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

[Dave In Canada]

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 am not talking about civil rights. I am talking about hypocrites who on one hand videotape the police in their neighborhood but who would never think of videotaping the people selling drugs down at the corner.

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.

I am not going to get into a debate about the war on drugs because I agree that it is being done wrong. However my point still stands that the people who are videotaping the police are hypocrites and cowards.

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

I have nothing wrong against people who want to stand up for their rights, nor was I talking about this case in general. My comments were based on recording (videotaping) the police. There is no doubt that cops go beyond the letter of the law, however I find it amusing how some people including community leaders put up a big stink about police brutality, racism and civil liberties and yet sit on their fucking hands when it comes to the day to day crap that happens on the streets.

[BlackSheep]

I am not talking about civil rights. I am talking about hypocrites who on one hand videotape the police in their neighborhood but who would never think of videotaping the people selling drugs down at the corner.

You said "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." in the context of a debate about people video recording an officer who they felt was violating their rights.

You have no idea what they may or may not videotape otherwise.

I am not going to get into a debate about the war on drugs because I agree that it is being done wrong. However my point still stands that the people who are videotaping the police are hypocrites and cowards.

That is an incredible generalization, that is not worthy of you. I would have taped them if I was in their shoes.

I have nothing wrong against people who want to stand up for their rights, nor was I talking about this case in general. My comments were based on recording (videotaping) the police. There is no doubt that cops go beyond the letter of the law, however I find it amusing how some people including community leaders put up a big stink about police brutality, racism and civil liberties and yet sit on their fucking hands when it comes to the day to day crap that happens on the streets.

I see, then i suggest your post was misplaced and not very clear.

I have to admit I would be far less inclined to video criminals than the police because I don't want to die. That being said I would be willing to take the same risk in any case where I felt there was an injustice.

I have fought and will again I am sure for people and reached out to help people many would not and to a degree I have been raked over the coals for it and I don't regret it for an instant.

[Dieval]

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

As I stated earlier, there are clear and orange tipped guns, HOWEVER, there are a LOT that do not have orange tips and are exact replicas...since the video doesn't clearly show the weapons (although we can see they're not clear and most likely don't have an orange tip) it's safe to think that these fall in to the exact replica category, meaning the officer had no way of knowing they're not real weapons without a close up inspection.

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.

He said he needed to check the weapons because there was a complaint about them being real. Where's the problem?

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.

"same claim" as what? I'm going by what was said and what he did. He walked up and started looking at the weapons to verify if they're real and the home owners through a tantrum (yes, I stand by that definition).

You are simply avoiding the hypothetical question.

"do you think these rights should not exist?"?
Of course I believe in these rights, but there are limits and selling real weapons at a garage sale is a crime - and until exact replicas have been shown to be nothing more than replica's, then no rights were violated.

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.

Words can have multiple meanings and the part I posted suits my needs just fine. It's also quite clear. Do you not understand what "ill tempered" means? Maybe you should look that up.

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.

A car, containing individuals that are completely obscured from their vision, is COMPLETELY different than approaching this open area where the garage sale is taking place.

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.

I'm saying we can't see what he did. You made it sound like he should have had his weapon drawn when approaching, to secure the situation.

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.

Your WHOLE STATEMENT is nothing but a guess. It's blatantly obvious.
#1 - already proven to be untrue. I believe Truth posted a picture showing airsofts are exact replicas of real weapons.
#2 - He stated that he had a report they were selling real weapons and he needed to check - not exactly droning on and on about a complaint. Maybe he could have stated it better, but it was enough to get his point across.
#3 - So, somehow you managed to see his approach to the situation, even though it wasn't in the video? (or are you just guessing here?)
#4 - COMPLETE SPECULATION (i.e. you're guessing)

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

Yes, a couple of seconds...not much time at all.

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.

So, you point out that they did threaten to file complaints, but you also say there were no "threats".....which is it? can't have it both ways.

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.

I made the point that they made it sound as if he had walked right into their house and began rummaging through closets, when all he did was walk up to their garage sale and take a look at what they were selling - already out for the public to see. Completely different circumstances.

So it comes down to: Selling firearms at a garage sale is a crime and you stated that "Of course they do" (have the right to investigate crimes). So where's the real argument?

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.

As I stated, earlier in this thread, Truth posted a picture of an airsoft that was an exact replica of a real weapon. What more do you need to see?

