Welcome to the APBWeb.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35
Like Tree16Likes

Thread: Cop diffuses OC-bait attempt with his superior knowledge of Constitutional law

  1. #21
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    Using that logic, I could stop every female because she was equipped to be a prostitute. It looks the same.

    For all this guy's "training and experience" I was able to identify that weapon as a .22 from the video - but I'll let that one go and get to the meat of the matter.

    For the "compliance with Federal law" bullshit, how exactly would he establish that? Demand the man's tax documents?

    A legally possessed automatic weapon is no different than a legally possessed semi-automatic weapon, in particular in a State friendly to automatic weapons, as Oregon is.

    This cop, although smart, cool, and collected - was bullshitting his way through checking that gun.
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  2. #22
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfed1100 View Post
    You call us asshats and I get neg feed back?
    Where is a moderator?
    As lewis is a Super Moderator, I will step in as his fellow Super Moderator.

    Negative reputation is free. You can't whine to a moderator about it if you earn it. It generally takes a lot before anyone here uses it.

    If you choose to enter a law enforcement web board and say things like "LEO bait criminals daily" you can expect to be viewed with suspicion and derision.

    In particular because you've done so on a web board full of cops who support your right to be an asshat and carry your gun openly.

    Anything else you need from a moderator?
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  3. #23
    keith720's Avatar
    keith720 is offline Finely Aged
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    01-06-06
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,364
    Rep Power
    5488745
    I'm using the term "asshat" to refer to any group of people that purposely tries to bait law enforcement and put them in a bad light. I'm speaking solely for myself, but, if the "hat " fits, wear it! I would include any number of groups or people in the asshat catagory. It isn't exclusive.
    For the morning will come. Brightly will it shine on the brave and true, kindly upon all who suffer for the cause, glorious upon the tombs of heroes. Thus will shine the dawn.

    Winston Churchill

  4. #24
    Jenna's Avatar
    Jenna is offline sheep
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    06-11-06
    Posts
    24,369
    Rep Power
    4817856
    Quote Originally Posted by Motorwaycop View Post
    I have a right to drive sheep and livestock through the middle of our town
    That's what sheepdogs do....

  5. #25
    lewisipso's Avatar
    lewisipso is offline Injustice/Indifference/In God we trust
    Supporting Member Lvl 3
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    02-02-07
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    14,720
    Rep Power
    6936011
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfed1100 View Post
    You call us asshats and I get neg feed back?
    Where is a moderator?
    I didn't call you vulgar names.
    I'm sorry you don't like OC. I will defend it. I won't call people names for disagreeing.
    It's not my job to train departments on the law. I will protect myself via filming regardless of the name you give it. It is amazingly similar to your recording devices. The difference is I decide what's recorded.


    Do you give neg feedback to every respectful disagreement?
    In my history of being associated with this site I have never issued negative rep. I stand beside what I said that you earned it. A reply PM has been sent to you. If you desire, for the continuation of this conversation, I will gladly post what I said here but only if you care for me to. Hence the "private" of private messaging.
    Do not war for peace. If you must war, war for justice. For without justice there is no peace. -me

    We are who we choose to be.

    R.I.P. Arielle. 08/20/2010-09/16/2012


  6. #26
    Five-0's Avatar
    Five-0 is offline Super Moderator
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    05-15-06
    Posts
    10,982
    Rep Power
    8357018
    Ass hats are very close relatives of assholes. One can takes his hat off if he wants. Assholes just get on everyone's nerves.

