Wow they actually popped a LEO for flipping Glocks

IIRC the gun that wound up with the gangbanger was reported stolen by one of the LTC holders who the cop transferred it to.
 
Wonder if this had anything to do with any of this
June 8 2015

The Boston Police Department says they have almost completed their internal investigation of a brutality case that happened nearly six years ago, despite never collecting crucial video evidence. On June 9, 2009, Boston police officer Adarbaad Karani and bouncers at the Revolution Rock Bar were caught on video attacking a patron, causing severe injuries that included a broken jaw and multiple concussions.

Karani and the bouncers dragged Carnelli outside the bar and threw him to the ground. Karani climbed on top of Carnelli, forcing his knee into the man’s back.

Carnelli was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, but the charge was later dismissed by a judge. Last year, he received a $100,000 settlement from the bar and a $300,000 settlement from the city as part of a personal injury lawsuit.

Furthermore, tomorrow marks six years from the date that Carnelli was attacked, which is the statute of limitations for assault and battery, making a false police report, and most other crimes in Massachusetts, which means it's almost certain Karani will not face any criminal charges as a result of his actions.
 
Mike S said:
IIRC the gun that wound up with the gangbanger was reported stolen by one of the LTC holders who the cop transferred it to.
Click to expand...
I was going to mention this possibility. Lot of people commenting on this on one of GOAL’s Facebook posts. Many are quick to blame the cop because one of the guns wound up with a gang member. I weighed in and asked how do they know that the guns weren’t stolen from a licensed gun owner???
 
Wild guess they traced this gun that wound up in the hands of a gang banger and probably found that this cop bought it new and FA-10’d it very quickly to a non LEO individual. Probably dumb enough to do it same day or something like that.
 
andrew1220 said:
I was going to mention this possibility. Lot of people commenting on this on one of GOAL’s Facebook posts. Many are quick to blame the cop because one of the guns wound up with a gang member. I weighed in and asked how do they know that the guns weren’t stolen from a licensed gun owner???
Click to expand...

You don’t. But you don’t know it was either. There is enough smelly about this that GOAL should be keeping it at arms length at least until more comes out vs immediately using it as a club to try and beat Moar with. This particular club has to potential to turn in their hand.
 
I've been leafing through part of the case record which includes text messages between the cop and his friends. It looks like the friend might have geen getting jammed up after one of the guns was stolen out of the locked glove box in his car. It could easily have all unravel from there. One of the Glock buying friends was a witness against the cop also. The defense at one point contends that the guns were 'gifts' in so far as the discount from the retail price constituted the 'gift'.

Just like Abramsky, one relatively minor and unconnected contact with the cops can end up being a big federal problem in the end.
 
My nephew just became a cop in a town just southwest of braintree. The chief told him that he can't buy a Glock (only handgun specifically mentioned) without written permission from the chief. This is regardless of whether it is a duty gun or not. He was also told that he can't transfer firearms to civilians, but i'm not sure if that rule applied to all firearms or only Glocks (a notoriously dangerous semi-automatic assault gun that can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger - with black market magazines that have been modified to hold fifteen or more bullets, which are often incorrectly called cartridges or rounds.)
 
bostonjd said:
My nephew just became a cop in a town just southwest of braintree. The chief told him that he can't buy a Glock (only handgun specifically mentioned) without written permission from the chief. This is regardless of whether it is a duty gun or not. He was also told that he can't transfer firearms to civilians, but i'm not sure if that rule applied to all firearms or only Glocks (a notoriously dangerous semi-automatic assault gun that can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger - with black market magazines that have been modified to hold fifteen or more bullets, which are often incorrectly called cartridges or rounds.)
Click to expand...

Some legitimate "cop shops" won't sell blue label guns without a chief's letter. This is because the AG threatened some of them about just accepting credentials . . . it really says that the gun bought MUST be used STRICTLY for duty purposes in the AG's CMR. NONE of the purchases made these days can actually comply with this as cops are issued duty guns and everything else is either off-duty or personal use.

There is nothing in MGL or CMR restricting a legitimate sale (use it a while and decide to move on to something else) of a blue label gun to a civilian (large-cap mags are a different story). That said, chiefs oftentimes make rules that their officers must abide by or risk disciplinary action, so a chief could indeed make this a department rule.
 
rocket500 said:
Wild guess they traced this gun that wound up in the hands of a gang banger and probably found that this cop bought it new and FA-10’d it very quickly to a non LEO individual. Probably dumb enough to do it same day or something like that.
Click to expand...

i don't see how that by itself constitutes a straw purchase, but probably he did it multiple times or they have some evidence that it's more than buyer's remorse. Like if you buy it and hate it so much you sell it same day, you wouldn't buy 3 more of the same gun.
 
I think there are 2 counts so buying two identical glocks and flipping them same day would look a lot like a straw purchase.

Doubt they look into it but for fact that one wound up in the hands of a bad guy.

Definitely could be more to it though and there probably is.
 
My guess is they got evidence (those text messages) showing the buyer(s) proping for a straw, fronting money, etc. Or the seller offering, either of which would be an EZ mode conviction.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
My guess is they got evidence (those text messages) showing the buyer(s) proping for a straw, fronting money, etc. Or the seller offering, either of which would be an EZ mode conviction.

-Mike
Click to expand...
The guy all but admitted that the guns were bought for his friends with his LEO discount. The text messages are great. See attached.
 

Attachments

HarryPottar said:
With all the new laws from California straw purchase could really mean straw purchase.

He must have upset somebody, I was expecting 20-50 Glocks, he bought two, didn’t like em and sold them. Two, count um, two, while some guy somewhere in some back street as a trunk load full of them.

Insert face plant gif.
Click to expand...

He was found guilty of two. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew of many more but didn't have the evidence to convict.
 
namedpipes said:
He's going to have to sell a butt load more Glocks to pay half a million dollars in fines...
Click to expand...

The typical 1-3 yrs in ActualPrison (TM) is probably a bigger deal. (I'm not a fed sentencing guru, but there's some algorithm from the byzantine empire that will likely get used to calculate his
sentence. ) This guy is probably going to eat the big one, there is rarely, if ever "plea out for a felony, but walk" option with the feds, as the judges typically don't have that kind of latitude given the
guidelines.

-Mike
 
bgoum said:
"State law bars civilians from purchasing those particular Glock models."
Please cite boston globe. As far as I knew, the law only prevents FFL's from SELLING them.
Click to expand...

Remember when the Globe thought AR15s were illegal in MA and knowledgeable gun owners showed them they weren't? Let them think Glocks are illegal. Nothing good comes from showing them, or anyone else, otherwise.
 
"
SERE said:
From mikeyp:
Click to expand...

Seems pretty common for local news to not understand MA gun laws and misreport on them. From the article:

"He purchased the firearms, which can't be acquired by civilians, using police identification and falsely certified they were for official police use. During one instance, he said the firearm was not for resale."

It makes it sound like his real crime was providing prohibited firearms to the unwashed masses.
 

Similar threads

Bedford NH LEO Shot
Replies
14
Views
600
zork51
Z
Truckers File Lawsuit Arguing They Shouldn’t Lose Second Amendment Rights Just Because They Cross State Lines
Replies
2
Views
177
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Recommendations for a Quality EDC Belt (for women)?
2
Replies
30
Views
341
fred6052000
F
Wow. I had no idea it was this awesome!
Replies
6
Views
340
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Looking for a traditions a 1510 kit
Replies
2
Views
50
Demoman
Demoman
Back
Top Bottom