bigbaby said:
... now you have called an LEO a disgrace for doing his job; ...
Correction -- not for "doing his job," but for openly espousing an approach to his job that is contrary to his oath of office and in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Unless there's something wrong with the versions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution that I've been reading. The version I know reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Does my version omit a phrase saying, "except when the police officer wants to go home at night"? I don't remember any such phrase from high school civics class, nor can I find any version of the 4th Amendment on the Internet with such language included.
If you take the time to read those two SCOTUS decisions to which I provided links (
Terry and
Hiibel), you'll see that a stop at gunpoint such as in the Philadelphia incident IS considered (by the SCOTUS, no less) as a "seizure." The 4th Amendment says that we are supposed to be secure against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. When a person is engaging in blatantly LEGAL activity, and evidencing no indications of ILlegal activity, a seizure at gunpoint is clearly unreasonable.
I am both astonished and disappointed that even ONE person on this forum would try to defend such an act by the police officer. To encounter multiple people who seek to defend him, in the face of the clearly defined rules set down by the Supreme Court, is profoundly and deeply disturbing. It is obvious that those who say we are living in a police state are correct.