[NoJingoLingo]

By the time the camera steadies somewhat (0.44) the officer is at the table examining the "guns" and is told "get away from that stuff", the officer responds by saying "step back ok, somebody called and said you were selling real guns". By 0.54 he has been told he is on private property. He continues to examine the "guns" instead of complying with the citizens request and even, wrongly, says he has the right to check them and doesn't move to the sidewalk until 1.40. Basically he ignores the citizens and does what he wants in clear violation of their rights. We already know he does NOT have the right to search private property based on a call from someone but he is so used to violating peoples rights without a second thought that he thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants. Game over.

[Dieval]

By the time the camera steadies somewhat (0.44) the officer is at the table examining the "guns" and is told "get away from that stuff", the officer responds by saying "step back ok, somebody called and said you were selling real guns". By 0.54 he has been told he is on private property. He continues to examine the "guns" instead of complying with the citizens request and even, wrongly, says he has the right to check them and doesn't move to the sidewalk until 1.40. Basically he ignores the citizens and does what he wants in clear violation of their rights. We already know he does NOT have the right to search private property based on a call from someone but he is so used to violating peoples rights without a second thought that he thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants. Game over.

Selling firearms at a garage sale is a crime. He has the right to investigate potential crimes, even on private property.

[NoJingoLingo]

Selling firearms at a garage sale is a crime. He has the right to investigate potential crimes, even on private property.

a "tip" isn't evidence of a crime and he was asked to leave the property and does not comply.

[Dieval]

a "tip" isn't evidence of a crime and he was asked to leave the property and does not comply.

I agree. A tip is not evidence of a crime, however, seeing weapons displayed in public view, FOR SALE, is probable cause to investigate further.

[Zeebadee]

We already know he does NOT have the right to search private property based on a call from someone ...

Lol, keep repeating this, maybe it will come true eventually.

....but he is so used to violating peoples rights without a second thought that he thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants. Game over.

Once again you have impressed us all with your mind reading capabilities.

[NoJingoLingo]

Lol, keep repeating this, maybe it will come true eventually.



Once again you have impressed us all with your mind reading capabilities.

It's only being repeated because some of you can't or don't want to admit that there is a process to obtain a search warrant if there is sufficient evidence to perform a search of private property. Obviously, a tip is not sufficient and in cases like this the police don't usually get resistance from people asserting their rights so they do as they please for expediency. It's not mind reading, it's having been in a position of such authority in the military and observing police habits as a private citizen.

You will note that the officer and his backup do comply, since they recognize the citizens rights but only after the officer ignored those rights and requests and completed what he wanted to do.

[Zeebadee]

It's only being repeated because some of you can't or don't want to admit that there is a process to obtain a search warrant if there is sufficient evidence to perform a search of private property. Obviously, a tip is not sufficient and in cases like this the police don't usually get resistance from people asserting their rights so they do as they please for expediency. It's not mind reading, it's having been in a position of such authority in the military and observing police habits as a private citizen.

The tip only got the cops to the property, once at the garage sale, it was the weapons in plain sight that allowed them to check the guns out. Perfectly legal under the exigent circumstances exception.

"Exigent circumstances can justify a warrantless entry of a home to make a felony arrest or to conduct a search related to a serious offense under the following circumstances:

(1) hot pursuit of a fleeing felon;

(2) imminent destruction of evidence;

(3) the need to prevent a felon's escape; or

(4) risk of harm to the police or others."

Criminal Procedure Capsule Summary - Chapter 3

Item (4) clearly applies if the cops thought the guns were possibly real.

You will note that the officer and his backup do comply, since they recognize the citizens rights but only after the officer ignored those rights and requests and completed what he wanted to do.

Of course they comply, after assuring that the guns were not real. The exigency then no longer applies.

[BlackSheep]

As I stated earlier, there are clear and orange tipped guns, HOWEVER, there are a LOT that do not have orange tips and are exact replicas...since the video doesn't clearly show the weapons (although we can see they're not clear and most likely don't have an orange tip) it's safe to think that these fall in to the exact replica category, meaning the officer had no way of knowing they're not real weapons without a close up inspection.

They are not talking about the clear and orange tipped ones.

He said he needed to check the weapons because there was a complaint about them being real. Where's the problem?

This was initiated with "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."

Can you point out the part where he said they looked real?

"same claim" as what? I'm going by what was said and what he did. He walked up and started looking at the weapons to verify if they're real and the home owners through a tantrum (yes, I stand by that definition).

