This video was very interesting because, as this professor teaches his class about stop and frisk, he also incorporates in, a true story of how the basic rules of this program came into place. Something that I found interesting about the Terry V. Ohio case was that the officer, McFadden stopped these men and he frisked them after he had observed these three men's suspicious activities. However, even though he watched these men very carefully and viewed their activity as suspicious, yet Terry’s lawyer still tried to make the argument that he had McFadden had done something unlawful, even after he had found guns on two of the three men. Nowadays we would call that reasonable suspicion but back then they didn't have that. This case was the one that introduced reasonable suspicion into the criteria for stop and frisk. Another thing I found very interesting is something that the professor said, he said if a law isn't favoring you change it to make it favor you. That is something I’m not entirely sure I agree with but I see how in this case it did help. Piglet456
I agree because it shows you how to stop and frisk properly instead of turning the rules around and trying to assume or think they could be armed. Police have to do the stop and frisk portion because it is part of there job and have to deal with it. If they ask the suspect to empty there pockets won't help at all. DaBulls456
I believe that he did well in explaining what a stop and frisk is, and how it came to be. In my opinion, the officer did the right job, by stopping and frisking the men. He most likely stopped a robbery from happening and could have saved lives. I'm not sure about changing the law every time it comes in your favor, but in this case it helped. bamboo456
I thought video was properly explanatory about the stop and frisk when it comes to arrest the suspect. The professor used a great example for it because it can have you picture how to stop and frisk properly instead of trying to take it to the extreme and make everyone mad. This professor showed some great examples, the do's and don'ts and also told the students that you always have to a probable cause to stop and frisk because you can't just assume anything because it could be offense to the suspect and other people around you. Some might even go by the suspicion of that person because who knows what the next move is going to be at any time. I mostly think you always have to have a probable cause in order to stop and frisk because if you don't then have fun with today's society where someone and just record you in a matter of seconds. DaBulls456
I so agree with you. I also like how the professor used great examples for it. I also agree with on the stop and frisk you just cant assume anything, because the suspect could feel offend by that. So, I think there needs to be a good reason why a stop and frisk needs to takes place. Police456
Terry V Ohio 1968 stop and frisk case was very interesting. I like how the professor had the students picture the case like a movie. The officer in this case is being suspicious because the guys basically in our time was window shopping. I think he made a good arrest but I think he was abusing his power. he really didn’t have prob cause or reasonable suspicion. I think the officer didn’t have any right to stop and frisk that man and his friends and the third guy didn’t even go to jail. i don’t believe in stop in frisk because its more of harassment to me. i think terry wasn’t doing anything unlawful even though they had guns i believe they should of got a break from going to jail and doing hard time for a crime they didn’t even get a chance to commit the guns they should be getting charged for but not the other part. BikeLife456
I agree with you on this perspective and outlook also. Suspicion these days could actually be anything. Yet I can see if they were actually looking through the window or trying to make the break in a bit more accessible to get into, or actually had mask on with all black clothing in 105 degree weather. Yet they did not so in terms of law was is actually suspicious activity in this particular case? That they were minority and in a neighborhood that they did not fit in based upon society. I would have loved to set in on this case to see what the argument was actually about. Forensics123
The video was very good, and I like the way the professor taught the class about stop and frisk and, how important it is as a police officer. I think in to society stop and frisk, is to easy for a police officer to do. In a way it is harassment. People can take the stop and frisk thing in many different ways. I like how the professor had a chart of the break down of the does, and don't. In a way, I think it is good if a Police Officer can stop and frisk someone, if the Police Officer thinks that s crime is going to be committed. In a way, if the person was going to commit a crime, the police officer stop it from happening. So, yes I do agree with the video, and with the stop and frisking people. If it wasn't for stopping and frisking people, I think people would think that the police cant talk to them, Etc. Police456
It is a good thing that stop and frisking exists. However, I think our laws have become too complicated and politically correct. If an officer suspects a potential crime, they should have every right to intervene. In Terry V Ohio, the officer wanted to protect the saftey of the community. He saw some very suspicious guys and wanted to check up on them. He searched them and found guns!! There is a good chance the were going to rob that place, and if not, well at least he took two guns of the streets. If someone is subject to a search and nothing is found, well good for them they have nothing to hide and can move on. People that get caught , try to find every little way to repeal their arrest! These men were planning a robbery and they were carrying illegal guns! Peoples safety was at risk! Its a darn good thing this cop got those guns away. music 456
