There's almost no question that she was shifting gears for the car to end up in reverse right?

 

I can't think of any other plausible explanation. :idunno:

I can't think of any other plausible explanation. :idunno:

 

Me either. Pretty sad that her life ended as she presumably was trying to stop. Still don't think it was a crime, just all around brutally unfortunate for everyone involved.

Me either. Pretty sad that her life ended as she presumably was trying to stop. Still don't think it was a crime, just all around brutally unfortunate for everyone involved.

 

So it's not a crime to smoke weed (illegal in the state of ky), drink and drive (she wasn't even 21 yet; but still well above the legal limit for those that are 21), disregard a lawful command given by an officer (which she did) or try to run over an officer (ya did that too). I hope you never run for City Council and I'm saying 5 hat for the officers in your city.

 

I typed all of this out and then realized I was uncertain of the context of your comment. If you mean she didn't commit a crime then I stand by what I said. If you meant Deputy Brockman didn't well then that's out their for whomever wants to try and be his opposition.

Here is a link to the full complaint/suit if anyone is interested.

 

http://www.gbfirm.com/litigation/documents/74_RamseycomplaintFinal.pdf

 

The full complaint is of interest to me, and I am no lawyer but there is clearly reasonable suspicion to stop any car that comes out of that party as the deputy had a confirmed account of drinking and illegal drugs at this party. Am I wrong that this gives the officer reasonable suspicion to question anyone driving that is leaving the party Guru?

So it's not a crime to smoke weed (illegal in the state of ky), drink and drive (she wasn't even 21 yet; but still well above the legal limit for those that are 21), disregard a lawful command given by an officer (which she did) or try to run over an officer (ya did that too). I hope you never run for City Council and I'm saying 5 hat for the officers in your city.

 

I typed all of this out and then realized I was uncertain of the context of your comment. If you mean she didn't commit a crime then I stand by what I said. If you meant Deputy Brockman didn't well then that's out their for whomever wants to try and be his opposition.

 

He was clearly stating that Deputy Brockman didn't commit a crime...

The full complaint is of interest to me, and I am no lawyer but there is clearly reasonable suspicion to stop any car that comes out of that party as the deputy had a confirmed account of drinking and illegal drugs at this party. Am I wrong that this gives the officer reasonable suspicion to question anyone driving that is leaving the party Guru?

 

Not Guru but the best answer is "it depends".

 

Reasonable suspicion is generally based on a totality of the circumstances (U.S. v. Sokolow).

 

If it's an informant's tip, then you'll probably need an indica of reliability (US v. Hensley; Alabama v. White; Florida v. JL).

 

Once you've got the stop, there's duration and scope of your stop that comes into play.

 

Those are just general and not exhaustive cases and that's not legal advice.

 

The best answer is usually "it depends" though. Sorry if that's not very helpful, but so, so much would depend on circumstances.

[/b]

 

Not Guru but the best answer is "it depends".

 

Reasonable suspicion is generally based on a totality of the circumstances (U.S. v. Sokolow).

 

If it's an informant's tip, then you'll probably need an indica of reliability (US v. Hensley; Alabama v. White; Florida v. JL).

 

Once you've got the stop, there's duration and scope of your stop that comes into play.

 

Those are just general and not exhaustive cases and that's not legal advice.

 

The best answer is usually "it depends" though. Sorry if that's not very helpful, but so, so much would depend on circumstances.

 

It seems like such a grey area, and I do not like that. It seems to me that if you have someone leaving the party that was in attendance and they state there are under-age people drinking there, and all of these cars are piling out of the party then that is reasonable suspicion that people are drinking and driving. I just hope I am not picked to sit on this jury if it gets to that point as I would need a refresher on legal rules and rights.

It seems like such a grey area, and I do not like that. It seems to me that if you have someone leaving the party that was in attendance and they state there are under-age people drinking there, and all of these cars are piling out of the party then that is reasonable suspicion that people are drinking and driving. I just hope I am not picked to sit on this jury if it gets to that point as I would need a refresher on legal rules and rights.

 

If I'm reading what you are saying correctly, lots of those grey areas are decided by the Judge (and to some extent, each side's attorneys) at pre-trial long before things make it to the jury.

 

Definitely one of those things where there is lots of grey area, but at the same time, it's unlikely that you ever really see two identical cases.

 

According to how you frame the premise, things can change. Just a quick example based on what you've said about a report: you'll be more likely to have legally stopped a car or two that are the only ones there than you would be to stop fifty of them to catch one person. Post #469 in this thread kind of gets at that.

He was clearly stating that Deputy Brockman didn't commit a crime...

 

Good.

