Seen a couple of concepts, wondering what the membership thinks.
What constitutes a “lawful order?”
- Whatever the cop says
- Grounded in an existing law
0 voters
Interesting.
Maybe if you were a bit more specific …
How?
…
Well, you could start with the “couple of concepts.”
From cops:“I’m law enforcement. If I say it, it’s a lawful order.”
No help?
Concept 2: A “lawful order” requires a grounding in law.
1 Like
I do not let my in-laws ground me. 
1 Like
Bingo, we have a winner.
This is a sneaky trap.
I find it hard to believe that it is your answer.
There are no lawful orders without reasonable and articulate answers to the question:
What crime am I committing, have committed or am about to commit?
What about suspicion? Is suspicion enough to stop and talk to you?
1 Like
We can’t go on together
With suspicious minds (suspicious minds)
Just like the guy carrying the cane who was arrested for having it in his back pocket…. A cop can just say “that’s suspicious behavior” and you’re done.
2 Likes
A hypothetical: a home alarm has gone off summoning the police, who see a person running down the street several houses away from the burgled house? Suspicious enough?
1 Like
Not enough information.
1 Like
"The wicked run when no one is chasing them… " – Proverbs 28
Seems Solomon didn’t like joggers.
So, no. If that’s all the info the police have, you say “no stop”?
1 Like
Is that a yes? That is enough info for a stop?
There’s a fellow around here that jogs at night.
Whatever happened to being engaged in lawful behavior isn’t suspicious?
I mean besides civil asset stealing by the cops, of course.
2 Likes
Well, that’s what I am trying to get at: is suspicion alone enough to stop somebody? If so, then what is the threshold?
1 Like
