Police are going to far!!! - and now they are paying for it

[BlackSheep]

You've haven't presented any "evidence", just your opinion that you think you know what the police were thinking. There were kids out there when they first approached - not exactly a huge threat worthy of drawing their weapons, eh?

Denying I have presented evidence does not make it go away. never claimed to know what the officer was thinking-that is a straw man.

You think that danger declines when kids are present? You underestimate the world.

I think I got it out of order..they did mention they were airsoft, but that was later on, however, he approached, inspected and most likely determined them to be not real weapons, and finally backs off (after the garage sellers throw a temper tantrum).

There was no tantrum, please do not exaggerate things. They stood up for their rights calmly and asked him to leave. The closest thing to a tantrum was the offcer when he was asked to leave.

Yup...those kids out there selling them, while they're being displayed on a table, are a huge threat...
Had they been holding them when the officers approached, I have no doubt that they would have drawn their weapons...I'm sure the garage sellers would have loved that.

Weapons are always a threat. If there are weapons on the table and they are selling them illegally it is very possible they may have others.

That's your whole evidence - that you THINK you know what they're thinking.

Straw man.

Lets see...determine they're not a threat and do his job or argue the obvious point on how an exact replica of a real weapon is probable cause....he basically says "let me do my job and I'll leave" and they're completely obnoxious about it..

He calmly walks up and begin to examine them on private property with no announcement of his intent. They ask him to leave because he is on private property. He says I have a right to be here because I have a complaint.

I agree he basically says let me do my job, but after the fact.

He should have stated there was a complaint and ask if the weapons were real and then if he felt it was necessary ask if he could confirm that.
If he felt he had probable cause he should have explained what he was doing and not just wandered over.
If he felt there was a danger he should have watched and waited for a second officer and then told people he needed to examine the weapons to confirm they were not 'real' and asked them to stay back while he did so.

[BlackSheep]

The cops don't have to "demonstrate" anything. They just have to believe they have just cause to enter the property, which, in this case, most reasonable people would not disagree with.

I said in this debate. During the actual event the police would need to have probable cause-that being "apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime." No suspect or be concerned--believe.

[Dieval]

Denying I have presented evidence does not make it go away. never claimed to know what the officer was thinking-that is a straw man.

You think that danger declines when kids are present? You underestimate the world.

I haven't seen any evidence from you, so can you either re-post it or direct us to your post #?

There was no tantrum, please do not exaggerate things. They stood up for their rights calmly and asked him to leave. The closest thing to a tantrum was the offcer when he was asked to leave.

Of course there was. They could have allowed the officer to do his job, take 30 seconds and examine the weapons and they would have left without incident.

Weapons are always a threat. If there are weapons on the table and they are selling them illegally it is very possible they may have others.

I agree that "Weapons are always a threat", however, no one had weapons drawn when the police arrived, so it did not warrant them drawing their weapons.

Straw man.

Heh, it's not a "straw man".. it's the only thing I've seen from you...as I asked above, please identify the post that contains your evidence.

He calmly walks up and begin to examine them on private property with no announcement of his intent.

Who's he going to tell? The kids?

As soon as the parents came out, shortly after he showed up, they threw a fit because he was looking at their guns.

To any rational person, it's common sense what he's doing there...in fact, they probably EXPECTED the police to show up - i.e. it was a setup.

[BlackSheep]

I haven't seen any evidence from you, so can you either re-post it or direct us to your post #?

From post #33

1. Air soft guns are not that hard to tell from real weapons.
2. The officer never even stated that they looked like real weapons and he needed to check them. He just kept repeating that there was a complaint.
3. The officer did not behave in any way like there was any significant chance these were real weapons. He exhibited none of the behaviors officers are trained to use in dangerous situations.
4. If he did not think they were real there was no crime.

Of course there was. They could have allowed the officer to do his job, take 30 seconds and examine the weapons and they would have left without incident.

1. You used the tantrum which means "An uncontrolled outburst of anger and frustration, typically in a young child" At no point did the people have a tantrum. As I said the closest to that was the initial response of the officer and f you watch it was.
2. Assuming for a moment that their rights were being violated it seems they behaved in a very civil manner.
3. By exaggerating you do yourself a disfavor in a debate.

I agree that "Weapons are always a threat", however, no one had weapons drawn when the police arrived, so it did not warrant them drawing their weapons.

