|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 1, 2010, 11:33 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Posts: 158
|
Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e8c_1262402454
Now thats just wrong. Now I can understand checking it out if you saw the weapon, but this power tripping deputy went way to far. |
January 2, 2010, 03:02 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
As more and more people carry, this behavior will have to subside. People just won't put up with a clear overreaction like this. If the courts won't do anything about it (I think most courts would find this excessive) then a political/ PR solution must address it.
In many jurisdictions, Mayors have great influence over PDs, and can set the tone for what will and will not be tolerated. This power tripping officer will bring his attitude to the wrong situation at the wrong time, sooner or later, and a smack down will ensue. There is no excuse for it, and no justification. |
January 2, 2010, 03:14 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
Doesn't concealed mean concealed?
|
January 2, 2010, 11:32 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Location: Central NC
Posts: 1,424
|
Quote:
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -George Orwell |
|
January 2, 2010, 11:45 AM | #5 |
Junior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2009
Posts: 14
|
maybe next time he will have to exercise this right to carry to said officer
|
January 2, 2010, 12:00 PM | #6 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote from the article:
Quote:
This deputy STOLE the mans handgun! Since when can any officer simply TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? If he had cause to believe that this man was in violation of the law then he should have been arrested. If he was not arrested then the deputy can not just confiscate private property. No warrant, no arrest, no investigation? That is nonsense.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
January 2, 2010, 12:46 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Posts: 158
|
Seriously, that deputy needs to be put in his place. Who the hell does he think he is?
|
January 2, 2010, 01:06 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
And if he couldn't determine that his driver's license was facially valid would he have impounded his car? If he had no receipt for his pants would the officer have driven off with those, as well?
|
January 2, 2010, 01:17 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
IMO... This is a perfect example of law inforcement as opposed to policeing. There is a difference. After reading the artical I have the opinion that the LEO not only overstepped his duty to enforce the law, he made a personal issue of the incident, and he further failed to protect a citizen.
I cant understand how the courts up-held a clear violation of the 14th amendment. Sad day. |
January 2, 2010, 02:29 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 408
|
Well yall should start writing to the mayor,sheriff and any other elected official in that area who is above this dude. but please do so in a proper and respectful way
|
January 2, 2010, 03:54 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
|
Don't really buy the story. Deputies in Mass. are not cops. They do court security and prisoner transport. And the article states he was an officer, not a deputy.
The court ruled against him and he's a lawyer, one would assume he would know how to present his case and he still lost. Let's not get out the tinfoil hats just yet. |
January 2, 2010, 04:12 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 174
|
Whatever happened to the Fourth Ammendment?
To sum this up, a man carrying a concealed handgun in Georgia, legally with permit, was briefly detained by a patrol officer and had his CCW and weapon confiscated. The officer "got a glimpse" of the concealed weapon and treated the man as though he were committing a crime.
Link (examiner.com) Now I ask, what happened to this unreasonable search and seizure thing? If you're carrying a weapon, unless the officer has probable cause to believe that you are doing so illegally, intend to or have committed a crime, my instinct is to believe that he has no right to request anything more than identification and CCW. This is as if your car were impounded, with all documentation in order and without arrest, leaving the driver stranded on the side of the road, after a routine traffic stop because the officer thinks there are a lot of car thefts in the area, but has no actual cause to believe your car was stolen. Without cause there can be no search nor seizure (except in Commiefornia where the 4th doesn't apply to gun owners anyway) Thoughts?
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
January 2, 2010, 04:27 PM | #13 |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
First time I read that story I was surprised to hear that it happened in Georgia. Then I realized that there always have been and most likely always be some people with muscles for brains will be attracted to law enforcement even though they don't have a clue about what the laws are or have the slightest idea of what is in the constitution. My disgust is for the courts, the judges know better but don't care, like their fearful leader the Arab-in-chief and current resident in the Whitehouse they know whats in the constitution but don't care.
