Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Detroit Police search for guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    135

    Post imported post

    http://www.freep.com/article/2010060...troit-for-guns

    Did anyone else see this article. There stopping people just for walking down the street. Great city isn't it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811

    Post imported post

    illegal much?

    watch for a lawsuit and/or a cop getting shot by a citizen(not having to be a criminal,mind you)



    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    .

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    yeah, it's BS. a while back they ran an article about how DPD was pulling people over for minor infractions like cracked windshields and broken tail lights. not necessarily wrong on the surface, but they were using a team of paramilitary thugs in black with automatic rifles. then they would somehow convince, coerce, lie or whatever to get the person they stopped to allow a vehicle search. even if they ask nicely, is the average citizen going to say no to a vehicle search when looking down the barrel of a rifle?
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    yeah, it's BS. a while back they ran an article about how DPD was pulling people over for minor infractions like cracked windshields and broken tail lights. not necessarily wrong on the surface, but they were using a team of paramilitary thugs in black with automatic rifles. then they would somehow convince, coerce, lie or whatever to get the person they stopped to allow a vehicle search. even if they ask nicely, is the average citizen going to say no to a vehicle search when looking down the barrel of a rifle?
    http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/mao.html

    Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung

    "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938)

    "Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

    And I would suggest that all tyrants, large and small, understand that principle exceptionally well.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    "To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; it is at best an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a moral duty ... once might is made to be right, cause and effect are reversed, and every force which overcomes another force inherits the right which belonged to the vanquished. As soon as man can obey with impunity, his disobedience becomes legitimate; and the strongest is always right, the only problem is how to become the strongest. But what can be the validity of a right which perishes with the force on which it rests? If force compels obedience, there is no need to invoke duty to obey, and if force ceases to compel obedience, there is no longer any obligation. Thus the word 'right' adds nothing to what is said by 'force'; it is meaningless. 'Obey those in power.' If this means 'yield to force' the precept is sound, but superfluous; it will never, I suggest, be violated. ... If I am held up by a robber at the edge of a wood, force compels me to hand over my purse. But if I could somehow contrive to keep the purse from him, would I still be obliged in conscience to surrender it? After all, the pistol in the robber's hand is undoubtedly a power."
    The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 3: The Right of the Strongest (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1762).
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hartford, MI, ,
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    Sweeney has seen a man hastily try to bury a handgun in the dirt as he was tackled. Another was packing an Uzi. AK47s are so common that illegal handguns and rifles barely register as abnormal.
    AK47s and Uzis? Really? REALLY?

    I think you'd see a lot more BATF involvement if that were so, or a possible rise of crimes with Assault Weapons?

    Article has a clear anti-gun bias.

    -Richard-

  8. #8
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    Post imported post

    how is this much different from the much protested arizona profiling law? since the guns and drug crimes are predominately young black males let's stop every young black male. detroit cop told me that the best thing to happen to them was the baggy hanging pants fashion. they catch 5 times more people now on foot.

  9. #9
    Regular Member American Boy With a Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    656

    Post imported post

    kryptonian wrote:
    how is this much different from the much protested arizona profiling law? since the guns and drug crimes are predominately young black males let's stop every young black male. detroit cop told me that the best thing to happen to them was the baggy hanging pants fashion. they catch 5 times more people now on foot.
    ROFL!.....that was pretty funny

    OnT- I PERSONALLY dont see much of a problem with it, if it works it works. Im sure there not taking LEGALLY owned guns from RESPONSIBLE gun owners...so whats the problem?
    "If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." -- Samuel Adams, 1776

    An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    American Boy With a Gun wrote:
    kryptonian wrote:
    how is this much different from the much protested arizona profiling law? since the guns and drug crimes are predominately young black males let's stop every young black male. detroit cop told me that the best thing to happen to them was the baggy hanging pants fashion. they catch 5 times more people now on foot.
    ROFL!.....that was pretty funny

    OnT- I PERSONALLY dont see much of a problem with it, if it works it works. Im sure there not taking LEGALLY owned guns from RESPONSIBLE gun owners...so whats the problem?
    besides stopping people without cause? isn't that why we're having a picnic in marysville and why that article was in the paper?
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  11. #11
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    American Boy With a Gun wrote:
    kryptonian wrote:
    how is this much different from the much protested arizona profiling law? since the guns and drug crimes are predominately young black males let's stop every young black male. detroit cop told me that the best thing to happen to them was the baggy hanging pants fashion. they catch 5 times more people now on foot.
    ROFL!.....that was pretty funny

    OnT- I PERSONALLY dont see much of a problem with it, if it works it works. Im sure there not taking LEGALLY owned guns from RESPONSIBLE gun owners...so whats the problem?
    besides stopping people without cause? isn't that why we're having a picnic in marysville and why that article was in the paper?
    The issue here isn't technicaly what their doing is illegal, it isn't. They, claim to be, only are stopping people that are breaking the law. People who are loitering, jay walking, have a broken windshield, or an out tail-light. The problem is how they approach the situation. Approaching with four to six officers with AR15s, is not cool. What should be done is two to four officers with their M&Ps HOLSTERED.

