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

[truthreality]

I must appologize at first I left a word out. It was supposed to say the cop did not believe a crime had taken place.

Unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing what the police did or did not believe.

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

I completely disagree.



Looks like a real gun to me.

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.

Except that at :52 the police officer said "step back, ok, somebody called and said that you were selling real guns so I have the right by law to check".

3. The officer did not behave in any way like there was any significant chance these were real weapons.

Wrong. See above.

He exhibited none of the behaviors officers are trained to use in dangerous situations.

This not necessarily about a dangerous situation or not. This is a situation that has to do with whether or not the people had a legal right to sell real weapons.

4. If he did not thin they were real there was no crime.

Wrong. See above.

Evidence does not indicate probable cause.

I stated that the evidence indicates that the police had probable cause.

Evidence can suggest a crime took place and if a reasonable and prudent person would be led to believe a crime took place based on that evidence then it is probable cause.

Probable cause does not require actual evidence. Even if you do not agree that the police had probable cause they definitely had reasonable suspicion.

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs.

And without more detail that call, it is a tip and not evidence.

It is reasonable suspicion though.

There was zero evidence they were selling anything to the resident of another state.

Oops. Copy and pasted the wrong statement.

Acquiring from dealers

Provided that federal law and the laws of both the dealer's and purchaser's states and localities are complied with:
An individual 21 years of age or older may acquire a handgun from a dealer federally licensed to sell firearms in the individual's state of residence.[7]
An individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state. However, the applicant may not purchase a pistol gripped long gun that does not have a shoulder stock until he or she is 21 years of age.
It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm unless the federal firearms licensee receives notice of approval from a prescribed source approving the transfer.
Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the ATF. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1000 and one year's imprisonment.
An individual holding a Curio and Relics License (officially a Type 03 Federal Firearms License (FFL); also called a C&R) may directly purchase firearms that are 50 or more years old from anyone AND any firearm officially recognized by the ATF as a Curio and Relic (C&R).
[edit]Sales between individuals

For transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees, such as private transactions, federal law is less strict when it comes to minimum age.
In a private transaction, federal law prohibits the transfer or the sale of a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to individuals under 18 years of age. Although, there are certain exceptions in federal law, that if met, would allow an individual to transfer a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to someone under 18 years of age.
There is no federal law concerning minimum age for the transfer or sale of a firearm that is not defined as a handgun, such as rifles, semiautomatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, short-barreled shotgun, machineguns, etc, for transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees. [8]
An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a modern firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser's state.[9] Firearms received by bequest or intestate succession are exempt from those sections of the law which forbid the transfer, sale, delivery or transportation of firearms into a state other than the transferor's state of residence.[9] Likewise, antique firearms are exempt from these sections of the law in most states. (Antique firearms are defined as those manufactured pre-1899 by US federal law, or modern replicas thereof that do not use cartridges. State law definitions on antique firearms vary considerably from state to state.)

You are seriously misconstruing the situation.

Actually you are seriously misconstruing the situation. The police at the very least had reasonable suspicion to investigate a tip they received that individuals in a neighborhood were selling real guns. They were incredibly cooperative and obeyed the law.

The law you posted only relates to selling a firearm to a resident of another state and no evidence suggested anyone was fro out of state.

Yes. I copied and pasted the wrong section. See above.

Generally speaking it is not that hard to differentiate air-soft from a 'real' firearm as indicated by all the sites that show you how to make them look like real weapons.

Until the police thoroughly investigate a tip given by a resident they would not know that. They have to check the guns before they can come to that conclusion.

Again a called tip is not really evidence and we have no information to suggest it was more than that.

Again the called tip was reasonable suspicion.

And the behavior and words of the officer do not support he believed they were selling 'real' firearms.

Except that he explicitly stated the reason why he had suspicion and then went on to check out the guns.

[grandpa]

In any case, it seems life will go on after this. Bad cop!

One thing won't change:
Gun enthusiasts and the government have been at each other's throats
for years. It's like the old Nirvana song says, "Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you."

