Help educate a european

Tom Servo said:
RAS is an informal name for a doctrine police departments adopted. The general outline is in the Terry majority opinion:

And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well then, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that so many police officers don't understand the concept. The acronym "RAS" does not convey the substance of the SCOTUS principle. "RAS" is an acronym for "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion." But it is not the suspicion that must be articulable, it is the facts that support the suspicion and make the suspicion reasonable. And the facts must not simply be "articulable" -- that would encompass a hunch. They must be "clearly" articulable. The acronym "RAS" does not include any reference that would cause one to think about either facts or clearly.

The fact that some police departments may have adopted "RAS" as a shorthand for the actual guidelines laid down in Terry v. Ohio does not make the acronym effective.

Anecdotal evidence of my point? Pennsylvania. Outside of Philadelphia city limits, open carry is legal withOUT a permit. (Within Philadelphia open carry is legal with a permit.) On the PA Firearms Owners Association forum I often see references to "RAS," so I guess the acronym is in common use in PA. And on the PAFOA forum I also see numerous reports of people being hassled, detained, interrogated, and even arrested for engaging in open carry -- even though they were 100 percent within the law.

So if the police academies are using "RAS" to teach the concepts of Terry, I respectfully suggest they need to find a better acronym.
 
Last edited:
A police officer has the right to ask for identification when he makes contact for a reasonable cause. Some folks think they need not comply with that request. It's my opinion that a right to refuse to identify yourself to civil authorities is one step above teenage dramatics, the police have a duty to get criminals off the streets and they cannot do that without identifying them. When you are pulled over for a traffic violation, you identify yourself, same with any other contact. An officer seeing someone in open carry on the street, doesn't know if he's looking at Charles Manson or St. Francis of Assisi, so he checks it out. And when St. Francis refuses to show his sainthood card, he could still be Charles Manson invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, so there you have it. If you can't be incriminated, there is no purpose in refusing to identify yourself.
 
Got a point there on the acronym being flawed, but "RAS" seems to be in common use for the correct idea, lots of flawed acronyms out there…

imo, it should be a matter of common sense that to be articulate, one must be clear; and without facts, suspicion is unreasonable … not that common sense has anything to do with the law anymore, but hopefully, it’s still present in law enforcement.

How about just calling it "Probable Cause Light … same great case,. Less filing ?:p
 
manta49 said:
So a police officer see someone carrying a gun how is he supposed to know if he is carrying it legal or not without asking him. ? .
Click to expand...

The presumption is that he is carrying legally unless the officer has a specific reason to believe otherwise. It's really that simple.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
Help educate a european

First let me say that I have nothing against gun rights, open or concealed carry and all that, I fully support it.

What I don't get is this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7UMd...eature=related

the refusal to identify yourself when asked by a police officer. what is the problem in showing an ID? the cop sees that you are a good guy and you can walk away. I get that you don't wnat to be registred but that doesn't need to happen.

I mean you would show your drivers license if the cops pulled you over right? what is the difference?

Seems like crooks can get away with carrying guns by just refusing to show ID. Or a kid/teenager, or a Swede
Click to expand...

Some people here respect their own privacy. If a police officer has no probable cause to arrest or detain someone an individual doesn't have to divulge any information. Basically such right is defined in the fifth amendmant of our Constitution. The first ten amendments is formally known as the Bill of Rights.

The difference with showing a driver license when pulled per is that the driver most likely commited a traffic violation which is sufficient for an officer to detain someone. The driver did indeed break the law.

So in short if a citizen isn't breaking any laws the police can ask and demand for whatever the heck they want and we don't have to tell them jack squat. If someone is being detained or being arrested he would lose some right to privacy however he would still have the option to not say anything.
 
In the US, an officer needs to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be committed in order to detain an individual, even for the purposes of ID.

Since carrying a firearm (in a legal manner as prescribed in the state one is in) is presumptively legal (in all but a few states), then without more, it alone does not rise to either standard for detention.

If one is apparently intoxicated, or brandishing the weapon in a rude and threatening manner, or KNOWN to be in a prohibited class, then further police action is warranted and constitutional.

Otherwise, there is a presumption of innocence, and the citizen has no obligation to even speak, let alone provide ID.

In other words, the legal and constitutionally protected behavior of carrying a holstered firearm alone is NOT probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be committed.

That the officer doesn't know whether the person is legal is immaterial. He must have probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that the person is breaking a law to require ID. A simple hunch won't do. That's the essence of a presumption of innocence.
 
