Ignore this at your peril: The USA is going down

[ducati916]

Reasonable suspicion. That is a matter of personal opinion of course, but police officers are allowed to apply it given their experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Incorrect. That is not the information conveyed in the link at all.

Further, 'reasonable suspicion' has case law defining exactly what is required.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

So since you have not indicated that this is the wrong video, I am simply going to assume that it is the correct one.

These quotes from the video are not arranged chronologically.

The most important quote from the Officer is:

"...we've had some stuff going on in this area."

This is prima facie evidence that would require rebuttal. Clearly I accept that this is simply not possible. Is it a reasonable proposition? I would argue that it is: the police receive reports from the public all of the time. Is it possible that the police had received reports of criminal or non-criminal issues in that area? Of course it is. This would in the normal course of events simply be an issue of disclosure and would resolve the matter factually.

Therefore the first question that must be asked is:

(1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime;

The first of these requirements is determined by whether there were specific and articulable facts known to the officer, which taken together with rational inferences from these facts, created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the intrusion into the defendant's personal security. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989).

Therefore what other variables (specific) were present (and can be articulated) that could fulfil the legal requirements: these were both present and articulated by the Officer:

(a) '...we've had stuff going on in this area'; and
(b) signs for trespassing, private property were present; and
(c) '...noticed that you were sitting on the patio behind the building'.

Do these 2 additional variables (other than (a)) fulfil the legal requirements, when taken together with rational inferences, to detain the individual on 'reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity, past, present or future?

Clearly yes. Trespassing is a (present) criminal offence. That is sufficient in of itself, to warrant a detention to determine whether it was factually a trespass or whether the individual had the legal right to be on the property. Combined with 'stuff going on in the area' and 'sitting at the back of the building', the Officer would have fulfilled the legal requirements to detain the individual.

Investigatory stops constitute an intermediate response by the police between non-detention and arrest. These procedures are permissible only for the purpose of questioning a suspect, who might otherwise escape, regarding his identity or observed behaviour in order temporarily to maintain the status quo while seeking to procure more information regarding possible wrongdoing. People v. Severson, 39 Colo. App. 95, 561 P.2d 373 (1977).

The police may detain and require identification of a person if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal conduct. People v. Archuleta, 616 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980).

The Officer was well within his rights to question the individual.

Therefore, it follows, if the detention was legal, there can be no racism (your words).

jog on
duc

You have explained absolutely nothing.
The officer needed a reasonable basis for his actions, and nothing you have described meets that burden.
Put another way, the actions of the officer appear wholly based on presumptions as nothing the student did could be reasonably construed as suspicious. It is equivalent to you being observed sitting on your patio at home, then being stopped when it is evident you are collecting trash in front of your home.

 

[SirRumpole]

Incorrect. That is not the information conveyed in the link at all.

Further, 'reasonable suspicion' has case law defining exactly what is required.

jog on
duc

Didn't you yourself cite "reasonable suspicion" in #380 ?

 

[ducati916]

1. You have explained absolutely nothing.

2. The officer needed a reasonable basis for his actions,

3. and nothing you have described meets that burden.

4. Put another way, the actions of the officer appear wholly based on presumptions as nothing the student did could be reasonably construed as suspicious.

5. It is equivalent to you being observed sitting on your patio at home, then being stopped when it is evident you are collecting trash in front of your home.

1. Correct. I have provided the law. I have applied the facts to the law. I have no need to 'explain'. The law is the relevant argument.

2. Correct. The case law defines what constitutes a reasonable suspicion (the legal basis). If this requirement is met, the Officer is adjudged to be lawful in his actions to this point.

The first of these requirements is determined by whether there were specific and articulable facts known to the officer, which taken together with rational inferences from these facts, created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the intrusion into the defendant's personal security. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989).

Therefore what are the variables (specific) that were present (and can be articulated) which can fulfil the legal requirements for an evidentiary basis: the following were both present and articulated by the Officer thereby satisfying the evidentiary basis.

(a) '...we've had stuff going on in this area'; and
(b) signs for trespassing, private property were present; and
(c) '...noticed that you were sitting on the patio behind the building'.

None of the above were denied, challenged or disproven by the detainee. Prima facie, the evidence is made out.

3. Actually, if you are charging the Officer with racism, the burden of proof is on you. Innocent until proven guilty.

4. What presumptions? The evidence (see above (a),(b) and (c)) is clear and factual. There are no presumptions.

5. You now wish to argue a hypothetical? Really?

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Reasonable suspicion. That is a matter of personal opinion of course, but police officers are allowed to apply it given their experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Sir Rumpole,

I think I owe you an apology. I believe I misread your post. I read: 'Reasonable suspicion'...is a matter of personal opinion, which of course is an incorrect interpretation of what you actually said and meant.

