C-pher said:
10 points to JonJ for making a valid point re: the kid.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Police Draw Guns On Man Assembling Toy Weapon
- Thread starter cdkayak
- Start date
10 points to JonJ for making a valid point re: the kid.
Now, I'll give the cops an "Attaboy" for looking into the situation, drawing their weapons and checking out the story. Fine so far.
But, they then allegedly searched the vehicle (knowing NO crime had been committed) and openly harassed an obviously innocent person. Their propable cause was gone.
JonJ, I'll ask you one question:
Since everybody breaks traffic laws eventually, why don't we suspend everyone's license now? Or arrest everybody for something, since it's only a matter of time until we break some law by ignorance of said law?
Because you're suppossed to be innocent until proven guilty. Read the Constitution.
I'll also add that IF this incident were to happen in Vermont, the cops would've been FIRED, and possibly PROSECUTED. The actions taken are major violations of our STATE Constitution. They also violate the US Constitution. If this wasn't
But, they then allegedly searched the vehicle (knowing NO crime had been committed) and openly harassed an obviously innocent person. Their propable cause was gone.
JonJ, I'll ask you one question:
Since everybody breaks traffic laws eventually, why don't we suspend everyone's license now? Or arrest everybody for something, since it's only a matter of time until we break some law by ignorance of said law?
Because you're suppossed to be innocent until proven guilty. Read the Constitution.
I'll also add that IF this incident were to happen in Vermont, the cops would've been FIRED, and possibly PROSECUTED. The actions taken are major violations of our STATE Constitution. They also violate the US Constitution. If this wasn't
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Jon, like it or not, this is another example of the gross (and oft illegal) decay of our God-given natural rights. This call could, and should, have been handled better - and I only say that based on what I've read. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe even if it was a real gun that no law was broken.
Once a 911 call was received the LEO had the obligation to respond. By the way, there is an excellent article in SWAT this month on "Snitching". When LEO magazines rag on the abuse of police powers every month, that should tell everyone something is wrong with the system.
Anyway, speaking from experience (LEO / Public Safety), here's a little insight to the physiology of a call:
First, "Nosy-Nancy" who doesn't know the difference between an AR15 and an egg-beater, places a frantic call to 911 about a mad-man with a big scary gun holding a kid in his vehicle.
Dispatch puts it out as a man with a gun possiblly...attemtped robbery...abduction of a child...etc, etc.
By this time, in the cops mind, it's already been confirmed a man has a real gun in the act of doing something that's not 'according to Hoyle'. Now, it's his chance to put down a bad guy. Couple that with mega-doses of adrenelin, lack of experience and lack of training and you have incidences like the one in question. (Look at the old lady in New Orleans).
Now, it seems all policies these days are written on the basis of officer safety. That's well and good until it goes so far to violate civil rights for no good reason.
Scene survey and self assessment seem to go out the window a lot of times when someone else tells you what is happening. You take it for granted instead of making up your own mind. I'd bet things would have been different if the cop was walking by and observed this himself. At least, I hope.
Once a 911 call was received the LEO had the obligation to respond. By the way, there is an excellent article in SWAT this month on "Snitching". When LEO magazines rag on the abuse of police powers every month, that should tell everyone something is wrong with the system.
Anyway, speaking from experience (LEO / Public Safety), here's a little insight to the physiology of a call:
First, "Nosy-Nancy" who doesn't know the difference between an AR15 and an egg-beater, places a frantic call to 911 about a mad-man with a big scary gun holding a kid in his vehicle.
Dispatch puts it out as a man with a gun possiblly...attemtped robbery...abduction of a child...etc, etc.
By this time, in the cops mind, it's already been confirmed a man has a real gun in the act of doing something that's not 'according to Hoyle'. Now, it's his chance to put down a bad guy. Couple that with mega-doses of adrenelin, lack of experience and lack of training and you have incidences like the one in question. (Look at the old lady in New Orleans).
Now, it seems all policies these days are written on the basis of officer safety. That's well and good until it goes so far to violate civil rights for no good reason.
Scene survey and self assessment seem to go out the window a lot of times when someone else tells you what is happening. You take it for granted instead of making up your own mind. I'd bet things would have been different if the cop was walking by and observed this himself. At least, I hope.