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

It is not probable cause because all the evidence indicates the cop did not a crime had taken place.

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

BULLSHIT. If the airsoft does not have a orange tip or is made from clear plastic, which MANY are not, they are essentially exact replicas. Do the officers have x-ray vision or something that I'm not aware of?

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.

...complaint about selling weapons and if you listen closely, the owner stated they were airsoft and the officer backs off after that.

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.

Weapons displayed for sale are not typically going to be used for assaulting approaching officers.

4. If he did not thin they were real there was no crime.

Again, you don't know what they were thinking.

Again i have evidence they knew.

What is your "evidence they knew"?

[Dieval]

Bad cop!

Bad asshole garage-sellers, is more like it...

[BlackSheep]

Unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing what the police did or did not believe.

I presented evidence.

[QUOT=truthreality;887504]I completely disagree.



Looks like a real gun to me. [/QUOTE]

I am sure it does.

Except that at :52 the police officer said "step back, ok, somebody called and said that you were selling real guns so I have the right by law to check".

Yes, after he was at the table looking and the people having the sale asked him get away from their stuff.

Wrong. See above.

He comments were about them asking him to respect their rights. He was already at the table looking at the items.

This not necessarily about a dangerous situation or not. This is a situation that has to do with whether or not the people had a legal right to sell real weapons.

Real fire arms on sale would be perceived as a dangerous situation by any officer.

Wrong. See above.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

I stated that the evidence indicates that the police had probable cause.

You misunderstand. Sufficient evidence is probable cause, but this was not sufficient.

Probable cause does not require actual evidence. Even if you do not agree that the police had probable cause they definitely had reasonable suspicion.

You are mistaken. Probable cause is the evidence. There can not be any probable cause without evidence.

The definition of Probale Cause was given twice and you ignored it. "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, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit."

Apparent faces requires evidence.

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs.

We are not talking about detain or arresting, not entering private property. There was also no frisking. Frisking is to ensure the safety of the officers.

It is reasonable suspicion though.

A tip is not even reasonable suspicion. No arrest would be proper if it was based purely on a 'tip.

Oops. Copy and pasted the wrong statement.

We all make mistakes.

Actually you are seriously misconstruing the situation. The police at the very least had reasonable suspicion to investigate a tip they received that individuals in a neighborhood were selling real guns. They were incredibly cooperative and obeyed the law.

You have not demonstrated they had reasonable suspicion and even then it would not be enough to enter private property.

Until the police thoroughly investigate a tip given by a resident they would not know that. They have to check the guns before they can come to that conclusion.

Knowing is irrelevant. The police cannot enter private property without permission, a search warrant or probable cause regardless of them not knowing.

Again the called tip was reasonable suspicion.

You stated it, but didn't demonstrate it.

Except that he explicitly stated the reason why he had suspicion and then went on to check out the guns.

And a complaint is not enough evidence to be considered probable cause. If it was the police would have very little issue with unreasonable search and seizure.

[BlackSheep]

In any case, it seems life will go on after this. Bad cop!

One thing won't change:
Gun enthusiasts and the government have been at each other's throats
for years. It's like the old Nirvana song says, "Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you."

Grandpa h.

Two separate issues.

I support gun control, they are dangerous in my opinion. Police abusing civil rights is completely separate.

[BlackSheep]

BULLSHIT. If the airsoft does not have a orange tip or is made from clear plastic, which MANY are not, they are essentially exact replicas. Do the officers have x-ray vision or something that I'm not aware of?

My assumption is based on two pieces of evidence that I repeated over and over. The officer did not act as if there was any threat as he would have had they been real and he never commented that the looked real. He only commented that their was a complaint.

...complaint about selling weapons and if you listen closely, the owner stated they were airsoft and the officer backs off after that.

I just reviewed it and I don't hear or see that. The officer backed off after he was told to leave to property and examined a bunch of things. I don't know the actual cause of him backing off. If you can pinpoint the tie on the video I will listen again.

Weapons displayed for sale are not typically going to be used for assaulting approaching officers.