The video did a good job on explaining on what a stop and frisk is and how it became legal. It explains how it came when officer McFadden was watching an area for pickpockets. Instead, he saw men looking through a window of a store, and they kept looking through the window. As they went in front of a men’s clothing store, he stopped them and began during the stop and frisk. He found guns on two of the suspects, but when they went into court the defendants lawyer tried to say he did something unlawful because back then a stop and frisk was not legal. Thus, they introduced the stop and frisk, so that they could charge and detain the men. Now, if you have a reasonable suspicion of a crime, it is okay to stop someone and do a stop and frisk. I do not know if I agree if they should be able to change a law just because it goes in their favor, but stop and frisk were always common for the cops, so, in this case, I think it was okay. bamboo456
I think it can be a great thing for police because if the officer sees someone that looks kind of weird but there is not enough for probable cause it can still be reasonable suspicion if a reasonable cop would stop them to see what they are doing. I like stop and frisk because if used properly it can get guns off the street. Birdman123
I also think this video did a great job of explaing stop and frisk. I think it is an important part of being a police officer, because you never know what people have and if the police officer may think they have something he should be able to frisk for safety reasons. GRUNT123
Overall, I found this video to be very informative and entertaining. I’ll be honest and say that I did not know very much about the Terry v. Ohio case before watching this, and came away learning much more. I believe that the officer was correct in stopping these men after watching them pace around in front of a store multiple times, and then going and conversing each time. The defense team stated that they were searched without probable cause, so Ohio gave officers a new way to prevent crime with reasonable suspicion. I feel that reasonable suspicion can be good or bad because it leaves it open to the officer to decide what is reasonable and what isn’t, which can lead to a lot of problems with biases. I agree with stop and frisk, however, and even though I hear a lot of people complain about in my day-to-day, I’ve never felt violated because I know that it’s for good reason. Blues456
I didn't really see the video entertaining but i did find it very informative and agree with you on the complains of people who have gotten stopped and frisked but my answer is always the same to them, Don't look so suspicious next time. That probably won't stopped them from complaining but it at least gives you 5 minutes of silence while they think of how they look suspicious. Either way long story short stop and frisk shouldn't be a violation to the peoples rights because its a cop trying to prevent a crime before it happens isn't that what cops are supposed to do is to stop crime? bikemaker456
I as well didn't find the video entertaining but I do agree with you blues456 it was very informal I think the stop and first is a great law but i do however feel as though there are some officers who are not properly following practicals though in this case I thought McFadden did so and very well.patient123
I think that the video went into good detail about what stop and frisk is about. It is about the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio where an officer was watching these three men that were walking around and peering into a store so he decided to stop and talk to them and they were acting weird so he decided to frisk them and found guns on them. It was taken to court in arguing that the officer didn’t have enough to search them legally but the Supreme Court favored on the side of the officer. This allowed reasonable suspicion to be a part of stop in frisk giving the officers the ability to stop and search someone that they believe may be doing some kind of criminal activity. With stop and frisk I think it is a good thing that you can stop a person you suspect has a weapon on them and to frisk them because if they do it takes another gun off the street but I think that that can be an abused power, like in New York, where they targeted certain minority groups. I think the professor did a good job explaining the stop and frisk rules and about the court case Terry v. Ohio in deeper detail. Birdman123
Yes he re-enacted the whole scene as if he and the viewers were on the scene and you could imagine and see this entire case unfolding right before your eyes. When asked their names they mumbled under their breath instead of stating names to Officer McFadden. He then frisked three men and found a gun in John’s overcoat pocket, a revolver in Richards’s coat, and Katz the third guy was unarmed. You can picture it all happening just as it did. Forensics123
I think this was a good arrest. It is unfortunate that the laws had to get into the way. There is so many picky things in the law, in order to ensure our rights as citizens. The officer had suspicion of a crime about to take place, but he didn't have suspicion that they were armed. I think the 1 of the 2 factors for reasonable suspicion should be required. An officer needs to be able to effectively do their job. If they have reason to think a crime is going to happen, they should be able to prevent that. If the people have nothing to hide, then they are fine! Our laws have become so complicated and politically correct that it can sometimes hinder justice. Music 456
All these topics whether Terry v.s Ohio or policing in Ferguson all focus goes back on stopping and frisking. This procedure I feel can be used as a great tool in the policing arsenal of intelligence. But just like any weapon if someone does know what they are doing with it bad things happen. For example an officer stopping minorities and frisking them just cause he/she doesn't like the race, religion, etc. Having that happen puts a bad taste in the civilian population towards the police in their community. However doing a stop & frisk can be very rewarding. Looking back to Terry v.s. Ohio, Detective McFadden was able to stop an armed robbery and get three criminals off the streets. Now this may be all my opinion but i completely agree with stop and frisk if it is used in the correct manner. If I'm on patrol and see suspicious behavior or an object that looks like a weapon I'm going to make sure you aren't going to do something that might hurt another. bikemaker456
