READ THE FREAKEN ARTICLE!! so tired of parrots..(sr) I just copied and pasted all the definitions of legal and not..and here we go again..(hu)

I read the article, he states his opinion, not the legal definition of the term. why use ambiguous language, rather than universally recognized legal terminology?

it's not an opinion, it's the rules and the laws under which police officers operate.. the lawful contact, for any reasonable person , means a contact permissible under the law (a law that allows a police officer to detain or arrest a person).. it doesn't need to be specified in every single law..

it's a term that was intentionally used in a legal document to create ambiguity. how do you not get that? from what I can tell, it does not exist in any legal dictionary. how will anyone be able to contest something that has yet to be defined?

The only advice to Alexei is NOT to travel to Arizona museums
And don't go to the libraries there either. It's a criminal activity in Arizona, as well as going out with your kid for some ice cream.

(H)

The same applies to Lina -an appearance of a snowflake in the midst of Arizona deserts -can provoke a lawful contact. Beware!

t's the rules and the laws under which police officers operate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
show me those rules and laws. show me something similar to what exists in New Jersey.

Oh, and don't forget to boycott Arizona Ice Tea. It's a double offense for liberals -Arizona and Tea ( think of a Tea Party) in one phrase!)

speaking of ambiguity - it's from people who gave us the healthcare reform.. US - US citizens, not illegal immigrants.. :-@

read this..maybe it will help..
***********.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Weiss-2.pdf