You agree weapons are always a threat and then deny it in the next sentence. Assuming the weapons were real it would only take a moment to grab one assuming they did not have another the officer could not see. If they believed they were real, they would have acted very differently.

Heh, it's not a "straw man".. it's the only thing I've seen from you...as I asked above, please identify the post that contains your evidence.

I never said I know what they are thinking and yet you claim I do. You can't get much more of a straw man than that.

Who's he going to tell? The kids?

The people selling things. If there no adults then they should ask the kids to get the adults or then they can just tell the kids.

As soon as the parents came out, shortly after he showed up, they threw a fit because he was looking at their guns.

They seemed pretty calm to me for people who believed their rights were being violated. They just asked why he was touching their stuff and asked him to get off their property. It was a long way from a fit.

To any rational person, it's common sense what he's doing there...in fact, they probably EXPECTED the police to show up - i.e. it was a setup.

I agree it was obvious what he was doing. My comment was he could have just asked if there was no immediate threat and if it was e I would have said fine check that they are not real guns. If he doesn't ask and just oversteps his bound then I would tell him to back off too.
The other male cop did it the right way - he just asked.

[Dave In Canada]

This is only my humble opinion of course but it seems to me that the people who accuse police of going to far and want to record their every action are also the same type of people who shut their doors to the police when they are going door to door investigating a murder that took place on their street.

I love it when people claim that the police go too far but turn a blind eye to the drug dealers in their neighborhood selling shit to their children.

People like that need a slap upside the head.

[Dieval]

From post #33

1. Air soft guns are not that hard to tell from real weapons.
2. The officer never even stated that they looked like real weapons and he needed to check them. He just kept repeating that there was a complaint.
3. The officer did not behave in any way like there was any significant chance these were real weapons. He exhibited none of the behaviors officers are trained to use in dangerous situations.
4. If he did not think they were real there was no crime.

Your numbered points are not "evidence"....it's you (badly) guessing at what the officer is thinking.

1. You used the tantrum which means "An uncontrolled outburst of anger and frustration, typically in a young child" At no point did the people have a tantrum. As I said the closest to that was the initial response of the officer and f you watch it was.
2. Assuming for a moment that their rights were being violated it seems they behaved in a very civil manner.
3. By exaggerating you do yourself a disfavor in a debate.

You can ignore what they did all you want, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a tantrum...it was either a tantrum or a clear setup. They were awfully upset that someone was looking at their weapons.

You agree weapons are always a threat and then deny it in the next sentence. Assuming the weapons were real it would only take a moment to grab one assuming they did not have another the officer could not see. If they believed they were real, they would have acted very differently.

I stated that they weren't being wielded in a threatening manner, so there was no need to go in guns blazing. Does that mean they weren't closely watching everyone at the scene? Not at all.

I never said I know what they are thinking and yet you claim I do. You can't get much more of a straw man than that.

Your "evidence" is a guess at what they were thinking. You've just reiterated that above.

The people selling things. If there no adults then they should ask the kids to get the adults or then they can just tell the kids.

The adults weren't there until shortly after he arrived, at which point the tantrum began.

They seemed pretty calm to me for people who believed their rights were being violated. They just asked why he was touching their stuff and asked him to get off their property. It was a long way from a fit.

Not at all. The woman speaking made it sound like he had walked into their house and began rummaging around their closest - not walking up to an outside garage sale open to the public.

I agree it was obvious what he was doing. My comment was he could have just asked if there was no immediate threat and if it was e I would have said fine check that they are not real guns. If he doesn't ask and just oversteps his bound then I would tell him to back off too.
The other male cop did it the right way - he just asked.

The other male cop showed up after the first had determined the guns were not real weapons.

[Dieval]

This is only my humble opinion of course but it seems to me that the people who accuse police of going to far and want to record their every action are also the same type of people who shut their doors to the police when they are going door to door investigating a murder that took place on their street.

I love it when people claim that the police go too far but turn a blind eye to the drug dealers in their neighborhood selling shit to their children.

People like that need a slap upside the head.

I totally see these people as bitching at moaning at the police when they don't think they've done anything wrong, but if they ever need help they'll be the first ones to call the cops.

[BlackSheep]

This is only my humble opinion of course but it seems to me that the people who accuse police of going to far and want to record their every action are also the same type of people who shut their doors to the police when they are going door to door investigating a murder that took place on their street.

