Thread: Governor signs bill to allow citizens to resist police

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Your job is gopher of the legal department.

....lol.

Terry v Ohio

On October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden, aged 62,^[1] saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought suspicious. Detective McFadden, who was well-known on the Cleveland police force for his skill in apprehending pickpockets,^[1] observed the two proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. After one of these trips, they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly after a brief conversation. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up", detective McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.The plainclothes officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something", whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt a pistol in his overcoat pocket. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed Terry's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under Terry's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Terry and Chilton were subsequently charged with carrying concealed weapons.
The defense of the charged individuals moved to suppress the use of the seized weapons as evidence on grounds that the search and subsequent seizure were a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The trial court made a distinction between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime.
Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the Ohio State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.

Niether one of them, at the time, was doing ANYTHING "illegal" They looked suspicious....you are busted. Good day sir, enjoy jail. Watch out for that corn hole there buddy

Just so you all know, this has nothing to do with the OP...this is in response to DG's comment of

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

In all seriousness you dont have to follow orders if you havent done anything wrong. The onus is on him to prove you did something wrong. This whole hes a cop so i have to obey is a bunch of bs.

Haven't read the article so I won't post my opinion just yet, I saw this yesterday on ebaums. Kid is probably being a douche....cop loses his cool and assaults him.....then arrests him for it hahaha notice how the kid makes no aggressive/threatening gestures even after he is assaulted....just keeps his cool, looks like he had his hands crossed the entire time. Still though don't know how the new law would better this situation....if he resisted, the police would still physically detain him and he would probably end up getting hurt....but then again if this law was in place maybe the officer would think more about the consequences before assaulting someone.

Also I don't want people to think the video is relevant to where I stand on the issue. I was basically using it has a hypothetical to see how the situation might differ if the law was in place. Obviously there are bad apples in every group of people and the majority of police officers are not like this, I'm sure we could also find tons of stories and videos of cops doing the right thing and being heroic, so basically the video "itself" does not strengthen or weaken either argument imo. Reading the article now....