Coward Murders Children in Florida

[Exarch]

the Federal Government is gonna have an easier time crushing individual freedoms once citizens guns are taken from them. Americans must give up their guns just in case they ever become disobedient to the might of Washington DC.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Because it is. Clearly you are no acquainted with my state's gun laws as you don't live here. I did not say that my state allows no background check sales either, though again, I may have slipped. Washington state does not require firearm registration (for the most part), they do not require anything substantial to get a concealed carry license aside from an "Ok" from a local LEO office. Open carry is not illegal, there are not blanket bans on any particular firearms or attachments. This is a defacto "Stand your ground" state. So yes, Washington State is extremely liberal when it comes to gun control. I.e. they virtually have no additional legislation to support federal regulations.

I don't believe that there is a constitutional basis for requiring a permit in order to be allowed to carry a firearm, either openly or concealed.

Permit requirements often include training requirements.


Imagine if a city refused to allow an activist to speak until he had 12 hours of training in public speaking so he would be less likely to bore the crowd or to whip them into a frenzy and a riot.


The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak, it doesn't mean you will be an effective speaker.

The Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't mean you will be an effective gunfighter.


Acquiring skills to survive and win a gunfight requires extensive training and preparation.


I don't anticipate beating a Navy SEAL in a gunfight but then again I don't anticipate being in a gunfight with such an individual who is likely to have a high respect for the law and his fellow citizens.

I do anticipate beating random criminal swine in a gunfight due to my superior level of training relative to what preparation/training they are likely to have undergone. Even still, criminals tend to have one major advantage, a complete disregard for others. This means they don't care what happens with the rounds that miss, they don't care if they have to fire 30 rounds at a target to get 2 hits and the other 28 rounds hit bystanders. This can be a major advantage in regards to "winning" a gunfight.

Any gunfight I wind up in, I am not only concerned that I survive [and this generally means neutralize the target] but I am also concerned about what happens with every round that is not on target, or a round that passes clean through the target, because I don't want to "win" the gunfight, see two criminal attackers go down in the parking lot, neutralized/incapacitated, only to realize that the two of the four rounds that I missed with, struck some young couple coming out of a coffee shop and now there's a severely wounded young man and young woman as collateral damage from the gunfight.

This is why I consider training important and I see myself as having an obligation to myself, my family, and society at large, to undergo training that costs thousands of dollars each year. I don't think much about spending $1000 on a 4 day pistol course which entails 32-40 hours of intense pistol training, because I know that quality training costs money, takes time, but is clearly worth it.

To me an acceptable "miss" is "I was aiming for the target's chest and hit the torso" or "I was aiming for the upper chest and hit the throat" not "I was aiming for the target and hit a bystander three feet to the right and eighty feet behind him."


If I had the opportunity I would train live-fire on a weekly basis with pistol combatives [shoot-houses, moving/shooting, reloading on the move, moving to cover to reload, shooting from cover, malfunction drills, rapid reaction drills, etc.]. I don't have the land even though I have the time and the ammunition. At some point I intend to build my own "shoot house" once I acquire the land, and I will probably do at least 1-3 hours each weekend and expend 200-300 pistol rounds each weekend.


Training should be taken seriously and treated with respect because of the implications it has for society and those around you. "You fired four rounds at that attacker, your first round went wide and into the dirt to his left, the next two struck him in the chest and the final one struck him in the torso" is acceptable, "your first round went wide and struck that old woman in the nearby parking lot as she was coming out of the bakery" is not acceptable. Even better would be, "you fired four rounds, all four were on target."


The FBI did a study on police who were shot and the criminals who shot them. They found that the average criminal who shot a cop had about 21 shooting sessions of "training" in a typical year, which could range from dedicated shooting at paper targets at various distances, to shooting cans and bottles in an alley or junkyard, the average cop who was shot only fired his weapon to qualify for the department's annual qualification requirement. They also found that the criminals fired vastly more rounds, showed no concern for what would happen with misses, and fired first, while the police who were shot tended to hesitate, fired far fewer rounds, and even refrained/held back from opening fire despite being legally permitted to do so [i.e. criminal pulls a gun and is taking aim at them, they refrain from promptly opening fire].


