Police arrest target shooter


PDA






mbt2001
March 6, 2012, 03:54 PM
I came across this and it was an interesting, shocking actually, article and videos. Be careful target shooting on your own land, as this could happen to you; at least that is what I am taking away from this incident.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/07/officers_make_up_lie.php

If you enjoyed reading about "Police arrest target shooter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gunnutery
March 6, 2012, 04:05 PM
Thanks for posting. Hopefully this won't be the last we hear of this story. I'm curious to see the outcome.

Tim37
March 6, 2012, 04:22 PM
i hope the media pics this story up and something happesn thats apauling.

Ryanxia
March 6, 2012, 04:34 PM
I didn't watch the videos but good thing the cops had recorders on or it would have been a whole different story.

Tim37
March 6, 2012, 04:38 PM
http://calcoastnews.com/2011/11/former-deputys-ironic-new-career/

i was tring to find a update for this and this is all i found.

Marlin60Man
March 6, 2012, 04:38 PM
This is why I just like to avoid police in general.

average_shooter
March 6, 2012, 04:39 PM
i hope the media pics this story up...

Yeah, anyone else notice the original posted date on that article?

Posted on: July 30, 2010 11:03 AM, by Ed Brayton

Edit: And the article linked in post #5 states the incident happened in 2008.

If the media hasn't picked up on this story by now, it's not likely to happen even on a slow news day.

TXSWFAN
March 6, 2012, 04:40 PM
Status quo for most PD across the country IMO. Those guys looked like the Three Stooges coming up to the gate and climbing over it. The homeowner is lucky he didn't loose his dog too. The one fat cop put a bead on it.

It surprises me that a lot more cops don't get killed in the line of duty.

Romeo 33 Delta
March 6, 2012, 04:56 PM
Time to Lawyer Up and get ready to open a couple new bank accounts!

GCMkc
March 6, 2012, 05:02 PM
"Murphy was a career deputy with a law degree" ***? You have got to be kidding me. Did this guy get his law degree at McDonalds?

351 WINCHESTER
March 6, 2012, 05:04 PM
The cops were clearly more dangerous than the property owner when they climbed over the gate with their weapons loaded. Talk about a bunch of morons.

crracer_712
March 6, 2012, 05:10 PM
Amazing.

crracer_712
March 6, 2012, 05:12 PM
The cops were clearly more dangerous than the property owner when they climbed over the gate with their weapons loaded. Talk about a bunch of morons.


I was thinking the same thing, and apparently that hadn't taken hunters safety education which tells you how to cross a fence safely

mgmorden
March 6, 2012, 05:18 PM
As already stated folks, this is an article from 2010 about an incident that happened in 2008 . Whatever is going to happen with this has already happened.

The-Reaver
March 6, 2012, 05:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcKTbFbwrxE&list=FL04zybFnVlZo659RvS81p1g&feature=mh_lolz

intercooler
March 6, 2012, 06:01 PM
Interesting. Did I hear that right 2 acres? I think most states require at least 5x that much in order to discharge a firearm.

JohnM
March 6, 2012, 06:10 PM
Interesting read despite being old.

Intercooler- where in the world did you come up that tidbit about how many acres it takes to shoot? :rolleyes:

Mikhail Weiss
March 6, 2012, 06:23 PM
Interesting. May the victim of trumped-up charges, theft, and rights violation win his court case.

intercooler
March 6, 2012, 06:44 PM
JohnM- I'm not a lawyer or know the ins and outs but remember hearing people saying something about it :scrutiny:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-470607.html

I do however have some common sense and 2 acres doesn't mean blast away with your high power rifle ;)

He probably is in a jurisdiction where it isn't legal by one means or the other.

JohnM
March 6, 2012, 06:51 PM
It would all depend on where you live.
If you're in some jurisdiction that loves to write up an ordinance about everything under the Sun there's no doubt going to be a restriction on everything you want to do.

crracer_712
March 6, 2012, 08:23 PM
I watched the videos, he was shooting a 22 rilfe at a target that was backed up but a VERY large tree and it appeared to me from the video, the ground just beyond the tree went up hill and out of camera view. The deputies also mentioned something to the effect that there were no houses in line beyond the target.

Yes, it is old, but is was a good read and enjoyed watching the videos. Although I wouldn't call the actions of the videoed deputies enjoyable.

gfpd707
March 6, 2012, 09:51 PM
Interesting. Did I hear that right 2 acres? I think most states require at least 5x that much in order to discharge a firearm.
Could you show me a law that requires a certain size of land to discharge a firearm? I could be wrong but I have never heard of such a law.

intercooler
March 6, 2012, 10:38 PM
I can research it but then again up there I said I am not a lawyer. Did you view that link?

