I know some people do not like LEO'S but come on!

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JYD

New member
For one let me state that I am a supporter of open carry. As long as a person is just going about their day, I do not have an issue with it after all it is right guaranteed by the Constitution.

I also believe a person should not have to ID themselves to police if they have not commuted a crime or a ticketed offence. But if an officer has a valid reason for needing your information and explains his cause for the request or order, you should comply, verbally object if you want but comply.

Up for discussion is a post about a man, who IMHO just seemed bat crap crazy to act the way he did to officers.

I do not agree though with their belief that they had a right to steal his property for 24 hours or so when no citations or charges were issued.

What do you think?

63 year old Open Carry Advocate Acts A Fool After Jaywalking

http://junkyarddog911.blogspot.com/2014/06/how-not-to-act-when-you-open-carry.html
 
Sounds to me like he may have been contemplating suicide by cop. Not being facetious either. He antagonized them, and suggested they shoot him. I suspect if that was the case, not quite being ready to do it is the only reason he didn't point the firearm at them to force the issue.
 
I also believe a person should not have to ID themselves to police if they have not commited* a crime or a ticketable* offence. But if an officer has a valid reason for needing your information and explains his cause for the request or order, you should comply
Click to expand...



That 'valid reason' you vaguely mention is called a 'detainment' where I live.

You can't have it both ways.

Either the cop is detaining you or blurring the lines on why; and by what authority he has to demand your ID. If it is the latter, that cop is breaking the laws and violating your rights.

Perhaps you have no problem relinquishing your rights which are designed to protect you from the all-too-common rogue cops out there but dont' suggest we get in line with the sheep.
 
Keeping a tight reign on government authority is always a good idea, considering the world history of not doing so.
But considering the daily risks that police officers take, they deserve some benefit of the doubt.
 
I notice that the 911 operator implied that the weapon wouldn't have been a problem if it had been in a sling. Responding officers were polite. They did not try to disarm him at first, and they acknowledged his right to carry the gun.

It was only after he acted in a clearly irrational manner that they detained him.

I agree with Jim. His behavior suggests he wanted, at the very least, to be arrested.
 
Not I

Perhaps you have no problem relinquishing your rights which are designed to protect you from the all-too-common rogue cops out there but dont' suggest we get in line with the sheep.
Click to expand...

I know and agree with what you say, although it has no bearing here and I will explain.

1. He asked the officer if he was being detained, and the response was yes
2. he asked the officer why? response was you jaywalked right in front of me

I am all for standing your ground on ones rights, but the officer had a legal right for his name and date of birth. Why, because he broke a law, a silly stupid law some may say, but a law non the less.

And as far as how I feel about my rights, check this out.
This is me.... fast forward to 2:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZIJX7kQ1VY
 
The man was acting irrationally, whether he was drunk or on drugs or just got out of the wrong side of his bed that morning. The cops did exactly what they needed to do to protect other people. If he loses his rifle for 24 hours that's his fault for acting mentally deranged. Personally I wouldn't give him it back until he'd been checked out by a psychiatrist, and if the psychiatrist has any doubts about his normal mental state he doesn't get it back.

I'm all for 2nd amendment rights, but there's a time and place to exercise them, just like you don't exercise your 1st amendment rights by shouting fire in a crowded mall.

If you act a fool and deliberately set up a confrontation with the Police, don't cry when you lose because you will always lose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JYD said:
I do not agree though with their belief that they had a right to steal his property for 24 hours or so when no citations or charges were issued.
Click to expand...

I agree that he just plain seems crazy and there's easy probable cause for just about any kind of questioning and/or detainment.

I do not agree with using words that intentionally create an emotional response, such as "steal" his property. His property was not "stolen". It was held by police temporarily and returned. The guy was acting completely nuts. Here we have the opposite of "Why didn't some body do something!". Every time somebody goes on a shooting rampage, we get a whole bunch of folks blamed, from police to social workers to psychiatrists, who "should have known" and didn't do anything. In this case, they did something and we get "they steal his property".
 
Well said

I do not agree with using words that intentionally create an emotional response, such as "steal" his property. His property was not "stolen".
Click to expand...

The Fourth Amendment clearly explains that no one may have property seized without due process or a warrant. There was no warrant or judicial order to take the mans property for 24 hours.

I understand and appreciate your opinion, but IMHO when an item of property is taken without due process, or at the least as evidence of a crime, that is "stealing".

But i understand the word "seized" or "confiscated" may have been a better word to use.

thank yu for your opinion:cool:
 
JYD said:
The Fourth Amendment clearly explains that no one may have property seized without due process or a warrant. There was no warrant or judicial order to take the mans property for 24 hours....
Click to expand...
Folks should try actually reading the Fourth Amendment before spouting off about what it says. It says no such thing. Specifically it says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

Let's take a look at the two elements of the Fourth Amendement.

  1. The Fourth Amendment first states a protection against unreasonable search and seizure of one's person. papers, house, or effects.

    • The Fourth Amendment does not set any specific standards for reasonableness or unreasonableness.

    • So it will, in the course of time, be the province of the courts to decide what is a reasonable search and seizure, and what is an unreasonable search and seizure.

    • And over time the courts have found that at times it will be unreasonable to search or seize one's person, papers, house or effects without a warrant. Furthermore, over time the courts have found that at times it will not be unreasonable to search or seize one's person, papers, house or effects without a warrant.