If you read through detailed analyses of defensive gunfights [regarding pistols] you will realize that police only hit about 18% of the time and that citizens tend to be about twice as accurate as police, hitting above 30% of the time, largely due to superior training. This is in regards to the USA. The simple truth is that most police have very little training in regards to their pistol and most do not devote any of their personal time to training with their pistol, at least in the USA. I want to be better than the police, better than the typical citizen on the street, and definitely better than the criminal element. The truth is that most police in the USA view their pistol as a mere requirement for their job and they don't actually become an expert with it and they're certainly not going to spend $3,000 of their own dollars each year taking pistol classes. Most won't even avail themselves of the opportunity to use a department shooting range, for free, on a weekly or monthly basis.

Imagine having access to an indoor or outdoor shooting range, basically any time you want, for free, and only using it once per year to qualify to be able to keep your job. Water settles in the lowest point and seeks the path of least resistance. Most people do the minimum amount of work necessary to avoid being fired because people by their very nature are lazy.



People should not be forced to acquire the skills that they might need to save their lives or to effectively win a gunfight. It is a matter of personal choice. If you want to carry a pistol despite not knowing how to effectively employ it to win a gunfight, that is your choice. If you like the idea of losing then go for it and never train.

[Heathen Hammer]

People keep saying that "US has a gun problem" while it really is not even the case. Au contraire, US needs to relax its gun laws, especially in places like New York and Illinois.

[chilon]

I personally believe Las Vegas was an absolute hoax and that nobody died [except perhaps the alleged shooter who was dumped there as a patsy], but I am very thankful the hoax didn't implicate lawfully held NFA items.

Wow
This type of denialism is crazy.
Now, these shootings don't even exist, they were apparently faked like the moon landing and the round earth.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Wow
This type of denialism is crazy.
Now, these shootings don't even exist, they were apparently faked like the moon landing and the round earth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-TV-crews.html



https://bigleaguepolitics.com/mother...rump-activist/


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ed_guards.html

[Cyclops]

To paraphrase: The NRA and the gun industry generally wants to increase the amount of weapons, not for their own profit, but to protect individuals against their own government which apparently wants to take over the government. Regulation is bad mkay.

Mass shootings are faked, and if everyone was armed they wouldn't happen anyway, but you still need weapons for home defence because urban men are climbing in your windows, they're snatching your people up. Hide your wife, hide your kids!

Mass shootings are isolated events (actually I believe this one, statistically they are a fraction of gun deaths) and now is not the time, but we need a comprehensive presidential initiative to arm teachers. Need some more regulation mkay.

I am gobsmacked by the sheer stupidity of Trumps NRA driven initiative. Arm teachers? So if one of those teachers shoots up school we arm the janitors as well? The students? What if a pregnant mother commits suicide? Arm foetuses! They're people and have second amendment rights. The US could have an "opt out" second amendment where everyone is a weaponised cyborg from before birth.

Just incidentally, how much of a corporate slave is Trump right now? LaPierre speaks, Trump's mouth moves, the swamp ripples with delight.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

To paraphrase: The NRA and the gun industry generally wants to increase the amount of weapons, not for their own profit, but to protect individuals against their own government which apparently wants to take over the government. Regulation is bad mkay.

Mass shootings are faked, and if everyone was armed they wouldn't happen anyway, but you still need weapons for home defence because urban men are climbing in your windows, they're snatching your people up. Hide your wife, hide your kids!

Mass shootings are isolated events (actually I believe this one, statistically they are a fraction of gun deaths) and now is not the time, but we need a comprehensive presidential initiative to arm teachers. Need some more regulation mkay.

I am gobsmacked by the sheer stupidity of Trumps NRA driven initiative. Arm teachers? So if one of those teachers shoots up school we arm the janitors as well? The students? What if a pregnant mother commits suicide? Arm foetuses! They're people and have second amendment rights. The US could have an "opt out" second amendment where everyone is a weaponised cyborg from before birth.

Just incidentally, how much of a corporate slave is Trump right now? LaPierre speaks, Trump's mouth moves, the swamp ripples with delight.

To think that the swamp wants the serfs and peasants armed is laughable. Modern oligarchs want the masses disarmed and unarmed so they cannot stand in the way of the otherwise inexorable drive to global collectivization.

[chilon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-TV-crews.html



https://bigleaguepolitics.com/mother...rump-activist/


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ed_guards.html

Say what?
None of those links has anything to do with the Vegas shooting being a hoax. Such a weird thing for you to declare with apparently no evidence other than your imagination.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Say what?
None of those links has anything to do with the Vegas shooting being a hoax. Such a weird thing for you to declare with apparently no evidence other than your imagination.

