That is what the police were investigating. The possibility of a burglary. In progress.
Did the 18yr old reside at this house or was the 18yr old just stopping by to pick up a few items of value that didn’t belong him?
It appears that the 18yr couldn’t have a civilized conversation and make an attempt to clear up any misunderstanding.
Indeed, all the police were trying to do was have a civilized conversation with the guy they were pointing guns at and frisking. Why’d he have to get upset?
His choice. Maybe he learned the art of conversation by watching Hollyweird movies? Maybe he just wanted to experience being pepper sprayed? Maybe he’s just an asshole? His choice.
Your inability to read for comprehension knows no bounds. Rather than caricature what people actually say, why not ask them to clarify if you have trouble understanding?
(my bold)
That’s actually how I characterized your position. The part that is in conflict is you simultaneously object to deference, and expect police to be experts. If they are experts, wouldn’t a certain about of deference be appropriate? Blind deference, no, but moreso than the layman.
This is a non sequitur. This case is about reasonable suspicion during a purported Terry search - not exigency. Perhaps if you’d explain your reasoning for referencing this case it would make sense. Try to do it without parentheticals.
Absolutely his choice to be upset when people burst into his house with guns drawn and yell at him and frisk him. I know under such circumstances I think, “I say, old chap, shall I be calm here, or shall I freak the fuck out?” and, after stroking my goatee thoughtfully, usually go for freak the fuck out.
He/she/it doesn’t want, and likely can’t, understand. Here, pages later, he/she/it is still more interested in creating rabid strawmen, flinging insults and getting digs at me than in any meaningful attempt at comprehension.
You’re such a fucking coward.
If you’re going to continue to create strawmen, lie, and fling insults over substance, at least do it addressed to me.
Did you catch what I did there?
Post drunk?
I assume you also like your life to be a bit on the spicy side. Spicy as capsicum. 
I can produce an ID with my current address on it. I can remain calm in a crisis. I can make the effort to clear up misunderstandings. I also know when it’s not in my best interest to keep mouthing off when I’m out-manned or out-gunned. That’s what lawyers are for.
It appears that some 18yr olds are more gullible or slow-learners than other 18yr olds. Maybe this kid learned something from his personal choices. Maybe not.
Bravo! Your trophy awaits.
Are you handing out “participation” trophies? If everyone gets one, then I don’t want one.
NNNNNNnnooooooooooooooooo. You shilly pershun you!1!!! UR shooooo funny. Sheeeeriously though. I love youse, man.
People still use the phrase “hollyweird”?
Not that you’re aware of.
Hamlet, you might remember this when addressing YWTF.
*
“Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession - their ignorance.” *
― Hendrik Willem van Loon
There was a 911 call from the neighbour, remember? That’s evidence. It certainly isn’t proof, and it may not be very good evidence, but it exists.
Participation trophies were invented specifically so you can get a trophy. It’s a trophy for bragging, in an internet discussion, of how awesome you’d be in a hypothetical situation.
As I correctly surmised, you think I object to deference due to some belief that cops are too ignorant to be relied upon. And this is a stupid conclusion to draw.
I object to blind deference because I don’t trust cops–even knowledgeable ones–to always care about acting fairly, judiciously, and within legal limits. I expect them to, but I know many don’t. There are undoubtedly good cops out there, but there are also bullies who take immense pleasure in steamrolling people. This brand of thug assumes that no matter what they do, people are obligated to obey, even if obeying means going against their own self-interest.
Citizens are responsible for knowing their rights precisely because it serves as a check against police abuse. Not police ignorance, but abuse. We have the right to push back when a cop is crossing the line, because cops serve us not the other way other way around. If a cop attempts to search our home without a warrant, then we have the right to demand that he explain himself (like Currie did) and refuse entry if no valid explanation or warrant is forth coming (a right that Currie was denied). If they try to search anyway, we have the right to curse, raise our voice, and be difficult (which is what Currie did). We are not obligated to stay calm, submissive, and respectful when confronted with abusive policing (which is what has been suggested in this thread).
In other words, being an expert doesn’t prevent cops from being untrustworthy assholes. I expect people to defer to cops but only to a point. That point being when cops are showing a gross disregard for the law and our civil liberties.
No.
THe neighbor reported him as a stranger, and his claim that he lived there was contradicted by the address on his ID (and the fact that there were no pictures of him in the house into which he claimed he had been adopted.
Regards,
Shodan