Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MrInquisitive
Moreover, given the rash of shootings around the country lately, maybe it is a good idea for the police to check up on ammunition buyers to see
what their stories are.
So now we're advocating for preemptive crime fighting?
So it's completely acceptable for cops to target law abiding citizens when they make a purchase of ammunition because of what they "might" do?
What's next? Maybe cops should pull over all sports cars and see what those drivers are up to. After all, they might speed. Given the rash of obesity
in America maybe cops should question your purchase at the grocery store because you might buy fatty foods that are bad for your health?
No, the police are simply following up on a citizen report, that's it. If I call the cops and say I think you are driving drunk, they will pull you
over and question you. This is also legal, and you should blame the reporting party if you are innocent.
No one is being prosecuted because they "may" commit a crime. However, they can be briefly detained if an officer has reasonable suspicion that
they MAY commit a crime.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on
unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to
arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a
reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."