- Joined
- 13 February 2006
- Posts
- 5,267
- Reactions
- 12,127
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
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
You have explained absolutely nothing.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
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
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.
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
You have failed at the first hurdle.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
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.
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.
You have never yet shown that a single act of the officer was undertaken lawfully.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?
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?
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.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
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.The issue is:
View attachment 104378
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.
You never once explained a lawful action from the officer.See above.
jog on
duc
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?