How have the courts interpreted the reason for a stop and seizure by a police officer?

During his testimony at the hearing, Schroo failed to articulate his "logical deductions" that emanated from his articulated reason for the stop. People v. Cantor , 36 NY2d 106, 112113 [1975]. Compare People v. Burgos , 300 AD2d 256, 256 (1st Dept 2002), where the court held: "The police had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant based on a radio report of a man, possibly armed, beating a woman in front of a specific address, coupled with their observations of an argument between defendant and a woman, who were the only persons present at the location, followed by defendant's immediate flight upon the approach of the police, and the woman's act of pointing at defendant." See also People v. Rosa , 67 AD3d 440 (1st Dept 2009), where the defendant's suppression motion was denied. In that case, the officer heard shots, saw several people pointing at defendant walking quickly away, and saw a man lying on the ground with other people around him.