    • We can know under what circumstances a search or seizure is likely to be found unreasonable without a warrant and under what circumstances a search or seizure is likely to be found not unreasonable (i. e., reasonable) without a warrant only by reviewing case law.

  2. In addition, the Fourth Amendment specifies certain requirements for a warrant, i. e., "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Why is this important?

    • At the time the Constitution was written, warrants authorizing search or seizure were sometime stated in vague or general terms and sometimes issued on bare allegations.

    • Based on that experience, the Fourth Amendment was written to specify standards for the issuance of warrants.
 
To further flesh out your point Frank:

Can a Terry Stop be a seizure? Wasn't there something about this sort of thing in US v Black where a large group were effective seized while being questioned and their papers and property seized for the duration of the questioning? I remember something about the courts deciding Black was seized because they told him he couldn't leave, and kept his ID along with some other factors.

Didn't Tennesee v Garner also talk about this- pointing out that apprehending a suspect with deadly force (and something of the ultimate form of seizure to my mind- in fact the Court labels it "unmatched") and subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment? While they decided the statute in question was too broad, they did at the very least allow it was still reasonable for an officer to use deadly force to seize the person of a fleeing and dangerous suspect without having to break off pursuit, drive to the courthouse, and fill out a warrant application for the unknown subject they were just chasing down the street.
 
interesting

olks should try actually reading the Fourth Amendment
Click to expand...

I take it on face value lol

Still, IMHO, if they wanted to temporarily "confiscate" his property, they could have taken steps IE. explained the situation to a judge and received a warrant.

I have seen videos of cops waiting around an hour until a warrant arrived.

Let me go off track just for the fun and ask what if.....

Let us say you get pulled over and issued a warning for speeding, the officer asks where your headed in a casual conversation and without thinking you tell him that you are meeting up with friends at the local bar to have a drink.

Would the officer be justified in seizing your car right then and there under the fear you would drink and drive at a later time? (for public safety)

Separating someone of their property, under the guise of "safety" is unjust IMHO

-
 
JYD said:
...Separating someone of their property, under the guise of "safety" is unjust IMHO
Click to expand...
While you may have an opinion, it doesn't really count. What counts is the opinion of the courts. As I mentioned, there is a large body of case law discussing what is, and is not, reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Discussing your uninformed opinion on the Fourth Amendment question really can't get us anywhere if we're trying to understand what the law actually is and how things can happen in real life.

JYD said:
...I have seen videos of cops waiting around an hour until a warrant arrived....
Click to expand...
Sometimes they will, and sometimes it might be a bad idea to unduly delay taking action.

Here we had a person apparently with a loaded rifle, out in public, acting in a bizarre, belligerent manner. An LEO could reasonably conclude that the longer the man is allowed to do that the greater the possibility that he will start shooting and hurt or kill someone.

That suggests that action needed to be taken sooner rather than later.
 
Let us say you get pulled over and issued a warning for speeding, the officer asks where your headed in a casual conversation and without thinking you tell him that you are meeting up with friends at the local bar to have a drink.

Would the officer be justified in seizing your car right then and there under the fear you would drink and drive at a later time? (for public safety)

Separating someone of their property, under the guise of "safety" is unjust IMHO
Click to expand...

Incorrect analogy. Current, real, verifiable behavior versus future, theoretical behavior.

They didn't take his gun because he MIGHT at some time in the future act like a loon. They took his gun because he WAS at that moment acting like a loon.

Guess what would happen if you were in your car ACTING drunk? The officer would not let you leave until he could verify that you WEREN'T drunk or high. Sobriety is easy to determine. There's machine that almost every cop carries. Sanity is NOT easy to determine.

Taking away his gun for 24 hours until his sanity could be verified is NOT unreasonable. You can bet your behind that your car WOULD be taken if you acted drunk/high/impaired and they could not determine that you were not.
 
Here we had a person apparently with a loaded rifle, out in public, acting in a bizarre, belligerent manner. An LEO could reasonably conclude that the longer the man is allowed to do that the greater the possibility that he will start shooting and hurt or kill someone.
Click to expand...


But the officer inspected and found no ammunition, might he have some at home? Maybe ,maybe not.


I see your point, but yes I still have my opinion

Guess what would happen if you were in your car ACTING drunk? The officer would not let you leave until he could verify that you WEREN'T drunk or high. Sobriety is easy to determine. There's machine that almost every cop carries. Sanity is NOT easy to determine.
Click to expand...

True, and if the officer was truly concerned they could have taken him in on a psych hold.

But after talking to him they must have determined he was not a danger to himself or others, If they were truly concerned they might have searched his residence for other firearms and taken those also.
 
JYD said:
But after talking to him they must have determined he was not a danger to himself or others, If they were truly concerned they might have searched his residence for other firearms and taken those also.
Click to expand...

That's true, and they probably should have, IMO. I don't know why they didn't. I would assume that a warrant would be needed to search his home.

It's possible that there's simply some departmental procedure that we don't know about that mandates they take the gun in. I don't know if such a thing exists.

Maybe they were just lazy but wanted to look like they did SOMETHING useful in case he did go rampaging.

I can't say for sure but I don't think holding the gun over night is unwarranted or an undue burden.

Frankly, don't act like a loon. You'll have a lot less trouble with the cops.

Reasonable and prudent behavior wins the day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top