    Meanwhile, fishing in Russia:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat

    "Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

    The opinions given in my signatures & threads DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "Five-0" on Officerresource.com

  7. #27
    Captain America's Avatar
    Captain America is offline Reed and Malloy were my FTOs
    Supporting Member Lvl 1
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    05-01-08
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    6608676
    Quote Originally Posted by Motorwaycop View Post
    By the way.
    We have no intention to invade your shores by force. My recon' missions to Washington and New York have revealed that you still do not have the ability to make a proper cup of tea.
    Therefore the need to form a militia will not be required. You may all put away your guns.
    Well thank God for that.
    SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM

    "It's a great life. You risk your skin catching killers and the juries turn them loose so they can come back and shoot at you again. If your honest , your poor your whole life. And , In the end , you wind up dying all alone on some dirty street. For what? For nothing. For a tin star."
    -Ex-Sheriff Martin Howe to Will Kane in "High Noon"

    Far from being a handicap to command, compassion is the measure of it. For unless one values the lives of his soldiers and is tormented by their ordeals , he is unfit to command.
    -General Omar Bradley, United States Army

    Renniger-Richards-Griswold-Owens

  8. #28
    121Traffic's Avatar
    121Traffic is offline Just Us
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    01-09-06
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,547
    Rep Power
    6332992
    Quote Originally Posted by MacLean View Post
    Using that logic, I could stop every female because she was equipped to be a prostitute. It looks the same.
    I don't quite think that it's the same thing, just because every female has the equipment to be a prostitute. Now, if you're example was a female, wearing a short skirt and full-on makeup, loitering on a street corner and stopping to talk to passing motorists, then I would agree. That female is intentionally acting a certain way that makes her look like a prosty, just like guns like the GSG22 are trying to resemble their full-auto counterparts.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacLean
    For all this guy's "training and experience" I was able to identify that weapon as a .22 from the video - but I'll let that one go and get to the meat of the matter.
    I consider myself kind of a gun guy, and I don't think I would be able to distinguish it at a glance from inside my car. That's what I mean. There are some cops that wouldn't even be able to try, because they had no idea that a .22 semi-auto gun that looks like an MP5 exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacLean
    For the "compliance with Federal law" bullshit, how exactly would he establish that? Demand the man's tax documents?
    A legally possessed automatic weapon is no different than a legally possessed semi-automatic weapon, in particular in a State friendly to automatic weapons, as Oregon is.
    I looked up Oregon statute on this, and I found it very similar to Colorado's.
    Quote Originally Posted by ORS
    166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.
    (2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.
    (3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.
    (4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law.
    So, Oregon has a registration requirement in line with Federal law. Meaning, they have to have the documentation on them to avoid a charge. If they don't, they can still present the registration, but it's an affirmative defense to be brought up in court to have the charge dismissed. In order to avoid a warrantless arrest, the license must be produced and presented.

    The obvious example to argue here would be driving. Just because you need a license to drive doesn’t mean that I can arbitrarily stop you to check if you’re in compliance. This is true, but driving is not generally a crime that a license exempts you from, as is the case here. Semantics maybe, but still important. In this case, mere possession of a machine gun is a crime that a license makes you immune to prosecution from. That is an important distinction I think.

    Homicide can be legal in certain circumstances, yes? If I see someone shoot someone on the street, the shooter may have an affirmative defense that the shooting was self-defense and that he was in fear for his life, right? But shooting someone is generally a crime. Certain circumstances present an affirmative defense to prosecution, but that doesn't negate the RS/PC to stop and see why someone's shooting someone else. An extreme example, perhaps, but the principle of an affirmative defense is sound.

    A more applicable example would be marijuana here in Colorado. An amendment to the state constitution legalized it for medical patients. I can be inside a medical marijuana user’s home for tea and crumpets, or investigating a crime. It doesn’t matter, so long as I’m there lawfully. If I see marijuana, they are subject to arrest because it is a crime generally to merely possess it. If they present their certificate that identifies them as a medical user, then they’re good to go in my book, but some judicial districts around here say you can still charge and have them present an affirmative defense to the court. Here in my jurisdiction, if they don't have the certificate, then they are still charged with a crime, and they can bring their certificate into court as an affirmative defense. The affirmative defense doesn't negate the original PC to investigate and arrest.