Let's also accept the simple fact that, while they're distinctly a minority, there are still a hell of a lot of people who get into law enforcement for the simple reason that they are power freaks. They joined in the expectation that they'd be making felony arrests on a daily basis, a couple of tactical entries a week, and at least one or two full-blown OK Corral's each year. When they don't get them, they look for opportunities to create them. I know a couple of these fruit bats and I strongly suspect that everybody in or around law enforcement does too. Most people manage to keep it under control, but there's a little bit of Travis Bickel in everybody.
Ken
Ken
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Let's also remember to not kill the messenger. The biggest problem that proliferates abuse of police powers is the BS laws and policies that continue to be enacted that serve only to criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Nickle said:
Well, I sort of figured that when I started off by saying that these asshats were " distinctly a minority" that readers would be able to figure that out. Sorry if it didn't work. I'll ... write ... more ... slowly ... in ... the ... future.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Ken
KMaurer said:Well, I sort of figured that when I started off by saying that these asshats were " distinctly a minority" that readers would be able to figure that out. Sorry if it didn't work. I'll ... write ... more ... slowly ... in ... the ... future.
Ken
Oh, I got it the first time. I just figured that it WAS worth the mention, though. My son's father-in-law is a retired VT State Cop. Nice guy, don't piss him off. (Most honest and decent LEO I've ever met, though I'd met him BEFORE he went into Law Enforcement).
The call was for a man with a gun. The "gun" was in the truck. The truck was entered to retrieve the "gun". So far so good? Now what, the officers have to close thier eyes once they touch and see the gun is a toy? Now the "gun" they found was NOT a gun, it was a toy. Where was the gun? IF the vehicle was searched (we don't know that it was) it was for a gun.Nickle said:
Where was the guy charged with a crime? No one said he was guilty He is innocent until proven guilty. How does one determine in someone is innocent or guilty? By investigation which sometimes includes a permissible search and then a trial.
Ya, we still don't know the facts on the search if there was one. Like Jon said earlier it could have been a window search or a consented search, we don't know.
TonyD said:
99% of what we get dispatched to is what "someone else tells you what is happening".
I'm not sure I would have handled it much more diferently if I was walking by and observed that, orange tip or not.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
I still say the point is moot. A man with a gun is not an illegal activity just because some idiot reports it. Especially in a free state like NH. Had it been a real gun what would the charge have been? He did not brandish it. He did threaten anyone with it. He did nothing.
When it's perfectly legal to have a firearm in your vehicle, and cop sees a rifle in a rack through the back window, does that give him permission to search that vehicle? No.
When it's perfectly legal to have a firearm in your vehicle, and cop sees a rifle in a rack through the back window, does that give him permission to search that vehicle? No.
So you're saying that if a man enters a bank with his hand in his pocket holding a lump, he should be completely searched, harrassed and all of his belongings searched, even though the lump turned out to be a cell phone, which he pulled out of his pocket before the officer searched him, and the individual made no threats. Add that the phone was also thrown onto the bank floor. The officers knew at the time of the search that no crime had been committed or threatened.
You find this to be acceptable? I DON'T! And several State Supreme Courts DON'T, and possibly the SCOTUS as well.
And yes, it's a hypothetical situation, but the key facts are ALMOST exactly the same as the real scenario with the toy gun.
But the key is the same. The officers searched with NO propable cause and NO warrant in both cases. The propable cause is gone, once it is established that NO crime has been committed or attempted. (Now, if either guy consented, too bad for his dumb ass.)
It's kind of like the Rodney King beating. I saw enough of th video that I could've (and would've) convicted the LEO's involved. I didn't see the start of the arrest, but I've always allowed that King initially resisted. But the propable cause for forcibly detaining King was gone, once he was NO LONGER RESISTING. You can't legally beat him AFTER the fact, only while he's resisting. Searches are close to the same.
And yes, IANAFL, but I'm well enough versed in Military Law I hold a JAG MOS as an additional) to know the Federal Search and Seizure limitations. They're based on the US Constitution.
You find this to be acceptable? I DON'T! And several State Supreme Courts DON'T, and possibly the SCOTUS as well.
And yes, it's a hypothetical situation, but the key facts are ALMOST exactly the same as the real scenario with the toy gun.
But the key is the same. The officers searched with NO propable cause and NO warrant in both cases. The propable cause is gone, once it is established that NO crime has been committed or attempted. (Now, if either guy consented, too bad for his dumb ass.)