And typically officers are not attacked when stopping a car either, but if they perceive the possibility they will take extra precaution. (Weapons drawn or hand on weapon and assuming authority.) Real firearms are always a real danger if people on't take care. If they are selling weapons illegally they could be loaded and they could be dangerous.

Again, you don't know what they were thinking.

I didn't claim to know what they were thinking. It was part of a logical argument.

What is your "evidence they knew"?

Already presented. They didn't act as if they were real and they didn't site them looking real as probable cause.

[BlackSheep]

Bad asshole garage-sellers, is more like it...

You mean the American Citizen's standing up for their freedom?

[Zeebadee]

You mean the American Citizen's standing up for their freedom?

Yeah, that's them.

[BlackSheep]

Yeah, that's them.

So you equate people standing up for their rights with assholes?

[truthreality]

I presented evidence.

I completely disagree.



Looks like a real gun to me.

I am sure it does.



Yes, after he was at the table looking and the people having the sale asked him get away from their stuff.



He comments were about them asking him to respect their rights. He was already at the table looking at the items.



Real fire arms on sale would be perceived as a dangerous situation by any officer.



I have no idea what you are referring to.



You misunderstand. Sufficient evidence is probable cause, but this was not sufficient.



You are mistaken. Probable cause is the evidence. There can not be any probable cause without evidence.

The definition of Probale Cause was given twice and you ignored it. "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, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit."

Apparent faces requires evidence.



We are not talking about detain or arresting, not entering private property. There was also no frisking. Frisking is to ensure the safety of the officers.



A tip is not even reasonable suspicion. No arrest would be proper if it was based purely on a 'tip.



We all make mistakes.



You have not demonstrated they had reasonable suspicion and even then it would not be enough to enter private property.



Knowing is irrelevant. The police cannot enter private property without permission, a search warrant or probable cause regardless of them not knowing.



You stated it, but didn't demonstrate it.



And a complaint is not enough evidence to be considered probable cause. If it was the police would have very little issue with unreasonable search and seizure.

Probable cause

Probable cause must be based on factual evidence and not just on suspicion.

Most probable cause sources can be placed into four categories. These categories are:

Observation – This is information that the officer obtains through their senses, such as sight, smell or hearing. This category is also used when an officer detects a familiar pattern of criminal activity that contains suspicious behaviors (i.e., flashing headlights, circling around a certain neighborhood.)
Expertise – These are skills that officers are specially trained in, such as: being able to read gang graffiti and tattoos, detecting tools that are used in burglaries or knowing when certain movements or gestures indicate that a criminal activity is about to occur.
Information – Statements provided by witnesses and victims, information provided by informants, and announcements made through police bulletins and broadcasts.
Circumstantial Evidence – This is indirect evidence that implies that a crime has occurred but does not directly prove it.
While there are some sources of probable cause that need to be supplemented by other sources, some sources are sufficient enough to stand on their own.

For a judge to issue a search warrant, probable cause must show that it is likely that a crime took place and the person who is accused was involved in the criminal activity. If a search or arrest is made without a warrant, it must meet the standard of probable cause to be admissible in court.

Evidence obtained through searches and seizures made without probable cause can not be used against a defendant in court.

If you were searched or arrested without probable cause, you should contact an attorney immediately to learn more about your rights.

Probable cause

Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt. Courts take care to review the actions of police in the context of everyday life, Balancing the interests of law enforcement against the interests of personal liberty in determining whether probable cause existed for a search or arrest.

Probable cause is defined as the right of a police officer to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for an arrest or a search.

There are a couple of different definitions of probable cause that are used in the judicial system of the United States:
A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime.
A reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true.

The police were well within their rights. They did have probable cause.

[Zeebadee]

So you equate people standing up for their rights with assholes?

Our differences on this issue are what you call "rights". As has been pointed out by several of us, we disagree that the cops violated anyone's rights. As none of us are aware of all the details and legalities that might apply, it looks like we will continue to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. So, yes, I believe these people are assholes.