    In short, it's a crime generally to possess a full-auto gun in Oregon. It's codified in state statute. The officer saw what he believed might be a full auto gun, because it's a gun that is designed to look like a full auto gun. That constitutes reasonable suspicion that a violation of statute was occurring. There's all kinds of reasons that reasonable suspicion does not bloom into PC, as is the case here that the law allows an exemption. Once he determined that the gun was not full auto, the guy was on his way. I see nothing wrong.
    "If anything worthwhile comes of this tragedy, it should be the realization by every citizen that often the only thing that stands between them and losing everything they hold dear... is the man wearing a badge." -- Ronald Reagan, in the wake of the deaths of 4 CHP troopers in the Newhall Incident, 1970

    The opinions given in my posts DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "121Traffic" on O/R.

  9. #29
    berserk is offline The reason they do psych evals
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    11-24-08
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    749
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    603396
    Quote Originally Posted by 121Traffic View Post
    RAS doesn't say that you should be able, through extensive training and experience, to determine whether someone's committing a crime or not. If a reasonable person would believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, then the suspicion is valid right? I would venture to guess that the majority of folks in America (reasonable folks, at that) wouldn't know the difference between a semi-auto and fully-auto variant of a gun that made its name in its full auto form, and would just assume that the gun is fully-auto. Hell, a lot of cops wouldn't either. So a defense attorney might be able to smear a firearms instructor in a suppression hearing, based on his admitted knowledge of firearms and their variants, whether semi- or full-auto. But I bet, however, that there are plenty of cops out there who aren't "gun" types who might truly believe that no such semi-auto version of the venerated MP5 exists.
    Okay, I'll concede for the moment that the suspicion is valid (although I'm not convinced that it is). If you see some guy walking around carrying something like that, with no other indication of criminal activity, then you should know what's going on. Whether it can be technically justifiable or not, is this someone who you really need to detain?

    If you want OC retards to go away, ignore them. When they don't get the rise they were hoping for, they'll go back to cooking up conspiracy theories in their mothers' basements. If it's someone who is legitimately carrying a weapon for protection rather than one of the morons who is just looking for a reaction then they won't go away. But that's okay with me.

    I think this cop would likely slide by if this went to court, because everything he said was extremely court-friendly. Although I don't agree with everything he did, it looked to me like he was being conscientious of people's rights as he understands them. And kudos to him for that, more of us should be that way. But unless there's more to this, he's still stopping someone just because this weapon *might* be prohibited. That's like stopping someone because their car *might* have a safety defect.
    121Traffic likes this.

  10. #30
    Rhino's Avatar
    Rhino is offline Meat-eater & Fire-breather
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    02-08-07
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,524
    Rep Power
    1750834
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfed1100 View Post
    I suspect they tape themselves due to negative previous encounters.
    Possibly. But it's also possible they were hoping the cop would ef up so they'd have something to either sue over or bitch about on Youtube.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfed1100 View Post
    As for the baiting, undercover LEO bait criminals daily.
    Explain to me how an undercover officer makes a drug dealer deal drugs. Use small words. Explain it to me as if I were a small child so I can understand your logic here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfed1100 View Post
    Do we call LEO names for baiting?
    No, most OC/anti-cops call LEOs names for a myriad of reasons, most of them unfounded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfed1100 View Post
    Filming keeps everyone honest. Video protects the innocent.
    It also helps prosecute the guilty. On this we can agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cornfed1100 View Post
    Nice job officer, you stopped two guys for no reason and made it look good for the camera. Saving the city a civil rights violation.
    Keep recording and stay safe.
    The officer explains very well in the video that he did have a valid reason. You can't say "Filming keeps everyone honest" in one breath and then imply the cop did something improper when he did not. Those were YOUR words, not mine. He didn't "make it look good", it was good. You're just pissed off the officer gave you nothing to bitch about. That's so infuriating when I see the video activists. You are far from impartial. If you see a cop do something bad on camera, it's evidence that there's corruption rampant in the system. If they do something good, then it's "staged" somehow.