The point was to show that CNN/mainstream media is often caught with its pant down doing all sorts of BS, from staging fake protests to giving people scripted questions.

[Heathen Hammer]

To think that the swamp wants the serfs and peasants armed is laughable. Modern oligarchs want the masses disarmed and unarmed so they cannot stand in the way of the otherwise inexorable drive to global collectivization.

Indeed. Advocacy for stricter gun control is illogical and is simply based on emotions. Wouldn't be surprised if actual gun manufacturers would lobby for that, since gun sales actually soar when another cringy liberal demands ban on guns.

[tgoodenow]

A school campus cop heard the gunfire, rushed to the building but never went inside — instead waiting outside for another four agonizing minutes as Cruz continued the slaughter

Peterson — named school resource officer of the year for Parkland in 2014 — was in another building, dealing with a student issue when the shots sounded. Armed with his sidearm, Peterson ran to the west side of Building 12 and set up in a defensive position, then did nothing for four minutes until the gunfire stopped, the sheriff said.
On Thursday, Israel said surveillance footage captured the officer’s inaction. Asked what Peterson should have done, Israel said: “Went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.”

”give up your guns, the police will protect you”... just kidding they’ll sit outside and not do

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.miami...201636649.html

[PointOfViewGun]

Police need reasonable articulable suspicion that a person has committed a crime [to stop and detain them] or that the person is "armed and dangerous" to stop them, detain them, and frisk them.
They cannot conduct Terry stop's on anybody and everybody.
Also police would need reasonable articulable suspicion, or possibly probable cause, to seize a weapon from somebody to run the serial number and verify registration.
These cases have emerged over the years, police see somebody openly carrying a pistol, they approach him, detain him, and they claim they are taking his gun to run the serial number and verify it was not reported as stolen. Courts have consistently held the police do not even have the right to approach the man and initiate an involuntary encounter because openly carrying a firearm is not a crime and thus they have no reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, and they have no probable cause to seize the firearm because they have no reason to believe it is stolen property.
Merely open carrying a pistol in a holster does not make you "armed AND dangerous" for Terry stop purposes, nor does it give police even reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause, that the firearm is stolen.
So yes, if police are empowered to stop and detain people to conduct random warrantless spot checks on guns to make sure they are registered and not stolen, without particular individualized suspicion that the particular gun is stolen or not-registered, then the Fourth Amendment is dead and gone.

Police doesn't have a reasonable suspicion when they make me go through a security at the airport. So, it can happen in principal. But, cops can indeed stop you on the road and check your license if they see you behaving suspiciously. That's already legal. No one talked about Terry stops against people that are acting completely normal, though since they can do it at an airport they can do the same at many other places. So, no, you're grasping at straws to make a case about the 4th amendment. It does not hold valid. You're also altering bits of information to make a case. What you argue about is searches. There is no search involved in a cop asking for a gun license when he already spotted the gun. You are obliged to show your carry license in that case. 4th amendment has no say in there.

People keep saying that "US has a gun problem" while it really is not even the case. Au contraire, US needs to relax its gun laws, especially in places like New York and Illinois.

So, you're not gonna acknowledge that you made stuff up about UK a couple of times earlier? Let's resolve that first. You made statements about UK and they were false at such a basic level that it was embarrassing.

The point was to show that CNN/mainstream media is often caught with its pant down doing all sorts of BS, from staging fake protests to giving people scripted questions.

So, by your logic, Trump being the president is a hoax. CNN/mainstream media reported that he became the president as well...

Indeed. Advocacy for stricter gun control is illogical and is simply based on emotions. Wouldn't be surprised if actual gun manufacturers would lobby for that, since gun sales actually soar when another cringy liberal demands ban on guns.

What's illogical about having proper federal gun registry measures, background checks, or things like banning types of guns that does not have the purpose of defense?

[Katsumoto]

”give up your guns, the police will protect you”... just kidding they’ll sit outside and not do

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.miami...201636649.html

Think you've missed the moral of this story. It's that having good guys with guns around doesn't necessarily mean these mass shootings will be prevented.

[Morifea]

@Katsumoto: The NRA-disciples will spin it to: If the poor Guy had had a better weapon (Assault Rifle, SAW, Thermobaric rockets), he would have engaged.... But the bad bad leftis (or insert obama, soros or Clintons) have prevented this, so they`re to blame.

By the way, has already someone here written that the whole shooting is a hoax? Still waiting for it....

