Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

[KLB]

As someone who tries to be prepared for emergencies, it concerns me that the act of filling up multiple jerry cans of gas for generators could be a key piece of evidence supporting reasonable articulable suspicion.

The Riot Kitchen people, while perhaps well-meaning for wanting to feed those who are hungry, under a slightly different scenario might have been part of an MSG or prepping group.

That puts the LE action in a slightly different light.

How could it not be RAS? Filling up multiple gas cans with gasoline - a common accelerant - to be taken to a location/event known for buildings, cars, dumpsters, and sundry being set on fire.

PC? No. RAS? Absolutely. Is that not how RAS works?

I have to agree with Chip on this one. In an area where there are ongoing riots on a daily basis, a report of people in out of state vehicles filling up jerry cans with gas would definitely be RAS.

I do not see the leap you are making for preppers. They don't travel half way across the country to areas of unrest and then begin preparing and stockpiling.

 

[T.Lex]

In our zeal, we should be mindful of our own precarious situation going forward.

In a bug out scenario, how many of us would be "out of state" and filling up jerry cans?

I don't give 2 ****s about Riot Kitchen or where they came from or why they picked that name instead of the Protection Squadron or whatever.

Just saying that the tradeoff of security for liberty can be a bad bargain.

 

[printcraft]

Location location location...

Whenever I get multiple jerry cans of gas I always run from police too.
Who doesn’t right? It’s all good fun.

 

[Expat]

I think getting gas would look less suspicious if you filled up leftover glass wine bottles instead of jerry cans... I mean that is short for german isn't it?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

In our zeal, we should be mindful of our own precarious situation going forward.

In a bug out scenario, how many of us would be "out of state" and filling up jerry cans?

I don't give 2 ****s about Riot Kitchen or where they came from or why they picked that name instead of the Protection Squadron or whatever.

Just saying that the tradeoff of security for liberty can be a bad bargain.

T, an organized out-of-state group filling up jerry cans on the way to a city that is literally being burned to the ground gives RAS to ask "what's up", "did you bring your lawnmower with you?"

When said people panic, lock the doors and attempt to drive off, it is now PC to search that vehicle and act upon what is found in that vehicle.

This is by the book due process. I only hope for, but do not count upon, being afforded the normal level of due process when the Marxists/anarchists take power or when visiting a so-called progressive controlled state.

 

[GIJEW]

Used to be a station worth listening to, now it's either global warming or orange man bad.

IMO NPR has stood for National Propaganda Radio since sleazy willy was president

 

[Kutnupe14]

Constructive possession.

That is all.

That’s honestly what I figured.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How could it not be RAS? Filling up multiple gas cans with gasoline - a common accelerant - to be taken to a location/event known for buildings, cars, dumpsters, and sundry being set on fire.

PC? No. RAS? Absolutely. Is that not how RAS works?

What if the had stopped by a firearms store and bought multiple weapons and boxes of ammunition... to be taken to a location where there has already been multiple shootings?

 

[chipbennett]

In our zeal, we should be mindful of our own precarious situation going forward.

In a bug out scenario, how many of us would be "out of state" and filling up jerry cans?

I don't give 2 ****s about Riot Kitchen or where they came from or why they picked that name instead of the Protection Squadron or whatever.

Just saying that the tradeoff of security for liberty can be a bad bargain.

RAS only gives the police authority to conduct an investigatory detention. As far as I know, it doesn't even give police authority to search the vehicle (for which the police would need probable cause). Now, in the totality of the circumstances, could the police have claimed PC here? Possibly. Would that PC have been questionable/marginal? Possible/likely.

On its face, I don't think it is unreasonable, or an egregious intrusion upon liberty, for police to be able to conduct an investigatory detention in this situation, to ascertain where a group of out-of-state people with a vehicle full of gasoline cans is going and what they intend to do with the gasoline.

Asked another way: what would have changed the circumstances enough for you to conclude that police had RAS? Is there anything (outside of the absurdly obvious, like signs advocating for arson, etc.)?

 

[Kutnupe14]

All the above, plus out of state plates... they drove 2000 miles from Seattle, right? <-- this question to T

And then, when approached by police, they locked the doors and attempted to drive away. With that action, probable cause to search the vehicle.

They should have stepped out, locked the door, and talked or not talked to police, etc.

Personally, "Sorry, I do not talk to police without my attorney present and I do not consent to search. Am I being detained or can I go?"

Rinse/repeat to all questions.

”Locked the doors and attempted to drive away?” So where is the felony RLE charge?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

What if the had stopped by a firearms store and bought multiple weapons and boxes of ammunition... to be taken to a location where there has already been multiple shootings?