    Society at large will probably give guys like you and your "movement" more credit if you gave credit were it was due.

    If the cop was wrong, it would be on film and the douchebags would have a case. But, as all too often with these types, they never take proper legal action from an impartial judge or jury. It's much easier to edit a tape to make cops look bad and show it.
    121Traffic and cwtlady like this.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." -Gen. George S. Patton

  11. #31
    121Traffic's Avatar
    121Traffic is offline Just Us
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    01-09-06
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,547
    Rep Power
    6332992
    Quote Originally Posted by berserk View Post
    Okay, I'll concede for the moment that the suspicion is valid (although I'm not convinced that it is). If you see some guy walking around carrying something like that, with no other indication of criminal activity, then you should know what's going on. Whether it can be technically justifiable or not, is this someone who you really need to detain?

    If you want OC retards to go away, ignore them. When they don't get the rise they were hoping for, they'll go back to cooking up conspiracy theories in their mothers' basements. If it's someone who is legitimately carrying a weapon for protection rather than one of the morons who is just looking for a reaction then they won't go away. But that's okay with me.

    I think this cop would likely slide by if this went to court, because everything he said was extremely court-friendly. Although I don't agree with everything he did, it looked to me like he was being conscientious of people's rights as he understands them. And kudos to him for that, more of us should be that way. But unless there's more to this, he's still stopping someone just because this weapon *might* be prohibited. That's like stopping someone because their car *might* have a safety defect.
    I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm not debating his tactics or the necessariness of his contact so much as the legality of it. Maybe he didn't want to really hassle the guy, seeing it for what it was, but maybe his department require the contact be made, maybe it was to calm a citizen's nerves, etc.
    "If anything worthwhile comes of this tragedy, it should be the realization by every citizen that often the only thing that stands between them and losing everything they hold dear... is the man wearing a badge." -- Ronald Reagan, in the wake of the deaths of 4 CHP troopers in the Newhall Incident, 1970

    The opinions given in my posts DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "121Traffic" on O/R.

  12. #32
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    What "documentation" would you have someone provide, under your State statute or Oregon?

    You are aware it is a warrantless search to compel someone to display tax documents, right?
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  13. #33
    121Traffic's Avatar
    121Traffic is offline Just Us
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    01-09-06
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,547
    Rep Power
    6332992
    Quote Originally Posted by MacLean View Post
    What "documentation" would you have someone provide, under your State statute or Oregon?

    You are aware it is a warrantless search to compel someone to display tax documents, right?
    I would assume that a copy of the tax stamp would suffice, as it is the only documentation as to "registration" that the Fed provides.

    As far as compelling presentation of tax documents being a warrantless search, wouldn't that be true of any documentation? Or is that true specifically of tax documents.

    In either case, I would argue I'm not compelling anyone to do anything. The law gives full-auto owners a method through which they can avoid prosecution by presenting their documentation showing the firearm is federally legal. The law does not require that the person have the documentation with them, or make it illegal to have the weapon without the documentation present. It doesn't say that not having the documentation is prima facie evidence of your guilt. It only says that they can avoid a charge if they have it on them. There is no requirement to present it to a peace officer upon demand, nor does it make it a seperate crime to NOT produce it upon demand of a LEO. Conversely, there is no language in there that would require a peace officer to ask for it.

    If I was a LEO, and found you in possession of an automatic weapon, I would have PC for arrest, with no further investigation needed really from a technical standpoint. It would be your choice, as the owner, whether you would want to show me your tax stamp, or even tell me that one exists. Without that, you could still present it to the courts.
    "If anything worthwhile comes of this tragedy, it should be the realization by every citizen that often the only thing that stands between them and losing everything they hold dear... is the man wearing a badge." -- Ronald Reagan, in the wake of the deaths of 4 CHP troopers in the Newhall Incident, 1970

    The opinions given in my posts DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "121Traffic" on O/R.

  14. #34
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    I see our difference here as fundamental.