My apologies.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

1. Correct. I have provided the law. I have applied the facts to the law. I have no need to 'explain'. The law is the relevant argument.

2. Correct. The case law defines what constitutes a reasonable suspicion (the legal basis). If this requirement is met, the Officer is adjudged to be lawful in his actions to this point.

The first of these requirements is determined by whether there were specific and articulable facts known to the officer, which taken together with rational inferences from these facts, created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the intrusion into the defendant's personal security. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989).

Therefore what are the variables (specific) that were present (and can be articulated) which can fulfil the legal requirements for an evidentiary basis: the following were both present and articulated by the Officer thereby satisfying the evidentiary basis.

(a) '...we've had stuff going on in this area'; and
(b) signs for trespassing, private property were present; and
(c) '...noticed that you were sitting on the patio behind the building'.

None of the above were denied, challenged or disproven by the detainee. Prima facie, the evidence is made out.

3. Actually, if you are charging the Officer with racism, the burden of proof is on you. Innocent until proven guilty.

4. What presumptions? The evidence (see above (a),(b) and (c)) is clear and factual. There are no presumptions.

5. You now wish to argue a hypothetical? Really?

jog on
duc

You have failed at the first hurdle.
Please explain what made the offer's actions lawful, as nothing you have presented shows it could have been.

 

[Value Collector]

The prejudice against people is usually born of something other than inherited genetically, would you be comfortable depositing your money in ratesetters, if it was based in Nigeria? If not, is that racist? It certainly could be perceived as racist.
But in reality I wouldn't because of a poor reputation regarding their ethics, nothing to do with their race, well following on from that a lot of the problem is perception, that is based on anecdotal and visual inputs of black people on the news featuring in violent incidents.
In the same way as many of the scams reported are based in Nigeria, it leads to a perception Nigeria isn't a good place to put your money and possibly Nigerian people are untrustworthy, that isn't racist. It is a normal reaction to real inputs.

Firstly, I never said I am immune to Bias, I believe we all have them, some more than others. Recognises our bias and trying to self correct is very important.

All I am saying is that a reason Blacks often receive harsher treatment at the hands of the cops is because of inbuilt Bias, which don't have to mean the person is openly racist or a bigot, its just a simply flaw in the way a person judges other people subconsciously.

Saying that I actually have an investment in Nigeria, I own part of the Coca-Cola bottling plant there, its the largest bottling plant in Africa I believe.

But yeah I have Bias against Africa and beliefs about it which are likely to be untrue, of course I do as I said I am not immune to these things, But atleast I can be honest and admit it, and its something I am always working on to correct.

 

[frugal.rock]

Rascism gets passed around from children's age.
I don't think I was raised rascist, but, it all got learnt in the playground.
What I heard back in the day...

Greek = Wog, wop, greasys.
Italian = Spik, wog, itites.
Asian = gooks, slants, slopes, vc etc.
Arabic = sand niggers, camel herders
African = jigaboos, niggers, gollywogs, chockos
Aboriginal = boongs, coons, jaffas
Irish = paddies
UK English= pom, twat, pratt, geezer
USA = septic tanks
India = curry munchers, bobble heads

Then there was all the jokes.

F.Rock

 

[ducati916]

1. You have failed at the first hurdle.

2. Please explain what made the offer's actions lawful, as nothing you have presented shows it could have been.

1. Which of course is simply your opinion. There is no Statutory law, Case law or Evidence to support that conclusion.

2. What has been presented is:

(a) The Statutory requirements that Police Officers in Colorado must adhere to, if they are to act in a lawful manner:

Then there was the case law providing the correct legal interpretation of the section (above). This case law addressed the issue of 'reasonable suspicion'.

Therefore the evidence had to demonstrate reasonable suspicion as required by the case law which articulates the legal test that must be applied to the Act. The evidence is below.

The evidentiary base (a) - (c) are all present in the video. The young man in the video did not dispute, challenge or otherwise raise any doubts (reasonable or otherwise) on these points. Therefore they can be accepted as true and accurate.

Therefore we can move forward, applying the facts (a) - (c) to the case law that provides the legal interpretation for the Act.

I even excluded (a) to see if that would or could have made a difference to the outcome. It does not. The legal outcome therefore is that the Officer was acting in a legal and lawful manner. It therefore follows that there is (cannot be) any racism involved in the detention and questioning of the young man.

I assume you have a case to put forward for the young man that will demonstrate that he was not questioned lawfully or consistently and was therefore subjected to questioning unlawfully.

Responses like the following:

Are not really very helpful to the young man. They are simply your opinion, which while obviously incredibly valuable to yourself, actually hold no relevance or weight in deciding a legal issue.

Why is this a legal issue?

