NJ: Man sues after officers allegedly shot, paralyzed him while he retrieved ice tea from car

Someone calling you suspicious doesn't mean that the police have reasonable suspicion of a specific, articulable crime. Surely you understand this. Please tell me no one is so daft that they can't understand this. I think you keep missing the "OF A ****ING CRIME" part of "REASONABLE SUPICION OF A CRIME." How hard is that?

 

What’s reasonable suspicion did they have?

• The police can't hold you unless criminal activity on your part is suspected. Simply ask if you can leave.
• You don't have to produce ID unless you're presented with a summons. An exception to this is if you're stopped by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.
• https://www.google.com/amp/s/info.n...opped-by-the-police-in-new-jersey?hs_amp=true

 

BS. You can walk out of the house and sit in the driver seat. We have rights.

 

My friend beat a DUI sitting in the drivers seat drunk and passed out.

 

When you’re driving it’s different

 

Yea to question him, not to detain him or smash his windows

 

Thanks, if driving he has to ID

 

El wrongo.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.

When an officer stops someone to search the person, courts require that the officer has either a search warrant, probable cause to search, or a reasonable suspicion to search. In descending order of what gives an officer the broadest authority to perform a search, courts have found that the order is search warrant, probable cause, and then reasonable suspicion.

They had reasonable suspicion until dip**** decided to do the dumb thing again, for what appears to be the 14th time in a row.

 

If he was driving he has to but just sitting in a car isn’t reasonable suspicion of a crime.

 

What reasonable suspicion of a crime did they have if he was just sitting in a car?

 

They were called to a location where, at night a man had been parked in an area where crimes regularly occur and he became antagonistic. Turns out this is a pretty good part of investigations as he was a world class pos.

 

Should I ask again? I will. What crime did they reasonable suspicion of?

 

Reasonable suspicion does not label an exact crime, are you not aware of that?

 

Are you not aware of the 4th amendment? You definitely need a crime to detain someone.
Terry V Ohio

 

Uh, are you aware of how reasonable suspicion and probable cause work? Cuz you do not understand at all. Reasonable suspicion does not need an exact crime to follow up on a suspect. Dude, you're not even trying to understand those terms why are you on this guys' wheelchair so hard?

 

So you don’t believe in the 4th amendment and reject the Supreme Court ruling that says you’re wrong.
Cool. I hope you’re not a cop.
You don’t need a crime to ask questions but you do need suspicion of one to detain or demand id.

 

You still have no idea what you're talking about, yet have no issue making yourself look hilarious. reasonable suspicion is the act or instance of suspecting something wrong on slight evidence, like a call from a citizen describing someone in a suspicious situation that can lead to a police contact. the attitude and behavior of said suspect can then turn directly into probable cause which in this case it did. the "crime" could be just about anything it's the situation around it that causes suspicion. I love that this multiple felon and rapist is your hallmark for not understanding the law. Yes, I was a cop I know exactly what I'm talking about.

go read a book.

 

You’re a cop and Dont know the 4th amendment?? Sad, I wonder how many peoples rights you violated.

 

Terry v ohio
Primary Holding
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

 

Not really Depends on the state... And in most it's 72 hours, if the police elect to use the time..

 

That has nothing to do with the topic and you still need a suspicion of a crime. Read a summary of the case I’m talking about.

 

You're pretending to understand reasonable suspicion and probable cause, while pretending to understand the 4th.

Why? I know the law, you're just swinging wildly and dodging. Maybe you should go around lecturing police departments, they love people like you.

 

That's a good question.

If it was a high crime area, I think that it would depend entirely on how far away he was parked from somebody who would be suspicious of someone "casing" the neighborhood.

I don't know your neighborhood but if someone you didn't know is parked and you think that they may be watching your house wouldn't you at least be curious why they are there?

Apparently, someone was curious enough to call the police and things went sideways after that.

It certainly would be helpful to have more information.

Thanks,

 

Supreme Court already ruled on this. Go argue with them.
Primary Holding
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

 

Sure I’d be curious. But my curiosity doesn’t trump anyone’s 4th amendment rights.