I found this video very interesting. The Terry v Ohio case interesting as well. While thinking about the case in 1968 I determined officer McFadden’s actions were valid. That is my own opinion. I know some people would disagree saying the three men were just window shopping, but looking at the case fully, I realized the officer was placed in that location to stop exactly what he did... I believe the men did intend to rob the store they were casing. Police officers are placed in certain areas based on high crime or a repetitive specific crime. Officer McFadden was placed in this specific location "undercover" to stop robberies and shoplifters. This was back in the day and I would think this kind of crime would run much more frequent. I applaud McFadden for stopping the men and finding the guns. Even if the three men did not have guns I think the actions that the officer took would have made the criminals realize they cant rob this particular store or any on this block because it was under watch, and maybe they would have moved on. It was sheer luck that he caught them with unauthorized weapons on them. Not to mention the advancement in stop and frisk actions that came from this incident. Twal456
I agree with you and the officers are going to be put in the area where there is higher crime. That is there job to stop things like this before they go to the extreme! Green123
This video caught my attention because we all need to know this very well if this is going to be what we want our career to be. As long as we can follow this stop and frisk we are following it correctly and we are not going to have any problems. In the case that this gentleman gave us he was out on his job and saw three men looking into windows more than once. That right there is enough in my opinion. I say this because if we really sit and think to ourselves, how many men would we know that are going to "window shop" at more than one store? I do not think that I could think of very many men that would do such a thing. So if I were to be in this situation I would of at least stopped them and asked questions. After asking the questions we can then decide if we feel the need to have to search them for anything that they should not have. I really liked how he explained everything in this video. Green123
This video was pretty interesting because freshman year of college I actually wrote a paper on this particular topic. Criminal procedure is when the officer tells you to stop stay right there. You have been asked to stay right where you are by an officer. The Terry vs. Ohio case was very interesting because the officer did notice suspicious activity, then a third guy come along planning to rob the jewelry store. When asked their names they mumbled under their breath instead of stating names to Officer McFadden. He then frisked the men and found a gun in John’s overcoat pocket, a revolver in Richards’s coat, and Katz the third guy was unarmed. All three were arrested and John and Richard where charge with carrying a concealed weapon. Terry v. Ohio represents a clash between Fourth Amendment protection from intrusive, harassing conduct by police when no crime has been committed, and the duty of an officer to investigate suspicious behavior and prevent crime. Yet in many cities such as New York, Baltimore, and St. Louis they believe that it a law set for officers to abuse their authority in certain neighborhoods. Forensics123
though this video was not entertaining i can appreciate hoe detailed he was and how well he explained terry vs. Ohio there were a lot of thing I learned in just viewing this video i also felt like McFadden did as stated in the law of stop and frisk he observed these 3 individuals and as an officer on the job for 39 years his observances led him to believe they were up to no good and while searching them he found a weapon so he is justified in his arrest I just cant believe terry and his defense team thought the supreme court would back the state of Ohio. patient123
Terry v. Ohio provided the legal framework for what has become commonly known as Stop and Frisk. From the narrative, the officer had probable cause, based on the collective behavior of the individuals and his experience as a veteran officer to believe they were “casing the joint” and a crime was about to be committed. From subsequent rulings it appears that reasonable suspicion (criminal activity may be a foot or the suspect is armed and dangerous) is now the legal qualifications for stopping and frisking. The current practice of stop and frisk has less to do with the legal basis and more of a random or even a quota system where goals are assigned. Only a small number (under 2%) of those stopped are charged with anything and less than a 2% success rate does not seem very successful or effective. If officer safety is the concern, than statistics that indicate profiling make it a hard sell if community policing is the objective. Humvee123
It is true that only a 2% success rate does not seem like a very successful or effective rate. However, as you mentioned, if officer safety is a concern I feel as if though if an officer has reasonable suspicion based on something that has been observed or the actions of a possible suspect then the officer should carry out a stop and frisk for his own safety. Community policing could and does play a big role into this as well though. If an officer can build a trust between him and the community then the results and effectiveness may begin to show. Sparks123
I thought this was a very interesting video in many different ways. I liked how the instructor talked about what could be possible in multiple different scenarios. This helped give a better understanding of what all could go into a “stop and frisk” and what could come out of it based on the court ruling. When he began talking about the different categories of probable cause or “reasonable suspicion” it made me begin to think about the different reasons a police officer may feel it reasonable to conduct one of these stop and frisks. Whether it may be the officer dealing with a suspect who has been known for drug distribution or was seen conducting drug distribution the officer could use the idea of most drug dealers in past experiences have been armed. There is a lot that is considered in a stop and frisk and the main idea is did the officer violate the law or not and did he carry it out properly. This video made that easier to understand.sparks123