Because you made it one.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

1. Which of course is simply your opinion. There is no Statutory law, Case law or Evidence to support that conclusion.

2. What has been presented is:

(a) The Statutory requirements that Police Officers in Colorado must adhere to, if they are to act in a lawful manner:
View attachment 104362

Then there was the case law providing the correct legal interpretation of the section (above). This case law addressed the issue of 'reasonable suspicion'.

View attachment 104363

Therefore the evidence had to demonstrate reasonable suspicion as required by the case law which articulates the legal test that must be applied to the Act. The evidence is below.

View attachment 104364

The evidentiary base (a) - (c) are all present in the video. The young man in the video did not dispute, challenge or otherwise raise any doubts (reasonable or otherwise) on these points. Therefore they can be accepted as true and accurate.

Therefore we can move forward, applying the facts (a) - (c) to the case law that provides the legal interpretation for the Act.

View attachment 104365

I even excluded (a) to see if that would or could have made a difference to the outcome. It does not. The legal outcome therefore is that the Officer was acting in a legal and lawful manner. It therefore follows that there is (cannot be) any racism involved in the detention and questioning of the young man.

I assume you have a case to put forward for the young man that will demonstrate that he was not questioned lawfully or consistently and was therefore subjected to questioning unlawfully.

Responses like the following:

View attachment 104366 View attachment 104367

Are not really very helpful to the young man. They are simply your opinion, which while obviously incredibly valuable to yourself, actually hold no relevance or weight in deciding a legal issue.

Why is this a legal issue?

View attachment 104368

Because you made it one.

jog on
duc

You have never yet shown that a single act of the officer was undertaken lawfully.
Is there a reason you cannot do that?

 

[joeno]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/

I'm surprised *any* big media would touch this since the US gives the cattle prod to whoever brings it up.

 

[ducati916]

You have never yet shown that a single act of the officer was undertaken lawfully.
Is there a reason you cannot do that?

This is your considered response to the previous post which contains:

(i) The Law;
(ii) An interpretation of the law via relevant case law;
(iii) The Evidence;
(iv) Application of the Evidence to the law;
(v) A conclusion.

To (i) you present no challenge;
To (ii) you present no challenge;
To (iii) you present no challenge;
To (iv) you present no challenge;
To (v) you present an opinion challenging the conclusion.



The only conclusion that I can entertain is that really you have no legal argument to put forward: and because you have no legal argument to put forward, you simply proffer your opinion, hoping for what I'm not really sure.

While clearly you value your opinion highly, unfortunately it is not legally relevant.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

I don't offer my opinion here, and you have posted a load of useless information to support what you claim.
The simple fact is that nothing the officer did was lawful.
So let me help you: what would have been the charge against the student if the officer thought he was correct?

 

[ducati916]

1. I don't offer my opinion here, and you have posted a load of useless information to support what you claim.

2. The simple fact is that nothing the officer did was lawful.

3. So let me help you: what would have been the charge against the student if the officer thought he was correct?

1. Very well, here is what you have posted in response to myself:

I see nothing save your opinion. Therefore:

Your response (above) is simply (a) more irrelevant opinion. Why is it irrelevant? It is irrelevant because it does not raise a legal argument. There are numerous references to the Officer acting illegally, but nothing save your opinion to actually substantiate your claim (except your opinion).

The issue, which you yourself stated is:

Are the Officer's actions lawful.

2. Therefore when you make this statement:

After you have been provided with everything below:

There is nothing of substance in your response: nothing save your opinion, which is worthless, when arguing legal issues.

Of course you are trying to avoid arguing the legal issues at all cost. The reason being that the law and the evidence simply do not support an allegation of racism.

3. In [3] you resort once again to the hypothetical strategy:

The issue is:

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

1. Very well, here is what you have posted in response to myself:

View attachment 104376

I see nothing save your opinion. Therefore:

View attachment 104377

Your response (above) is simply (a) more irrelevant opinion. Why is it irrelevant? It is irrelevant because it does not raise a legal argument. There are numerous references to the Officer acting illegally, but nothing save your opinion to actually substantiate your claim (except your opinion).

The issue, which you yourself stated is:

View attachment 104378

Are the Officer's actions lawful.

2. Therefore when you make this statement:

View attachment 104379

After you have been provided with everything below:

View attachment 104380

There is nothing of substance in your response: nothing save your opinion, which is worthless, when arguing legal issues.

Of course you are trying to avoid arguing the legal issues at all cost. The reason being that the law and the evidence simply do not support an allegation of racism.

3. In [3] you resort once again to the hypothetical strategy:

View attachment 104381

The issue is:

View attachment 104378

jog on
duc

I will ask for the last time as you have never yet explained what actions were lawful, and have no apparent ability to state what offence was probable.

