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

I’ve said 15 times when driving you must ID.

 

Then go sit in traffic and shut your engine off or go into someone's neighborhood and park in front of someone's house and shut your engine off..
Let us know how that works out for ya

 

Who told you the police have to name the crime before establishing reasonable suspicion? Holy **** you're getting your entire handed to you and you still don't understand the law.

 

What do you think reasonable suspicion is? Suspicion of what?
A CRIME!

 

So you’re ok with cops demanding you ID even if there no crime? Seriously that’s ok with you?

 

You're obviously ok with it. It was a condition of getting you're drivers license.
Why are you asking me?

 

So now we’re back to claiming he was driving and not sitting?

 

No, we are back to claiming you can't read the declarations for the DL you signed for.
If you are sitting in a car, on a public road, in the drivers seat, you are the operator of the vehicle.
You can twist this into engine running or not if you want, but it CLEARLY states even if the cars engine is not running or being pushed or towed, you are the operator.
For the very same reason your buddy was arrested for being passed out in a car.
If you are in possession of the keys, sitting in the drivers seat, on a public road that is not your residence, you drove to the location.
Which means UPON REQUEST, you must provide a legal DL, registration, and insurance.

 

You're being intentionally dull. First you wanted to know which crime they had reasonable suspicion of, now you're willing to accept "crime" which was the answer from the start. I'm enjoying watching you dance after every poster exposes how little you know of the law.

 

I agree, and attempting to ignore/arguing the obvious is also unreasonable and unproductive

 

I'll do you one better, I have a friend here that can no longer operate his tractor because he was caught, "IN HIS DRIVEWAY" passed out. The officer investigated why his lights were still on "2am" discovered he was drunk off his ass and breathalyzed, and cited him because he was in the drivers seat "Sort of" with the key in the ignition and in the on position..

He can never drive commercially "CDL" again

 

I mean I said on page 1 he was detained illegally, so I think the obvious was stated.

 

There needs to be a specific crime the suspect is suspected of. A cop can't just say "I suspect you of some kind of unspecified crime" and lawfully detain you for that. They need reasonable suspicion of a specific crime. How can their suspicion be reasonable if they don't even know what crime they suspect the person of?

 

No I’m saying they need suspicion of a crime. Not just a vague notion of “crime”, a specific crime.

 

Show me. What you posted earlier said driving. Where does it say that? I’m happy to admit I could be mistaken.

 

I think that’s different than what we’re discussing here, but if not then that changes the legality of the detention.

 

I was good with these two realistic epiphany's

 

Suspicions, they can be complicated and abused and very hard to fight in a court of law Most people just take the three day and realize just that! And to be totally logical, that 72 hour hold has saved quite a few lives, sent thousands back across the border and lead to the conviction of those "Wanted/Warrant" that were, just out of happenstance, caught and otherwise set free when just a print revealed their background

 

Could have just read page 1

 

Doesn’t seem hard here. He was sitting in car. There’s no reasonable assumption of a crime based on that. But I’m just going by what’s been posted here, maybe there is more info unreleased.

 

It could be as simple as the officer saying "You match the description" or "You seem a little anxious" or "are you under the influence of a controlled substance?".. But you know that, you all but posted that yourself.. Kinda of like "Have your cake" and wanting to eat it too

 

You don't have to commit a crime to get pulled over and asked for your DL.
Where do you even come up with this stuff? Do you just make it up out of thin air?

 

How many times do I need to say I’m talking about if he wasn’t driving? Pretty sure it’s about 5 times so far. Where are you getting confused?

 

You are assuming a lot here.

You are assuming there was a request for an ID. When did that happen exactly? Is there prove of it?
And you're assuming these people were cops. Are they? They arrived in an unmarked dark car, in black clothes with ski masks.
You're also assuming the guy was sitting in the drivers seat doing nothing. That's not true. He was getting tea out of his car.
That's when the plain clothe thugs started yelling at him, that ended in them gunning down the their unarmed victim.

So it's obvious it was about an illegal detainment since there was no reasonable suspicion at all. The idea a cop asked for an ID, is something you can't prove at all and seems totally far reached nonsense with how we know how it went down.

And indeed... thugs did this. That's what you call people who suddenly show up, armed, dangerous, black clothes with ski masks.
We do not trust those people who look like a stereotypical bank robber.
And they acted like it too.

It's all their fault.

 

They (I) do suspect a general crime but that doesn't have to be specific. You can't read the minds of these idiots, so there's some leeway allowed to officers on that.