Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 203

Thread: Video of OCer stopped by officer

  1. #1
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Video of OCer stopped by officer


  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    "I think it is a full auto. I need to do function check of it." derpy derp. "I THINK looks like a semi-auto now."

    They make a full auto Glock too. So now because there is a full auto version that is RAS for a stop and check? I don't think so!


    So how do you know if it is full auto short of pulling the trigger and laying down lead?
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 08-21-2012 at 08:16 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    "Just to let you know, I don't consent to any seizures."
    "I'm not seizing anything", as the officer removes the firearm from the individual without permission and without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-21-2012 at 08:29 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    "Due to my proffesional experience, I have determined that this is not an automatic firearm." (After racking the slide.)

    Wouldn't someone with such "professional experience" know that observing the presence of a select fire switch would suffice?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Probably one of the most polite violations of civil rights I have seen. However, like the guy said, the officer had no RAS or PC for the detainment. And I believe there is case law stating that an anonymous tip does not give an officer either of the aforementioned rights.

    Other than the violations, the officer was professional, did not threaten the individual, and the stop was minimal. This could have been avoided if the officer would have just inspected the weapon without touching it.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Wouldn't someone with such "professional experience" know that observing the presence of a select fire switch would suffice?
    Of course, because even DIY full auto has a prominent selector switch clearly marked as semi and full auto.

    If you do the proper research then you can find plans to turn any semi auto full auto. After that all you have to do is machine the parts. If I was going to carry around an illegal full auto, I would naturally make the full auto prominent somewhere on the firearm.

    Also, you can buy AR lowers with the three selections clearly marked as safe, semi, and full. That does not make it a machine gun or an assault rifle.

    In short, the only way to see if a firearm is in fact capable of full auto is to do a function check.

    Any gun person should know by now that esthetics changes nothing about the action of the firearm. A forward and rear pistol grip, a large detachable box, and a flash hinderer are all common on assault rifles, these to do not make something capable of full auto.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585

    Video of OCer stopped by officer

    Now what if during his function check the gun went off because he thought he knew the gun but didn't?

  8. #8
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Uber_Olafsun View Post
    Now what if during his function check the gun went off because he thought he knew the gun but didn't?
    That is always a possibility with a firearm. That is why you always point it in a safe direction. As long as no one was hurt, I don't feel that he would have been any different than the average citizen having an accidental discharge.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Probably one of the most polite violations of civil rights I have seen. However, like the guy said, the officer had no RAS or PC for the detainment. And I believe there is case law stating that an anonymous tip does not give an officer either of the aforementioned rights.
    The PO made it pretty clear he did have RAS and that the gentleman with the MP5 was being detained. Whether that was justifiable RAS would be a matter for a lawyer to interpret.

    Once the PO satisfied himself that the firearm was semi-automatic, he stated clearly he no longer had RAS, returned the firearm, and ended the encounter.

    I see no issues with this and no violation of civil rights. The RAS wasn't established because of an anonymous tip. RAS was established because the gentleman was carrying a firearm that appeared to be a fully automatic weapon at face value, which requires a tax stamp. The officer also implied that had the firearm been fully automatic, his next course of action would have been to ask for ID and the carrier's tax stamp.

    Again, I have no issue with this.

  10. #10
    Regular Member moonie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    High Point NC
    Posts
    253
    So what if the officer had said "I think this is stolen." Would that make a difference in your opinions? What about "I think you are a felon."

  11. #11
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    The PO made it pretty clear he did have RAS and that the gentleman with the MP5 was being detained. Whether that was justifiable RAS would be a matter for a lawyer to interpret.

    Once the PO satisfied himself that the firearm was semi-automatic, he stated clearly he no longer had RAS, returned the firearm, and ended the encounter.

    I see no issues with this and no violation of civil rights. The RAS wasn't established because of an anonymous tip. RAS was established because the gentleman was carrying a firearm that appeared to be a fully automatic weapon at face value, which requires a tax stamp. The officer also implied that had the firearm been fully automatic, his next course of action would have been to ask for ID and the carrier's tax stamp.

    Again, I have no issue with this.
    Your car appears to be a fast car, I need to check your DL and engine to make sure you don't have to much power.

    You might have said something illegal like you where going to threaten the prez, I need to record everything you say.

    You might be a thief I need to check all the items in your house to see if their stolen.

    You might be a felon I need to run your information to see if your wanted.

    A lot of what if's, the only thing that was certain is the only RAS was he wanted to harrass the person.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    The PO made it pretty clear he did have RAS and that the gentleman with the MP5 was being detained. Whether that was justifiable RAS would be a matter for a lawyer to interpret.

    Once the PO satisfied himself that the firearm was semi-automatic, he stated clearly he no longer had RAS, returned the firearm, and ended the encounter.

    I see no issues with this and no violation of civil rights. The RAS wasn't established because of an anonymous tip. RAS was established because the gentleman was carrying a firearm that appeared to be a fully automatic weapon at face value, which requires a tax stamp. The officer also implied that had the firearm been fully automatic, his next course of action would have been to ask for ID and the carrier's tax stamp.

    Again, I have no issue with this.
    I don't care who you are.....this was down right high-larry-ous!!!!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by moonie View Post
    So what if the officer had said "I think this is stolen." Would that make a difference in your opinions? What about "I think you are a felon."
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    Your car appears to be a fast car, I need to check your DL and engine to make sure you don't have to much power.

    You might have said something illegal like you where going to threaten the prez, I need to record everything you say.

    You might be a thief I need to check all the items in your house to see if their stolen.

    You might be a felon I need to run your information to see if your wanted.

    A lot of what if's, the only thing that was certain is the only RAS was he wanted to harrass the person.
    You people certainly love your straw man arguments, don't you?

    What you took away from the cop's attitude, demeanor, and the way he handled that entire encounter was that he wanted to harass someone? Really??

    Was it reasonable to suspect the firearm might be fully automatic based on its appearance?
    Was that suspicion articulable?

    Oh, I'm sorry. I forget that all police are the devil and are out to destroy us and take away our rights and piss on the Constitution, and as such, are always wrong.

    Huh. I guess I can see why straw man arguments are so fun!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    SNIP
    Was it reasonable to suspect the firearm might be fully automatic based on its appearance?
    Was that suspicion articulable?

    SNIP
    You missed the point people are trying to make. Perhaps if it's stated more clearly...

    A fully automatic firearm is NOT illegal at face value(in most states). Unless the officer had reason to believe it was an UNREGISTERED fully automatic weapon then he has NO RAS. Perhaps now you can see why people used the "stolen firearm" analogy, among others, to make a point.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 08-21-2012 at 12:29 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    You people certainly love your straw man arguments, don't you?

    What you took away from the cop's attitude, demeanor, and the way he handled that entire encounter was that he wanted to harass someone? Really??

    Was it reasonable to suspect the firearm might be fully automatic based on its appearance?
    Was that suspicion articulable?

    Oh, I'm sorry. I forget that all police are the devil and are out to destroy us and take away our rights and piss on the Constitution, and as such, are always wrong.

    Huh. I guess I can see why straw man arguments are so fun!
    I never said all cops are the devil, I worked with a lot of great cops and know a bunch.

    You can harass someone and be polite about it as this cop did.

    The main thing is he SHOULD NOT have even stopped him, he could have OBSERVED the guy.

    If the man was black is that a reason to stop someone? Just because of his appearance.

    One could argue anything looks like it might be a full auto just to stop someone but it doesn't make it right. But I guess you believe that anyone with a gun is guilty until proven innocent.

    Sorry but appearance doesn't give RAS.

  16. #16
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    You missed the point people are trying to make. Perhaps if it's stated more clearly...