 

[rederob]

The issue is:
View attachment 104378

A person sitting on their porch is not a behaviour that would arouse any suspicion. Nor would the act of a person at work collecting trash arouse any suspicion.
To consider these acts as reasonable grounds that an offence might have occurred or be in train beggars belief - and that is my opinion based on having been selected for jury service and required to determine if actions of an offender were proven beyond "reasonable doubt."
However, the next issue would be what possible offence may be contemplated by the officer. Is there a reason you cannot determine this?

 

[ducati916]

1. A person sitting on their porch is not a behaviour that would arouse any suspicion. Nor would the act of a person at work collecting trash arouse any suspicion.

2(a). To consider these acts as reasonable grounds that an offence might have occurred or be in train beggars belief -

2(b) and that is my opinion based on having been selected for jury service and required to determine if actions of an offender were proven beyond "reasonable doubt."

3. However, the next issue would be what possible offence may be contemplated by the officer. Is there a reason you cannot determine this?

1. Your statements are without the specific context. Lacking the context, they lack specificity. The context is:

The Officer articulated those facts to the young man. The circumstances (context/facts) were such that a rational inference could be made that would create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity can be made. This fulfils the legal test.

This therefore becomes legal evidence. If it is not rebutted with distinguishing evidence, it is taken as true and becomes a fact and is applied to the law.

(a) This evidence cannot be rebutted by the young man as he has no access to the police reports. The Officer claims that there have been reports of 'stuff going on'. As there is no rebuttal evidence available, for the moment that is fact.

However let us assume for the moment that that evidence did not exist. Then we have only the two remaining variables: (b) and (c). The young man could easily have rebutted either one. He did not. Therefore we can accept these statements from the Officer as true facts.

There is a sign that states that the property is private property, no trespassing.
We have an unidentified person sitting at the back of a building (the young man).

Is it possible that this person is trespassing? Of course.
Would it raise a reasonable suspicion?

If you were a pedestrian walking past, maybe not.
If you are a Police Officer: (ignoring for the moment 'stuff happening')

Sitting at the back of a building, when there are signs prohibiting trespassing, would raise a reasonable suspicion in a Police Officer, as in this context, this is evidence of (potential, which is a suspicion reasonably held) present criminal behaviour. The Officer is lawfully allowed to detain and question the young man.

2(a). That is the law. You don't like it, take it up with the State Legislature of Colorado and Judges sitting in their courts. But for the purposes of this discussion, it-is-what-it-is.

2(b). Is this another 'White Coat' argument? Irrelevant. Is your argument: I have sat on a jury, therefore I am now a legal expert and therefore I don't actually need to demonstrate anything because I am an expert?. I watched the Lincoln Lawyer the other night.

3. There is no need to progress any further. You are unable to provide any legal argument or evidentiary basis for your assertions that the Officer was acting in a racist manner. But feel free to raise evidentiary issues if you do find them. I am open minded.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

I will ask for the last time as you have never yet explained what actions were lawful, and have no apparent ability to state what offence was probable.

See above.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

See above.

jog on
duc

You never once explained a lawful action from the officer.
Furthermore, a police officer cannot lawfully determine trespass based on what occurred, but you appear consistently ignorant of this fact and chose to repeat irrelevances.
So at no time would it have been possible for the police officer to lawfully arrest the student. That's aside from the officer making false claims to the student about obstruction and being dishonest with other police officers who later arrived.

 

[ducati916]

1. You never once explained a lawful action from the officer.

2. Furthermore, a police officer cannot lawfully determine trespass based on what occurred, but you appear consistently ignorant of this fact and chose to repeat irrelevances.

3. So at no time would it have been possible for the police officer to lawfully arrest the student.

4. That's aside from the officer making false claims to the student about obstruction and being dishonest with other police officers who later arrived.

1. I don't need to explain anything. Why is that? Because:

You have the LAW as stated.

Then you have the case law, explaining, defining, and providing an interpretation of the statutory law for you:

Then you have the evidence: these are the un-challenged facts.

Then you ask given the evidence: are the Officer's actions reasonable:

The conclusion can only be from applying the law to the facts that the Officer's actions were lawful. Therefore your issue:

Is answered: the Officer's actions were lawful: therefore racism cannot occur.

2. Of course he can. The individual was seen sitting behind the building. He never denied this. There were Trespassing sign(s). This was never denied or challenged. By detaining the individual and ascertaining whether that individual has the legal right to be on the property in question, the Officer can very easily determine whether a crime had been committed. To ascertain that information however, the Officer needs to ask questions and seek confirmation (see above) wherever possible.

3. Who's talking about arrest. We are talking about your issue of racism. You seem unable to stay on topic.

4. Another attempt to divert the conversation away from the issue: which is:

Are the Officer's actions lawful with regard to your allegation of racism.

Or do you want to modify your allegation to include new allegations that so far (you claim) include: false claims, dishonesty, etc. In other words you want to change boats mid-stream.

jog on
duc