If I'm reading what you are saying correctly, lots of those grey areas are decided by the Judge (and to some extent, each side's attorneys) at pre-trial long before things make it to the jury.

 

Definitely one of those things where there is lots of grey area, but at the same time, it's unlikely that you ever really see two identical cases.

 

According to how you frame the premise, things can change. Just a quick example based on what you've said about a report: you'll be more likely to have legally stopped a car or two that are the only ones there than you would be to stop fifty of them to catch one person. Post #469 in this thread kind of gets at that.

 

I would agree with that. But the specifics of this particular party were different than cars scattering all around. There was one way out of that party, and Deputy Brockman was at the exit basically checking every car that left from when he arrived. Unfortunately he only made it to car 2 or 3 which was the Ramsey car.

 

Again, I just hate how it "seems" like he had probable cause by people at the party telling him underage drinking and drugging were occurring. I guess we will see what happens in the coming weeks and months with this one. I am not really good friends with Dep. Brockman but did attend high school with him and he was always a good dude. I feel for him and the Ramsey family in this.

Joker as we know the facts (as much as we can), do you think he was just in asking her to stop?

I want to state again I believe the law is deficient in this area making the legality of the stop a gray area or it depends as joker pointed out. Essentially cases like this become complex legal issues. Additionally as I posted in #458 , the deceased DEFINITELY had a legal obligation to stop at the officers request.

 

The larger issue is if we give officers a clear and specific law/standard to follow in cases like this that allows for the traffic stop, that law/standard would give police officers unprecedented search and seizure power that the powers that be in America are not willing to give the police at this time. In other words, any experienced police officer would know exactly how to frame an encounter giving him/her the POWER to stop almost anyone at anytime.

 

Also, I recently talked with someone about Deputy Brockman and was told he is really squared away (meaning he is very good at his job) and this person is one of those people that always shoots straight down the middle. And shooting straight down the middle is incredibly hard to find at many law enforcement agencies, especially Sheriff departments where politics play such a large role.

 

Additionally, anyone really interested in the question of how Brockman ended up on the hood of the vehicle needs to look at the reconstruction and the independent experts conclusion. In short, ending up on the hood of the vehicle was a result of the collision between Brockman and the deceased's vehicle.

I want to state again I believe the law is deficient in this area making the legality of the stop a gray area or it depends as joker pointed out. Essentially cases like this become complex legal issues. Additionally as I posted in #458 , the deceased DEFINITELY had a legal obligation to stop at the officers request.

 

The larger issue is if we give officers a clear and specific law/standard to follow in cases like this that allows for the traffic stop, that law/standard would give police officers unprecedented search and seizure power that the powers that be in America are not willing to give the police at this time. In other words, any experienced police officer would know exactly how to frame an encounter giving him/her the POWER to stop almost anyone at anytime.

 

Also, I recently talked with someone about Deputy Brockman and was told he is really squared away (meaning he is very good at his job) and this person is one of those people that always shoots straight down the middle. And shooting straight down the middle is incredibly hard to find at many law enforcement agencies, especially Sheriff departments where politics play such a large role.

 

Additionally, anyone really interested in the question of how Brockman ended up on the hood of the vehicle needs to look at the reconstruction and the independent experts conclusion. In short, ending up on the hood of the vehicle was a result of the collision between Brockman and the deceased's vehicle.

 

Is the reconstruction info available?

Is the reconstruction info available?

 

I don't know.

I want to state again I believe the law is deficient in this area making the legality of the stop a gray area or it depends as joker pointed out. Essentially cases like this become complex legal issues. Additionally as I posted in #458 , the deceased DEFINITELY had a legal obligation to stop at the officers request.

 

The larger issue is if we give officers a clear and specific law/standard to follow in cases like this that allows for the traffic stop, that law/standard would give police officers unprecedented search and seizure power that the powers that be in America are not willing to give the police at this time. In other words, any experienced police officer would know exactly how to frame an encounter giving him/her the POWER to stop almost anyone at anytime.

 

Also, I recently talked with someone about Deputy Brockman and was told he is really squared away (meaning he is very good at his job) and this person is one of those people that always shoots straight down the middle. And shooting straight down the middle is incredibly hard to find at many law enforcement agencies, especially Sheriff departments where politics play such a large role.

 

Additionally, anyone really interested in the question of how Brockman ended up on the hood of the vehicle needs to look at the reconstruction and the independent experts conclusion. In short, ending up on the hood of the vehicle was a result of the collision between Brockman and the deceased's vehicle.

I really wish that was made public, it would surely put an end to some of the remarks made about how some think he ended up on the hood of the car.