    Now I do understand why they are doing what they are doing. They believe this will make the city safer, and that may be true. Also though it could make the whole "us" vs "them" mentality ALOT worse for the PD. I think if they did the normal civil approach on people instead of a felony-type stop, things would go alot better in the long run. I understand what they are doing now, to them, seems to be working great, but you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

    God Bless

    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    the first line of the article would seem to disagree with what you are saying:
    "“That’s what happens when you walk in the street,” Sweeney said almost apologetically. He and his partner, Lavar Green, had tackled the young man, who had decided to run when the officers pulled up alongside him and asked how he was doing."

    they tackled him for fleeing the scene of what? a question? suspicious maybe, but illegal? not likely.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  13. #13
    Regular Member cmdr_iceman71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post


    "AK47s are so common that illegal handguns and rifles barely register as abnormal..."

    "Detroit Sgt. Jeff Pacholski has seen every type of gun imaginable on Detroit's streets: from countless handguns tucked into waistbands to a rocket launcher too big to conceal."
    -----------------------------------------------------------


    Folks, that’s why I love Detroit, it’s a place where OCing needs littleif not anyjustification. It’s rapidly descending into a 3rd world country type mentality when you have criminals running around with RPGs, and AK-47s and illegal handguns barely register as "abnormal" to the authorities.

    "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." - President George Washington

    "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

    "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    and badges
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    yeah, it's BS. a while back they ran an article about how DPD was pulling people over for minor infractions like cracked windshields and broken tail lights. not necessarily wrong on the surface, but they were using a team of paramilitary thugs in black with automatic rifles. then they would somehow convince, coerce, lie or whatever to get the person they stopped to allow a vehicle search. even if they ask nicely, is the average citizen going to say no to a vehicle search when looking down the barrel of a rifle?
    http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/mao.html

    Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung

    "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938)

    "Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

    And I would suggest that all tyrants, large and small, understand that principle exceptionally well.
    Amen Brother! You speak great truth about the mindset of many in power these days!:what:
    A government that does not trust its law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust. James Madison.

    Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. George Washington

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    My 2 pennies on this ...

    As long as the police are following the "letter of the law" when carrying out these stops, I have no problem with them.

    Fact of the matter is that this is one of the very few "gun control" policies that actually does reduce violent crime: aggressive enforcement targeting illegal gun carrying.

    What does letter of the law mean? The police must have reasonable suspicion to stop someone, detain them and do a Terry search (and the courts have ruled that someone who takes off running at the sight of the police gives them RS) ... they must have probable cause to arrest and do a full search. They can only draw and point their own weapons in response to a credible threat of deadly force.

    So I agree with the person who said that if the cops are surrounding people and pointing assault rifles at them ... and only only THEN asking for consent to search, they are breaking the law, and I can't support that kind of tactics.





  17. #17
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I happen to know from experiences of friends of mine that some DPD officers are about as concerned with the bill of rights as Dirty Harry. But I can't see anything in the article which contradicts the law.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    There is a right and a wrong way to do things. There is a wrong way to do the right thing.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    But I can't see anything in the article which contradicts the law.
    This may be naive, but I don't see how running from the cops = RAS. Does it? For what crime?

  20. #20
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    But I can't see anything in the article which contradicts the law.
    This may be naive, but I don't see how running from the cops = RAS. Does it? For what crime?
    The crime does not need to be specific...just "criminality" in general.

    Running from the police is NOT smart... and can provide RAS.

    see Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000)

    http://www.aele.org/hot8.html
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    CoonDog wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    But I can't see anything in the article which contradicts the law.
    This may be naive, but I don't see how running from the cops = RAS. Does it? For what crime?
    The crime does not need to be specific...just "criminality" in general.

    Running from the police is NOT smart... and can provide RAS.

    see Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000)

    http://www.aele.org/hot8.html
    I'm not sure about that, myself. I've heard cops argue that point, too. Yet, I have never seen a case where the LEOsdid not articulate the particular crime or type of crime of which they suspected the detainee.

    Even in Wardlow the court devoted some text to the issue that Wardlow did his flying in a high drug-trafficking area.

    How one can have a full suspicion, not an incomplete suspicion or hunch, without having also a particular crime or type of crime in mind is beyond me. Also, to say otherwise is to give the police even broader power than the dissent in Terry warned against. "Oh, hey. We know drug dealers wear loose floral print shirts here in Miami. Bend over Mr. Tourist."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    it looks like running ALONE is not RAS, but with the totality of circumstances can help establish RAS
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote: From link:
    Such a holding is entirely consistent with our decision in Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), where we held that when an officer, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approaches an individual, the individual has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Id., at 498. And any "refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991). But unprovoked flight is simply not a mere refusal to cooperate. Flight, by its very nature, is not "going about one's business"; in fact, it is just the opposite. Allowing officers confronted with such flight to stop the fugitive and investigate further is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning.

  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    DrTodd wrote: From link:
    Such a holding is entirely consistent with our decision in Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), where we held that when an officer, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approaches an individual, the individual has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Id., at 498. And any "refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991). But unprovoked flight is simply not a mere refusal to cooperate. Flight, by its very nature, is not "going about one's business"; in fact, it is just the opposite. Allowing officers confronted with such flight to stop the fugitive and investigate further is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning.
    But it was at that exact moment your honor that I started my daily jog. It was coincident that the officers were approaching me at that exact moment.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    haha venator
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •