to a criminal charge. Black's Law Dictionary 7e Educate yourself. Handcuffs can be used during an investigative detention if reasonable. It happens on a daily basis. edit: for jcd's poor formatting witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

might want to think of what the word arrest means. Certainly you're not going where you want to go. If I'm not getting paid for kinky games, the handcuffs better be on me for a good reason. Let me give you an example. Officers respond to a 911 call about trespassing at a small strip mall, the location of an open air drug market, prior violent calls, and overall a problem location. The caller mentions a black male in a white t-shirt and black pants, and says the trespasser has been told before never to come back, and that he has been known to carry weapons, then hangs up. Officers respond. When officers arrive, they see a group of six or seven males and females under a tree frequented by drug dealers/buyers. One of them is a black male wearing a white t shirt and black pants, who looks nervous that the police pulled up and are walking towards the group. This male waits to see what the officers are doing, but when they get close, he starts to walk off. Officers tell him to stop and ask him his name. He begins shouting about being harrassed and demands to know what the officers want. Officers tel him not o reach for his waist or pockets. One officer moves behind and to the side to trespasser to prevent flight and see the other hand. Officer tells him they are investigating a 911 complaint and again tell him they need to know his name. The rest of the group has moved off at this point. The male repeats that he ain't doin nothin wrong, and refuses to stand still. He also continues to move his hands near his waist and his pockets. Based on his suspicious movements, his refusal to cooperate, the possible presence of a weapon, officers tell hiim not to move, to place his hands on his head. When one officers moves up to firsk the individual, he moves his hands and begins to turn to face the officer. Officers at this point take his arms and place him into handcuffs. The rest of the story is that this was not the male they were called about and a gun was recovered from another male of similar description a few blocks over, but because of his actions, he was handcuffed during detention for everyones safety. The end result is that he was not cited or arrested. Now think about how much easier this could have gone if he just said "My name is _______ and I'm waiting for a bus" when officers asked. I'm not say he had to do that, just that everyone's day would've been easier if he had. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

If by living breathing changing document, you meant one that can be changed by a set out amendment process, then yes they did. If you mean one that can be read to mean anything you want it to me, then no, they did not. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

If you truly believe this garbage, then you are beyond my help. And you are in need of serious help. No carry is the law in NYC. If you don't like it, move or vote someone in to change it or don't carry. I chose Option A, and now live comfortably in a state that issues CCWs as readily as driver's licenses. Carrying in NYC is against the law (unless you're rich and famous enough to get a permit). Therefore, you can't being carrying and not be "criminally oriented." The Heller case was about possession of a handgun in the home. It was not about concealed carry. New York, as far as I know, doesn't ban the possession of firearms in the home, they require it be registered. They don't even completely ban carrying concealed. The law there is that you can only carry if you have a permit or a badge, and they don't issue many permits. Washington DC aid it was illegal to possess a firearm in the home that wasn't registered, and they weren't allowing people to register. Hence, an effective ban. Right now, rights advocates are going after Chicago and surrounding towns, San Francisco, and Washington DC. Yes, they are still fighting DC because DC is not complying with the Heller ruling. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What we all need to understand in that most things on the street (involving officers) involve a sliding scale, not a bright-line one-or-the-other difference. Voluntary Encounter --> nothing required to initiate Investigative Detention or Frisk --> requires reasonable suspicion Custodial Arrest or Search --> requires probable cause (search may require warrant) For definition of a Frisk and when an officer can do it, see Terry v Ohio. It is very different from a search. While we are on the topic, being placed in handcuffs does not mean you are under arrest, and if you are placed in handcuffs and then set free, it does not mean the officer is just harrassing you. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What funny to me is that all the people claiming racism are ignoring where the stops take place and where the crime is happening. If you bother to examine where gun crime is happening, and where the stop and frisks are happening, you'll find they are very much the same place. Now, consider the demographics of people living in those areas, and you will find that the racial make up of the people stopped matches the make up of the neighborhood. It's not the police officers' fault that crime tends to happen in certain areas. Ask the residents why. Do they want police to stop and frisk people in Tribeca and Greenwich when the shootings are happening in Harlem and the Bronx? Or do they want police to focus on the area and the suspects of shootings? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://www.triggonomics.com/ It really is pretty sad that whether it's "for the street," "for the club," "for the gym," or "for the girls," all he's got is some goofy loookin t-shirts and a few pairs of panties. You'd think some hard-core I'm-a-badass MMA fighter would at least have a few items that can be used for fighting, training, or in the gym. Even one I've never heard of before today. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oh my GOD!!! He's got LOGANBERRIES !!! witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I have a question for the greenies. How would the Head Honcho feel about posting pictures of these photographs to the forums. If there's nothing wrong with them, would posting them to this thread be an issue? edit: I haven't seen the pictures, don't have copies of them, and have no intention of posting them to this thread myself. This post is meant to make people who say the photos are fine really question whether they believe that or if they are saying it because it sounds "enlightened" or "progressive." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

definitions of Epidemiology: - the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations, and serves as the foundation and logic of interventions made in the interest of public health and preventive medicine. It is considered a cornerstone methodology of public health research, and is highly regarded in evidence-based medicine for identifying risk factors for disease and determining optimal treatment approaches to clinical practice. - the branch of medicine dealing with the incidence and prevalence of disease in large populations and with detection of the source and cause of epidemics of infectious disease - The branch of medicine that deals with the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations. Tell you what professor: the day you want a SWAT team or major crime detective passing out a hospital's emergency room policies or passing out procedures to the CDC, I'll take crime policy from doctors. Until then they can focus on things related to the medical field. Unless you want a police officer holding your next scapel and syringe... Maybe he should stick to disseecting bodies instead of criminological studies. I might believe an alien sightings study if there were more than a dozen other studies that backed up the findings, and it was the most reliable of the bunch. You also posted that the DOJ had refuted Kleck and Gertz. I'm still waiting to see any evidence of that. Have you checked the list of names I gave you? Each one leads to a study that gives similar results to Kleck-Gertz '95, including ones financed by the DOJ. I'm waiting for just one study done in a scientific manner that comes to significantly different conclusions. Face it. The research has been repeated and the results have been reproduced, even by people hoping for different outcomes. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Do tell. I can't wait to see this one. No, that makes them qualified to comment on treating gun shots, not on policy to prevent gunshots. Leave discussions of how and why of gunshots to peer reviewed journals that focus on criminology. You know, like the one in which Kleck-Gertz were published in 1995. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Professor, for the umpteenth time, what use is that study at all. Why is it that accidental shootings count (the against ownership side of his argument) but only fatal shootings of criminals count (the side giving credence to self defense ownership)? Why not count shootings that wound? Shootings that miss but send the criminal running? Brandishing (without a shot) that sends the criminal running? Why wouldn't he include those numbers? Could it be that including all uses of self defense would outweigh the accidental deaths? Face up to it, the man had an agenda. He knew what he wanted his study to show, and he found a way to make the number show it. As for the way you try to piss all over Kleck and his study, you should recognize two facts: First: As I have pointed out to you many times before, studies have varied in their numbers, but consistently show amazing numbers of defensive gun uses every year. The lowest I can think of was 700,000. The highest is in the area of 3,600,000. The most wide praised and accepted is approximately 2.16 million. Cook-Ludwig (Clinton DOJ) Field Bordua Cambridge Hart Mausaer Gallup LATimes Tarrance Go ahead, check the names, see what you find. Most importantly, see what an anti-gun researcher with some self-respect had to say about the Kleck-Gertz study. Marvin Wolfgang The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995: It was in the same issue as the Kleck-Gertz study. Second: He wrote Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, which won the 1993 Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology. This award is presented for the book of the previous several years which "made the most outstanding contribution to criminology." Let me know if Kellerman ever received an award like that related to crime, sociology, firearms, or any relevant field. The last time I remember a researcher who had his conclusions before doing firearms crime work was Michael A. Bellesiles, author of Arming America, one of the most discredited books in America, and which caused him to lose his job at a university and have his awards revoked. Friend of yours? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Actually, if the (ahem) "journalists" in Chicago would go out and read the Miller decision, they would find out that in 1939 the SCUS found that the 2nd amendment protected the right of individuals to own firearms that are 'part of oridnary military equipment.' http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/307/174.html witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Who's really surprised? Public housing is inferior to private housing. Public parcel transport is inferior to privately run parcel transport. Public education is inferior to private education. Public restaurants are inferior to privately run restaurants. And the list goes on... The simple (simplified) reason is that privately run enterprises only make money if they give purchasers what they want for a price the purchaser will pay. Publicly run entities exist to spend the money they are given and ask for more. The only surprise here is that democrats are finally agreeing to turn it over to the private sector and allow it to be run like a business. Businesses make money and cost taxpayers nothing. Unnecessary government programs (like a restaurant) cost money and generally offer inferior goods and services. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