    Unless you were to see brass flying from the ejection port or hear the cadence of automatic weapons fire, the mere presence of the weapon that looks like an automatic weapon is not reasonable suspicion to make the stop and seize an individual. I suppose you could make the argument that if you were standing close enough to see the giggle switch you would be getting there.

    The shear amount of weaponry that could resemble an automatic weapon takes us right back to the "equipped to be a prostitute" argument. If a female, wearing a short skirt and full-on makeup, loitering on a street corner and stopping to talk to passing motorists constitutes an offer and agreement then I'll eat mah hat.

    This officer, while bright and well spoken, did not do anything other than creatively bullshit the person he was talking to. Do I feel sorry for the assclown who was looking for the confrontation? Nope. I feel sorry that an officer feels he has to resort to stooping to their level to prove he can win.
    121Traffic likes this.
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  15. #35
    121Traffic's Avatar
    121Traffic is offline Just Us
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    01-09-06
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,547
    Rep Power
    6332992
    Quote Originally Posted by MacLean View Post
    I see our difference here as fundamental.

    Unless you were to see brass flying from the ejection port or hear the cadence of automatic weapons fire, the mere presence of the weapon that looks like an automatic weapon is not reasonable suspicion to make the stop and seize an individual. I suppose you could make the argument that if you were standing close enough to see the giggle switch you would be getting there.
    I guess that's where we disagree. I would argue that if I saw an automatic weapon in operation, including hearing the cadence and watching the brass, that would constitute PC to arrest someone for having a machine gun. There is a middle ground, and that middle ground is RS. We all agree that we only need RS for the contact. I think that having a gun that is designed, manufactured, and intended to resemble a gun that is a full-auto subgun gives an LEO a reasonable belief that the gun might in fact be a full-auto subgun. We differ there, and that's okay.

    The shear amount of weaponry that could resemble an automatic weapon takes us right back to the "equipped to be a prostitute" argument. If a female, wearing a short skirt and full-on makeup, loitering on a street corner and stopping to talk to passing motorists constitutes an offer and agreement then I'll eat mah hat.
    Yep, there's a lot of it out there, mostly in the AR variants. But we're not talking about AR variants here which are a dime a dozen in any sporting good store nowadays. "Reasonableness" evolves. 30 years ago, any cop seeing an AR would have thought "M16" and would have assumed it was the rock and roll variant. Now, I might hardly bat my eyes harder than I would for any other firearm. The GSG22 is exponentially less common, and are much more "niche". It only goes to prove my point IMO. An AR firearm is still a viable platform, even in its semi auto form, for many things. The GSG isn't really viable for anything useful...it doesn't do well as a .22LR hunting platform, and it definitely isn't for man-stopping. People buy it to plink with because it looks cool because it looks like an MP5.

    A different example. Ever see those combs that look just like a switch blade? They look just like a closed switchblade, with a knife handle, a hilt, and the button to have the comb "blade" flick out? Switchblades are illegal in most places. What if you saw someone walking down the street, flicking the comb out, putting it back in, flicking it out, etc. Not menacing anyone, but just walking around doing that. Would you stop them to make sure they weren't committing the crime of possessing a switchblade? What if you were on a contact, and saw it clipped in their pocket? Wouldn't you have cause to do a terry-frisk and remove it from their possession? The comb was designed to look like a switchblade.

    As for the prostitutes, standing on a street corner at 2am with full on makeup and your ass cheeks hanging out of a skirt, talking with passing motorists...it may not be the offer and agreement PC yet, but I think we can all agree that it might be worth stopping for an FI, and we'd be justified.
    "If anything worthwhile comes of this tragedy, it should be the realization by every citizen that often the only thing that stands between them and losing everything they hold dear... is the man wearing a badge." -- Ronald Reagan, in the wake of the deaths of 4 CHP troopers in the Newhall Incident, 1970

    The opinions given in my posts DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "121Traffic" on O/R.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •