Quote from: hillbillyhans on August 11 2012 01:12:42 PM MDT
Sometimes you need to sacrifice a few "sheep" for the better interest of the flock!

Sure, there is a balance there. From an activism standpoint, though, I'm not sure it is best tackled solely as an individual. It is too easy to write off a single person as a "nut" or whatever.

^True.

I don't agree with those that have taken the side of the "authorities" on this one. I rarely take the gument's side anyway, but giving up individual rights b/c a crime might possibly be commited in the future.......................c'mon.

MINORITY REPORT!

Jamming you up for crimes that have not yet, and may never be commited?

Quote from: hillbillyhans on August 11 2012 01:25:31 PM MDT
^True.

I don't agree with those that have taken the side of the "authorities" on this one. I rarely take the gument's side anyway, but giving up individual rights b/c a crime might possibly be commited in the future.......................c'mon.

MINORITY REPORT!

Jamming you up for crimes that have not yet, and may never be commited?

But if the "authorities" would just leave these situations be and people do go on a rampage... the first thing everyone will do is cry because the cops didn't do anything about it.

He didn't get jammed up because he was doing anything illegal, he got jammed up because he wouldn't comply. What differentiates a gun toting criminal and someone legally carrying? There is no way of knowing without interaction, non-cooperation suggests bad intentions. And the potential crime in question here isn't whether or not popcorn will come up missing it's whether or not lives will be lost. I could care less if some idiot that didn't want to cooperate gets hemmed up, he gives all of the good gun carrying citizens a bad name. He sure as $h!t doesn't represent me or anyone I keep company with. As far as rights go, I hope he loses his to CCW since simple interaction with the public and law enforcement is too much for him to handle. I doubt using his firearm properly would be any easier for this guy, I certainly wouldn't want him around if things were going sideways.

Couldn't disagree more! Your way of thinking makes me sick to my stomach! I won't argue with you, but I will tell you, cops are sheep too. The problem is, long gone are the days where cops were around to protect you and yours. Their job now is to make sure you know who has the badge, and who doesn't. This is all I'm gonna say, as I could rant all day on how you're wrong and I'm right, and I'm sure you could do the same. Nothing either of us say will change minds, or change the outcome of this tragedy to individual rights!

Good day.

Quote from: hillbillyhans on August 11 2012 02:27:25 PM MDT
Couldn't disagree more! Your way of thinking makes me sick to my stomach! I won't argue with you, but I will tell you, cops are sheep too. The problem is, long gone are the days where cops were around to protect you and yours. Their job now is to make sure you know who has the badge, and who doesn't. This is all I'm gonna say, as I could rant all day on how you're wrong and I'm right, and I'm sure you could do the same. Nothing either of us say will change minds, or change the outcome of this tragedy to individual rights!

Good day.

No, you're right. Our rights are so important that being proactive to save lives should always take a back seat. Gone are the days that people use common sense. Don't bother any one about their gun until they actually start breaking the law. How dare anyone question someone with a gun until at least they maliciously start taking lives, that makes perfect sense.

In point of fact, the supreme court of the united states has said repeatedly that non-cooperation is the the right of the citizen, and that it cannot be used by police to infer bad intentions.  Silence is protected under the fifth amendment.  If you have reasonable, articulate suspicion that a person has committed a crime, you may detain them.  With probably cause you can arrest them.

And, refusing to cooperate is NOT obstruction of justice.  While the exact terminology varies by jurisdiction, in general obstruction is when a person conceals information that is not privileged and that concerns the offense, after a judge or magistrate has ordered the actor to provide the information.  So, unless there was a judge was present to issue an order, which almost always also indemnifies the person being compelled, this guy could not have obstructed justice.

Worse, due to a conflict between Miranda and Raffel V U.S. a person should absolutely remain silent when being questioned. Raffel held that the briefest moment of cooperation permanently forfeits all right to refuse cooperation.

While I am sure the public may cry foul there is no legal obligation to protect on the part of the police.  See Warren V District of Columbia.

But this is a pretty clear DeBerry V US type case.  In DeBerry, there was a report of a man with a gun. A terry stop ensued, a gun was discovered, and DeBerry as it turns out was a felon.  DeBerry argued that there was no justification for a terry stop, and therefor the search that revealed the gun was inadmissable. 

DeBerry lost.