2 acres and I heard the Cop say he could see cars traveling at the back of the property. Is it not true you have to have certain acres to hunt? Hunters?

intercooler
March 6, 2012, 10:44 PM
Okay. Maryland:

http://www.eregulations.com/maryland/hunting/hunting-regulations/

•Target shoot on State lands except in designated areas.

Done deal as that is not a designated area for the guy in the video. Let me see if I can find property size.

Tomcat47
March 6, 2012, 10:51 PM
UNBELIEVABLE! :banghead:

And this backs up my feeling that only a combination safe will contain my firearms! Electronic or Dial....but the way in is in my head! Cant strip that from me!

And I can not believe they kept his firearms....:cuss:

Jim K
March 6, 2012, 11:00 PM
Just to show that circumstances do matter.

A few years ago two men were target shooting on land owned by one of them. The police came, sirens blaring, forced them to the ground, and placed them under arrest. They were taken to jail and held overnight. Awful? Violation of this and that? Let's all jump in and back up these innocent victims of anti-gun cops.

Or maybe not so fast. These two clowns were firing a .44 Magnum, and had set up a backstop consisting of (ready for this?) a hay bale!

The bullets were blasting right through the hay bale and tearing through the walls of a nearby house, which was in plain sight but which the two geniuses had apparently not noticed was in the line of fire.

No one was injured or killed and the shooters got off on a plea of reckless endangerment, with a heavy fine and full restitution.

It is this kind of thing that makes me want to know the "rest of the story" before getting all irate in defense of "gun rights."

Jim

LAK
March 6, 2012, 11:12 PM
"Every one of those deputies should be fired, immediately."

And lawsuit? Can you say ... felony charges? There are several that come into play here. If the books were thrown at people like this it would diminish to extremely rare instances. After a successful criminal prosecution a civil suit is almost a slam dunk.

People that find themselves victims to this kind of thing need to do some legal research (it is actually quite straightforward). If the DA "declines" to prosecute your oppressor(s), you can take your case directly to a Grand Jury yourself.

TheHighRoadDude
March 6, 2012, 11:15 PM
That was a pretty messed up story, thanks for sharing

berettaprofessor
March 6, 2012, 11:16 PM
Let's get real people. Anyone got any followup to this case? Something with an outcome or current circumstances?

intercooler
March 6, 2012, 11:17 PM
I searched for a bit on the code but can't find it. I am almost sure it is on the law books somewhere for each State. My boss is an FFL and I will ask him in the morning.

Seriously though 2 acres?

640 acres is 1 mile x 1 mile. 2 acres is 300ft x 300ft. .22LR has a range of 1-1.5 miles!

1stmarine
March 6, 2012, 11:22 PM
Thanks for sharing. Just like the gestapo used to do not long ago.
The people involved need to be brought to justice.

Soon citizens will not be able to even protest anymore...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml

http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/attachments/off-topic/6442d1331011414-us-congress-passes-authoritarian-anti-protest-law-priceofliberty.jpg

Smokin Gator
March 7, 2012, 02:27 AM
I live on 3.3 acres. Even if I could, I would not subject my neighbors to the noise of me shooting recreationally on my property. Mark

LAK
March 7, 2012, 02:50 AM
I lived in suburban Maryland not far from Annapolis in the 1960s. We lived in a very middle class neighborhood where most homes sat on what was probably about two acres on average. My father taught me to shoot in the back yard, as did others such as a friend (and his dad) who not infrequently shot an M1 carbine and a cap and ball revolver among others right behind the house.

I do not recall in about 6 years there ever even seeing a police car in the neighborhood. I am sure I did, as I am sure they must have had some business there once in awhile, and no doubt drove through at night. But no one ever called the police about "someone shooting" in their backyard.

I don't get all this paranoia, except that it is the result of a few decades of propaganda and programming. You can shoot on ten square feet of ground if you make sure you have the right back stop.

gfpd707
March 7, 2012, 03:00 AM
I searched for a bit on the code but can't find it. I am almost sure it is on the law books somewhere for each State. My boss is an FFL and I will ask him in the morning.

Seriously though 2 acres?

640 acres is 1 mile x 1 mile. 2 acres is 300ft x 300ft. .22LR has a range of 1-1.5 miles!
With a proper backstop the size of the land should not matter. I shoot on family owned farm land that is one square mile. However I always shoot int a berm.

baronthered
March 7, 2012, 04:51 AM
In that article it mentioned that the da wouldn't press any more charges if he didn't sue the county or city. Sounds kind of crappy to me.

intercooler
March 7, 2012, 06:22 AM
Wow. We have some here with no regard to others safety or well being. It appears many just go for it without knowing the laws and or respecting them. You are fine until someone complains just like this Guy was. When that happens though its hard to feel totally bad.

