There are at least 40 people in Oklahoma that are as smart as a house plant

Good post, B.A. This whole thing is chilling.

The investigative technique, or tactic, of the letter and the thinking behind it seems to be seriously flawed and looks, in my eyes, to be utterly ineffective. Eliminating wrong (guilty) suspects, making the wrong suspects (innocent) look more suspect, tipping off the perpetrators, wasting precious time and money etc etc. Does anybody have any idea of how many .40 Glocks there could be in the area? Is 60 even approximately plausible? Might there be 600? 6000? And how big is the area? How do they even know it was a Glock (can they actually determine the manufacturer from the fired slugs/casings)?
Click to expand...
 
Of course, ACLU won't be helping these people out because they hate guns,
even though there is a fourth amendment violation. Also, there's the right
to privacy which is being violated. We're supposed to have a right to
privacy, which requires some reading into the bill of rights. It's not in there
explicitly, but some have argued that it is implied by the Bill of Rights.
 
There is no problem with the police REQUESTING assistance of the community. The problem with this article and the police action in this case is that they are going to begin investigating the people who don't volunteer their weapons for testing. They have no evidence (beyond circumstantial) that any of those 20 people have done anything wrong.
Click to expand...

So once again, show me what part of the constitution gives you the right not to be investigated.

For those people who are ok with this gun request, let me pose it in a different way. Let's pretend there was a brutal hit and run in your town, little old lady gets plowed down and hurt very badly. A small cart she was pushing is known to have caused some sort of crack on the grill of the truck, but witness' on scene can only describe the vehicle as a "small, late model, white pick up truck" and that's the best description they can provide. Police could very easily search the DMV records, and find out how many people are driving a truck match that description. They put out a request that anyone driving one of these trucks come in for a "volunteer" inspection. When only 50% of registered vehicle owners show up and they don't feel they got the vehicle, they start going door to door to ask why these people didn't show up. Are you ok with this, like you're ok with them test firing your gun?
Click to expand...

Your example makes no sense. There isn't anything wrong with police going door to door and asking to see your vehicle. Its the same as sending the letter.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: You're splitting hairs. Yes, Communism refers to an economic
system and not a political system. Totalitarianism, Monarchy, Fascism,
Republic, Democracy, Oligarchy refer to political systems. Capitalism,
Socialism and Communism refer to economic systems.

So, China is a capitalist society ruled by an oligarchy.

You knew what he meant. He knew what he meant. What do we gain
by parsing words? :confused:
 
If you haven't murdered two kids I don't think you should have anything to worry about, if you have murdered two kids then you obviously are going to be very skiddish about letting them test fire your gun.
 
I know I shouldn't ask this.

Why not contact Glock.
The last Glock I bought had a spent casing in the box.
Glock, therefore, must have fired the gun the police are seeking.

Then, the police would have the serial number of the gun they
are looking for and need only trace the one gun.
 
If you haven't murdered two kids I don't think you should have anything to worry about, if you have murdered two kids then you obviously are going to be very skiddish about letting them test fire your gun.
Click to expand...

and that pretty much sums it up right there, if you refuse to let government intrude into your life for any reason, you are infact a criminal. no longer are you allowed to object simply for the sake of personal privacy.

bravo.
 
Double naught, I have a word for you. How about stupid?

So far no one has come up with any documented incidents in the 500 year history of the gun where this tactic has actually worked to catch a crook.

My next question is what if (in the slim chance the crook was both local and owned a legal Glock) the real criminal took the 3 minutes to slip in a new barrel and let the cops collect his sample bullets? Then wouldn't he be one of the 40 the cops have declared innocent?

Or what if (in the slim chance the crook was both local and owned a legal Glock) the pistol was really a Glock 32 but the day of the murder he was using a .40 conversion barrel? Which he threw away after the crime and when he put back in the original .357 barrel?

So once again, show me what part of the constitution gives you the right not to be investigated.
Click to expand...
They can investigate all they want but the sticking point is that whether you're guilty or just happened to "fit the profile" you can't be compelled to cooperate. With that in mind I believe what you're trying to find is the fifth amendment. Let me help you out here. You'd better read up on this before your local Barney and Goober decide they want to inspect your underwear for samples:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

I believe the ethical answer here is "Gee Sheriff, I'd like to do anything I can to help and I'll give you any support I can except giving up my rights to decline unwarranted searches. And just between me and you, your boys have gone a little bit overboard here."
 
