Brown Buffalo

One aspect of GTA World that was supposed to be pivotal was the aspect of transparency. If you do not highlight actual issues, when Red. leaves his position, how will the next generation of leadership know what not to do? This seems like as others described a hacksaw to a scalpel problem, and it raises the question what the intention was. I feel that the server, but in particular the faction of the LSSD deserve to know what brought the faction to this point. In particular the Command Staff who were taken by surprise by this whole thing.

the brown buffalo approves of this organization, cause havoc. destroy the lame dogs.

best of luck bonk, you'll do great things with it.

Really enjoy your roleplay @Koko an amazingly developed character. Keep it up!

@Stormis the greatest cop rper there is.

You know? I think that this server would be better off with more emphasis on the LSSD roleplaying in TTCF. I think that restrictions to be implemented to make the LSSD's primary function detention work and the secondary as patrolling of unincorporated areas. It's sad to see so many people being "forced" to perform jail role-play. Those who are posting on this topic are the crème de la crème of LSSD role-players.

I think that it is important to get opinions from subject matter experts on how the LASD operates and how they badge people. Obviously if the badging emote does not replicate how the LASD actually does it in real life it will take away from my immersion. Therefore, we need to consult community experts on the issue. EDIT: I cannot find a YouTube video of this badging technique so I must vote in opposition. However there is one of people playing Wild West music from a LASD helicopter so that's OK.

😞

This is great. Game Wardens have the broadest range of law enforcement powers. I hope to see you all in Davis.

Hey man there's a YouTube video of it so it's valid. Bring it in for the realism. We once were told that playing songs out of the megaphone of an Air unit was deemed licit because there was a YouTube video of the LASD doing it. From that point on we must achieve 100% realism in everything we do.

BARP: Brown_Buffalo

Page 5 has a caselaw analysis completed by yours truly. 🙂 🙂 🙂

Anything to prevent another "Tennessee v. Garner" from being misinterpreted by literally everyone on a server for 15 years.

However, a significant problem you will encounter @MickeyO is that most cops don't know case law. Most Internal Affairs cases are handled incorrectly due to favoritism. So I think your challenging of them to the understanding of the law is completely valid.

Hello, and thank you for tagging me @Stormas the de-facto "wrong case law destroyer" let me give you my opinion based off of a few cases that have come along since Terry v. Ohio and Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The best case that I can refer us to is a federal case which I deem the most applicable as opposed to California state law as the question really in question here is not a state law question but a federal question due to it relating specifically to the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution @Jonesyany deviation from this case would be outside of the scope of practice for a California court. United States v. Stennis, 457 F. App'x 494 (6th Cir. 2012) highlights a new phrase that is not outlined in Terry v. Ohio or Pennsylvania v. Mimms, this term is "protective frisk". In United States v. Stennis, the Defense attempted to suppress evidence gained after officers removed a suspect from his vehicle and performed a Terry frisk, they argued (like the OP) that this was a violation of his rights. This case relied on TWO prongs in validating the officers choice for a protective frisk. 1) A bulge visible. 2) Officers prior knowledge of the defendant. The court is not clear whether both prongs must be satisfied, and in a situation where the court is not definitive on requiring both, we consider that either prongs could hold the same value and that the officer must use a "weighing scale" test to decide. Pulling someone out of a car without satisfying the visual test of seeing a bulge, and not having prior knowledge of the defendant would be Unconstitutional. Pulling someone out of a car with prior knowledge of the defendant likely is constitutional. What defines prior knowledge? Courts do not specify in their opinions every situation that could satisfy this test. However, a few examples would be (1) prior violent felonies, (2) prior weapons charges, (3) prior dealings in violent situations that might not have led to an arrest. I think it is also misunderstood what exactly Terry frisks entail and for that let me offer some clarification from the Stennis case. "Due to the unique dangers traffic stops present for police officers, an officer may, in the course of conducting a legal stop, order a driver out of the vehicle and conduct a Terry frisk should the officer reasonably suspect the individual to be armed and dangerous. During the course of a protective pat down, if the officer detects nonthreatening contraband or weapons on the individual's person, the evidence is subject to immediate seizure." United States v. Stennis, 457 F. App'x 494, 495 (6th Cir. 2012) To highlight where a protective frisk is not applicable we can look at a case such as United States v. Tharpe: "To justify a Terry search, the officer on the scene must be able to point to specific and articulable facts suggesting actual physical risk. Determination of the need for the frisk is judged against an objective standard because the feelings or hunches of an officer are too lacking in substance to effectively guarantee protection of constitutional rights. Just as subjective whims by officers can not justify a protective frisk, so, in light of the protean variety of the street encounter, courts must judge each individual factual context flexibly according to the objective evidentiary justification which the constitution requires." United States v. Tharpe, 536 F.2d 1098, 1099 (5th Cir. 1976) Mere hunches, inclinations, profiling, etc. are not sufficient reasons to satisfy the objective standard for a Terry Frisk. However, prior convictions, or dealings can establish patterns that are acceptable in court. In my opinion any officer who has a dealing with a suspect who has prior convictions relating to violent felonies, weapons charges, or prior dealings in violent situations that might not have led to an arrest they would satisfy one of the prongs established in United States v. Stennis and therefore it would be considered a lawful search and or detention.

YA URR ME? FUCK THE NOPD FUCK THE COPS YA URR?

im dedicated asf to quality rp.

it's bad rp to think you can just call other mob ppl to take out another mob, what would people do irl? lol, "lemme call up the Gambino family, they'll take care of me!" terrible rp if you dont call the cops.

i wish i had a hypeman like the guy at 0:35 but ye man british documentaries about gun prices are really realistic to me tbh. no need to question this any further case is closed boys no need for further inquiry

bay area rp went down and i googled cool rp servers for really good roleplayers and this was on page 82.

Brown Buffalo believes.

Hello, Brown Buffalo very pleased with the interactions I have had with the LSPD. They are very kind. Dawn is a very nice person both IC and OOC. Dawn should be chief. Thank you.

Ah this is very good news. I was envisioning my own tribe, thank you for the information.