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

[bigshooter]

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.

you didn't, it was implied by your statement, by having no reservations with this type of "justice".

my point was you can't refuse a search without lending yourself to probable cause, they go hand in hand. which is why i said you agreed with the premise.
you agreeing with this action by the authorities, are conceding that if one were to refuse, they could be considerd a suspect. simply because there really is no other outcome that can come about from this type of action(outside of the one in a million odds that the killer actually agrees to a search).

"sir our records show that you own or have owned a glock .40, do you mind if we come in and ask you some questions"

"actually i do mind"

do you think they are going to say "oh, ok, sorry to bother you. have a nice day".















if you don't get it by now, nothing i'm going to say(AGAIN)will make my point any more clear.

 

[bigshooter]

Why? If a crime is committed by a certian type of ethnicity is it not logical that others of that ethnicity may be involved?

well that's interesting now isn't it?.

i know there is a word for that somewhere........................

 

[STAGE 2]

you didn't, it was implied by your statement, by having no reservations with this type of "justice".

No, it was something you read into because of your blinders on this issue. Probable cause isn't needed for the police to ask for voluntary help. Period. You and others are trying to expand this into something sinister. The problem is that there are no facts to support this. Only your unfounded fears.

my point was you can't refuse a search without lending yourself to probable cause, they go hand in hand.

Then I suggest you read up on your criminal procedure because thats just plain wrong.

you agreeing with this action by the authorities, are conceding that if one were to refuse, they could be considerd a suspect.

They may very well be, or they may not. Given the number of people in OK that own glocks, I hardly think that everyone who refuses is going to be a suspect. However even if we assume that they are, so what. Being a suspect doesn't mean anything. You don't lose your rights because you are a suspect. Thats all we really care about so there isn't any problem.

"sir our records show that you own or have owned a glock .40, do you mind if we come in and ask you some questions"

"actually i do mind"

do you think they are going to say "oh, ok, sorry to bother you. have a nice day".

Yes, because they don't have any other alternative. Again I suggest you read up on your constitutional law. Refusal to talk to the police or consent to a search is not sufficient to generate probable cause. Thus, in this case, because you own a glock and because you refused to cooperate won't generate PC in any court in the US, least of all in OK. This has been settled law for some time.

 

[jfrey123]

Quote:
The argument some are making, "if you've got nothing to hide...." is TOTAL BS! This is communistic thinking through and through.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It's close enough to what I meant, since we're debating words with an English Scholar here.... I r srry i kant forme a gooder arguement that lifes up to ur standards.

Nor was the previous quoted argument intended in sarcasm, as you seem to possibly believe. In many of the past "fascist" societies (so sorry to use "Communism" wrong, public schooling you know), dictators would often require citizens to report crimes their neighbor committed against the Government, and if they reported their neighbor had committed no crime they were executed. The government claimed that the person was likely covering for their neighbor and made an example out of them. That's where this country is going if we continue to allow police to start over reaching their boundaries.


I've agree with you Double Naught, my earlier post says there's nothing wrong with the police asking you to see your gun. They can ask all they want. What I want to know is how my refusal will allow them to begin calling on me more and investigating me. They have no evidence I've committed a crime.

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.

I've marked in bold the places where I say they have no right to investigate after I tell them to go away.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime...

This is where I believe I don't need to tell them jack about my weapon when they ask. You can come ask all you want about my .40 cal Glock. I'm gonna tell you to pound sand. I should be protected from search and seizure, not required to provide my weapon ever. Sure, if you wanna split hairs they can investigate me all they want. They'll probably put cops on my tail, watch where I go, maybe interview my friends, and that's all fine and dandy with me: let them waste their time. As long as their outside investigation of me doesn't turn into an internal investigation (interfering with my life) they can ask me anything they want.

 

[bigshooter]

Only your unfounded fears.

your opinion means nothing when compared to the facts.

and the fact still remains, how much justice can the average joe afford$

rights get trampled on daily by those serving the "greater good" any less of an assessment is just naive.

unless you are a lawyer or can afford one you only are entitled to the rights you are GIVEN

you cite constitutional law, thats rich.

the constitution has been a door matt for the better part of 100 years.