I agree that just explaining what stop and frisk is would not be as valuable of a lesson without giving some examples of what could happen. It is also very important to point out the officer's past experiences contribute to the stop and frisk process as well. Acquainted123
This instructor was pretty thorough in his information and gave very great examples of when stop and frisk works. It is a key tool that not only keeps the area safe, but the officer safe as well. I also agree that the three men looking in the window multiple times would seem suspicious to not only the officer, but to really anyone who gave it any thought. The officer was clearly in the right and good thing he did frisk them and found the two hidden guns. But stop and frisk like any law enforcement power can be abused and it is important for law enforcement officials and the community to keep it professional and in check. Acquainted123
This video on Terry VS Ohio was very informative. This guy on the video really goes in-depth on the back story of Terry VS Ohio. He was very descriptive on how the whole case happened from them standing around the store and all the way to the search and then the court case. I think having reasonable suspicion should be enough for a police officer to stop and frisk. Police officers are out on the streets talking to new people almost all the time and they really never know who has what and when they may use it. So I’m glad that police can stop and frisk. GRUNT123
I agree this video was very informative and helped me grasp the concept a lot better. I also think that officers should be able to stop and frisk someone with reasonable suspicion, as long as they are not to aggressive while doing so. At this point the individual has legally done nothing wrong so they shouldn't yet be treated like they have. gabegun123
Great video to help you comprehend the differences between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The speaker also helped to bring the Terry V. Ohio case alive in order to help us understand it better. Reasonable suspicion is the suspicion that an individual is doing or about to commit an illegal act. With reasonable suspicion you are allowed to question and lightly frisk the individual. If when doing this you find something illegal you then have probable cause. With probably cause you are able to really search the individual along with any property with him/her such as bags, car, etc. I also like how he spoke about the argument of reasonable suspicion being added as a category. If it wouldn’t have been then the rules of probable cause would have expanded with time. Ultimately this would have led to reasonable suspicion just being a part of probable cause. This video was very helpful, and helped me realize the differences between the categories. Gabegun123
This video did a very good job at breaking down the differences in reasonable suspicion and probable cause. It also did a good job touching base on the Terry V. Ohio case, and helped me better understand it. After watching the video I have learned that reasonable suspicion is when the officer thinks the certain individual may be committing a crime, but doesn't have enough to have probable cause to completely search the perp. Reasonable suspicion is enough to allow the officer to question the individual and do a light frisk for the safety of the officers. Reasonable suspicion could be someone in dark clothes walking around a shopping district after hours. Probable cause is enough to search the individuals vehicles, and completely search their person. Probable cause is like the next step past reasonable suspicion. An example of probable cause would be the officer smelt weed in the car at a traffic stop, or smelt alcohol on a drivers breath. Even if the officer didn't pull the individual over for that reason once he has probable cause that another crime is being committed the officer then can act on his suspicion. Overall the video was a good description of these two very different yet similar parts of the criminal justice system. dangkids123
I never fully new about the Terry V. Ohio case until this video explained it to me. It fully explains how stop and frisk became a part of the system. Having only a two tier system could let serious criminals get away if there wasn't probable cause to search them. Adding reasonable suspicion to it can give more freedom to stop and frisk incidents as it can allow officers to stop a crime before it happens, which could allow the suspects to escape. DeadMan012
This video was very interesting because, as this professor teaches his class about stop and frisk, he also incorporates in, a true story of how the basic rules of this program came into place. Something that I found interesting about the Terry V. Ohio case was that the officer, McFadden stopped these men and he frisked them after he had observed these three men's suspicious activities. However, even though he watched these men very carefully and viewed their activity as suspicious, yet Terry’s lawyer still tried to make the argument that he had McFadden had done something unlawful, even after he had found guns on two of the three men. Nowadays we would call that reasonable suspicion but back then they didn't have that. This case was the one that introduced reasonable suspicion into the criteria for stop and frisk. Another thing I found very interesting is something that the professor said, he said if a law isn't favoring you change it to make it favor you. That is something I’m not entirely sure I agree with but I see how in this case it did help. Piglet456
ReplyDeleteI agree because it shows you how to stop and frisk properly instead of turning the rules around and trying to assume or think they could be armed. Police have to do the stop and frisk portion because it is part of there job and have to deal with it. If they ask the suspect to empty there pockets won't help at all. DaBulls456
DeleteI believe that he did well in explaining what a stop and frisk is, and how it came to be. In my opinion, the officer did the right job, by stopping and frisking the men. He most likely stopped a robbery from happening and could have saved lives. I'm not sure about changing the law every time it comes in your favor, but in this case it helped.