Last edited:
I am glad, Mr Animal, that my post was taken in the spirit in which it was intended. I am, after all, the resident cynic, an office that carries considerable risk. I do, however, agree with your interpretation of what the constitution is and what it is not. I'm not sure the federal government has no rights, however, which may be outside of the topic. It certainly has powers.

In fact, the question of power is how it came to be. There are, you may recall, other governments, ours being a federal system. The early power struggles, if in fact there were any, were between the states and the central government. It didn't work that well while the revolutionary war was going on and it didn't work any better as a confederation. So they started over, in a manner of speaking. Switzerland calls itself a confederation, you know.

I must confess to not being a true Virginian, Mr. dogrunner, but I actually live upstream, sort of, from D.C. My water comes from the mighty Ocququan. But I digress. I was born in West Virginia, a mere ten miles from the state line, which makes all the difference in the world. I was the first one in my line not born in Carroll County, Virginia, since before 1800 and the first one not born in Virginia since around 1650. As the song says, my home's across the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Admiral Richard Bird, born near Winchester, wintered over a couple times in the Antarctic and spent a few months alone in an advance weather station there. He said that because he was a Virginian, he missed being insulted now and then.

All that aside, it is well worth pointing out that Europe, even to include the U.K., is not one homogenous land but rather one of great diversity of languages, beliefs, histories, geographies and climates and religious and political thought. Most of the moveable stuff has found its way to this country, too, over the years, although the earliest colonizers of the New World obviously had the greatest impact on our history. We have gone our separate ways for so long that we don't even speak the the same languages the same way anymore as it is still spoken in the mother country (or father land, as the case may be). I know; I was in the U.K. last year and could barely understand anyone. But then, I have the same problem with my mother-in-law and she's only from Lynchburg, Virginia. Anyway, I'm sure Americans have as many misconceptions about Europe as they do about us.
 
The difference with showing a driver license when pulled per is that the driver most likely commited a traffic violation which is sufficient for an officer to detain someone. The driver did indeed break the law.

So in short if a citizen isn't breaking any laws the police can ask and demand for whatever the heck they want and we don't have to tell them jack squat.
Click to expand...

He must have probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that the person is breaking a law to require ID. A simple hunch won't do. That's the essence of a presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

If they aren't allowed to randomly stop people engaging in what is ONLY a licensed privilege, why should they be allowed to stop people who are engaging in a Constitutional right, which may not even require a license?
Click to expand...

Several cite traffic stops and proboble cause as examples....which begs the question...what about the standard road block where all traffic is stopped, despite no evidence of a violation? Requirement to show ID/registration/insurance, whats the difference?
 
Requirement to show ID/registration/insurance, whats the difference?
Click to expand...

Alloy, I think we need to remember that driving is not a right. It's a privilege. We operate motor vehicles on public highways with the permission of the state, not by any right in the Constitution.
 
Well....that's what I assumed, but then I see getting pulled over without proboble cause mentioned as an example of improper.

Is there something different between getting pulled over without proboble cause(singled out) and a traffic road block(where nobody is singled out), or are the driving examples just irrelevant altogether?

Not trying to be obtuse...just curious.:)
 
No offense to anyone either but just how many have been stopped at a roadblock? I'm not saying the police never set up roadblocks when there are desperados at large (as opposed to roadblocks just to prevent entry) but I've never seen one and I've been on the road for a long time. I realize I'm avoiding the current issue in the thread but sometimes I think there is a tendency to suggest that certain things are commonplace when they aren't. That happens on the other side of the aisle, too.

I never saw a roadblock in two years of being in Germany either but that wasn't Sweden.

As far as being stopped by the police on a public highway, it seems there are more and more private highways, so the problem may go away.
 
I've been stopped at a dui roadblock... and recieved multiable equipement violations. Despite not having one drink that night (or that whole week and probably month for that matter)

Its just a big money making joke.
 
I am, after all, the resident cynic
Click to expand...
There are more cynics in this thread and on this board, Bluetrain,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.;)
I'm not sure the federal government has no rights, however, which may be outside of the topic. It certainly has powers.
Click to expand...
IMO, that's directly on-topic in a discussion of Europe vs. America

The Rule of Law was the primary goal of the founders. Power vested in a mechanical construct can achieve that. Without rights, government becomes a complex tool that can operate in harmony with natural law, if it is constructed so that its function ensures the rights of individuals. It’s like a machine, with no benevolence or malevolence.
Giving rights to the federal government allows it to rule by those rights. Rule of Law is exchanged for Rule by Decree. Whether it is by divine right of a king, or the tyranny of the majority, rule by decree degenerates to totalitarianism. Patchworking rights into government, the best you could hope for is building a man-like creature rather than a machine.
The answer my friend is not a balance of power between government and the people, but a separation of the genesis of their powers. Rights, as a generator of power, must reside solely with the people. The government gets only the power it needs to carry out its function, through the conduit of consent of the governed.