It's kind of like the Rodney King beating. I saw enough of th video that I could've (and would've) convicted the LEO's involved. I didn't see the start of the arrest, but I've always allowed that King initially resisted. But the propable cause for forcibly detaining King was gone, once he was NO LONGER RESISTING. You can't legally beat him AFTER the fact, only while he's resisting. Searches are close to the same.
And yes, IANAFL, but I'm well enough versed in Military Law I hold a JAG MOS as an additional) to know the Federal Search and Seizure limitations. They're based on the US Constitution.
No, no search for a lump in his pocket or a gun in a holster in a bank. Carrying it in his hand? Bet your ass!
The rifle was in this guys lap in the truck. I am not walking up to to the vehicle with my hands in my pockets, period. My gun is out and it's pointed at center mass.
And as I said before, if there was search, it was based on REASONABLE SUSPICION, a frisk for weapons.
Hey, where's the boards "resident lawyers" on this????
The rifle was in this guys lap in the truck. I am not walking up to to the vehicle with my hands in my pockets, period. My gun is out and it's pointed at center mass.
And as I said before, if there was search, it was based on REASONABLE SUSPICION, a frisk for weapons.
Hey, where's the boards "resident lawyers" on this????
TonyD said:
Any responsable gun owner would'nt be playing with his gun in a busy parking lot. If he is, he's looking for trouble.
Do you think that's a smart thing to do? Is that what NRA instructors teach their students to do?
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Jon, in a very respectful manner, I still question what law was broken. Even if it had been a real firearm, it was perfectly legal to have in his vehicle. What would be the charge? Offending Nosy-Nancy who looked in and saw it?
JonJ said:
It was found to be a toy BEFORE the search, remember? The search was AFTER the facts determined NO crime was committed.
As far as your actions mentioned above, they all sound reasonable (and I expect you to follow them) except for pointing center mass, and that's acceptable, if you're not sure said "gun" is real or a toy.
I'm not against a legal reasonable search. I AM against "fishing expeditions" by PO'd LEO's, and this whole thing smacks of that. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd "snowflaked" him (other states would've, Southern PRK comes to mind).
These guys that did this search are not representative of normal LEO's, from my past experiences.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
JonJ said:
And, he wasn't. It was a toy.
Again, he did not brandish, point or threaten. Had it been real, he may have simply been clearing it to make it safe for whatever reason.
Nickle said:
Again, we still do not know that there was indeed a search and the "gun" was in the vehicle. The officers HAD to enter the vehicle to retrieve the "gun". Is the simple entry a search? Any person would at least look around inside the vehicle. But the reasonable suspicion would limit the scope of the search.
It's not a fishing expedition. It's officer safety, a frisk for weapons.
The officers didn't go to work that night and say "Hey lets go harass that guy over there in the pick up truck. Get him pissed off for some reason, arrest him for disorderly and then inventory search the truck cause he looks like he might have some drugs or a gun". That wasn't done. This is the real world, not TV and searches happen all the time for reasons properly articulated.
I've searched pleanty of people (their person) and their MV's and not charged or arrested them with anything and without their consent. Does that surprise anyone here? I'm serious in asking that.
derek said:
+1, and I'll add that I don't think the "excessive force" type LEO's would be posting here, either.
You, I trust Jon, others, sadly, I don't. I've been through overzealous enforcement before. Not fun, especially when you're 100% INNOCENT.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
JonJ said:
No, it doesn't surprise me in the least. However, it does concern me that our 4th Amendment has eroded to such a state as too allow illegal searches. I say that in general terms knowing full well in some circumstances it's necessary. I absolutely don't agree with the fact that anyone can be required to "hand over their papers" and be patted down on an officers whim. Things of this nature has contributed to the division line. Like it or not, the mass population no longer looks to LEO's as a friend protecting their backsides. Rather, a government tool best avoided.
Terry v Ohio explains it all and you guys understand that but I guess we break away from each other at the point where the "gun" was found. I still would have performed that cursory search and I'm confident that it would have been upheld if contraband had been found.TonyD said:
I agree with you Tony on the erosion of our rights but I don't feel that anyones rights were violated in this case.
I hope we never get to the point of the handing over of "our" papers and the 1st step is to stop the national ID card from becoming a reality. The day that I'm required to inspect zee papers, is the day I get a new job.
Similar threads