 

[STAGE 2]

your opinion means nothing when compared to the facts.

and the fact still remains, how much justice can the average joe afford$

rights get trampled on daily by those serving the "greater good" any less of an assessment is just naive.

unless you are a lawyer or can afford one you only are entitled to the rights you are GIVEN

you site constitutional law, thats rich.

the constitution has been a door matt for the better part of 100 years.

So in other words, you aren't going to address any of my points.

Look, if you are going to go on a multipost tirade about how this is some terrible abuse then you have a obligation to give legitimate responses to criticism. Otherwise you risk being thrown into the ever increasing pile of folks that are simply here to disturb.

You did say one thing thats right however, namely that my opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is the opinion of the supreme court, and as I've said now for a third time, refusal to cooperate/answer questions/consent to a search doesn't constitute probable cause and can't be used to build a case for probable cause.

So with that in mind why dont you explain to all of us how someone is going to have their rights violated by refusing to cooperate with the police in this case.

 

[bigshooter]

So in other words, you aren't going to address any of my points.

your points are good, and i agree with what you say.

in a perfect world.

but the fact still remains that if you don't cooprerate with authorites, it isn't beyond their reach to make your life hell. they can cut corners and over step their bounds at will. is that legal?, hell no. but they still do it.

i don't think i need to give you a pile of documents that show how police have broken laws.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If the police can't ask people questions and ask for voluntary responses to information requests, just how will they do their jobs beyond direct observation of crimes and arrest of perps?

 

[MeekAndMild]

I think its funny the way a lot of folks are spinning this into a black/white case of cooperating or refusing to cooperate. One can cooperate with the investigation while declining to participate in unwarranted searches.

 

[STAGE 2]

in a perfect world.

Show me a court in the last 20 years that has ruled that refusal to answer questions constituted probable cause to search/arrest/etc.

but the fact still remains that if you don't cooprerate with authorites, it isn't beyond their reach to make your life hell. they can cut corners and over step their bounds at will. is that legal?, hell no. but they still do it.

How. What is a cop going to do to me if I dont take my gun in. I'm very much aware of police abuses, but I'm also very much aware that these are extreme rarities so acting as if they are the norm isn't exactly accurate.

Further, if what you say is true, then it stands to reason that the police can make your life hell whether you help or not. So its doesn't matter either way right?

 

[the_pragmaticist]

For those wondering how they can identify the firearm manufacturer from just the round - Glock uses polygonal rifling channels in their pistol barrels. The grooves cut into the bullet by a Glock barrel are fairly unique to Glock firearms, and a little testing can positively match the round to the type of barrel.

I do wonder if they're really interested in the test firing or if there's a bigger show behind the scenes - at a glance, rights violation or not, this doesn't look like a very effective way to go about finding a killer.

 

[bigshooter]

I'm very much aware of police abuses, but I'm also very much aware that these are extreme rarities so acting as if they are the norm isn't exactly accurate.

and at last we find common ground.

i would only add that they are somewhat rare, not extremely rare.

EDIT:
to clarify, do i think actual abuse, as in physical, is rare?. yes, (lately) i would agree to that.

do i think errors in judgement, clerical errors, fabrications made to substantiate the case, or conveniant exlusions are extremely rare?.

no, I think they would fall into the somewhat rare category. and although even I wouldn't categorize these as "abuse", what is "abuse" is the falure to admit to these errors, forcing the accused to prove even the most blatant of mistakes in the courtroom.

when the stakes are high for the accused, and competent defense is costly, it is not difficult to see that a simple error can be life changing.

again, good day sir

 

[STAGE 2]

and at last we find common ground.

No we havent. You are condemning this practice because of the potential for abuse. We don't judge laws or activities on their potential for abuse. If we did, police could never carry guns and could never arrest people.

However thats not how we do things. We judge laws and actions based on whether they are constitutional on their face. This clearly is.

i would only add that they are somewhat rare, not extremely rare.

Given the amount of arrests made in this country every day, they are incredibly rare.