My statement about you again making the same claim was in response to "All you've done is guess at what the officer might have known. That's not "evidence"." It is pretty clear the claim you make is that I am guessing at what the officer might have known, even though I have explained many times I have not and asked you to support it.

"do you think these rights should not exist?"?
Of course I believe in these rights, but there are limits and selling real weapons at a garage sale is a crime - and until exact replicas have been shown to be nothing more than replica's, then no rights were violated.

That is good to know. So you don't have an issue with people standing up for their rights as long as they are their rights and the moment, in your definition, they cross that nebulous line they are throwing a 'tantrum'?

Words can have multiple meanings and the part I posted suits my needs just fine. It's also quite clear. Do you not understand what "ill tempered" means? Maybe you should look that up.

I tried it is unclear. You selected that definition, it is your argument, it is yours to clarify, but I suspect you would rather it be fuzzy.

A car, containing individuals that are completely obscured from their vision, is COMPLETELY different than approaching this open area where the garage sale is taking place.

Yes, because they might be armed. For them to have the probable cause to search private property they must believe the weapons are real and therefor they exist. There are also people in the house that could be armed as well.

I'm saying we can't see what he did. You made it sound like he should have had his weapon drawn when approaching, to secure the situation.

I don't make it sound that way. I said that if he believed the weapons are real he should have taken some actions along those lines, which he clearly did not.

Your WHOLE STATEMENT is nothing but a guess. It's blatantly obvious.

Not at all. Not one of my pieces of evidence are a guess, nor do you show in your arguments below that I did.

#1 - already proven to be untrue. I believe Truth posted a picture showing airsofts are exact replicas of real weapons.

Showing a photo of a an airsoft weapon that looks basically like a gun doesn't prove anything. We have no idea what types of airsoft weapons were there. I can post images of weapons that look like real swords in a photo, but in real life are easily discernible to someone who has knowledge of swords. You still didn't address the pages devoted to taking non-clear, non-orange tiped airsoft weapons and making them look realistic.

#2 - He stated that he had a report they were selling real weapons and he needed to check - not exactly droning on and on about a complaint. Maybe he could have stated it better, but it was enough to get his point across.

I said he never said they looked like real weapons.

#3 - So, somehow you managed to see his approach to the situation, even though it wasn't in the video? (or are you just guessing here?)

As said he obviously did not approach the situation authoritatively with backup or hand on weapon until he got close and then switch to casually and calmly looking through there wares or are you suggesting that is plausible?

#4 - COMPLETE SPECULATION (i.e. you're guessing)

There s zero speculation in point 4. It is a statement of logic. The first points support that the officer was not concerned, based on his behavior, that their was danger. That is not a guess it is evidence. That is how evidence works in a court. Facts support states of mind or probabilities.

Yes, a couple of seconds...not much time at all.

because he didn't take time. He could have taken as much as he liked, but he didn't. The fact that it took only a few seconds further demonstrates he was not worried about his safety and supports the idea he didn't believe the weapons were real.

So, you point out that they did threaten to file complaints, but you also say there were no "threats".....which is it? can't have it both ways.

Not at all. After it was all said and done they said they were going to put in a complaint. How is that a threat? A threat is if you do X (or don't do X) I will do Y. There was none of that whatsoever.

I made the point that they made it sound as if he had walked right into their house and began rummaging through closets, when all he did was walk up to their garage sale and take a look at what they were selling - already out for the public to see. Completely different circumstances.

Which again "You were making a point that somehow private property that is outside is not the same as private property that is inside." The fact that they have let others look at it does not give an invitation to the police to violate private property. Now if the police examined is from the sidewalk that is certainly fair game as it is in the open.

So it comes down to: Selling firearms at a garage sale is a crime and you stated that "Of course they do" (have the right to investigate crimes). So where's the real argument?

An investigation does not mean they get to invade private property. If your neighbour claimed you had a stash of drugs in your house that is not suffiecent evidence for them to get a warrant or give them probable cause to enter. They can still investigate if they wish, but that avenue is not available to them, unless they ask and you say yes.

As I stated, earlier in this thread, Truth posted a picture of an airsoft that was an exact replica of a real weapon. What more do you need to see?

I already spoke to that earlier as well.

[BlackSheep]

Selling firearms at a garage sale is a crime. He has the right to investigate potential crimes, even on private property.

Does not work that way. To enter private property the evidence must exist that would make a reasonable person believe a crime has been committed. That is a civil right.