Davek1977
March 7, 2012, 06:31 AM
Is it not true you have to have certain acres to hunt? Not in SD...as long as you aren't putting anyone in danger, theres no restrictions to shooting on private property outside of city limits

intercooler
March 7, 2012, 06:44 AM
Dave really? What would the safe distance be on a high power rifle?

hogshead
March 7, 2012, 06:58 AM
10 yards if you have a safe backstop. Even if he was guilty of nd [which the court said he wasn't ] they had no right to search his house. Your missing the whole point. His 4th amendment rights were violated his guns were seized and your worried about how much land he owns.

intercooler
March 7, 2012, 07:03 AM
No I'm not worried. I posted the reasons and I follow the laws. I'm also considerate of others and wouldn't go blasting 10 yards away from a backstop if I had neighbors 100 yards away.

Davek1977
March 7, 2012, 07:13 AM
A safe distance? 3 inches, if the berm will stop the bullet. What can i say? An arbitrary distance of x ft makes no sense if it isn't based in safety. As long as one is not putting others in danger, there shouldn't be an issue. The noise my .22 makes is considerably less tan my nearest neighbor's Harley, so if he wants to discuss the noise issue, i'd be more than willing. That said, it isnt a problem with my neighbor, and overall, South Dakota is pretty gun-tolerant, and, last I checked, had the highest number of CCW permits per capita. Finding an anti-gunner around here is harder than finding a shooting buddy. All of that is neither here nor there though. Even if the man HAD negligently discharged a firearm (which it was revealed he did not, as the charge was dismissed due to lack of evidence) there was nothing in that action that eliminated his 4th amendment protections. Intercooler, I don't mean to misread your post, but its almost as if you are trying to somehow justify the actions of the police involved. There WAS no justification. Even if he had gone to his neighbor's house and beaten him bloody, there was nothing that justified the entering of the home, and far less justifying the gun case being opened. They outright fabricated their own version of the truth in order to validate the arrest. the arresat was WRONG....the detainment was wrong...the arrest unnjustified, and the search outright illegal. Regardless of this man's standing with his neighbors, his rights were violated on many different levels. Excusing this sort of behavior is a virtual guarantee it will continue, and likely become worse. You don't fix problems, espeically within a police force, by making excuses and token gestures. You do it with education and if needed discipline or even criminal charges. You said "you're just fine, til someone complains". I could care less if someone complains about my legal activity on my land that doesn't pose a danger to them in any way. A disgruntled neighbor is NOT an excuse for the Sheriff's department to completely disregard someone's civil rights, and I hope to nev er live in a world where it does serve as justification

intercooler
March 7, 2012, 07:22 AM
Dave you have a different setup understandibly. You own that bullet though up to its range of a mile plus.

Davek1977
March 7, 2012, 07:37 AM
The judge ruled there was NO EVIDENCE of ANY negligent discharge. My set-up is irrelevant, as HIS was deemed to be safe. My situation has no bearing, and was only mentioned as a response to your question about minimum requirements. I realize I own the bullets that leave my firearm. I wouldn't be in any position to own a gun if I was confused by that simple fact. The bullet may have a range of a mile plus..UNLESS there s a safe backstop. If there is, the hypothetical distance a bullet would travel is largely irrelevant in every way. if the backstop stops the bullet, the issue is eliminated, and as I've said before, the court found NO EVIDENCE to support a negligent discharge violation of any kind, meaning that everything following his original detainment was large a violation of his 4th amendment rights. The cops overreacted and lied to cover their backsides. Thats indefensible IMO.

By the way, SD DOES have a law restricting hunters...other than the landowner...from shooting within 550 of livestock, occupied buildings, homes, etc....However, that does NOT apply to target shootingf, which is more or less unregulated on private property

intercooler
March 7, 2012, 08:04 AM
Dave sounds like you are a lawyer or maybe should be one. I am not or do not want to be one and defending any actions in this.

Back to shooting at my designated and legal range.

Davek1977
March 7, 2012, 08:17 AM
Not a lawyer, but I graduated with a BA in criminal justice....that said, there isn't a whole lot of scholarly material here. The cops arrested someone on invalid charges the evidence didn't support, and violated his civil rights...and admitted to it (and then tried to justify it) on A/V recordings. It doesn't take a lawyer to see what happened here was wrong on many different levels. I wish this man all the luck in the world in his lawsuit. He was robbed and his rights trampled. The cops were wrong in their actions, and should pay in one way or another for their negligence in the line of duty

Jaxondog
March 7, 2012, 08:24 AM
just an every day episode of a LEO's work scedule. These people must have been bullied at a younger age and then when they grow a little they see being a LEO can give them that power to bully. You see it more and more so it has to be something to it.

