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

[BlackSheep]

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.

Based on what? You gave a bunch of definitions and we already had some and then simply stated. "The police were well within their rights. They did have probable cause."

Not a convincing argument.

[BlackSheep]

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.

And yet not one of you has dealt with my arguments. I have never claimed to know what the officer things, I simply presented evidence as to the officers actions and how they suggest his thoughts and how he never even claimed that they look like real guns. Pleasetacle the arguments instead of telling me I can't read minds which is a straw man.

What I call rights are rights. If not please show me where I am wrong.

[Zeebadee]

And yet not one of you has dealt with my arguments. I have never claimed to know what the officer things, I simply presented evidence as to the officers actions and how they suggest his thoughts and how he never even claimed that they look like real guns. Pleasetacle the arguments instead of telling me I can't read minds which is a straw man.

What I call rights are rights. If not please show me where I am wrong.

But we have dealt with your arguments! As I have said before, your "evidence" is nothing more than conjecture and opinion. Face up to it, you have no idea what the on site cops thought or believed, you weren't there, you can't possibly know.

Let's look at it from a different angle. If the cops already knew the guns were fakes, then why were they there? Is it your contention that they just picked out a garage sale and decided to harass innocent sellers?? Did the cops get together and conspire to violate citizen rights for no reason? What would be their motivation?

[BlackSheep]

But we have dealt with your arguments! As I have said before, your "evidence" is nothing more than conjecture and opinion. Face up to it, you have no idea what the on site cops thought or believed, you weren't there, you can't possibly know.

As far as I can tel the word conjecture has never been used in this debate before now and you have not dealt with the evidence. The evidence speaks to the state of mind of the officer which is key. The fact that the officer never even says the weapons look real and he needs to check them would certainly he was not using the argument that you guys are using for probable cause.

Let's look at it from a different angle. If the cops already knew the guns were fakes, then why were they there? Is it your contention that they just picked out a garage sale and decided to harass innocent sellers?? Did the cops get together and conspire to violate citizen rights for no reason? What would be their motivation?

Not at all. He was ordered to check it out and so he did and when he was questioned he became defensive.

Cops rarely conspire to do any such thing, but their procedures are often not designed to respect them either.

[truthreality]

Based on what?

There are four sources of probable cause: observation, expertise, information and circumstantial evidence. Under the category of observation is suspicious behavior. The police received information from witnesses that people were selling guns. Probable cause does not require absolute certainty and can exist with doubt. Probable cause gives a Police Officer the right to conduct a personal or property search.

You gave a bunch of definitions and we already had some and then simply stated. "The police were well within their rights. They did have probable cause."

I thought you would be able to put two and two together. I guess not.

Not a convincing argument.

Neither is mind reading.

[Zeebadee]

As far as I can tel the word conjecture has never been used in this debate before now and you have not dealt with the evidence.

And you continue to deny that what you call "evidence" is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

[BlackSheep]

There are four sources of probable cause: observation, expertise, information and circumstantial evidence. Under the category of observation is suspicious behavior. The police received information from witnesses that people were selling guns. Probable cause does not require absolute certainty and can exist with doubt. Probable cause gives a Police Officer the right to conduct a personal or property search.

The behavior was not suspicious at all. It was simply that some items my have been inappropriate for them to sell.
Based on the video, we have a tip not a witness. We can't confirm anything they said.
It is clear from all definitions there doesn't need to be certainty nor did I suggest there needed to be. The evidence given, especially when considering the officers behavior and words do not indicate that a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime.

I thought you would be able to put two and two together. I guess not.

There was nothing to put together. We have already had definitions an we already know your opinion.

Neither is mind reading.

Neither what is mind reading?

[Zeebadee]

The behavior was not suspicious at all. It was simply that some items my have been inappropriate for them to sell.

And you find nothing worth investigating here? Nothing suspicious? Inappropriate, possibly illegal, deadly items for sale? The cops should just forget about it?

[BlackSheep]

And you continue to deny that what you call "evidence" is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

In this debate the police would need to demonstrate they had "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." You are debating that side. At best you have argued that there is some concern they are committing a crime and I agree there is some concern, but that is not enough for the police to intrude into private property without permission.

It is not conjecture that the police were not using any significant caution nor is it conjecture that when asked to leave he only called upon a complain as his probable cause. That makes them both evidence. Neither is powerful evidence, but it is evidence that makes one wonder if there was any belief at all rather than simply a concern.

[BlackSheep]

And you find nothing worth investigating here? Nothing suspicious? Inappropriate, possibly illegal, deadly items for sale? The cops should just forget about it?

There are suspicious things, just not the behavior. They were selling things. It is not the behavior in question but the objects.

They can investigate, they just can't violate the private property unless they have more.

[Dieval]

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

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..

[Zeebadee]

In this debate the police would need to demonstrate they had "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."

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.