You knew what he meant. He knew what he meant. What do we gain
by parsing words?
Click to expand...

No, I have no idea what he actually meant. I see no connection between believing in the presumption of innocence of our democratic society (I have nothing to hide as I did nothing wrong) and calling such presumptions "communistic" when under various regimes that operated under the guise of communism where the populace believed in a staunch need to hide whatever they could from the government out of fear that the government would find something that could be used to prosecute them. If anything, the use of communistic was the exact opposite of what should have been used and if it is the exact opposite, I would assume sarcasm was being used, only that doesn't appear to be the case.

The McCarthiestic espousal of equating something perceived as bad as being communistic simply does not make sense.

Put another way, the reference to communism was a logic flaw on many levels, done so for the purposes to draw attention from a weak argument by trying to associate the act (nothing to hide belief) with a completely unrelated and non relevant political term.
 
Thread closer... it was sorta civil till the name-calling...

Agree to dissagree and move on... its bogging down into nit-picking and the original story is still not followed up on.
 
Last edited:
No, I have no idea what he actually meant. I see no connection between believing in the presumption of innocence of our democratic society (I have nothing to hide as I did nothing wrong) and calling such presumptions "communistic" when under various regimes that operated under the guise of communism where the populace believed in a staunch need to hide whatever they could from the government out of fear that the government would find something that could be used to prosecute them. If anything, the use of communistic was the exact opposite of what should have been used and if it is the exact opposite, I would assume sarcasm was being used, only that doesn't appear to be the case.
Click to expand...

you live a truly fortunate life.
 
So could you show me the constitutional right that preclude you from being a suspect or a 'person of interest'?
Click to expand...

I don't know or claim that it is a constitutional matter. It's a matter of right and wrong. It is wrong to heap suspicion on a person with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they may be the guilty party. If a Glock .40 pistol was used in a crime, a person owning one should not automatically be viewed with suspicion considering the prevaliance of such weapons in society.

For instance, I've seen no mention of LEOs in the area having their weapons tested, and I seem to remember .40 Glocks being popular with that crowd. Maybe those weapons have already been tested and eliminated and there hasn't been any mention of it, or maybe I've missed any mention of it, but it would make me more comfortable about the whole matter. After all, the lack of all other evidence in the crime would seem to point to a person who put some fore thought into the possibility of leaving forensic evidence or who has some training in forensics.

But again, that is hardly enough evidence to single out any one group of people and cast them with suspicion, whether they be LEOs, students or teachers of forensics, or owner's of .40 Glocks. It's thin. Too thin. I hope and trust that the tactic being used is merely one that is being used to eliminate a huge pool of potential suspects, and not the last hope of desperate investigators trying to solve an abhorrent crime.
 
so your saying that having a same or similar circumstance/object/description/etc., AND refusing to agree to a search is enough to claim probable cause?.
Click to expand...

Where did I say refusing to cooperate with a voluntary program such as this constitutes probable cause. I merely said police can ask for your help. They can send you a letter, or knock on your door. They can ask you any way they want to.
 
They can investigate all they want but the sticking point is that whether you're guilty or just happened to "fit the profile" you can't be compelled to cooperate. With that in mind I believe what you're trying to find is the fifth amendment. Let me help you out here. You'd better read up on this before your local Barney and Goober decide they want to inspect your underwear for samples:
Click to expand...

I'm very much aware of the 5th amendment. Now if you could show me where 1) the police are "compelling" people to cooperate and 2) where any of their actions are unconstitutional.
 
It is wrong to heap suspicion on a person with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they may be the guilty party. If a Glock .40 pistol was used in a crime, a person owning one should not automatically be viewed with suspicion considering the prevaliance of such weapons in society.
Click to expand...

Why? If a crime is committed with a certian type of handgun is it not logical that owners of that handgun may be involved?
 
Where did I say refusing to cooperate with a voluntary program such as this constitutes probable cause. I merely said police can ask for your help. They can send you a letter, or knock on your door. They can ask you any way they want to.
Click to expand...

Yep.

In fact, that's how ALL police investigations are conducted, from investigations of shoplifting to multiple murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top