Prosecutor Blames Cop For Stopping Drug Dealer Who Pulled Gun Before Being Shot

[daekken]

The guy that got killed sounds like a bad dude, but the statements that the interaction should never have occurred are also correct.

It somewhat reminds me of the Trayvon/Zimmerman thing, another killing that should never have happened but will also likely be technically legal.

 

[mothybee]

Looks like Governor Healey just found the next Ma. AG.

 

[mpd61]

So basically, a bunch of LE REMFs in some places are prolly jerking off over this, so they can turn the next switch on their ALPR rigs- "alert if owner/operator has suspended/revoked DL" and initiate a stop on that ping alone?

-Mike

Mike,

We've BEEN doing that for the last 15-20 years with MDT's...........This just means the young and eagers can keep doing it with RBG's blessing LOL!

 

[drgrant]

Mike,

We've BEEN doing that for the last 15-20 years with MDT's...........This just means the young and eagers can keep doing it with RBG's blessing LOL!

So that was already SOP, did you have to spy the driver before executing the stop, though?

The ALPR thing is a bit different because its usually a guy on the side of the road probably bored out of his mind until the machine goes off.....

-Mike

 

[mpd61]

No,
It's not always a certainty that you catch even the faintest glimpse of a driver, taking into account speed, lighting, position, tint, glare, rain, snow, clothing/hat, angles & dangles, etc............
You're right about ALPR though.

 

[Evadd]

Don’t patrol there.

I disagree. Time to stop patrolling the prosecutor's and alderwoman's neighborhoods, and make it very publicly known that there will be zero police presence there.

 

[weekendracer]

I understand that judicial precedent says all they need is "articulable suspicion," a very vague, nebulous and undefined - undefinable - term.

My copy of the Constitution prohibits unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures. If you aren't free to leave, you've been seized.

The two concepts are fundamentally in conflict to the point they are almost mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other must be a lie. One is in the Constitution, the other is not.

Inventing out of thin air and entirely new category of custody not bound by the constraints of the Constitution is morally corrupt.

What does it say? What did you do? Both cops and judges should be good at this because reduced to its essence, that is their job description.

Your copy of the Constitution says no 'unreasonable' search and seizures. The rest of the discussion is up to what courts are willing to put up with.

Which is exactly what I am saying, thank you. A bunch of people standing around a car having a conversation is not sufficient cause for any investigative detention. Feel free to walk up and invite yourself into the conversation but don't get butthurt if you're told it's by invitation only. Based on the article which included the Union's official response, nothing suggests any PC existed.

That one fact, no, it doesn't raise to the point of warranting an investigation. That fact, combined with at least 4 or 5 others I can see from reading the story is what led up to a Reasonable Suspicion Terry Stop. It's everything combined, not just one fact. You'd never be able to convict for murder if every fact stood alone.