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

[BlackSheep]

I suggest you check out the rules for exigent circumstances. If the cops observe what appears to be illegal gun sales, they have the right to investigate, even if it's on private property.

It was pretty obvious to me the cops knew they were not real guns of their behavior would have been much different. I talked about this in posts above on this page, but you ignored those parts of my post.


If they truly saw evidence that they were selling illegal guns they would have not said they had a complaint. They would have drawn their own weapons and proceeded to move people away from the weapons and generally took charge and i would have no real issue with that, but that is not remotely what happened.


I worked with police officers for many years and I have read a lot on the law and their procedures. I don't know everyhting by any stretch, but I am familiar.

[Zeebadee]

It was pretty obvious to me the cops knew they were not real guns of their behavior would have been much different. I talked about this in posts above on this page, but you ignored those parts of my post.

Yes, I ignored them because you have no way of knowing what the cops "knew". The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Police checking an open air garage sale in response to a citizens request to verify the legality of guns openly displayed is in no way unreasonable. Had the guns been inside, behind closed doors, I might agree with you, but they weren't. As long as the guns were the object of the investigation, and nothing else, there's no court in the country that would consider this incident an unreasonable, illegal search.

[BlackSheep]

Yes, I ignored them because you have no way of knowing what the cops "knew". The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Police checking an open air garage sale in response to a citizens request to verify the legality of guns openly displayed is in no way unreasonable. Had the guns been inside, behind closed doors, I might agree with you, but they weren't. As long as the guns were the object of the investigation, and nothing else, there's no court in the country that would consider this incident an unreasonable, illegal search.

I explained how I "knew", but you ignored that too. in a debate if an argument is flawed you don't just ignore it, you expose the flaws.

The courts have defined unreasonable and this fits into that category. Closed doors has nothing to do with it. Private property is private An anonymous tip s not enough and as I said if the cops felt it was a real threat they would have acted very differently.

[Dieval]

You are stating they had illegal weapons. If they had clear evidence of said firearms they would have probable cause. They clearly did not.

What I'm saying is that they were having a garage sale, open to the public, with airsoft weapons on display. They didn't tell the police they were airsoft until they had already approached and taken a look at the weapons. My point was that no one has the ability to identify a gun as being real or airsoft if it does not have an orange tip, is an exact replica of a real gun, and being from a distance. That right there is probable cause to enter the property.

Only pertinent if they actually were and the police had probable cause.

IMO, they did have probable cause, as outline above.

For entering private property.

Having unknown weapons in view from the street is probable cause.

If it was probable cause the cops would have stated that. They did not, they reiterated they had a complaint.

They clearly recognized them as not real from the curb or things would have been far more tense and they would have said they looked like real weapons.

You're assuming they "recognized them as not real from the curb". I think that assumption is completely invalid, based on my scenario above. Can you identify an exact replica of a real gun from a distance as being an airsoft or a real gun? the clear answer is: no.

[BlackSheep]

What I'm saying is that they were having a garage sale, open to the public, with airsoft weapons on display. They didn't tell the police they were airsoft until they had already approached and taken a look at the weapons. My point was that no one has the ability to identify a gun as being real or airsoft if it does not have an orange tip, is an exact replica of a real gun, and being from a distance. That right there is probable cause to enter the property.

You ignored my point as well. The police clearly knew they were not real or they would have approached the situation quite differently-likely with weapons drawn and asking people to move away not like this. Police, if they suspect something, will approach a car with weapons drawn even with no sign of weapons. Think about it. These "weapons" clearly had magazines in them and so of real would pose a credible threat, but the police calmly walked up and looked at them.

IMO, they did have probable cause, as outline above.

I realize you believe that.

Having unknown weapons in view from the street is probable cause.

Clearly they knew or they would have acted differently.

You're assuming they "recognized them as not real from the curb". I think that assumption is completely invalid, based on my scenario above. Can you identify an exact replica of a real gun from a distance as being an airsoft or a real gun? the clear answer is: no.

And you are assuming they did not. I have evidence in their behavior-they behaved like their was no threat what so ever.

Can I? I have never tried, but they dangled differently than I would have expected for a real weapon.

[grandpa]

You ignored my point as well.
The police clearly knew they were not real or they
would have approached the situation quite differently-likely with weapons
drawn and asking people to move away not like this.

I would have chosen ritual fake gun suicide, after the sacred words,"You'll never get me, coppers!" *[fake] BANG!*

Anyway, interesting stuff.

Grandpa h.

[Zeebadee]

The police clearly knew they were not real or they would have approached the situation quite differently-likely with weapons drawn and asking people to move away not like this.

Why would you make such a ridiculous claim? You obviously have no way of knowing what the police "clearly knew".

[Dieval]

You ignored my point as well. The police clearly knew they were not real or they would have approached the situation quite differently-likely with weapons drawn and asking people to move away not like this. Police, if they suspect something, will approach a car with weapons drawn even with no sign of weapons. Think about it. These "weapons" clearly had magazines in them and so of real would pose a credible threat, but the police calmly walked up and looked at them.



I realize you believe that.



Clearly they knew or they would have acted differently.



And you are assuming they did not. I have evidence in their behavior-they behaved like their was no threat what so ever.

Can I? I have never tried, but they dangled differently than I would have expected for a real weapon.

It's easy to spot that the people selling the guns were not holding them in a threatening manner, however, your assumption that they knew from a distance the guns were not real, is (to quote Zee) "ridiculous". You "clearly" don't know what they were thinking.

[NoJingoLingo]

The point you seem to be overlooking (both Zeebadee and Dieval) is that if the cops drive by and observe what is or may be the commission of a crime then they have probable cause. However, if they are responding to a complaint then they may enter the property to speak with the owner NOT to search the grounds or property. The woman CLEARLY told the officer to leave private property BEFORE he began searching. All he had to do was comply with the request, step to the sidewalk and talk to the owners. He obviously violated their rights.

[Dieval]

The point you seem to be overlooking (both Zeebadee and Dieval) is that if the cops drive by and observe what is or may be the commission of a crime then they have probable cause. However, if they are responding to a complaint then they may enter the property to speak with the owner NOT to search the grounds or property. The woman CLEARLY told the officer to leave private property BEFORE he began searching. All he had to do was comply with the request, step to the sidewalk and talk to the owners. He obviously violated their rights.

1) The police get a report people are selling weapons at their garage sale.
2) The police respond.
3) When the police arrive, they see weapons displayed for sale outside, in clear view.

The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime"
Probable cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selling firearms at a garage sale is a crime.

How is that not probable cause to investigate further?

[BlackSheep]

Why would you make such a ridiculous claim? You obviously have no way of knowing what the police "clearly knew".

I explained clearly why I made such a claim, but you simply ignored it.

I know police officers well enough to know they would not behave as that officer did in that video if there were real guns for sale.
On the other hand it is being claimed that the officers did not know when there is no evidence to even support that. The police didn't even claim to have probable cause, simply a complaint.

[BlackSheep]

It's easy to spot that the people selling the guns were not holding them in a threatening manner, however, your assumption that they knew from a distance the guns were not real, is (to quote Zee) "ridiculous". You "clearly" don't know what they were thinking.

Again as I said police often are far more cautious when there is less danger than people holding guns in a threatening manner.
If the police truly thought they were selling real guns they would be very concerned that they could have loaded weapons. It is clearly a potentially dangerous situation and they would treat it as such. That is standard procedure and why so few cops are killed on the job.

Again i have evidence they knew. On the other hand what do you base your assumption they didn't?