Same thing, RAS only on the ammo and ditto assuming legal firearms purchases... my answers would be "no talkie, no searchie, am I free to go?"

Lock the doors and attempt to evade/escape the police, then PC to search plus possible charges on attempts to evade.

 

[chipbennett]

What if the had stopped by a firearms store and bought multiple weapons and boxes of ammunition... to be taken to a location where there has already been multiple shootings?

The thing with hypotheticals is that the assumed circumstances and facts can vary widely. So, the best I can say is: it depends. That might be sufficient for RAS, in the right circumstances? But absent other facts not described, I would think/guess not? (And there's the matter of keeping and bearing arms being a constitutionally protected right, prohibiting the government from infringing upon those activities, and providing an inherent assumption of lawful/protected activity when doing so.)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Same thing, RAS only on the ammo and ditto assuming legal firearms purchases... my answers would be "no talkie, no searchie, am I free to go?"

Lock the doors and attempt to evade/escape the police, then PC to search plus possible charges on attempts to evade.

Im just saying, when we’re justifying stops based on filling up gas cans and out of state plates, simply because of its proximity to violence, were on a slippery slope.

 

[chipbennett]

Same thing, RAS only on the ammo and ditto assuming legal firearms purchases... my answers would be "no talkie, no searchie, am I free to go?"

Lock the doors and attempt to evade/escape the police, then PC to search plus possible charges on attempts to evade.

Eh. If you've not been detained, nothing compels you to wait around to be detained. And choosing to avoid an interaction with police that has the presumption of being consensual unless/until otherwise indicated is not evidence of evasion/criminal intent/etc.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

”Locked the doors and attempted to drive away?” So where is the felony RLE charge?

RLE includes flight, not just forcible resistance.

 

[chipbennett]

Im just saying, when we’re justifying stops based on filling up gas cans and out of state plates, simply because of its proximity to violence, were on a slippery slope.

It is certainly worth a conversation, and you know I agree with your slippery slope view on these kinds of things. In this case, though, I think there is more to the totality of the circumstances that tilts the scales closer to being justifiably RAS.

 

[dusty88]

In our zeal, we should be mindful of our own precarious situation going forward.

In a bug out scenario, how many of us would be "out of state" and filling up jerry cans?

I don't give 2 ****s about Riot Kitchen or where they came from or why they picked that name instead of the Protection Squadron or whatever.

Just saying that the tradeoff of security for liberty can be a bad bargain.

Agreed

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Eh. If you've not been detained, nothing compels you to wait around to be detained. And choosing to avoid an interaction with police that has the presumption of being consensual unless/until otherwise indicated is not evidence of evasion/criminal intent/etc.

When the cop says, "Sir, I'd like to have a word with you." running away, locking the doors and attempting to drive away, etc are no-no's. Gives PC for search because that is simply not something the law-abiding do... pretty sure there's at least one SCOTUS on this.

That does not mean you have to waive your rights and speak to the police nor grant consent to search without PC nor warrant.

"Officer, am I being detained? If so, what for? Sorry, officer, I do not speak with police without my attorney present. I do not consent to search. May I go or am I being detained?" Rinse, repeat.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Im just saying, when we’re justifying stops based on filling up gas cans and out of state plates, simply because of its proximity to violence, were on a slippery slope.

We can disagree on this... IMO, these situations are exactly why there is RAS. ETA: Out of state, filling gas cans, on a route leading to a city that is literally being burned to the ground. That is solid RAS in my book.

IT IS NOT PC to search, I agree on THAT! Until they tried to run, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing as granting consent to search plus RLE-flight charges.

In other words, they are dumbasses.

 

[chipbennett]

When the cop says, "Sir, I'd like to have a word with you." running away, locking the doors and attempting to drive away, etc are no-no's. Gives PC for search because that is simply not something the law-abiding do... pretty sure there's at least one SCOTUS on this.

That does not mean you have to waive your rights and speak to the police nor grant consent to search without PC nor warrant.

"Officer, am I being detained? If so, what for? Sorry, officer, I do not speak with police without my attorney present. I do not consent to search. May I go or am I being detained?" Rinse, repeat.

At this point, the encounter is still consensual. "No, thank you." is an appropriate, acceptable, and lawful response. Failing to comply with a presumed-consensual encounter is not RAS, much less PC, of any unlawful behavior or action.

If I were a betting man, I would at least wager a cup of coffee that any existing precedent case law, SCOTUS or otherwise, states the opposite of what you do here. Unless and until the police officer escalates the encounter from consensual to a Terry stop, you are free to avoid the encounter, and doing so is not evidence constituting RAS/PC.