Lawyer getting hassled because he let his gun be seen is understandable. To my way of thinking there should be no difference between concealed and open carry no matter what your preference is nor should there be any restriction against either as long as you are not a convicted felon or adjudicated as mentally unstable and a danger to yourself or others. But he knew the rules and he was careless. Cop over reacted and unless the lawyer is tired of fighting the last hasn't been heard of this case. Living in Wisconsin but with friends down there who are active in the open carry organization I watch developments down there closely and with some envy. Our progress in the Dairy state lags Georgia's by a mile.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- |
January 2, 2010, 04:28 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 174
|
Also I just realized there's a civil rights forum directly below this one, and this has already been posted there. I thought I was being sooooo clever checking the first 2 pages of general threads to see if it had been posted already
move/lock/whatever, my bad
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
January 2, 2010, 04:33 PM | #15 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Merged.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
January 2, 2010, 04:36 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 174
|
Thanks, John.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
January 2, 2010, 04:40 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
I read the appellate decision
1. Springfield courthouse steps are a 'high crime area'??? I can only say WOW!
2. Investigators could not produce any of the eyewitnesses that 'pointed and yelled'. Hmmmmm??? 3. 'Stern ............ removed the clip.' ARRRGGGhhh!! 4. The Springfield police commissioner recommended officer Stern be retrained on Mass. firearm law BUT found no specific wrongdoing. (OK.... if he did nothing wrong why retrain him ????) 5. 'The precise location of the gun is inconsequential;.....' It isn't??? Are you sure? I know there is always more to a story than what we read here but it looks to me like Massachusetts citizens can be disarmed by a police officer anytime they choose to do a 'Terry' frisk because the officers have no way to confirm a carry permit. Or.....am I missing something? It would be great if some of our LEO's and lawyers would weigh in on this. But first, please read the appeals court decision.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W Last edited by Dragon55; January 3, 2010 at 08:25 AM. Reason: removed last line ... appeal decided 12/23/2009 |
January 2, 2010, 05:08 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I have to wonder, what exactly is the point of the permit, if an officer can take your property, detain you, throw you in the back of a patrol car, disarm you and then leave you without your lawful means of self protection? This illustrates a potential folly of a permit system.
|
January 2, 2010, 05:25 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
BTW
You can read the appeals court decision here by going to the bottom of the article and clicking on the PDF link.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...awful-carriers Parts of it are actually pretty funny ... if they weren't so sad
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W |
January 2, 2010, 08:14 PM | #20 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Clarification time.
The original article is written in the Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner and the incident is cited as providing lessons to GA concealed carriers. HOWEVER, the Schubert/Stern incident actually occurred in Massachusetts.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
January 2, 2010, 08:34 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
There was a previous case in GA dealing with MARTA having to do with stopping a person carry concealed but the circumstances are different than the Mass case. In the Mass case a lawyer was walking down the street towards a court house flashed his gun, had a suit coat on but did not cover completely the holstered gun, police officer saw the gun, jumped out held the lawyer at gun point. After getting his ID and permit, held him for 10 minutes then took the gun away. Claim for taking gun was that he could not verify the permit. The lawyer sued and lost. In the Georgia case the person placed his weapon in a concealed holster and got on MARTA, a police officer that saw him in his car holster the weapon, followed him on to MARTA and asked to see his permit, confiscated his weapon and locked him up for 30 minutes while running a check. After the check came back OK, he let him have his gun and leave, The complainant sued the PD and lost. In both cases the possession of a gun was illegal in the specific circumstances under the law unless you had a permit. The courts basically said the police had the right to stop and verify that the carrier had a permit for the weapon.
I sent a PM to Antipitas that there was only one case being discussed in two separate papers, but I was partially mistaken. The main point of both stories was the Mass case but the Georgia paper did mention the MARTA case. Last edited by wally626; January 2, 2010 at 09:53 PM. |
January 2, 2010, 09:26 PM | #22 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I misread the two stories and jumped the conclusion gun! Mea Culpa!
Thanks to both JohnKSa and wally626 for setting me (and this thread) straight. |
January 3, 2010, 08:19 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
And here lies the rub........
posted by Wally626
"After getting his ID and permit, held him for 10 minutes then took the gun away. Claim for taking gun was that he could not verify the permit. The lawyer sued and lost." So, if law enforcement can't verify a permit to carry in the state of Massachusetts then of what use is the permit? This statement from page 13 of the decision: "As it happens, Massachusetts did not have a simple way for police officers to conduct such a check, so Stern's effort to do so took several minutes. " Incident took place in July 2006.......decision handed down Wednesday before last 12/23/09. I think the "did" is telling. I bet they can now.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W Last edited by Dragon55; January 3, 2010 at 09:05 AM. Reason: posted excerpt from case |
January 3, 2010, 08:44 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 723
|
What's the difference between this and a mugging? Save for the mugger having a badge.
__________________
Civilian Date: 14 Century 1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law. If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say. |
January 3, 2010, 09:24 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
|
Because mugging is illegal and this was not. Obviously.
|
|
|