Grey_Mana said:
I'm trying to understand your viewpoint on what constitutes reasonable grounds for contact and detention.
I appreciate your effort to understand what I am saying, but what I am arguing is not my personal viewpoint - it is what has been determined to be legal over years of court cases. The first sentence of the page you linked says this:
"...the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches 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."
That is exactly my point. When the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, or is about to be committed, they can stop and frisk a person. I believe that is what happened in this case - someone called, reported what they felt to be a criminal action, and the police (reasonable suspicion aroused) carried out their duties.
You are using another
straw man argument when you say:
Grey_Mana said:
If a homeowner calls and says, there are two guys walking down the street, not doing anything illegal or suspicious but they are smoking in public...
This is a straw man because this is not what I am saying happened, nor is it what I am defending. What I am saying - and what I have been saying from the beginning - is that I think someone called the police and claimed that they saw illegal activity. What did they say? I have no idea. They might have said the OP was concealing his handgun. They might have said the OP was threatening people. They could have said anything, and as soon as they alleged that something illegal was happening, and gave a description of the suspects, the police had all the Constitutional authority they needed to stop and frisk.
Grey_Mana said:
Bearing arms is definitively not inherently suspicious activity
I agree with you, and - again - this is not what I am alleging. What I am alleging is that the person who called made up some activity that is illegal and/or inherently suspicious, and that that report is what the police used to make the stop that they did.
I'll give an example that hopefully will make things clear.
Let's say that Neighbor A is having a feud with Neighbor B, for no good reason. One morning, Neighbor A sees Neighbor B walking down the street with a gun on his hip, open-carrying within the bounds of the law. Neighbor A decides to take the opportunity, so he runs to a phone booth, dials 911, and says, "I just saw this guy walk by with a gun! He looked all crazy and drunk, and he shouted threateningly, and waved his gun at me! He's walking down Main Street now, and here's a description of him!"
The police now have all the authority they need to roll up on Neighbor B and detain him temporarily, but ONLY until such time as they discover that a crime has not been committed. Why? Because in protecting the public, it would be important for them to check out claims of a threatening, possibly mentally ill or drunk person with a firearm, even though firearms themselves are legal, as is carrying them in public. But, as soon as they figure out that this guy is not drunk, crazy, or threatening people with his weapon, they are bound by law to release him.
I suspect this something similar happened in the OP's case - police got a report of men with guns, checked it out, and then released the men as soon as they realized they hadn't done anything wrong. Nobody's legal rights were violated, and everyone moves on with their lives.
Is it possible that the cops did what they did on purpose to threaten open-carrying citizens? Sure. But isn't it a heck of a lot more likely that someone made a call to the police? And if the cops' goal had been to harass them, don't you think they would have been a little less cordial and accommodating?