    A fully automatic firearm is NOT illegal at face value(in most states). Unless the officer had reason to believe it was an UNREGISTERED fully automatic weapon then he has NO RAS. Perhaps now you can see why people used the "stolen firearm" analogy, among others, to make a point.
    And apparently you missed the part in the video where the cop states exactly that. He had reason to suspect it may be fully automatic and, if it was, would be asking for ID and a tax stamp as a result. Since he cannot ask for ID prior to establishing whether or not the firearm is full auto, he inspected the firearm first and then didn't pursue it further.

    The stolen property, car, and the rest of the nonsense analogies provided do not apply. A more appropriate analogy might be something like: There's an ordinance against the public consumption of alcohol. Someone walks out of the liquor store with a bottle of soda in brown paper bag and consumes it from the bag. Is there anything illegal about that? No. However, would a cop have RAS to inspect the content of the bag to verify the beverage did not contain alcohol? Most likely, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker
    I never said all cops are the devil, I worked with a lot of great cops and know a bunch.
    Yep, that's how straw man arguments work.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker
    You can harass someone and be polite about it as this cop did.

    The main thing is he SHOULD NOT have even stopped him, he could have OBSERVED the guy.
    Observed what? He observed that he was carrying an MP5 on his back and had reason to believe that it might be a fully automatic firearm. If it was, and the carrier didn't have the proper credentials, that's a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker
    If the man was black is that a reason to stop someone? Just because of his appearance.
    Never said that or implied it. Straw man again.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker
    One could argue anything looks like it might be a full auto just to stop someone but it doesn't make it right.
    I suppose one could. However, would one be reasonable to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker
    But I guess you believe that anyone with a gun is guilty until proven innocent.
    Not only straw man, but an egregious claim. Is there anything in my arguments thus far that seem troll-like to you? I'm an active member here because I own and carry guns. By your assertion, I consider myself guilty until proven innocent? C'mon.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker
    Sorry but appearance doesn't give RAS.
    I'm betting the courts would strongly disagree with you. I would say appearance is a primary factor in any RAS.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585

    Video of OCer stopped by officer

    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    And apparently you missed the part in the video where the cop states exactly that. He had reason to suspect it may be fully automatic and, if it was, would be asking for ID and a tax stamp as a result. Since he cannot ask for ID prior to establishing whether or not the firearm is full auto, he inspected the firearm first and then didn't pursue it further.

    .
    Even I it was full auto was was the RAS that the carrier does not have the tax stamp?

  18. #18
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Uber_Olafsun View Post
    Even I it was full auto was was the RAS that the carrier does not have the tax stamp?
    I don't know what the laws are in that state (not even sure what state it was, to be honest), but here in WI, I have to produce my ID and CCL permit to a cop if asked. So if my IWB PPD becomes exposed and a cop sees it, what is his RAS that I don't have my CCL?

  19. #19
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    And apparently you missed the part in the video where the cop states exactly that. He had reason to suspect it may be fully automatic and, if it was, would be asking for ID and a tax stamp as a result. Since he cannot ask for ID prior to establishing whether or not the firearm is full auto, he inspected the firearm first and then didn't pursue it further.

    The stolen property, car, and the rest of the nonsense analogies provided do not apply. A more appropriate analogy might be something like: There's an ordinance against the public consumption of alcohol. Someone walks out of the liquor store with a bottle of soda in brown paper bag and consumes it from the bag. Is there anything illegal about that? No. However, would a cop have RAS to inspect the content of the bag to verify the beverage did not contain alcohol? Most likely, yes.



    Yep, that's how straw man arguments work.



    Observed what? He observed that he was carrying an MP5 on his back and had reason to believe that it might be a fully automatic firearm. If it was, and the carrier didn't have the proper credentials, that's a crime.



    Never said that or implied it. Straw man again.



    I suppose one could. However, would one be reasonable to do so?



    Not only straw man, but an egregious claim. Is there anything in my arguments thus far that seem troll-like to you? I'm an active member here because I own and carry guns. By your assertion, I consider myself guilty until proven innocent? C'mon.



