but, rather, what degree of suspicion they reasonably could attach to the utterance in light of the surrounding circumstances. See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 128, 120 S.Ct. 673; Stanley, 915 F.2d at 57. Using commonsense judgment, an objectively reasonable officer plausibly could have concluded — as Officer Hyland did — that the belligerence of the response indicated more than mere annoyance. So viewed, the response supported a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See, e.g., Soares, 521 F.3d at 121; Romain, 393 F.3d at 72. Put another way, the hostile response, along with the background information possessed by the officer and his own experience, was enough to ground a reasonable suspicion that the man he originally had thought was a victim might be a shooter. See Chhien, 266 F.3d at 6 (<HOLDING>); Sowers, 136 F.3d at 27 (similar). Once that
holding officers involved in investigatory raid entitled to immunity holding that officers may consistent with the fourth amendment conduct a brief investigatory stop when they have a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot holding that police officer may order passengers to remain in vehicle with hands up during traffic stop holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop recognizing that investigatory officers may shift the focus in order to remain responsive to emerging facts