TNboy
March 7, 2012, 10:07 AM
I have 2 acres that back up to a mountain and I shoot almost everyday. Guess I'm an outlaw.

intercooler
March 7, 2012, 10:22 AM
Tnboy every case is different? Do you know for a fact you are legal? Have you checked? The person doing the shooting is responsible. At least we hope!

crracer_712
March 7, 2012, 10:35 AM
640 acres is 1 mile x 1 mile. 2 acres is 300ft x 300ft. .22LR has a range of 1-1.5 miles!

Do you realize how far up in the air you would have to aim to get that 22LR to go 1-1.5 miles? It would be about a 30 degree angle, as in trying to shoot birds out of the sky.

Try doing some long distance shooting some time and you'll see what tragectory does. I can shoot my 223 on the same plane as the target at 300 yards away and it'll hit the ground before it gets there, if it's flat, level ground between me and my target.

As for the officer mentioning cars in the back ground, from the view of the video, the only thing I saw was a hill side right behind the tree in which the target was propped up against. How far was the officer panning right or left before he saw cars. Also with them fabricating their stories to justify the actions, could you actually believe he saw cars? After watching their actions, I wouldn't believe a word they said.

JohnM
March 7, 2012, 10:35 AM
Whew, don't think I've ever seen anyone so worried about whether someone else has enough land to be shooting, probably in states far from his own.

bhk
March 7, 2012, 10:37 AM
I live on twenty acres and shoot all the time. When I go outside on a nice day on my Missouri property, I can hear neighbors from miles around doing the same thing. Yep, I hear bullfrogs croaking, birds chirping, turkeys gobbling, and GUNFIRE. It is the backstop, not the distance of potential bullet travel, that matters. Heck, if we all had to have a mile or more beyond our target most informal target shooting east of Central Kansas would disappear. I have been target shooting on this place for 25 years and no bullets have left the property.

And, yes, it is all legal. I believe very few states have any restrictions on this type of activity. I feel for those folks that live in those that do.

mquail
March 7, 2012, 10:38 AM
The 660 feet, not 550 feet, applies to road hunters who don't have permission to shoot on the adjoining land.

http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/areas/right-of-way.aspx

MtnCreek
March 7, 2012, 10:46 AM
If hunting, I have to be a certain distance from a public Rd. Other than that, there is no min ac required to shoot. Local County Com's here proposed a required distance from property lines to shoot and that would have restricted most people in this county from shooting, but the proposed rule failed to pass.

jimmyraythomason
March 7, 2012, 11:02 AM
Neighbors who think they should call the law every time they hear gunshots are often the main problem. The deputies response was very bad for sure but they wouldn't be there in the first place if the neighbor had just minded his/her own business.

crracer_712
March 7, 2012, 11:30 AM
I live on twenty acres and shoot all the time. When I go outside on a nice day on my Missouri property, I can hear neighbors from miles around doing the same thing. Yep, I hear bullfrogs croaking, birds chirping, turkeys gobbling, and GUNFIRE. It is the backstop, not the distance of potential bullet travel, that matters. Heck, if we all had to have a mile or more beyond our target most informal target shooting east of Central Kansas would disappear. I have been target shooting on this place for 25 years and no bullets have left the property.

And, yes, it is all legal. I believe very few states have any restrictions on this type of activity. I feel for those folks that live in those that do.

I live in Kansas, on about 45 acres, if you are like me, when you are out and about and you hear the gun shots, it's kinda soothing or satisfying, not sure which. Just nice to know Americans can still be Americans out here in the country.

When I was a kid, we lived on the side of the road that wasn't in the city limits, on 2.5 acres, never had a problem target shooting there. There were houses all along the road we lived on and some on the road just beyond ours. Just about every boy in the neighborhood had a 22 rifle and we'd gather for some target shooting at someone's house, never once was the police called.

GregGry
March 7, 2012, 12:08 PM
When you get a call of someone firing a gun, you don't know what's going on. The police response was correct initially. They should have verified state and county laws and if he was doing nothing illegal, they should have freed him right there. If he was doing something illegal then he should have been ticketed and or arrested if the law permits.

The search of his home without a warrant is completely against the law. This coming from California doesn't surprise me at all. They have had numerous court cases that delt with searches without warrants (such as warrant less searches of homicide and fire scenes) that went all the way to the US supreme court before being overthrown as unconstitutional. There seems to be an issue with training in that state.

