Cop/Activist Encounter

richardlpalmer · 08-24-2012, 10:58 AM

Good cop embarrasses douchebag activists : theCHIVE

That cop was awesome! I dig what the cameraman was talking about, but he was misguided with the concept of reasonable suspicion. Obviously the original call from the civilian was where the alarm came from, but still...

This cop is a pimp!

BTW, is there a way I can get issued a fully auto weapon by joining the reserves? ;)

Brianaintright · 08-24-2012, 07:24 PM

No.....probably not.

chameleon · 08-24-2012, 09:25 PM

Open Carry Idiot Kids Bait Cops - XDTalk Forums - Your XD/XD(m) Information Source!
my posts are at the bottom and very pertinent here lol.

Brianaintright · 08-24-2012, 11:33 PM

I don't doubt he's done a lot of reading, but he's definately not up on his case law. Cop had every right to verify the weapon was not full auto, as, based on his training and experience, he's familiar with MP5's. As those are illegal, unless held in accordance with federal law, he is more than within the scope of his authority to verify the status of the weapon and if it had been full auto, it's documents.

There was no reason to ID the guy. Case law actually prohibits demanding ID on a terry stop, so the officer again demonstrates he knows his shit.

Cops have to be careful about how they apply certain laws. If a statute gets abused, the courts will hand down some very stern case law that restricts police further. With weapons however, the reverse is true because it's a hot button issue and the danger to the public is perceived to be greater. In the case of firearms and open carry, it's the activist that has to be careful. exercise your rights but don't be a douche about it. All it takes is one asshole taking a weak civil rights case to the supreme court and a non favorable ruling being issued. I doubt you'd lose the right to carry but you may end up having to "show your papers" a lot more often or present the weapon for "inspection" when demanded. Courts have already started leaning that way and if you hand them the ammunition, they'll unload on you.

richardlpalmer · 08-25-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianaintright

No.....probably not.

Why you gotta take this from me, man?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianaintright

I don't doubt he's done a lot of reading, but he's definately not up on his case law. Cop had every right to verify the weapon was not full auto, as, based on his training and experience, he's familiar with MP5's. As those are illegal, unless held in accordance with federal law, he is more than within the scope of his authority to verify the status of the weapon and if it had been full auto, it's documents.

There was no reason to ID the guy. Case law actually prohibits demanding ID on a terry stop, so the officer again demonstrates he knows his shit.

Cops have to be careful about how they apply certain laws. If a statute gets abused, the courts will hand down some very stern case law that restricts police further. With weapons however, the reverse is true because it's a hot button issue and the danger to the public is perceived to be greater. In the case of firearms and open carry, it's the activist that has to be careful. exercise your rights but don't be a douche about it. All it takes is one asshole taking a weak civil rights case to the supreme court and a non favorable ruling being issued. I doubt you'd lose the right to carry but you may end up having to "show your papers" a lot more often or present the weapon for "inspection" when demanded. Courts have already started leaning that way and if you hand them the ammunition, they'll unload on you.

Curious, if it's legal to own a fully automatic weapon if you hold the right papers, shouldn't the cop have asked for that first? I still think he handled it perfectly, regardless. But I'm just wondering -- even with reasonable suspicion that the weapon was full auto, why would he assume it was illegally being carried?

From my non-LEO perspective I'd think that way. Especially if the guy was young like that. I'd assume there's no way he had the right licensing. Must be what the cop thought, too.

If it was an older guy do you think he would make the same assumption?

Brianaintright · 08-25-2012, 10:13 AM

Richard,

When you think about the lowest level of intrusiveness, you have to think like the court. Is it a lower level to inspect the weapon or demand to see the paperwork? He may suspect the weapon is full auto but until he knows he cannot demand documents to prove legal ownership.

Generally, courts feel that personal information is to be protected. During a Terry stop (based on case law from Terry v. Ohio) we can detain someone if we have reasonable suspicion a crime is afoot. (love that word, "afoot", fucking courts!) we can even pat the person down for weapons and hold those weapons during the contact until we determine an actual crime has been committed or the person is acting in a legal manner. We cannot Demand ID however unless we have probable cause for arrest.

So the cop sees the gun and thinks it could be a machine gun, a crime under Oregon law unless it is properly registered, making this a Terry stop. Before he can go straight to "Show me your papers!" he has to determine a crime has been committed so he checks the gun first. No machine gun = no crime so no documents needed.

