Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy

[azredhawk44]

Trooper and Wagonman, common has nothing to do with it.

"Common usage" is a convenient argument used by anti-gunners whenever they want to ban [insert item here]. Silencers, evil black rifles, "sniper" rifles, SBR/SBS, and machine guns. Oh, and concealed carry.

"Common usage" is then determined not by what is legitimately permissible, but by what is made laborious and difficult to obtain.

This is an obvious ploy to make firearms carry obsolete through harassment.

A licensing structure existed.

The officer was unable to verify the license since he didn't have access to a system to do so.

Does the officer have immediate beat-access to a system to verify the authenticity of those little slips of paper in elevators indicating when they were last inspected, too? Those could be forged pretty easily, you know.

The default response in such a situation in a governmental system consisting of rights to be honored until proof of a misdeed, is to grant reasonable belief to such an issued document.

After all... I don't have a means to immediately verify the authenticity of your badges. Perhaps I should just take your guns and badges away?

How is the argument any different in that light? Why is your credential beyond reproach (you ARE just a person, after all) and mine is suspect just because you see a gun on my hip? After all, I see a gun on YOUR hip, too.

 

[Dragon55]

Yes what Azredhawk44 sed...

The default response in such a situation in a governmental system consisting of rights to be honored until proof of a misdeed, is to grant reasonable belief to such an issued document.

In other words Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

He didn't assault anyone or steal anything. Two courts and the PD agreed with him and his actions. If the courts had found in favor of the lawyer, there would be not a single soul on here saying the courts made a mistake. Because they didn't and sided with the cop, the courts made a mistake and you all know better sitting 3000 miles away and having half the story posted in a gun rights newspaper in Georgia. Sounds a little silly doesn't it?

And yet nothing has been posted in rebuttal to this.^^^ We were not there,we do not have the whole story, two diferent courts and the PD agreed with the actions of the officer, but you know better. Ok.

 

[Wagonman]

Common usage" is then determined not by what is legitimately permissible, but by what is made laborious and difficult to obtain.

This is an obvious ploy to make firearms carry obsolete through harassment.

A licensing structure existed.

The officer was unable to verify the license since he didn't have access to a system to do so.

Does the officer have immediate beat-access to a system to verify the authenticity of those little slips of paper in elevators indicating when they were last inspected, too? Those could be forged pretty easily, you know

What do you mean common has nothing to do with it----Conn and I explained how uncommon occurences are the bread and butter of Police work

I believe that they updated the method of confirming CCW licenses after this incident or if not they should.

If the Officer was a elevator inspector I would think he would.

 

[Glenn Dee]

LOL an elevator inspector?

 

[Dragon55]

Yes but...

the courts made a mistake and you all know better sitting 3000 miles away and having half the story posted in a gun rights newspaper in Georgia. Sounds a little silly doesn't it?

Even though I'm 3000 miles away I can still read the appeals decision and the thinking they used to arrive there. The document is readily available on this thread in 3 places.

I am not one that believes that just because someone loses in court that justice was served. In Schubert's case it was not. I'm not sure if he really believed he would win anyway. As Antipitas pointed out he's not much of a lawyer because he didn't cite several violations in the appeal that he could have.

There are numerous problems noted in the appeals document. Not the least of which was the fact they alluded to of not being able to verify a state issued permit. Also, an officer that was just too arrogant, or self important, or power tripping or just plain lazy to put in the effort to confirm the permit that turned out to BE REAL!

No, I'm sorry but if an officer of the law can relinquish me of my property be it a firearm, a vehicle, or anything else requiring a permit that I HAVE THE PERMIT for then I have been wronged and someone in authority should at least apologize. They did not do that. Schubert had a snowball's chance on any money anyway. It just astounds me that the court acknowledged absolutely no wrong doing whatsoever.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

Once again, odd that there is no mention of the officers reports or statements, just what the lawyer has to say.

The courts decided, if they had sided with the lawyer there would be cries of " Damn right! The courts are right, the officer is wrong." But because the courts ruled against the gun owner and sided with the cop, well the courts know less than I do sitting behind my computer on the other side of the country, and no legal experience at all. But the officer is arrogant and on a power trip. OK

 

[Dragon55]

odd that there is no mention of the officers reports or statements,

... of course there is it's all in the decision..... maybe you should read it.

well the courts know less than I do sitting behind my computer on the other side of the country, and no legal experience at all. But the officer is arrogant and on a power

Legal smeagle I'm talking about justice. Schubert got none.

When you read the appeals decision.... take note of the part where the police chief is gonna see that Stern gets retrained on firearms laws in Massachusetts.
I find this comical if indeed Stern had no wrongdoing. In his shoes I might ask 'why'?
The appeals court did not cite 1 single thing I did wrong.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

I did read it. And the only side presented is the lawyers side. I dont see the officer in there at all.