MtnCreek
March 7, 2012, 12:40 PM
When you get a call of someone firing a gun, you don't know what's going on. The police response was correct initially. They should have verified state and county laws and if he was doing nothing illegal, they should have freed him right there. If he was doing something illegal then he should have been ticketed and or arrested if the law permits.

IMO, the police were in the wrong as soon as they stepped foot on this manís property. They had no reason to believe a crime was being committed. If discharging a firearm was illegal, it would be different. Any LEO that would handcuff someone while they determined whether or not there was a law that prohibits what the person is doing is a real piece of work and should be fired and placed on trial for violating someoneís constitutional rights. FYI: The posted signs around my property are there for all to read and adhere to.

Byrd666
March 7, 2012, 01:00 PM
I gotta say, this is so terribly frightening I couldn't finish watching the first video. Talk about horror movies. And these are the folks we entrust our lives to on a daily basis

Finally watched 'em all. Man, that's just wrong.

Smokin Gator
March 7, 2012, 01:34 PM
I mentioned that I live on 3.3 acres. On either side of me there are 3 to 5 acre lots. The houses aren't too far from each other. If I was shooting into a berm on my property, it would be pretty noisy for the neighbor. Yes, we're outside of town and you expect to hear lawn mowers, tractors other power equipment,etc. But I'm a shooter and wouldn't want to have to sit on my back porch listening to my neighbor blast away. Now, If I lived where there were maybe 20 acre or larger parcels and you would hear a little more distant gunfire, no problem. But even on a few acres, with houses only a couple of hundred feet apart, it's too noisy. Mark

brickeyee
March 7, 2012, 02:48 PM
"Murphy was a career deputy with a law degree" ***? You have got to be kidding me. Did this guy get his law degree at McDonalds?

Cracker Jack box.

stl_303
March 7, 2012, 04:32 PM
In Missouri you can shoot on private property of at least 10 acres, providing there are no local / municipal ordinances outlawing the discharge of a firearm.

Target shooting on Dept of Conservation land is only permitted at designated ranges.

Target shooting in the Mark Twain National forest is permitted any time, and almost anywhere (only a few small designated areas off-limits) provided you are at least 100 yards ( I think ) away from a campground or structure, and you can't shoot across a roadway, designated trail, or over a pond/lake.

Iramo94
March 7, 2012, 05:08 PM
Well, that's the ninth circuit for you.

You get the government that you elect.

gym
March 7, 2012, 05:15 PM
I am so sick of idiots like this that I won't even read it. It's too freaking depressing, we need to remove them from power. Vote in people with common sense. These deputies are a reflection of the guy they work for, obviouslly he needs to go.Remember his name when the next election for sherriff comes up, and remind your friends.

jimmyraythomason
March 7, 2012, 05:21 PM
We were dove shooting on private land(inside police jurisdiction) when the local police chief drove up to see what was going on. A citizen had called in a complaint saying that a bullet had struck his home. The house was over a quarter mile away and we were using shotguns with bird shot. When the landowner(my cousin) informed the chief what was going on and that it was going to continue he was satisfied. It did help that I was there,being on the city council at the time and having personally written the towns reckless discharge ordinance. This was in a retirement community(Highland Lake,Al.) that had an influx of out-of-staters unfamiliar with our shooting culture.

Lonestar49
March 7, 2012, 05:45 PM
...

Watching, listening, made me feel like I was watching a cancer at work -

Beyond depressing, :mad:


Ls

bhk
March 7, 2012, 07:31 PM
In Missouri you can shoot on private property of at least 10 acres, providing there are no local / municipal ordinances outlawing the discharge of a firearm.
.


I don't believe that law exists in Missouri. Citation? I am quite familiar with Missouri's firearm laws and have never noted this or heard of this. Who told you this falsehood?

klover
March 8, 2012, 12:35 AM
POLICE SEIZURE AUCTION? And do certain civil servants have the privilege of procurement before seized items go to public auction?

Ah, hell, let's just vote it so, counsel men. If you believe our finest in blue should not have the best in firearms, then you must be unpatriotic.

I would very much want to learn what became of this? If the man's guns were not returned to him, perhaps as a group we could help champion justice?

Any guys with keys to the gate that continue to keep jumping the gate ought to be fired on their stupidity, never mind their outright lies and criminal behavior.

1stmarine
March 8, 2012, 02:06 AM
The Equal Justice Foundation believes:
• Citizens should not be torn from their homes and children in the middle of the night based on nothing more than hearsay.
• Men and women should not be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
• A secret tribunal should not have the power to force a man from his home without notice or hearing.
• Police should not have the right to enter and search a citizen's home without a warrant.
• Citizens should not be imprisoned based only on hearsay.
• Citizens should not be more afraid of the police than they are of criminals.
• A legal system that tolerates perjury and the subornation of perjury can not produce justice.
• Men should not be censured by public officials for crimes they have not committed.
• Men and women should not be made to work as indentured servants or held in thrall to others for acts they have not committed.