The difference between Europe and America is that Europe never abandoned Rule by Decree. They’ve always traded one form of decree for another. Governance of the people is done by government, whereas in America, the governance of many things are left as powers of the people.
imo... Democratization of our government has led to it acting as if it had rights. Mary Shelley would be proud.
 
Bluetrain, roadblocks are common, often they announce the weekends in advertisements saying XYZ will be setting up sobriety checkpoints. 4th of July, Memorial day, etc. I know an intersection where it happens every few months or so Saturday mornings. They are far from uncommon....do you drive? Ridiculous.
Try Lawrenceville Georgia after 10pm as well for common weekly checkpoints.

I think I'm good for about 2/3 a year for the last 15 years.
 
Last edited:
I do know of one place where the police used to hang out by the side of the road where the traffic always slowed down. They'd check (I assume) registration tags and inspection stickers. But they're not there anymore because the road has been changed--and now there's nowhere to pull over if you have a flat, either. But the expression "speed trap" has been around as long as "coffin nail." In other words, it hasn't changed but that's only with regards to driving.

Oh, Animal! I don't think I agree with all that you say, as far as I understand it. Governments have powers. That's what they operate with. The original conflict they, the founding fathers, struggled with, I think, was over how much power the federal government should have. Under the confederation, it didn't have enough. It basically had to operate at the whim of state governments, in a manner of speaking. I'm really not so sure the individual rights of man (no women and only some men) was operating at a practical level yet.

None of this came out of a void or was handed to someone by the Lady in the Lake. European government evolved and in time, a new branch grew, which is American government, all through the Americas. They all had European roots to be sure but they turned out differently. You would probably say that all the American revolutions north and south, except in Canada, where there was none, had their inspirations from ours.

At one time even kings and emporers were elected, although voting was somewhat restricted. Voting is still restricted in places. The divine right of kings is an idea that only came to be at around the time my own ancestors came to Virginia. Things have never been exactly static. But I think the rule of law was assumed. Even kings have to obey the law and rare was the king who crowned himself. Napoleon comes to mind.

If I may paraphrase another cynic, the difference between one place and another is that in one place the government tells the corporations what to do. But here, the corporations tell the government what to do.
 
A few people say that here in America you can't be stopped and asked for driving papers without proboble cause. Yet it happens commonly at checkpoints.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bluetrain, I look at the Declaration of Independence as the beginning of America, The Articles of Confederation as it’s first attempt to put the ideals of the Declaration into practice, and the Constitution as the second.

And no, the ideals didn’t come out of a vacuum. They came from malcontent philosophers in Europe during the early Age of Enlightenment. They largely failed at home, but their "moral science" was sound. America merely had a few engineers able to put the science into practice.

Divine right of kings (even the divinity of kings) is referenced in many ancient texts. It’s pretty much as old as history itself.

It shouldn’t matter who tells the government what to do, because the government should have no power to enforce the will of any entity over the rights of another. The government can only do that, through it having a right to choose one as superior to the other. This should go for any special interest group or individual, not just corporations.

The ideal is pretty, then again I find machinery to be beautiful sometimes. What I find ugliest is good intentions put into practice at the expense of others. The idea of a benevolent government, never leads to anything but ugliness, imo.
 
A few people say that here in America you can't be stopped and asked for driving papers without proboble cause. Yet it happens commonly at checkpoints.
Click to expand...
Personally, I object to checkpoints, but SCOTUS has decided they’re ok. There was a previous decision that they were not ok … if I remember correctly.
Unless mistaken, the current opinion hinges on utility and the use of the road granted as a privilege granted by the state, rather than an immunity guaranteed by the Constitution.

I'm sure someone will correct me presently ...:D:cool:
 
Well, Mr Animal, any time in any form of government, democracy included, not everyone is going to have their way and some will be very upset at that. It comes with the territory but is still the root cause of many problems.

Personally, I think America started in 1607. Spain thinks it started earlier in the New World, but in the present boundaries of the country, just about the same time, only further west. Massachusetts thinks it started later. Then there's the Indian point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top