If you want to debate something fine. If you want to be insulting and condescending, not fine.
Gary
Not sure there is much to debate here.
I just heard the anchor on WHDH say "He was shot in the arm when he was
running away from the police holding a replica gun." I assume she left out the part where he pointed that gun at the police.
What GaryS is referring to is a Terry stop. It is not understood all that well by the police (I am assuming GaryS is a police officer himself by raising it in the first place).
The police think Terry v. Ohio is a license to stop anyone they want for anything. SCOTUS never said that. Instead, they held that if the police have a reasonable suspicion (not necessarily rising to the level of probable cause) that someone has committed a crime or may be committing a crime, they can stop them and search their person for weapons (for example, for protection of the police officer themselves). Basically, under certain circumstances the police don't have to go to the trouble of getting a warrant before they can search you.
The "reasonable suspicion" cannot be based on race, the way someone looks or their prior actions, but instead must be based on specific facts. Hunches do not count and will get any evidence obtained excluded from trial (happens quite a bit and gets the ACLU and Al Sharpton going because of the random Terry stops that occur more often in certain neighborhoods).
SCOTUS also articulated that if you are subject to a Terry stop, you do not have to answer any of the police's questions. You can simply indicate you are exercising your rights to be silent and keep walking (though you may have to tell them your name, which has held to comply with the 4th and 5th amendments).
So back to the facts at hand, apparently the police were questioning him about an outstanding warrant. So Terry doesn't apply here because they would have probable cause to arrest him for the outstanding warrant. My guess is he was already known to the police in the first place.