Hope that is clear?

richardlpalmer · 08-25-2012, 10:38 PM

Clear as a bell. Gracias!

sunofnun · 08-26-2012, 12:07 AM

sweet video... great job by the officer. I'm glad to see this one.

richardlpalmer · 08-26-2012, 02:58 PM

Brian, I had no idea you couldn't just ask for papers in that situation. I saw it backwards from what you explained. I figured you'd ask for papers first -- then if things didn't check out, you'd go from there.

08-24-2012, 10:58 AM	#1
richardlpalmer Sniper Joined: Jan 2009 From: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,101	Cop/Activist Encounter Good cop embarrasses douchebag activists : theCHIVE That cop was awesome! I dig what the cameraman was talking about, but he was misguided with the concept of reasonable suspicion. Obviously the original call from the civilian was where the alarm came from, but still... This cop is a pimp! BTW, is there a way I can get issued a fully auto weapon by joining the reserves? ;)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-24-2012, 07:24 PM	#2
Brianaintright Marksman Joined: Nov 2009 From: WA Posts: 384	No.....probably not.

08-24-2012, 09:25 PM	#3
chameleon Marksman Joined: Jan 2010 From: Bend, Or. Posts: 454	Open Carry Idiot Kids Bait Cops - XDTalk Forums - Your XD/XD(m) Information Source! my posts are at the bottom and very pertinent here lol.

08-24-2012, 11:33 PM	#4
Brianaintright Marksman Joined: Nov 2009 From: WA Posts: 384	I don't doubt he's done a lot of reading, but he's definately not up on his case law. Cop had every right to verify the weapon was not full auto, as, based on his training and experience, he's familiar with MP5's. As those are illegal, unless held in accordance with federal law, he is more than within the scope of his authority to verify the status of the weapon and if it had been full auto, it's documents. There was no reason to ID the guy. Case law actually prohibits demanding ID on a terry stop, so the officer again demonstrates he knows his shit. Cops have to be careful about how they apply certain laws. If a statute gets abused, the courts will hand down some very stern case law that restricts police further. With weapons however, the reverse is true because it's a hot button issue and the danger to the public is perceived to be greater. In the case of firearms and open carry, it's the activist that has to be careful. exercise your rights but don't be a douche about it. All it takes is one asshole taking a weak civil rights case to the supreme court and a non favorable ruling being issued. I doubt you'd lose the right to carry but you may end up having to "show your papers" a lot more often or present the weapon for "inspection" when demanded. Courts have already started leaning that way and if you hand them the ammunition, they'll unload on you.

08-25-2012, 10:13 AM	#6
Brianaintright Marksman Joined: Nov 2009 From: WA Posts: 384	Richard, When you think about the lowest level of intrusiveness, you have to think like the court. Is it a lower level to inspect the weapon or demand to see the paperwork? He may suspect the weapon is full auto but until he knows he cannot demand documents to prove legal ownership. Generally, courts feel that personal information is to be protected. During a Terry stop (based on case law from Terry v. Ohio) we can detain someone if we have reasonable suspicion a crime is afoot. (love that word, "afoot", fucking courts!) we can even pat the person down for weapons and hold those weapons during the contact until we determine an actual crime has been committed or the person is acting in a legal manner. We cannot Demand ID however unless we have probable cause for arrest. So the cop sees the gun and thinks it could be a machine gun, a crime under Oregon law unless it is properly registered, making this a Terry stop. Before he can go straight to "Show me your papers!" he has to determine a crime has been committed so he checks the gun first. No machine gun = no crime so no documents needed. Hope that is clear?

08-25-2012, 10:38 PM	#7
richardlpalmer Sniper Joined: Jan 2009 From: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,101	Clear as a bell. Gracias!

08-26-2012, 12:07 AM	#8
sunofnun Moderator Joined: Jan 2009 From: s. greenlake bitch Posts: 1,251	sweet video... great job by the officer. I'm glad to see this one.

08-26-2012, 02:58 PM	#9
richardlpalmer Sniper Joined: Jan 2009 From: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,101	Brian, I had no idea you couldn't just ask for papers in that situation. I saw it backwards from what you explained. I figured you'd ask for papers first -- then if things didn't check out, you'd go from there.