No it doesnt. Only Bell's car fits as people were only referring to his.
Oh goodie - you got one right.
No, it could NOT. The only car anyone is referring to is Bell's. End of discussion.
This wasn't a regulatory issue. Hence the reason it went to court. If it were a clearly defined regulation it wouldn't even have been an issue.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

So you know they were kidding about a gun. maybe the officers were kidding about the gun too. he should have not threaten them with the car.

By the way slon I fully understand being in an area does not make you a criminal. Mr. Bells Criminal history did that.

Yes, he was referring to Bell's car. However, in his attempt to show that it was a legitimate threat, he gave a description that describes just about any car. In other words, if you say Bell's car is threatening (or creates such a threatening situation) because it can, theoretically, contain a gun, that means you have to apply it to other situation in order to avoid double standards.I'm sorry, but I won't satiate your desire to discuss this in a vacuum. If the cops can point their guns at Bell for owning a car that could contain a gun, then it would logically follow that they can do so to any car fitting that description.It went to court because they shot him, not because they had their guns pointed at him before he committed a crime.

The fact is, OldMarine was discussing a regulation:

"Ok now that we agree that a reasonable person could think a gun was in the vehicle try reading Terry V Ohio. It may clear thing up a little for you. It basically allows an Officer to stop and search a person that a reasonable person thinks could have a weapon. Also they have the right to search the vehicle under the vehicle exception. This in no way give an officer the right to shot we will get to that in a later class I have to go get my son from karate."

ANY car "could" have a weapon. Hence the reason I said it was too broad.

My question is, were the cops justified in threatening Bell by pointing their guns at him? Even when Bell did not commit a crime prior to their pointing their guns at him? I think not. If you think that yes, they could, on the grounds that his car COULD contain a firearm, then it would follow that you think cops should be allowed to point their guns at ANYONE whose car MIGHT contain a firearm. That means they can point their guns at ANYONE who has his car nearby, because ANY car can contain a firearm, theoretically.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Well, since there was no gun...Not really. Pointing a real gun at someone is no joke. Unlike Bell, the cops DID have guns.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

So they were arresting Bell for a crime he committed before even appearing on the scene that day?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

What is it, exactly, that you'd like me to "prove"?

Whaddya' mean "growing"??

They can stop the person if they have reasonable suspicion a crime has been/is being/or about to be committed. they can search if they have reasonable suspicion if the person stopped could have a weapon. The officers had “specific and articulable facts” when the men in question started talking about getting the weapon.

In keeping with the level of absurdity you've raised this conversation to, fit one in this fucker:

No they were investigating a crime that could be on going.
had he stopped when they asked they would have found he did not have the weapon and he would have been able to go on with his night.

Go to the airport and "kid" about about a bomb.

If you "joke" about having a gun, the police have absolutely no reason to believe that you don't have one, and they should react accordingly...

"Whatever threat would compel someone to shoot someone in the leg is no different than the threat that would compel someone to aim for center mass."

"It doesn;t give you or I that authority, but it does give it to a police officer..." -where does it say, in current laws, that yelling "stop" at someone gives cops the authority to wave their guns at them?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Introducing the world's smallest gun that fires deadly 300mph bullets - but is just TWO inches long | the Daily Mail

But of course, I am discussing cars which transport people.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Why? I'll probably get killed by the same assholes who killed Bell.How about the lack of physical evidence that he actually has a gun?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.