[Prodromos]

Think you've missed the moral of this story. It's that having good guys with guns around doesn't necessarily mean these mass shootings will be prevented.

No one said it'll be enough in every single case, but that doesn't mean it can never work. There are numerous cases of shootings being stopped by armed bystanders. The reason you don't much about them is because everyone is saved from death.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...419-story.html

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.


The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.


A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.


The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.


Custodio was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic hospital, where he was treated for gunshot wounds to the shin, thigh and lower back, authorities said.


Custodio, of the 2900 block of North Ridgeway Avenue, was charged with aggravated assault and unlawful use of a weapon charges. He was denied bond during the Sunday court hearing.


The Uber driver, a 47-year-old resident of Little Italy, provided police with a valid concealed-carry permit and a firearm owner's identification card, Quinn said.

[PointOfViewGun]

No one said it'll be enough in every single case, but that doesn't mean it can never work. There are numerous cases of shootings being stopped by armed bystanders. The reason you don't much about them is because everyone is saved from death.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...419-story.html

No one said it will never work either...

[Prodromos]

No one said it will never work either...

Fire alarms don't save people in every case either. I guess they shouldn't be installed then? It's completely bizarre to oppose commonsense and basic safety measures.

[PointOfViewGun]

Fire alarms don't save people in every case either. I guess they shouldn't be installed then? It's completely bizarre to oppose commonsense and basic safety measures.

Is arming teachers in a school analogous to putting fire alarms in every room? If you're referring to having an armed guard in the school then nobody really opposed that as well.

[Mithradates]

”give up your guns, the police will protect you”... just kidding they’ll sit outside and not do

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.miami...201636649.html

Wow:

ALL THE WARNINGS ABOUT NIKOLAS CRUZ

Nikolas Cruz’s dangerous and disturbing behavior was flagged repeatedly to authorities, both local and federal, over a span of two years starting in February 2016. But no one stopped him before he killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Here’s a timeline of incidents where Cruz was reported to law enforcement. Many of the incidents involve the threat of a school shooting.

▪ Feb. 5, 2016: A Broward Sheriff’s Office deputy is told by an anonymous caller that Nikolas Cruz, then 17, had threatened on Instagram to shoot up his school and posted a photo of himself with guns. The information is forwarded to BSO Deputy Scot Peterson, a school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

▪ Sept. 23, 2016: A “peer counselor” reports to Peterson that Cruz had possibly ingested gasoline in a suicide attempt, was cutting himself and wanted to buy a gun. A mental health counselor advises against involuntarily committing Cruz. The high school says it will conduct a threat assessment.

▪ Sept. 28, 2016: An investigator for the Florida Department of Children and Families rules Cruz is stable, despite “fresh cuts” on his arms. His mother, Lynda Cruz, says in the past he wrote a racial slur against African Americans on his book bag and had recently talked of buying firearms.

▪ Sept. 24, 2017: A YouTube user named “nikolas cruz” posts a comment stating he wants to become a “professional school shooter.” The comment is reported to the FBI in Mississippi, which fails to make the connection to Cruz in South Florida.

▪ Nov. 1, 2017: Katherine Blaine, Lynda Cruz’s cousin, calls BSO to report that Nikolas Cruz had weapons and asks that police recover them. A “close family friend” agrees to take the firearms, according to BSO.

▪ Nov. 29, 2017: The Palm Beach County family that took in Cruz after the death of his mother calls the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office to report a fight between him and their son, 22. A member of the family says that Cruz had threatened to “get his gun and come back” and that he has “put the gun to others’ heads in the past.” The family does not want him arrested once he calms down.

▪ Nov. 30, 2017: A caller from Massachusetts calls BSO to report that Cruz is collecting guns and knives and could be a “school shooter in the making.” A BSO deputy advises the caller to contact the Palm Beach sheriff.

▪ Jan. 5, 2018: A caller to the FBI’s tip line reports that Cruz has “a desire to kill people” and could potentially conduct a school shooting. The information is never passed on to the FBI’s office in Miami.

▪ Feb. 14, 2018: Nikolas Cruz attacks Stoneman Douglas High. Peterson, the school’s resource officer, draws his gun outside the building where Cruz is shooting students and staff. He does not enter.