    I'm betting the courts would strongly disagree with you. I would say appearance is a primary factor in any RAS.
    So according to your argument a cop can stop anyone carrying a gun to see if it is stolen, they can stop any car to see if it is stolen, they can stop anyone for any reason.

    NOT A STAWMAN AS YOU SAY.

    Just because someone has a weapon that could be something doesn't give RAS. Your argument pretty much says a cop can stop anyone for any reason and make up a reason for the stop and be completly fine. I disagree just because something could be something doesn't mean it is.

    Everyone OCing could be a felon so they should be detained and checked with your logic.

  20. #20
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    You missed the point people are trying to make. Perhaps if it's stated more clearly...

    A fully automatic firearm is NOT illegal at face value(in most states). Unless the officer had reason to believe it was an UNREGISTERED fully automatic weapon then he has NO RAS. Perhaps now you can see why people used the "stolen firearm" analogy, among others, to make a point.
    A full auto firearm is illegal in every state. The only way possession is not illegal is if the firearm is registered with the federal government and you have paid a tax and everything was approved by the BATFE. Some states also have their own laws concerning automatic weapons, and some have their own registration. If an officer knows you are in possession of a fully automatic firearm he does have RAS to suspect a crime is being committed. Your defense against this is having copies of your registration with the weapon, and if you don't you might end up in a jail cell until you can show documentation that the firearm is legally possessed.

    Known possession of an NFA item does give an LEO RAS to conduct an investigation.
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 08-21-2012 at 01:22 PM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  21. #21
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    Known possession of an NFA item does give an LEO RAS to conduct an investigation.
    Knowing a lot of criminals carry weapons even though it is illegal should also give LEO RAS to coduct an investigation and stop, detain, and run everyone carrying a weapon.

    I love the logic we can make everything into a suspicious and illegal event.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I can see it now,
    "Halt, Citizen! I have reason to suspect that that Colt AR15 slung over your shoulder may be a machinegun based upon the fact that it looks like a military issued M16."

    "Halt in the name of the law, Miscreant! I have reason to suspect that that Springfield M1A may be fully automatic based solely upon its superficial resemblance to a military issue M14."

    Halt, Ruffian! I suspect that AKM may be fully automatic based upon it's resemblance to a Russian military issued AKM. Hand's up and don't move!"

    "Stop in the name of the law, you brigand! I think that FNH SCAR-17 must be fully automatic because something of similar shape and color has been issued to military units."

    I can't find a BSFlag big enough online, but I hope this one gives an idea.....

  23. #23
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    "Due to my training and experience ... and the fact that I'm not an idiot like the officer in the video, I can plainly see that the firearm is a GSG .22 caliber lookalike with an extended barrel."

    Hell I can tell that from an undersized video, so much for the officer's vaunted "expertize."
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-21-2012 at 01:55 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Reasonable Suspicion requires that a reasonable person would have suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. It is not de facto criminal activity to openly carry a firearm. Even if that firearm is fully automatic. Several court cases have defined that the mere presence of a firearm does not constitute criminal activity.

    Saying that he had "reasonable suspicion that the gun was fully auto" is the same as saying you have reasonable suspicion that a person is carrying Pepsi in a cup. It's not by de facto illegal to own or carry a fully automatic firearm. If the officer said he had suspicion that this person was illegally carrying a fully auto firearm, then the officer would have had to articulate what brought him to the suspicion that the carrier was not legally permitted to own a fully auto firearm. The fact that it is fully auto or not is not a criminal activity. The officer attempted to veil his stop with an invalid RAS. As soon as he told the carrier he was being detained, he has just committed unlawful arrest, unlawful search, and unlawful seizure.

    The officer should be sued.

  25. #25
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I have to agree there was no RAS. It is not reasonable IMHO that the guns looks is RAS of a criminal act.

    This would be horrible if confirmed to be good police practice. Any OCer anytime could be detained for such a flimsy excuse.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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