I think LEOs have to put up with a lot of schit these days and in the process mistakes can be made but once a mistake is made then the best thing is to be honest and not to try to hide it or frame anyone. So assuming this all played like it has been broadcaster any public servants should be the first to be constantly reminded of the rights granted to everyone by the constitution and the oath they took to protect them.

The Firing comes first. The suits and charging should come later.

P-32
March 8, 2012, 03:17 AM
98% of our LEO’s are trying to do a good job. It’s easy to condemn all LEO’s simply because of the job they do. California has done a fine job of demonizing firearms as a whole and should share in fault with skewing the thinking abilities of these Deputies and 2A. Some LEO’s forget 98% of our citizens are good law abiding people. However if they let their guard down for the 98% the 2 % will figure it out all too quickly.

The bad apples in L/E will be exposed. Please don’t forget to thank the other 98% of LEO’s who are truly trying to keep the criminals down to a mild roar. The Deputies in this case where wrong and I would be willing to bet the County got to pay for a bit bigger piece of property.

I think most guys have at least an idea of what the charges will be before the arrest. Sometimes the book is brought out to ensure the proper charges are filed in the end. Making stuff up just won't cut it. Can a Cop make an honest mistake? Yes, he is still just a person. The difference is when the Cop admits to a mistake and lets those who must know it was a mistake.

makarovnik
March 8, 2012, 07:19 AM
I think these cops where a-holes but... If the police have guns pointed at you and tell you not to move or reach for anything you should obey their commands. The homeowner is lucky he didn't get shot.

TXSWFAN
March 8, 2012, 11:28 AM
98% of our LEO’s are trying to do a good job

Where did you come up with that number P-32? I know a lot of cops, including family members. If I were to guess at a number like you did, I'd put it at around 50%.

I live on 2.5 acres, with the city woods behind me. I built a earth berm surrounded by RR ties. I shoot mostly subsonic pistol calibers with a suppressor. But sometimes I'll shoot a rifle, and usually suppressed. Except for the 4th of July.

jimmyraythomason
March 8, 2012, 04:43 PM
This news article today goes right along with the topic at hand. Actor Steven Seagal and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office are being sued over a 2011 arrest that a Phoenix-area man says was staged for a reality TV show.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/08/4321314/actor-steven-seagal-ariz-sheriffs.html#storylink=cpyThe Sheriff's Office insists in court documents that the use of a tank, a bomb robot and 40 deputies was part of its normal course of duties.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/08/4321314/actor-steven-seagal-ariz-sheriffs.html#storylink=cpy Those chicken ranchers can be awfully dangerous!

flyskater
March 8, 2012, 05:28 PM
That's why police don't want citizens video taping them in action. I've heard of countless occasions where the police treat people with a camera as if they had a gun.

Bonesinium
March 8, 2012, 06:04 PM
I'll just add these videos to my list of well over 100 videos of similar nature. Quite sickening.

There is almost nothing that makes me more upset then when officers KNOW they messed up, and instead of just admitting fault and doing right by the person they wronged, they make up a crap load of lies and charge the person with all sorts of stuff, and DA's threaten people with them and more if they sue. Complete and total corruption of the system.

The Constitution no longer matters. It is a sad day when doing the right thing and following the law is criminalized and the only option is to take criminal action!

exbrit49
March 8, 2012, 10:34 PM
What I cant beleive is that the State Attorneys office didnt get involved! As a lot of the recording is missing, it is hard to be 100% confident over any bias being introduced by ommision.
However, The portions of recordings actually played in the video are certainly enough in ,most states to file charges against the officers. It is a pity that the gentleman did not recieve better legal advice.
There is no doubt that the dispatcher advised he had 8 legally owned firearms and yet they still conducted an illegal search, the audio track also is quite clear in that the deputies had a discussion to try to justify their illegal actions. Legal action could have, and should have been initiated as soon as the recordings were obtained.
In 2011 the Indiana courts decided that NO ONE COULD RESIST AN ILLEGAL SEARCH OF ANY PREMISES BY ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. Note the word Illegal. All hell broke loose and the state legislature just a couple weeks ago passed legislation that overturns the courts judgement by specifying what illegal searches are and even when conducted by LEOs the citizen has the right to use any force required to stop the illegal entry or search.
Some of our states do listen to the people!

Voltia
March 8, 2012, 10:44 PM
This is why you need a combo lock to a safe. Conveniently forget the combination, and tell the pigs to kiss your rear.