Deletebamboo456
I thought video was properly explanatory about the stop and frisk when it comes to arrest the suspect. The professor used a great example for it because it can have you picture how to stop and frisk properly instead of trying to take it to the extreme and make everyone mad. This professor showed some great examples, the do's and don'ts and also told the students that you always have to a probable cause to stop and frisk because you can't just assume anything because it could be offense to the suspect and other people around you. Some might even go by the suspicion of that person because who knows what the next move is going to be at any time. I mostly think you always have to have a probable cause in order to stop and frisk because if you don't then have fun with today's society where someone and just record you in a matter of seconds. DaBulls456
ReplyDeleteI so agree with you. I also like how the professor used great examples for it. I also agree with on the stop and frisk you just cant assume anything, because the suspect could feel offend by that. So, I think there needs to be a good reason why a stop and frisk needs to takes place.
DeletePolice456
Terry V Ohio 1968 stop and frisk case was very interesting. I like how the professor had the students picture the case like a movie. The officer in this case is being suspicious because the guys basically in our time was window shopping. I think he made a good arrest but I think he was abusing his power. he really didn’t have prob cause or reasonable suspicion. I think the officer didn’t have any right to stop and frisk that man and his friends and the third guy didn’t even go to jail. i don’t believe in stop in frisk because its more of harassment to me. i think terry wasn’t doing anything unlawful even though they had guns i believe they should of got a break from going to jail and doing hard time for a crime they didn’t even get a chance to commit the guns they should be getting charged for but not the other part.
ReplyDeleteBikeLife456
I agree with you on this perspective and outlook also. Suspicion these days could actually be anything. Yet I can see if they were actually looking through the window or trying to make the break in a bit more accessible to get into, or actually had mask on with all black clothing in 105 degree weather. Yet they did not so in terms of law was is actually suspicious activity in this particular case? That they were minority and in a neighborhood that they did not fit in based upon society. I would have loved to set in on this case to see what the argument was actually about. Forensics123
DeleteThe video was very good, and I like the way the professor taught the class about stop and frisk and, how important it is as a police officer. I think in to society stop and frisk, is to easy for a police officer to do. In a way it is harassment. People can take the stop and frisk thing in many different ways. I like how the professor had a chart of the break down of the does, and don't. In a way, I think it is good if a Police Officer can stop and frisk someone, if the Police Officer thinks that s crime is going to be committed. In a way, if the person was going to commit a crime, the police officer stop it from happening. So, yes I do agree with the video, and with the stop and frisking people. If it wasn't for stopping and frisking people, I think people would think that the police cant talk to them, Etc.
ReplyDeletePolice456
It is a good thing that stop and frisking exists. However, I think our laws have become too complicated and politically correct. If an officer suspects a potential crime, they should have every right to intervene. In Terry V Ohio, the officer wanted to protect the saftey of the community. He saw some very suspicious guys and wanted to check up on them. He searched them and found guns!! There is a good chance the were going to rob that place, and if not, well at least he took two guns of the streets. If someone is subject to a search and nothing is found, well good for them they have nothing to hide and can move on. People that get caught , try to find every little way to repeal their arrest! These men were planning a robbery and they were carrying illegal guns! Peoples safety was at risk! Its a darn good thing this cop got those guns away.