True. However, I am sure that you will agree that it is much more likely that a firearm be used when one is available than when one is not available. Well, the only firearm related domestic I've ever personally dealt with was when drunkard A got pissed at crackhead B, they had a knock down drag out brawl (no one calls the police), then after drunkard A gets his ass handed to him by crackhead B, he goes down the street to gangbanger C's house, steals borrows or buys a gun, goes back, and shoots crackhead B, but doesn't manage to kill her. To put it in more common terms, no, I don't think a firearm in the house means a firearm will be used (at least not in the first eighty or ninety assaults). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No, they actually don't show that at all. They talk about when a gun is USED, not when a gun is merely PRESENT. Honestly, do you think these are first time assaults? that these people haven't had dozens of domestic assaults in the past? Think about it. The gun is when one side decideds to end the situation, permanently. On that note, ho many of those one in twelve are the battered spouse turning a firearm on their abuser? Who ever said that all shooting deaths are an illegal or immoral thing? (other than gun controllers) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well, it is 12 times more likely to be fatal according to the American Bar Association Special Committee on Gun Violence. While not scientific proof, it is statistically accurate. I'd call an entire order of magnitude and then some . . . rather significant. Ah ah ah.... Not so fast there PQ. That says that domestic assaults involving firearms are more likely to be deadly than non-firearm domestic assaults. Not surprising, really. However, it does not say that domestic assaults that occur when there is a firearm in the house are 12 times more likely to be fatal. Important difference, no? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What officers do fairly often when they don't feel they have enough to issue a citation/make an arrest, they advise the complainant to go down to the magistrate and take out a warrant. Because the officers weren't there to witness the assault, and there was probably no visible evidence, they told the guy that if he wanted to follow it up, he could go down to the magistrate. Apparently the guy did, and the magistrate agreed there was probably cause, and so there will be a trial. And remember, "experienced a delay" in claiming his bag could be nothing more than he didn't get his first, or fast enough to suit him. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0807/448937.html witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That's nothing. They are trying to convince people that it's ok to get your drivers license and passport, you know PHOTO IDs, while wearing the full burlap bag. I can't even pick a place to start when thinking about how ridiculous this is. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I'm not anti gun so I can't help you. OK, you're not anti-gun. Did you vote that he deserved to be prosecuted? If so, why? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

There are a "whole lot of fucked up issues" in just about every country on the globe, but I'd hardly say the UK, or any of its member states, are particularly troubled when compared to others. Actually, you should know that I have been lucky enough to have traveled quite a bit both inside the USA and around teh globe. Not as much as I'd like, mind you, but quite a bit compared to most others. And just to make it clear, I have been to the UK more than once, and I've enjoyed myself while there. (Edinborough being my favorite spot) Like John said, this isn't about saying how horrid the UK is, or what a screwed up country it is. It's about police screwing up this time, largely affected by a systemic intolerance of firearms. How right or wrong that position is can be debated elsewhere (and I'm sure it will- again) And my post was simply to point out how skewed your positions were, and how attacking John for mentioning clipboards was either ignorance of the facts or plain dishonesty. I figured that for you, this time, it was just that you didn't read through the article, so you didn't know that a nice officer with a clipboard had in fact just been there, and didn't feel the need to knock in the door, or be accompanied by a swat team. I don't know about you, but I think it's scary that a nice guy with a clipboard can clear you, and then a swat team can demostrate a dynamic entry into your home, and that you end up spending time in a cell. Take note, I'm not what you might call anti-authoritarian, but this one made even me sit up and take notice. Anyone not suffering from cranio-rectal inversion can see that the MET are doing a bang up job, but the worst part of this one is not their actions, but that the home-owner still spent time in a cell. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*