What the hell, so many red flags.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Police doesn't have a reasonable suspicion when they make me go through a security at the airport. So, it can happen in principal. But, cops can indeed stop you on the road and check your license if they see you behaving suspiciously. That's already legal. No one talked about Terry stops against people that are acting completely normal, though since they can do it at an airport they can do the same at many other places. So, no, you're grasping at straws to make a case about the 4th amendment. It does not hold valid. You're also altering bits of information to make a case. What you argue about is searches. There is no search involved in a cop asking for a gun license when he already spotted the gun. You are obliged to show your carry license in that case. 4th amendment has no say in there.

1- You probably do not have a law degree.

2- You're probably not a lawyer.

3- Regarding #1 and #2, if you either had a law degree or were a lawyer, you would know that an airport is a port of entry and the US Supreme Court has ruled that customs/police/authorities at airports do not need any individualized particular reasonable suspicion to conduct a search of somebody who is about to board a plane, coming off of an international flight, or luggage that is coming off of an international flight or about to be placed on any flight. US airports are typically considered "ports of entry" or their functional equivalent even if they are not at an actual border crossing. Airports, like harbors where international cargo arrives on ships and border crossings, are treated as special places due to their status as ports of entry for international travelers and commerce. If you ever seriously studied the 4th Amd you would know that.


4- Almost every state that permits open carrying of firearms does so without requiring a permit, therefore in those states no police officer would be able to even approach and initiate an involuntary encounter [i.e. detain somebody] because he would have no reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, he would have no reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed AND dangerous [armed yes, dangerous no] so a Terry stop would not apply, and he would have no probable cause that a crime had been committed and he could not make an arrest and a seizure. Likewise, in states where a permit is required, the officer would have no reason to believe or suspect that a person open carrying a firearm lacks a permit, or that the gun was stolen, or that the gun was not registered in compliance with some hypothetical registry requirement, and thus he would no legal basis by which to stop the person in an involuntary encounter and ask, "may I see your permit? I want to see that gun, is it registered, what is the serial number?" In fact, if the person lacked a permit to openly carry, the gun was not registered, and the gun was stolen, the person would be able to invoke the 5th Amd and refuse to answer the questions because requiring him to answer would be requiring him to make an open admission of criminal offense. States with "stop and identify" statutes typically provide that a person must provide their age or date of birth, upon request, unless age is an element of the suspected offense, because requiring a 20 year old to admit to the police that he is only 20, when they suspect him of underage drinking or underage alcohol possession, is requiring him to make an open admission of criminal conduct, in violation of his 5th amendment guarantee against self-incrimination. Your system would only wreck the 2nd Amd and the 4th Amd, it would seriously implicate aspects of the 5th Amd.


5- Police cannot stop you on the highway and check your license unless you have violated a traffic law. When you say "behaving suspiciously" what you actually mean is going twice the posted speed limit, failing to stop at a red light, drifting out of your lane, driving on the shoulder, driving in the grass, following too closely, driving 50% under the posted speed limit, these are not "things that are suspicious" but rather "things that are illegal." A police observer who personally observes a violation of a traffic law has probable cause to make an arrest if he wishes, so he has probable cause to initiate a seizure and stop the vehicle. Note that once a vehicle is stopped everybody in the vehicle is considered seized for 4th Amd purposes.

Police cannot merely stop a vehicle when the driver has not violated a single law but is shaking his head and making hand gestures while he jams with his music, even if that is "behaving suspiciously" it is not a criminal offense. Pretextual stops are also permitted as long as the pretext is a valid one. An officer who observed a young man failing to stop at a red light is legally permitted to stop the vehicle and order the occupants out and he can ask the driver for permission to search his person and his vehicle.

Likewise, if a K9 unit is already on the scene or nearby, and the walk-around with the dog can be done without prolonging the stop beyond the time needed to issue a traffic citation [ranging from 7 to 15 minutes] then they can have the dog walk around; if they have to wait 20-30 minutes for the dog to arrive this is clearly an unconstitutional detention because there is no basis to detain somebody beyond the time needed to cite them for the traffic offense.

As a practical matter this means that the police, having absolutely no interest in actually writing you a ticket, but having a "feeling" that you are trafficking drugs, can pull you over for running a red light, make you nervous by how they talk to you, "you're not hiding anything are you? why not let us search your trunk?" and when you break under the pressure and say, "okay" they then find the several pounds of marijuana you had in your trunk that you were going to take to the college party for your friends, and now you're toast.

As a practical matter anybody who insists on transporting contraband by vehicle should zealously obey all traffic laws and should work to blend in with prevailing traffic conditions. Driving ridiculously fast is an easy way to get pulled over and driving too slow [especially on the highway] is also an easy way to get pulled over.