Deletemusic 456
The video did a good job on explaining on what a stop and frisk is and how it became legal. It explains how it came when officer McFadden was watching an area for pickpockets. Instead, he saw men looking through a window of a store, and they kept looking through the window. As they went in front of a men’s clothing store, he stopped them and began during the stop and frisk. He found guns on two of the suspects, but when they went into court the defendants lawyer tried to say he did something unlawful because back then a stop and frisk was not legal. Thus, they introduced the stop and frisk, so that they could charge and detain the men. Now, if you have a reasonable suspicion of a crime, it is okay to stop someone and do a stop and frisk. I do not know if I agree if they should be able to change a law just because it goes in their favor, but stop and frisk were always common for the cops, so, in this case, I think it was okay.
ReplyDeletebamboo456
I think it can be a great thing for police because if the officer sees someone that looks kind of weird but there is not enough for probable cause it can still be reasonable suspicion if a reasonable cop would stop them to see what they are doing. I like stop and frisk because if used properly it can get guns off the street. Birdman123
DeleteI also think this video did a great job of explaing stop and frisk. I think it is an important part of being a police officer, because you never know what people have and if the police officer may think they have something he should be able to frisk for safety reasons.
DeleteGRUNT123
Overall, I found this video to be very informative and entertaining. I’ll be honest and say that I did not know very much about the Terry v. Ohio case before watching this, and came away learning much more. I believe that the officer was correct in stopping these men after watching them pace around in front of a store multiple times, and then going and conversing each time. The defense team stated that they were searched without probable cause, so Ohio gave officers a new way to prevent crime with reasonable suspicion. I feel that reasonable suspicion can be good or bad because it leaves it open to the officer to decide what is reasonable and what isn’t, which can lead to a lot of problems with biases. I agree with stop and frisk, however, and even though I hear a lot of people complain about in my day-to-day, I’ve never felt violated because I know that it’s for good reason.
ReplyDeleteBlues456
I didn't really see the video entertaining but i did find it very informative and agree with you on the complains of people who have gotten stopped and frisked but my answer is always the same to them, Don't look so suspicious next time. That probably won't stopped them from complaining but it at least gives you 5 minutes of silence while they think of how they look suspicious. Either way long story short stop and frisk shouldn't be a violation to the peoples rights because its a cop trying to prevent a crime before it happens isn't that what cops are supposed to do is to stop crime?
Deletebikemaker456
I as well didn't find the video entertaining but I do agree with you blues456 it was very informal I think the stop and first is a great law but i do however feel as though there are some officers who are not properly following practicals though in this case I thought McFadden did so and very well.patient123
DeleteI think that the video went into good detail about what stop and frisk is about. It is about the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio where an officer was watching these three men that were walking around and peering into a store so he decided to stop and talk to them and they were acting weird so he decided to frisk them and found guns on them. It was taken to court in arguing that the officer didn’t have enough to search them legally but the Supreme Court favored on the side of the officer. This allowed reasonable suspicion to be a part of stop in frisk giving the officers the ability to stop and search someone that they believe may be doing some kind of criminal activity. With stop and frisk I think it is a good thing that you can stop a person you suspect has a weapon on them and to frisk them because if they do it takes another gun off the street but I think that that can be an abused power, like in New York, where they targeted certain minority groups. I think the professor did a good job explaining the stop and frisk rules and about the court case Terry v. Ohio in deeper detail. Birdman123
ReplyDeleteYes he re-enacted the whole scene as if he and the viewers were on the scene and you could imagine and see this entire case unfolding right before your eyes. When asked their names they mumbled under their breath instead of stating names to Officer McFadden. He then frisked three men and found a gun in John’s overcoat pocket, a revolver in Richards’s coat, and Katz the third guy was unarmed. You can picture it all happening just as it did. Forensics123
DeleteI think this was a good arrest. It is unfortunate that the laws had to get into the way. There is so many picky things in the law, in order to ensure our rights as citizens. The officer had suspicion of a crime about to take place, but he didn't have suspicion that they were armed. I think the 1 of the 2 factors for reasonable suspicion should be required. An officer needs to be able to effectively do their job. If they have reason to think a crime is going to happen, they should be able to prevent that. If the people have nothing to hide, then they are fine! Our laws have become so complicated and politically correct that it can sometimes hinder justice.
ReplyDeleteMusic 456
All these topics whether Terry v.s Ohio or policing in Ferguson all focus goes back on stopping and frisking. This procedure I feel can be used as a great tool in the policing arsenal of intelligence. But just like any weapon if someone does know what they are doing with it bad things happen. For example an officer stopping minorities and frisking them just cause he/she doesn't like the race, religion, etc. Having that happen puts a bad taste in the civilian population towards the police in their community. However doing a stop & frisk can be very rewarding. Looking back to Terry v.s. Ohio, Detective McFadden was able to stop an armed robbery and get three criminals off the streets. Now this may be all my opinion but i completely agree with stop and frisk if it is used in the correct manner. If I'm on patrol and see suspicious behavior or an object that looks like a weapon I'm going to make sure you aren't going to do something that might hurt another.
ReplyDeletebikemaker456
I found this video very interesting. The Terry v Ohio case interesting as well. While thinking about the case in 1968 I determined officer McFadden’s actions were valid. That is my own opinion. I know some people would disagree saying the three men were just window shopping, but looking at the case fully, I realized the officer was placed in that location to stop exactly what he did... I believe the men did intend to rob the store they were casing. Police officers are placed in certain areas based on high crime or a repetitive specific crime. Officer McFadden was placed in this specific location "undercover" to stop robberies and shoplifters. This was back in the day and I would think this kind of crime would run much more frequent. I applaud McFadden for stopping the men and finding the guns. Even if the three men did not have guns I think the actions that the officer took would have made the criminals realize they cant rob this particular store or any on this block because it was under watch, and maybe they would have moved on. It was sheer luck that he caught them with unauthorized weapons on them. Not to mention the advancement in stop and frisk actions that came from this incident. Twal456
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and the officers are going to be put in the area where there is higher crime. That is there job to stop things like this before they go to the extreme! Green123
DeleteThis video caught my attention because we all need to know this very well if this is going to be what we want our career to be. As long as we can follow this stop and frisk we are following it correctly and we are not going to have any problems. In the case that this gentleman gave us he was out on his job and saw three men looking into windows more than once. That right there is enough in my opinion. I say this because if we really sit and think to ourselves, how many men would we know that are going to "window shop" at more than one store? I do not think that I could think of very many men that would do such a thing. So if I were to be in this situation I would of at least stopped them and asked questions. After asking the questions we can then decide if we feel the need to have to search them for anything that they should not have. I really liked how he explained everything in this video. Green123
ReplyDeleteThis video was pretty interesting because freshman year of college I actually wrote a paper on this particular topic. Criminal procedure is when the officer tells you to stop stay right there. You have been asked to stay right where you are by an officer. The Terry vs. Ohio case was very interesting because the officer did notice suspicious activity, then a third guy come along planning to rob the jewelry store. When asked their names they mumbled under their breath instead of stating names to Officer McFadden. He then frisked the men and found a gun in John’s overcoat pocket, a revolver in Richards’s coat, and Katz the third guy was unarmed. All three were arrested and John and Richard where charge with carrying a concealed weapon. Terry v. Ohio represents a clash between Fourth Amendment protection from intrusive, harassing conduct by police when no crime has been committed, and the duty of an officer to investigate suspicious behavior and prevent crime. Yet in many cities such as New York, Baltimore, and St. Louis they believe that it a law set for officers to abuse their authority in certain neighborhoods. Forensics123
ReplyDeletethough this video was not entertaining i can appreciate hoe detailed he was and how well he explained terry vs. Ohio there were a lot of thing I learned in just viewing this video i also felt like McFadden did as stated in the law of stop and frisk he observed these 3 individuals and as an officer on the job for 39 years his observances led him to believe they were up to no good and while searching them he found a weapon so he is justified in his arrest I just cant believe terry and his defense team thought the supreme court would back the state of Ohio. patient123
ReplyDeleteTerry v. Ohio provided the legal framework for what has become commonly known as Stop and Frisk. From the narrative, the officer had probable cause, based on the collective behavior of the individuals and his experience as a veteran officer to believe they were “casing the joint” and a crime was about to be committed. From subsequent rulings it appears that reasonable suspicion (criminal activity may be a foot or the suspect is armed and dangerous) is now the legal qualifications for stopping and frisking. The current practice of stop and frisk has less to do with the legal basis and more of a random or even a quota system where goals are assigned. Only a small number (under 2%) of those stopped are charged with anything and less than a 2% success rate does not seem very successful or effective. If officer safety is the concern, than statistics that indicate profiling make it a hard sell if community policing is the objective. Humvee123
ReplyDeleteIt is true that only a 2% success rate does not seem like a very successful or effective rate. However, as you mentioned, if officer safety is a concern I feel as if though if an officer has reasonable suspicion based on something that has been observed or the actions of a possible suspect then the officer should carry out a stop and frisk for his own safety. Community policing could and does play a big role into this as well though. If an officer can build a trust between him and the community then the results and effectiveness may begin to show. Sparks123
DeleteI thought this was a very interesting video in many different ways. I liked how the instructor talked about what could be possible in multiple different scenarios. This helped give a better understanding of what all could go into a “stop and frisk” and what could come out of it based on the court ruling. When he began talking about the different categories of probable cause or “reasonable suspicion” it made me begin to think about the different reasons a police officer may feel it reasonable to conduct one of these stop and frisks. Whether it may be the officer dealing with a suspect who has been known for drug distribution or was seen conducting drug distribution the officer could use the idea of most drug dealers in past experiences have been armed. There is a lot that is considered in a stop and frisk and the main idea is did the officer violate the law or not and did he carry it out properly. This video made that easier to understand.sparks123
ReplyDeleteI agree that just explaining what stop and frisk is would not be as valuable of a lesson without giving some examples of what could happen. It is also very important to point out the officer's past experiences contribute to the stop and frisk process as well. Acquainted123
DeleteThis instructor was pretty thorough in his information and gave very great examples of when stop and frisk works. It is a key tool that not only keeps the area safe, but the officer safe as well. I also agree that the three men looking in the window multiple times would seem suspicious to not only the officer, but to really anyone who gave it any thought. The officer was clearly in the right and good thing he did frisk them and found the two hidden guns. But stop and frisk like any law enforcement power can be abused and it is important for law enforcement officials and the community to keep it professional and in check. Acquainted123
ReplyDeleteThis video on Terry VS Ohio was very informative. This guy on the video really goes in-depth on the back story of Terry VS Ohio. He was very descriptive on how the whole case happened from them standing around the store and all the way to the search and then the court case. I think having reasonable suspicion should be enough for a police officer to stop and frisk. Police officers are out on the streets talking to new people almost all the time and they really never know who has what and when they may use it. So I’m glad that police can stop and frisk.
ReplyDeleteGRUNT123
I agree this video was very informative and helped me grasp the concept a lot better. I also think that officers should be able to stop and frisk someone with reasonable suspicion, as long as they are not to aggressive while doing so. At this point the individual has legally done nothing wrong so they shouldn't yet be treated like they have. gabegun123
DeleteGreat video to help you comprehend the differences between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The speaker also helped to bring the Terry V. Ohio case alive in order to help us understand it better. Reasonable suspicion is the suspicion that an individual is doing or about to commit an illegal act. With reasonable suspicion you are allowed to question and lightly frisk the individual. If when doing this you find something illegal you then have probable cause. With probably cause you are able to really search the individual along with any property with him/her such as bags, car, etc. I also like how he spoke about the argument of reasonable suspicion being added as a category. If it wouldn’t have been then the rules of probable cause would have expanded with time. Ultimately this would have led to reasonable suspicion just being a part of probable cause. This video was very helpful, and helped me realize the differences between the categories. Gabegun123
ReplyDeleteThis video did a very good job at breaking down the differences in reasonable suspicion and probable cause. It also did a good job touching base on the Terry V. Ohio case, and helped me better understand it. After watching the video I have learned that reasonable suspicion is when the officer thinks the certain individual may be committing a crime, but doesn't have enough to have probable cause to completely search the perp. Reasonable suspicion is enough to allow the officer to question the individual and do a light frisk for the safety of the officers. Reasonable suspicion could be someone in dark clothes walking around a shopping district after hours. Probable cause is enough to search the individuals vehicles, and completely search their person. Probable cause is like the next step past reasonable suspicion. An example of probable cause would be the officer smelt weed in the car at a traffic stop, or smelt alcohol on a drivers breath. Even if the officer didn't pull the individual over for that reason once he has probable cause that another crime is being committed the officer then can act on his suspicion. Overall the video was a good description of these two very different yet similar parts of the criminal justice system. dangkids123
ReplyDeleteI never fully new about the Terry V. Ohio case until this video explained it to me. It fully explains how stop and frisk became a part of the system. Having only a two tier system could let serious criminals get away if there wasn't probable cause to search them. Adding reasonable suspicion to it can give more freedom to stop and frisk incidents as it can allow officers to stop a crime before it happens, which could allow the suspects to escape. DeadMan012
ReplyDelete