Wouldn't someone with such "professional experience" know that observing the presence of a select fire switch would suffice?
Now what if during his function check the gun went off because he thought he knew the gun but didn't?
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.
I don't care who you are.....this was down right high-larry-ous!!!!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.
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."
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.
SNIP
Was it reasonable to suspect the firearm might be fully automatic based on its appearance?
Was that suspicion articulable?
SNIP
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!
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.
DocWalker said:I never said all cops are the devil, I worked with a lot of great cops and know a bunch.
DocWalker said: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.
DocWalker said:If the man was black is that a reason to stop someone? Just because of his appearance.
DocWalker said:One could argue anything looks like it might be a full auto just to stop someone but it doesn't make it right.
DocWalker said:But I guess you believe that anyone with a gun is guilty until proven innocent.
DocWalker said:Sorry but appearance doesn't give RAS.
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?
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.
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.