I accuse the police of going to far all the time. Not as individuals as much as proceduraly and know a lot of officers and worked with them for 20 years. I have in fact helped the police after they screwed my life up and would do so again at the drop of a hat. These are two unrelated things. Civil right are there for a reason.

I love it when people claim that the police go too far but turn a blind eye to the drug dealers in their neighborhood selling shit to their children.

Why don't you say the kids are buying drugs from the drug dealers? The only reasons drug dealers exist is because there is a demand for those products. I basically don't drink or use drugs, but I realize trying to stop drug use by stopping the production is futile and we need to tackle it the other way around.

People like that need a slap upside the head.

They already tried to put me in prison.

I think you need to talk to the people who want to stand up for their rights and why, before you decide they need to slapped upside the head based on your humble opinion.

[BlackSheep]

I totally see these people as bitching at moaning at the police when they don't think they've done anything wrong, but if they ever need help they'll be the first ones to call the cops.

Maybe because you haven't felt of seen the effects of those breaches of rights.

In your opinion should we eliminate these civil rights?

[BlackSheep]

Your numbered points are not "evidence"....it's you (badly) guessing at what the officer is thinking.

1. Air soft guns are not that hard to tell from real weapons.
2. The officer never even stated that they looked like real weapons and he needed to check them. He just kept repeating that there was a complaint.
3. The officer did not behave in any way like there was any significant chance these were real weapons. He exhibited none of the behaviors officers are trained to use in dangerous situations.
4. If he did not think they were real there was no crime.

Please explain how each is me "guessing at what the officer is thinking."

You can ignore what they did all you want, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a tantrum...it was either a tantrum or a clear setup. They were awfully upset that someone was looking at their weapons.

Please explain how it was a tantrum, I gave the definition. They were standing up for their rights, do you think these rights should not exist?

I stated that they weren't being wielded in a threatening manner, so there was no need to go in guns blazing. Does that mean they weren't closely watching everyone at the scene? Not at all.

I never suggested guns blazing, please don't put words in my mouth.

Proceduraly police do not enter a known dangerous with the idea that if the other guys draw weapons I will. If their are weapons they will attempt to establish control and they will ensure they are one step up. That may be putting a hand on their weapon or drawing it.

Your "evidence" is a guess at what they were thinking. You've just reiterated that above.

Again if you wish to claim that please explain it.

The adults weren't there until shortly after he arrived, at which point the tantrum began.

I didn't say the adults were present. Please respond to what I wrote instead of making something up.

Not at all. The woman speaking made it sound like he had walked into their house and began rummaging around their closest - not walking up to an outside garage sale open to the public.

She was civil. There was no shouting, no cursing, no threats. Legally what he did was the same as entering their house and rummaging around in their closet.

As for being open to the public, private citizens can enter private property unless they are warned off, civil rights do not apply to them. The police are a different matter.

The other male cop showed up after the first had determined the guns were not real weapons.

Then why did he ask?

[Dieval]

1. Air soft guns are not that hard to tell from real weapons.

Wrong. They are generally exact replicas of real guns making them extremely hard to identify.

2. The officer never even stated that they looked like real weapons and he needed to check them. He just kept repeating that there was a complaint.

...that they were selling real weapons. (finish your sentence)

3. The officer did not behave in any way like there was any significant chance these were real weapons. He exhibited none of the behaviors officers are trained to use in dangerous situations.
4. If he did not think they were real there was no crime.

Please explain how each is me "guessing at what the officer is thinking."

All you've done is guess at what the officer might have known. That's not "evidence".

Please explain how it was a tantrum, I gave the definition. They were standing up for their rights, do you think these rights should not exist?

I don't believe any rights were violated. It's illegal to sell real weapons at a garage sale in CA and he was doing his job and verifying what the weapons were.

Tantrum: "a sudden burst of ill temper." I'd say she was I'll tempered towards the officer.
Tantrum | Define Tantrum at Dictionary.com

I never suggested guns blazing, please don't put words in my mouth.

You seem to think that an armed response was needed if they thought they were real weapons. I disagree.

Proceduraly police do not enter a known dangerous with the idea that if the other guys draw weapons I will. If their are weapons they will attempt to establish control and they will ensure they are one step up. That may be putting a hand on their weapon or drawing it.

I'm saying that from the video, where the officer arrives and exits his vehicle, we can not see how he handles himself and if he approached with his hand on his weapon.

