Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Cop mistakes Camary for police SUV?

  1. #1
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779

    Cop mistakes Camary for police SUV?

    This does not pass the sniff test.


    Atlanta cop allegedly draws gun, mistakes car for police SUV

    By Marcus K. Garner

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    A Covington man says he was mistakenly stopped at gunpoint Friday by an Atlanta Police sergeant.

    ...The policeman apparently mistook the sedan the man was driving for a police SUV parked nearby, Rashid McCall told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    ...Sgt. James Ebb’s white Ford Explorer, embossed with Atlanta Police decals, was parked some 15 feet away from where McCall got into his white Toyota Camry before the incident.
    http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/atla...s-1187677.html
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    And the guy works for a law firm...I smell a big lawsuit coming...

    That officer should be fired outright.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 09-24-2011 at 04:59 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    And the guy works for a law firm...I smell a big lawsuit coming...

    That officer should be fired outright.
    It's better than that. He's part of a law firm that had already sued the cops for shooting someone in the face! And the person that was just threatened had worked on the case and directly with the person that was shot in the face.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 09-24-2011 at 05:25 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    White Toyota Camry



    White Atlanta PD Ford Explorer



    Yeah, I can see that..lol

    Imagine for a moment, if an Open Carrier had made the same mistake...

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Angry Wow!

    How in the heck do you mix up a white citizens car for a white SUV that is marked POLICE? I'm glad this nut is over a thousand miles away from my loved ones. There is something very wrong when this kind of thing happens.
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 09-24-2011 at 05:42 PM. Reason: typo
    “A government that does not trust it’s 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

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Has anyone else noticed that the off-duty cop who pulled his gun in the USPS parking lot was off-duty? Driving a marked vehicle at 7:30 AM while not in uniform? A Sargeant taking/picking up mail - while not in uniform? These are not indicators of on-duty activity.

    Even off-duty cops do not get a free pass to bring firearms onto USPS property:

    US Code Title 18
    § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

    (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
    (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
    (d)Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    Title 39 CFR 232.1
    (l) Weapons and explosives . Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

    (p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.
    (2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

    q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon ....

    Hope the Sergeant finds himself facing a long and difficult time explaining his behavior both to his administration and to the courts.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Under federal law there would be no exemption for off duty police engaged in private or personal business.
    Last edited by lockman; 09-24-2011 at 11:29 PM. Reason: too finish the message sent prematurely

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Skidmark isn't saying it, the LAW is saying it.

    (d)Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law


    Weapons and explosives . Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Has anyone else noticed that the off-duty cop who pulled his gun in the USPS parking lot was off-duty? Driving a marked vehicle at 7:30 AM while not in uniform? A Sargeant taking/picking up mail - while not in uniform? These are not indicators of on-duty activity.
    Well, the police get to claim ignorance to the law. Had that been a regular joe shmoe citizen he'd be wearing silver bracelets.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    208
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    Self-defense is a lawful purpose.
    The Dogs of War are nothing compared to the Cats

  11. #11
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Kivuli View Post
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    Self-defense is a lawful purpose.

    Yep that is right BUT your UNATTRIBUTED quote is from federal 930 NOT the Postal regulation in Federal law under chapter 39 (I believe) where there is NO Lawful purpose exclusion rather "OFFICIAL PURPOSES!"
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  12. #12
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    294
    The policeman APPARENTLY mistook the two. A citizen would have SUPPOSEDLY mistook the two.
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    The more I think about this story the more pissed off I get. Why was this officer not arrested on the spot? How can you make an argument that those two cars are in any way similar. The offense is so egregious. Stories like this are why I no longer have faith in the police. I am willing to bet no criminal charges will be brought...ridiculous.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 09-25-2011 at 05:41 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  14. #14
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Sounds to me like a perfect situation to exercise Citizen's Arrest powers ... Georgia have that in the state constitution?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Kivuli View Post
    Self-defense is a lawful purpose.
    if this was the case then you would be able to bring a firearm onto a military installation and carry it...
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    208
    By rights, you ought. We both know it doesn't always (ever) work that way, though.
    The Dogs of War are nothing compared to the Cats

  17. #17
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    If anyone but a cop were involved, there would be speculation regarding the use of alcohol or drugs...

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Skidmark - Are you saying its illegal for an off duty police officer to carry his firearm at the post office ?
    Two days late with a response. Sorry about that.

    As has been mentioned by others, it is what the law says - no exemption for off-duty cops on not-official business.

    And really what I'm pointing out is that there is a tendency amongst all sectors of society to want to give free passes to cops for just about everything they do. Of course there are some cops who also desire/insist on the free passes.

    But how, skidmark, you ask, can we ever tell if a cop is off-duty? Don't cop departments tell us that no matter where they are or what they are doing they are cops and thus entitled to enforce the law? Well, I have a simple answer for you. Pose this question to your state's Worker's Comp board: In this [use the OP's scenario for grins and giggles] if the non-cop punched the cop and broke the cop's jaw, would the cop be covered by Worker's Comp for the injury sustained? If the answer is "No" then the cop was not on duty. If the answer is "Yes" then the taxpayers in your state are getting ripped off. I've got a standing wager of one beverage of your choice against one beverage of my choice that the answer will be "No". Submit the written opinion saying I am wrong and the drink is on me.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

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