But here is what makes this case different from DeBerry.  The judge even called out this distinction.  DeBerry was in Decatur, Illinois.  Not New Haven, CT.  Illinois is a shall not issue state.  With the exception of off-duty police, no citizen may have a concealed weapon.  So, a call of a man with a gun is a report of a crime.  And since DeBerry matched the description and location of the report, the officer had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop.  That made the frisk legal.

The court specifically said "The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon."

So, DeBerry makes it clear that based on only a report of "man with a gun" there is no grounds for reasonable suspicion, and no grounds for a detention.  Mr. Hwang was completely within his rights to refuse cooperation, and such refusal cannot be be grounds for further suspicion.

IMHO good community based policing would have been for an officer to sit down and enjoy the movie.  No citizen's rights would have been impacted.  The police would have had a presence there if an incident had started.  You know.  Common sense.

Sorry guys, but there is no right to refuse a pat down if a police officer has reasonable suspicion to think someone may be armed, or can articulate why he/she is in fear for his /her safety.

Frisks, or "pat downs" are not consent searches. If you have an issue with a frisk you can take it up later with the department internal affairs bureau, or a civil court, but you can't refuse them.

The SCOTUS has validated the frisk or "pat down." See Terry vs. Ohio.

I am going to have to disagree with tha above. If an officer has a valid articulable reason to conduct a frisk, not cooperating with same is indeed obstruction of justice. Been there and done that numerous times.

Different strokes for different folks. Some people like a huge limitless government (everyone who agrees with how this was handled). And some, like myself believe in the constitution of the united states, what it stands for, and believe that this can still be a country "for the people, by the people".  I feel bad for the cop who attacks my constitutional rights or those of my family.

Okay, that was the last thing.

I wasn't present for these incidents, thus I am not making a statement on how they were handled.

What I am doing is clearing up some misconceptions I have read on this thread.

On a side note: Has anyone checked out my new profile picture? You may not be able to tell what it is b/c it's so small, so I'll give you the run down.

It is two senior pictures of some heavy guy with a perm. In the first pic he is wearing a monocle, and looking quite dapper. In the second one he is holding two hands of playing cards, but I can't see what exactly he has. He looks pretty pumped about it though.

Quote from: sqlbullet on August 11 2012 03:46:18 PM MDT
IMHO good community based policing would have been for an officer to sit down and enjoy the movie.  No citizen's rights would have been impacted.  The police would have had a presence there if an incident had started.  You know.  Common sense.

We'll just have to disagree, nothing about letting an incident start looks even a little like common sense to me. An incident can start, be tragic and then conlude in just a few seconds. Common sense would have been common cooperation. Officers don't have time to baby sit and watch a movie.A good representative of the gun carrying community shouldn't expect a baby sitter, either.

I'm actually with the marine on this one. I don't want some cop sitting there ruining my good time(my wife is a probation/parole agent). He should be out fighting real crimes that may or may not have been commited.

Quote from: 4949shooter on August 11 2012 03:50:10 PM MDT
Frisks, or "pat downs" are not consent searches. If you have an issue with a frisk you can take it up later with the department internal affairs bureau, or a civil court, but you can't refuse them.

The SCOTUS has validated the frisk or "pat down." See Terry vs. Ohio.

I agree 100% with this these statements.

But, DeBerry ruled that suspicion someone is armed is does not constitute a legal basis for reasonable suspicion a crime has taken place (except in Illinois).  And therefore is not cause for a Terry stop.  And if you have no cause for a Terry stop, then you have no basis for the frisk.

In other words...You can frisk for a weapon during a Terry stop, but you cannot use suspicion someone has a weapon as the basis for a Terry stop.

This gets back to my core question.  What crime did these officers reasonable suspect Mr. Thwang of committing?  All I have heard so far from the media is they thought he had a gun, which is NOT a crime, and not a basis for a Terry stop (except in Illinois).

I will somewhat agree with you sqbullet, as far as a subject being armed as the not the sole basis for a Terry stop. It would depend on the location (state as you have mentioned), and the circumstances. In states like NJ, IL, CA, MA I would say yes to a Terry stop. In AZ NV, NM, WY I would say no.

However, in the OP it was mentioned that a frisk can be refused. I will have to say I am sorry but it cannot. As I mentioned, a frisk is not a consensual action. If the officer can articulate why he or she is in fear for his/her safety a frisk can be performed. If the subject deems the frisk to be unconstitutional there are other avenues to pursue the matter.

A follow-up article with slightly more information.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/2012/08/08/conn-lawyer-with-gun-batman-movie-arrested/UPT8oJNs4lhb1LUFqqf1VI/story.html