Ben86
March 8, 2012, 11:18 PM
This sort of situation disgusts me. So many cops have either a lack of knowledge or a lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution. He wasn't too smart reaching for his cell phone though. I mean why do that?

This also reminds me to never live in California.

Hocka Louis
March 8, 2012, 11:42 PM
Incredible P'sOS.

lobo9er
March 8, 2012, 11:55 PM
wow. This is a old story though what happened to all involved?

P-32
March 9, 2012, 05:39 AM
Where did you come up with that number P-32? I know a lot of cops, including family members. If I were to guess at a number like you did, I'd put it at around 50%.

I did more than have family members for LEO's, or know a couple of Cops, I worked with a group of good hard working LEO's trying to make the people they work for quailty of life better. I did this for over 18 years before I had to retire for medical reasons. Thats how.

What happened in this incident was plain goofy and somebody needs a kick in the butt. I just don't want to see this turn into a cop bashing thread over some dumb Cailf Cops who forgot their training.

I worked with Video in the vehicle's wiith mikes on the officer and in the car. I did not mind the video recordings at all. In fact a review often showed our officer did nothing wrong.

InThe reason most cops won't let you record is in most states require a two party consent. We had to tell the driver of every traffic stop they were being recorded and if someone didn't want to be recorded we turned everything off.

I myself have been on simular gun calls. These were not on private propeperty. You don't know what or who you are walking into. One was a call where the caller was shot. We had to clear and let the EMT's in as soon as we could. Others calls were for shots going near houses. I was able to tell the person thier shots were going bear houses and they would stop shooting.

Of course we checked ID's that is just good police work. I got a warrent on a passenger in a car not wearing his seat belt for 1.75 Mil on 11 counts of sexual assault from another State. I was more tham happy to rake that bone head to the local county bed and breakfast.

You also have to take into account, I viewed carry permit holders as my possiable backup. As a competitive shooter, I did not feel wierd around fellow armed shooters. Even if I had not met them before. When I was off work, I was off work. I ride with a gtoup of motorcycle riders. They were always good about not going too fast down the road out of respect for me. I'm good with about 10 over.

Davek1977
March 9, 2012, 06:24 AM
Unless one knows 100% of the cops out there, its impossible to say with anything even approaching any degree of accuracy that "98%" are good cops. I don't care how much experience you have, what you know applies only to those you've encountered, and you can't simply apply that universally across the board. Every region, every state, every county, and every city is different, and have different levels of what they'll accept from their officers. I've noticed great differences in police styles and techniques from one area to another. Some departments are extremely professional, while others are incompetent to the point you wonder how their department received any accreditation whatsoever.

I agree this doesn't need to be a "cop bashing" thread, but I also don't see anything wrong with taking grossly incompetent officers to task for their actions either. Its true...a few bad apples DO spoil the whole damn bunch....but until the "thin blue line" quits protecting their own instead of outing officers not up to par, the spoilage will continue, and law enforcement in general will suffer the black eye for what a few have done. Until the police police themselves, their reputation is up for grabs. I'll never condemn a cop I think is doing the job to the best of their ability, but nor will i ever defend incompetence in a field that is so vital to be professional in, nor make excuses when people's rights have been violated by the police.

The officers in the clip were condemned here for a reason. Not only did they handle the situation extremely poorly, violating the man's civil rights, but after the arrest, actively conspired among one another how to handle the illegal search that was ALREADY conducted. Rather than one good cop standing ujp and doing the right thing, yo have a variety of officers actively working together to attempt to justify their illegal actions. I think its safe to say that on that particular scene, "98%" of the officers weren't "good cops". As the saying goes, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. If there WAS a good cop on the scene, he chose to remain quiet, allowing, at least for that moment, evil to triumph....and this doesn't seem to be all that rare among police. If you're familiar with case of Officer Harless with Canton, OH, PD.....where he basically threatend to execute a legal permit holder who...in his opinion didn't inform him he was carrying soon enough....you'll notice HIS partner did nothing as well, not even appearing remotely shocked by the behavior he was witnessing. Its incidents like this that color public opinion, and there's only one way to combat it....police officers policing their own ranks just as diligently as they patrol the streets. The sooner we get the bad apples off the streets, the safer the rest of the cop crop will be in the court of public opinion.

230RN
March 9, 2012, 06:28 AM
Here's a quote from William Pitt in Parliament in 1763:



The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance
to all the force of the crown. It may be frail--its
roof may shake--the wind may blow through it--the
storm may enter, the rain may enter --but the
King of England cannot enter --all his force dares not
cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.



The Fourth Amendment has been repealed, not by due constitutional process, but from a slow whittling process by compliant rubber-stamp judges.