I read the part about the retraining also. It actually says they found no wrongdoing. I believe thats an exact quote.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

On July 26, 2006, Schubert filed a citizen's complaint
against Stern for his conduct on July 21. As a result of the
report, the Springfield Police Commissioner recommended that Stern
be retrained on Massachusetts firearms law but found no specific
wrongdoing on Officer Stern's part and did not recommend
disciplinary action.
It was a direct quote. I thought so.

 

[Dragon55]

I dont see the officer in there at all.

You don't.... well it's here:

We thus relate the facts with this standard in mind.

On July 21, 2006, Officer Stern, seated in his patrol car

near the Springfield courthouse, observed Schubert walking toward
the courthouse.

and here

Stern noted that Schubert was also carrying a handgun in a holster.

and here

According to Stern, several
passers-by also noticed Schubert's gun and alerted the officer to
the firearm by waving and pointing. However, a subsequent
investigation of the incident by the police department produced no
witnesses or other proof of Stern's allegation regarding the
passers-by.

and well anyway there are several.

It actually says they found no wrongdoing.

So... why retrain?

 

[Wagonman]

To make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[wally626]

From reading the stories and court documents it does not appear to me the Lawyer had much of a case. He was detained for 10 minutes and had to retrieve his gun from the police station later. I do not know how bad the permits are in Mass but in VA you could counterfeit one in about 5 minutes, although the police can verify them pretty quick. The officer has a right to check for concealed weapons if he spots a weapon as he did in this case. The style of how he confronted the lawyer may have been a bit off, but he didn't throw the guy to the ground and handcuff him either. The Mass law sets up some issues that better laws would help. You are not allowed to carry a handgun without a permit and then only concealed. The police can not stop someone for a bulge in their pocket and search them, but in this case the officer or bystanders did see a gun. In VA a person with a temporarily revealed concealed handgun might have the same issue, open carry is legal and you can not be stopped for OC, or even questioned since it is not illegal. Concealed carry without a permit would be. I do not know if such a case has come up in VA, OC ones have and the cities involved are many thousands of dollars poorer as a result.

 

[Don P]

I understand that the license may not have been able to be verified, instantly (although, in this age of computers and instant communications, it seems rather strange). I understand that because of this, the officer had probable cause to keep the firearm until it was shown to be lawfully possessed (and therefore, carried).

Possible problem. When I lived in the Commonwealth the local police chief issued the carry permit. Don't know if it changed since '92 and I am unsure if it was at the time linked to a state wide system.

Why wasn't the attorney detained, along with the firearm, for alleged unlawful carry? If the officer had probable cause to retain the firearm, then he also had probable cause to detain the attorney. One sort of follows the other, I would think. Keep the firearm but let the criminal go?

This makes all the sense in the world. Cop screwed up big time. As stated attorney could have used it in a crime, murder and was let go.

thank the good lord I had enough sense to move from the dictatorship of the Commonwealth of Mass.

 

[Wagonman]

After all... I don't have a means to immediately verify the authenticity of your badges. Perhaps I should just take your guns and badges away?

How is the argument any different in that light? Why is your credential beyond reproach (you ARE just a person, after all) and mine is suspect just because you see a gun on my hip? After all, I see a gun on YOUR hip, too.

You do have means to verify my identity-----it's called 911.

It seems that the Cop split the difference with the lawyer----come to station later and verify your permit and I won't make the lawful yet erroneous arrest.

 

[orangello]

It seems that the Cop split the difference with the lawyer----come to station later and verify your permit and I won't make the lawful yet erroneous arrest.

"Splitting the difference" is legal?

 

[burle1812]

read the article to fast...too much caffine this am

after reading this article again, seems like the problem is in MA's registration process. I can only speak from experience here in MI, working in LE, dealing with our CPL registration process, and in the process of becoming an instructor myself. Here in MI we can determine the validity of a permit by simply running your license plate. The info comes up mostly from an officer saftey standpoint, but also too because legally a permit holder has to declare that they are carrying and present the officer their permit and let the officer know where the weapon is. Seems to me that in MA an Officer won't know until they actually call and verify the permit (which seems like a pain in the butt for the cop) if the permit is legal or a fogery. Why hasnt' this been changed yet? Any MA cpl holders out there?

 

[Wagonman]

"Splitting the difference" is legal?

Sure it is. If the Copper had wanted to he could've made the LAWFUL UUW pinch and it would have be thrown out in court upon the proffering of a valid CCW permit. Kinda like being cited for operating without insurance and bringing your insurance card to court and having ticket thrown out.

 

[orangello]

Sure it is. If the Copper had wanted to he could've made the LAWFUL UUW pinch and it would have be thrown out in court upon the proffering of a valid CCW permit.

So the officer can choose not to issue a citation or arrest a person accused of a crime, and can instead simply confiscate the personal property that might be illegally carried/possessed? So, if i was pulled over in a vehicle with a registration that could not be traced/verified, a LEO has the legal discretion to either arrest me as a car thief or possessor of stolen goods OR the LEO can simply remove the allegedly stolen property & send the alleged criminal on his merry way? That seems like more discretion than i would want and more than most LEO's (all but the most experienced) probably need.

 

[moccassins]

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

excuse me?