My main point remains and I believe it has been well-made, you do not have an actual and proper understanding of the Fourth Amendment and how it has been interpreted by relevant court precedent.

6- The policies you propose would require a serious new interpretation of the 4th Amendment or perhaps the outright repeal of the 4th Amendment.


For the edification of any who wish to read-

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop does not unreasonably prolong the length of the stop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendlin_v._California Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...artinez-Fuerte United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border and that the checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.^[1][2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ortiz United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almeid..._United_States

Searches of automobiles must still have probable cause even in the absence of a warrant.

Moving on to another area of the 4th Amd-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ybarra_v._Illinois

When a search warrant specifies the person or people named in the warrant to be searched and the things to be seized, there is no authority to search others not named in the warrant, unless the warrant specifically mentions that the unnamed parties are involved in criminal activity or exigent circumstances are clearly shown. The mere suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity, or is armed and dangerous, does not alone produce probable cause. Specific evidence that supports the assertion that a person is involved in criminal activity or armed and dangerous is required to show probable cause. The Fourth Amendment protects against searches on "compact" premises during the search, even when there is a "reasonable belief" that a person is involved in criminal activity or armed and dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Texas Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. It is an important case for Stop and Identify statutes in the United States.^[1]




In general you could benefit from reading all of the big cases dealing with exceptions to the warrant requirement- You can find the cases, and basic descriptions/summaries, on Wiki, and there are links to the actual Supreme Court opinions or the opinions from the lower/appellate courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause.^[1]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...36132398268257 United States v. Ramsey, 431 US 606 - Supreme Court 1977






[TH="colspan: 2"]Exceptions to Warrant Requirement[/TH]


[TD="colspan: 2"]

Exigent circumstances	Warden v. Hayden (1967) United States v. Chadwick (1977) Michigan v. Tyler (1978) Payton v. New York (1980) Welsh v. Wisconsin (1986) Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) Kentucky v. King (2011)
Consent searches	Amos v. United States (1921) Bumper v. North Carolina (1968) Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) United States v. Matlock (1974) Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) Georgia v. Randolph (2006) Fernandez v. California (2014)
Plain view	Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) Arizona v. Hicks (1987) Horton v. California (1990) Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
Vehicle searches	Carroll v. United States (1925) Chambers v. Maroney (1970) Cardwell v. Lewis (1974) Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) United States v. Ross (1982) California v. Carney (1985) Florida v. Jimeno (1991) California v. Acevedo (1991) Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) Florida v. White (1999) Collins v. Virginia (2018)
Searches incident to arrest	Agnello v. United States (1925) Harris v. United States (1947) Trupiano v. United States (1948) United States v. Rabinowitz (1950) Chimel v. California (1969) United States v. Robinson (1973) United States v. Chadwick (1977) New York v. Belton (1981) Knowles v. Iowa (1998) Thornton v. United States (2004) Arizona v. Gant (2009) Riley v. California (2014)
Breathalyzers, blood samples, DNA	Schmerber v. California (1966) Cupp v. Murphy (1973) Missouri v. McNeely (2013) Maryland v. King (2013) Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)
Protective sweeps	Maryland v. Buie (1990)
Inventory searches	South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) Illinois v. Lafayette (1983)
Border searches	Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) United States v. Ortiz (1975) United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976) United States v. Ramsey (1977) United States v. Montoya De Hernandez (1985) United States v. Flores-Montano (2004)
"Special needs" searches: Checkpoints	Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990) City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) Illinois v. Lidster (2004)
"Special needs" searches: Students, employees, and patients	New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985) O'Connor v. Ortega (1987) Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n (1989) National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989) Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) Chandler v. Miller (1997) Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001) Board of Education v. Earls (2002) Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009) City of Ontario v. Quon (2010)
"Special needs" searches: Property of probationers and parolees	Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987) United States v. Knights (2001) Samson v. California (2006)
Administrative inspections	Frank v. Maryland (1959) Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) See v. City of Seattle (1967) Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. (1978) Donovan v. Dewey (1980) New York v. Burger (1983) Michigan v. Clifford (1984) City of Los Angeles v. Patel (2015)
Searches in jails and prisons	Bell v. Wolfish (1979) Hudson v. Palmer (1984) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012)
Searches at sea	United States v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983)
Warrantless arrests	Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) United States v. Watson (1976) Payton v. New York (1980) Welsh v. Wisconsin (1983) Minnesota v. Olson (1990) County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) Virginia v. Moore (2008)

[/TD]