Again if you wish to claim that please explain it.

Read it again. It's all a guess on your part.

I didn't say the adults were present. Please respond to what I wrote instead of making something up.

They came out within seconds of his arrival. He didn't have much of a chance to do anything. I haven't made anything up. I've replied to what you said and what happened in the video.

She was civil. There was no shouting, no cursing, no threats. Legally what he did was the same as entering their house and rummaging around in their closet.

no "threats" of violence, but definitely threats were made: "we'll file a complaint. We'll file another complaint." "You haven't dealt with me, I'm with COPWATCH. I've dealt with you!"
Threats of violence, no. Threats of consequences, yes.

As for being open to the public, private citizens can enter private property unless they are warned off, civil rights do not apply to them. The police are a different matter.

And the police don't have the right to investigate people breaking the law?

Your whole argument comes down to the silly idea that the police officer knew that exact replicas of real weapons were not real. There's no way he could have known they were not real.

[BlackSheep]

Wrong. They are generally exact replicas of real guns making them extremely hard to identify.

Then again why are there s many site to show how to make them realistic?

...that they were selling real weapons. (finish your sentence)

My sentence was finished. You and I both agree what the complaint was. And a you did was stated what we both knew instead of responding to the evidence.

All you've done is guess at what the officer might have known. That's not "evidence".

Again you are making the same claim with no support. What the officer said and his actions are clear evidence. This is the kind of things they use in court.

I don't believe any rights were violated. It's illegal to sell real weapons at a garage sale in CA and he was doing his job and verifying what the weapons were.

You are simply avoiding the hypothetical question.

Tantrum: "a sudden burst of ill temper." I'd say she was I'll tempered towards the officer.
Tantrum | Define Tantrum at Dictionary.com

I already provided a definition that was clearer and rather than comment of it you simply substituted one that is less clear. What does ill tempered mean?

Now if you trying to debate honestly you should post the whole definition.

tan·trum   [tan-truhm] Show IPA
noun
a violent demonstration of rage or frustration; a sudden burst of ill temper.

It strikes me that the first part that you choose to ignore is much clearer and is clearly not was we witnessed in the video.

You seem to think that an armed response was needed if they thought they were real weapons. I disagree.

Have you ever seen police approach a car when they are worried the person is maybe dangerous? They put a hand on their weapon or draw it and bark orders. It is standard procedure.

I'm saying that from the video, where the officer arrives and exits his vehicle, we can not see how he handles himself and if he approached with his hand on his weapon.

First this is the first time you mentioned this, so it is hardly "I'm saying that." You are responding to me responding to you saying that there was no need to have hand on weapon or weapon out.

Not to mention he is not going to approach the yard sale with hand on weapon establishing his authority then calmly look through their wares.

Read it again. It's all a guess on your part.

I wrote it and have read it again. It is your job to show the guess, but you can't because there isn't one.

They came out within seconds of his arrival. He didn't have much of a chance to do anything. I haven't made anything up. I've replied to what you said and what happened in the video.

He had enough time to walk up and begin looking through (read touching) their wares.

no "threats" of violence, but definitely threats were made: "we'll file a complaint. We'll file another complaint." "You haven't dealt with me, I'm with COPWATCH. I've dealt with you!"
Threats of violence, no. Threats of consequences, yes.

You keep making these claims without, I assume re-watching the video, I have re-watched it like six times. There were no threats. They made repeated requests for him to leave their property. They said nothing about a complaint until he had left and then they said they were going to. There was no threat.

As to "You haven't dealt with me, I'm with COPWATCH. I've dealt with you!" it was in response to him saying he had dealt with her and it is not a threat.

And the police don't have the right to investigate people breaking the law?

Of course they do. I didn't suggest they didn't and that was not what I was arguing. You were making a point that somehow private property that is outside is not the same as private property that is inside.

Your whole argument comes down to the silly idea that the police officer knew that exact replicas of real weapons were not real. There's no way he could have known they were not real.

Not at all. My argument has a number of points that all that all go to show the officer did not believe that the weapons were real.

You continue to claim he could not know they were real as if that is all you need to say. if that is true why didn't the officer just say that? Why didn't any of the three officers just say that?

The officers side of this equation which you are arguing is they had probable cause. You are arguing that is based on their inability to tell the guns were not real, but you have no evidence to support that at all. My evidence is not rock-solid of course, but it is evidence and it exists.