Joe_Blacke said:
The standard is what a reasonable officer believes. That is also based on training and experience. To an officer is it “more than a hunch”. Is how the court looks at it.
None of these is evidence of a crime, but the start to possibly develop a pattern or profile. That is why the RS standard exists. If cops couldn’t investigate until they have evidence enough for arrest, almost no arrests would get made.
No one is saying there needs to be direct evidence, no one is debating the difference between RS and PC. Pretty sure we have a handle on that.
The SCOTUS defines "reasonable suspicions" as :
Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as "the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely." Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an "unarticulated hunch." It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.
Reasonable suspicions isn't based solely on an officer's "training and experience" there skipper. If you read the actual SCOTUS definition it says "
any reasonable person" - why you ask? Because the courts realize that an officer has a high probability of being "unreasonable" and operating off an unsubstantiated "hunch" due to their "experience and training." There are many legal cases that set this precedence, and that is why it is worded the way it is. Officers need to be able to recognize this when judging what is "reasonable."
So just because a law abiding citizen may live in an area where straw purchases are higher, and they buy multiple guns - that isn't enough under the definition to qualify as "reasonable suspicion" - I am pretty sure a judge would agree.
Joe_Blacke said:
What a cop can do with RS is dependent on a lot of things. When it comes to someone in their home, they are limited to basically asking questions and permission. That is what happened in this video. As of now we don’t have the full backstory as to what caused them to do the check. It may be he won the multiple sale lotto and got randomly drawn for a visit/inspection. Maybe the SAC wants a follow up on every multiple sale. Maybe there was other things that led up to RS and made LE want to go ask. Right now we simply don’t know.
Actually we do know exactly what led to this. The ATF officer says so right in the video to why they are checking.
Joe_Blacke said:
As of yet I still don’t see not complying with their request being a better option. It might be more satisfying, but nothing more. You can paint with a broad brush, and hate all cops (which seems to be the favored position on sites like these), or even the ATF as a whole. But I’ll prefer to look at the individual and their actions. Hence my stance on their politeness and demeanor. They didn’t give the vibe that they were gun hating, citizen hating, zealots.
Actually, most of us don't hate cops. We just really like our rights, and we don't like them being bent or abused by "law enforcement" fishing expeditions and/or harassment and intimidation. The person in the video straight up said in an interview he felt coerced into allow consent and that he was intimidated by having three armed officers randomly knocking on his door.
armed american news said:
the homeowner believes he was coerced into giving his consent for what was legally a search of his property, even though no enforcement action was taken against him.
“I was embarrassed,” the homeowner said. “My neighbors saw the whole thing – guys in these police vests standing in my yard. I was really uncomfortable. I felt really confused, like I was in some way being accused of something even though I didn’t commit a crime. It was quite embarrassing. I knew they couldn’t come in, but I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want to get put on some watch list. We just got new gun laws here. I didn’t want them coming back again. I felt like they were invading my privacy.”
Joe_Blacke said:
As I look at all these mass shootings, I see the need for something more proactive happen before the shooting starts to interrupt the planning/execution cycle. Pretty much all these shooters had something identifiable as to being a ticking time bomb. Sadly it only comes out after people are dead. How to find the bad guy in the sea of non-bad guys is the ultimate needle/haystack. Especially doing it without violating civil rights. No real investigative tool exists. Unless there is a way to actually stop the shooter before they can hurt others, the only option that government would take is more legislation, more regulation and less freedom.
Being proactive doesn't mean hassling/intimidating/harassing law abiding citizens. Seems to be norm that the majority of these "mass shooters" are
already known to law enforcement - and nothing is done about it.
The kid in the Chicago suburb was well known to local law. He had already had weapons (knives) confiscated due to mental health issues, but Daddy Dearest the Politician co-signed his FOID allowing him to buy the guns, and most likely used connections to get it done. Funny how so many warning signs and actions (Articulable Facts) get nothing done.
The Uvalde shooter had a well known history of mental issues, harassment, and violent behavior. No one did anything.
The FBI was warned about the Parkland shooter a month before he committed his crimes. They didn't do anything, despite being informed of multiple issues that should have raised some concern.
Until parents and other officials (school, medical, etc) actually report these people - and in the cases they do - law enforcement actually acts, nothing will get done.
Instead of using intimidation to coerce consent to a search based on no reasonable suspicion of a law abiding person - that time could have been better spent actually doing something useful, like I dunno, following up on people being reported for verifiable reasons of suspicion or doing real "investigations." Amazing that you consider it "acceptable" for three law enforcement personnel be sent to a house to question and search someone with no suspicion of wrong-doing while I am sure their time could be better spent on more "promising" leads.......
Your "proactive" stance is fine - as long as it doesn't involve situations like the video in Delaware, or due-process circumventing red-flag laws.
