He didn’t.
Who saw the gunman “running away in the direction of the theater”?
Neither Brewer or Postal saw anybody running.
Neither Brewer or Postal saw anybody duck into the theater. Postal said she was out on the street looking west at the time and she said “what man?” When Brewer asked about him. She also told Brewer she wasn’t sure if she sold him a ticket. In any case, not paying a theater admission is not reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous.
The key point is that the police didn’t witness any suspicious behavior whatsoever prior to approaching Oswald and attempting to frisk him. Police can’t even write a traffic ticket on a civilian’s say-so.
Hallelujah, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you! In 1963 it was just probable cause. The police just argued that hunches (which is basically “if I feel like it”) were probable cause enough.
Seems like you’re trying to have it both ways. The Supreme Court clarified that searching a suspect without sufficient cause was unconstitutional. Even if that’s the way they did things before then. I know that you’re trying to argue that they did have sufficient cause, but that is not supported by the evidence. It’s after-the-fact rationalization.
He didn’t.Apparently the DPD disagreed with your opinion. And...he definitely wasn't a little old lady from Pasadena.
Who saw the gunman “running away in the direction of the theater”?Several, including Warren Reynolds, L.J. Lewis, Harold Russell, and B.M. Patterson, Robert Brock, Mary Brock, Burt, Smith. Furthermore, at 1:21:29, the DPD channel 1 dispacher broadcast that the suspect "just passed 401 East Jefferson." This is in the direction of the Texas Theater (from the murder scene).
Neither Brewer or Postal saw anybody running.The "running" refers to Postal"s telling the DPD that the suspect appeared to be
"running" from them. Postal: "I know you men are very busy, but I have a man in the theater that is running from you for some reason." The officer asked me what made me think he was running from us. I told him that when the police drove by the man ducked in the theater."
Neither Brewer or Postal saw anybody duck into the theater. Postal said she was out on the street looking west at the time and she said “what man?” When Brewer asked about him. She also told Brewer she wasn’t sure if she sold him a ticket.From "With Malice" by Dale Myers:
Postal later told authorities that she remembered seeing a man out of the corner of her eye, approaching the theater from the east as she stepped out of the box office.[621]
[621] HSCA RIF 180-10119-10169 (Secret Service Report covering the period November 26 - December 5, 1963, prepared by SA Roger C. Warner, p.2)
Postal: "Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was standing there, and as I started back in the box office, Johnny asked me if I sold that man a ticket. I asked him what man, and he said the man that just ducked in the theater. I said no, by golly, he didn't and turned around expecting to see him. Mr. Brewer said he had been ducking in at his place of business and he had gone by me, because I was facing west."In any case, not paying a theater admission is not reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous.Put it in context with a murder just happening in the neighborhood, the armed suspect seen running away in their direction, the police search, police cars coming by when the suspect was ducking into their two businesses and it very much is reasonable suspicion that he may be armed and dangerous. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain stupid.
The key point is that the police didn’t witness any suspicious behavior whatsoever prior to approaching Oswald and attempting to frisk him. Police can’t even write a traffic ticket on a civilian’s say-so.They certainly can go to investigate something that a civilian reports to them.
Hallelujah, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you! In 1963 it was just probable cause. The police just argued that hunches (which is basically “if I feel like it”) were probable cause enough.No, it is more a matter of what is considered to be an
unreasonable search. The fourth amendment doesn't protect against
any searches; but does protect against unreasonable searches. The probable cause restriction applies to warrants. Before Terry in 1968, a stop and frisk (which is a limited search) was considered to be a reasonable search because it was typically used by a law enforcement officer that had a legitimate need to search for weapons. It was when police tactics of using stop and frisk in certain areas of certain cities became indiscriminate (instead of having a legitimate need) that the stop and frisk procedures were challenged in court. In 1968, the court said that stop and frisk was an unreasonable search unless there was reasonable suspicion, and defined what reasonable suspicion meant.
Additionally, courts have also established an "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement.[7] "Exigent circumstances" simply means that the officers must act quickly. Typically, this is because police have a reasonable belief that evidence is in imminent danger of being removed or destroyed, but there is still a probable cause requirement. Exigent circumstances may also exist where there is a continuing danger, or where officers have a reasonable belief that people in need of assistance are present.
This includes when the police are in 'hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.' In this circumstance, so long as there is probable cause, police may follow the suspect into a residence and seize any evidence in plain view.
Society has more recently revised what we consider to be a
reasonable search. A few examples are the security procedures we must go through to enter most large sporting events, enter secured areas of airports, certain government buildings, etc. None of those limited searches require "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause." But society has deemed them reasonable under the circumstances.
