It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
I'm inclined to agree with you. I think likely the order was probably, the guy stepped out, was taken into custody, questioned, car searched, guy was released without charges. But you say, the article doesn't make the clear and without more info there is no way to tell.
For what its worth I'd like to think I avoided similar a few years ago. I bought a deer rifle at the local Wal-mart. Buying it was major process. Then of course, the announcement "firearm leaving the store" over the intercom. The manager carrying the boxed rifle (accompanied by another employee) all the way out to my car and putting it in the trunk. From start (saying I'll take it) to finish the whole thing took about 2 hours.
I get home and see they have left the wal-mart trigger lock on it and naturally did not supply a key. I call Wal-mart and after much run around finally get the manager. He says, "Oh Sorry, no problem, just bring it in and I'll unlock it."
I say, "Remember what a hassle taking this out of the store caused? Can you imagine the possible scene it would cause if I tried to carry it into the sore?" Basically I was picturing something like in the article happening except with some cop shooting or tasing first and asking questions later. I said, "Do you really want all that hub-bub again? Look - I live about 2 miles from the store. Why don't you just come here and unlock the thing and save everyone a headache?"
He agreed that was the far better way to go and came by and removed the trigger lock.
A few months later they stopped selling firearms at the local wal mart. Probably because of stuff like in the article and incidents like what happened to me.
Kirksville, Mo. —
A lockdown at the Kirksville Wal-Mart was lifted shortly after 2:30 p.m. after police took a man threatening to harm himself with a gun into custody without incident.
The male had been reportedly threatening to harm himself at about 2:20 p.m. Tuesday on Wal-Mart property. The man, who was found to be unarmed, was believed to have a gun. He was taken into custody by law enforcement without incident and the lockdown was lifted by 2:40 p.m.
The man's identifity has not been released.
Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Is that a civil rights violation? If it is please let me know.
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
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.
In the criminal arena probable cause is important in two respects. First, police must possess probable cause before they may search a person or a person's property, and they must possess it before they may arrest a person. Second, in most criminal cases the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted.
There are some exceptions to these general rules. Police may briefly detain and conduct a limited search of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief that is less than probable cause. A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual played some part in it. In practice this requirement means that an officer need not possess the measure of knowledge that constitutes probable cause to stop and frisk a person in a public place. In any case, an officer may not arrest a person until the officer possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), is a Fourth Amendment case. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969), thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.
...
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Illinois courts. Justice William Rehnquist delivered the decision. In a 6–3 ruling, Illinois won the case. Justice Rehnquist stated:
We agree with the Illinois Supreme Court that an informant's "veracity," "reliability" and "basis of knowledge" are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report. We do not agree, however, that these elements should be understood as entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case[...] [T]hey should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the common sense, practical question whether there is "probable cause" to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place.
This rejected the Aguilar–Spinelli test and put in place a totality-of-the-circumstances standard. This was put into place because the court recognized that there was more evidence that the Gateses were involved in drug trafficking than just the letter standing alone. The court agreed that if the letter had just stood alone it would not be probable cause to get a warrant. The court also recognized that under the Aguilar–Spinelli two-pronged test, it would be very hard for the “reliability” prong to ever be satisfied from an anonymous tip so it therefore should be abandoned.
This case is a landmark case in the evolution of probable cause and search warrants. In this case, the Supreme Court abandons the Aguilar–Spinelli test.
Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
The Police made contact with him and placed him into handcuffs in case the call they received was true.
Originally posted by Frogs
For what its worth - I did find another article on this. Its short but it does give something missing from the others - the amount of time involved.
Man threatening to harm himself taken into custody at Wal-Mart, lockdown lifted
Kirksville, Mo. —
A lockdown at the Kirksville Wal-Mart was lifted shortly after 2:30 p.m. after police took a man threatening to harm himself with a gun into custody without incident.
The male had been reportedly threatening to harm himself at about 2:20 p.m. Tuesday on Wal-Mart property. The man, who was found to be unarmed, was believed to have a gun. He was taken into custody by law enforcement without incident and the lockdown was lifted by 2:40 p.m.
The man's identifity has not been released.
The whole thing lasted about 20 mins it sounds like.
A lockdown...was lifted shortly after 2:30 p.m. after police took a man threatening to harm himself with a gun into custody without incident.
...
He was taken into custody by law enforcement without incident and the lockdown was lifted by 2:40 p.m.
Terry stop
To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.
The search of the suspect’s outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons; however, pursuant to the “plain feel” doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband’s identity is immediately apparent.
Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Loam you are right though. If they placed him into custody and then CHARGED him with a crime they would need probable cause. If they did CHARGE him with a crime without probable cause that would obviously be a violation of his civil rights and the Officers involved should be punished accordingly. However he was not CHARGED? Was he?
Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
It seems to me we are involved in a tennis match. It is only going back and forth. We are both entitled to our opinions right or wrong. I respect yours and it was a pleasure reading your posts.