May I once again present the reason for the Bill Of rights? This is in the Preamble to that document, and is rarely noted. Boldface mine.

Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution...

Terry, 230RN

MyGreenGuns
March 9, 2012, 07:55 AM
Its incidents like this that color public opinion, and there's only one way to combat it....police officers policing their own ranks just as diligently as they patrol the streets. The sooner we get the bad apples off the streets, the safer the rest of the cop crop will be in the court of public opinion.

I agree with that.

When I was a child I was taught that "the Police are your friends".

As I experienced life, that tarnished to "the Police are just doing thier jobs".

Now I'm at the point where "the police are just another street gang to be avoided".

I'm not trying to bash, but even some of the LEO I personally know have become "bad blue".

Bonesinium
March 9, 2012, 09:19 AM
As I experienced life, that tarnished to "the Police are just doing their jobs".



Indeed. I have experienced cops say exactly that, there are many videos out there that show cops saying exactly that. It saddens me that the response of anybody in authority about doing something they believe is wrong if they are told to do so is "I just follow orders" or "I'm just doing my job" or "I don't make the laws I just enforce them". I see this all the time, not just amongst police, but with people in all facets of government...public officials, judges, representatives, military, feds, etc.

I understand why though. While integrity is often doing the right thing when nobody is looking, it is even harder to do the right thing when everybody is looking, and you are being told to do something else.

1stmarine
March 9, 2012, 12:45 PM
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty of something in a court of law and, in this case, includes both the subject of that search and seizure and the cops themselves if in fact they violated any laws.

So nobody think even by a second that the law applies to a citizen 'more' than another, whether you have a badge or not.

When it comes to the most fundamental rights granted by the constitution the same applies to everyone. Because if not there are so many layers of nonsense laws and everything is so confusing these days that the law might be subject to the arbitrary interpretation in specific state, city or group of people.
The right to bear arms is not taken away but all the BS is still there and that is why everyone is so confused about everything regarding bans and yes they should apply to LE equally. Still the ban is not so severe but if it goes further that could be the basis for a case to be brought the supreme court too.

Regarding the cops that did the seizure...

A LEO that is given an order that might be consider by the individual (look as it as any civilian) violating any constitutional right or consider unlawful has the right to say no because his oath to obey by the constitution automatically overwrites any chain of command. Military have that right too if I am not mistaken?

But unfortunately some LEOs or Military, etc.., sometimes get confused by the circumstances and only takes a veteran and some 'department or unit' peer pressure to go and play along when in fact they might be committing a crime themselves w/o being maybe too obvious in the heat of the moment.

I also think the big issue is not the fact that someone makes a mistake, but what we do after the mistake is recognized and we are in a position of power. Do we use that power to cover up the situation or should we be honest and recognize it?

I have the up-most respect for any police, military, fireman, etc.. that risk their lives on a daily basis for their communities and their country so we should not flag everyone for the actions of a few others.

brickeyee
March 9, 2012, 01:01 PM
When it comes to the most fundamental rights granted by the constitution...

The Constitution does not grant you rights.

It enjoins the government from violating pre-existing rights.

Shadow 7D
March 9, 2012, 02:23 PM
My understanding is that you can record LEO while performing their jobs

AS they are recording YOU
they are PUBLIC officers
and they have NO expectation of privacy while performing their PUBLIC job.

OH, and the don't video me laws that a number of states and local LEA have tried to use to persecute citizens have been struck down, cause I can video ANYTHING in public, just like you can take pics on the sidewalk outside a gunshow...

BobTheTomato
March 9, 2012, 02:42 PM
Courts have repeatedly held that you may tape a cop when they are performing their job. That does not mean however they wont arrest/harass you for doing it.

MyGreenGuns
March 9, 2012, 03:45 PM
My understanding is that you can record LEO while performing their jobs.
(snip)
they have NO expectation of privacy while performing their PUBLIC job
You can record them. If they get snippy just tell them it's for their protection. :)

A public servant, in a public place, performing in offical capacity. Absolutely no way they can expect to have any privacy.

-=-=-


That does not mean however they wont arrest/harass you for doing it.
I've seen a Youtube vid where a guy was recording a traffic stop in front of his house, from his garage, and the cop came and tried to steal the camera and arrest him.

Pietro Beretta
March 9, 2012, 06:03 PM
IN SLO (San Luis Obispo), this is my "home town." I am surprised the Sheriff acted this way, usually its the local PD that fly off the wall...

Everyone always wondered why I called it ************.

I don't remember the local news picking this up.... I was still in the area when this happened.

Brockak47
March 9, 2012, 06:13 PM
hes gonna be a few mil more heavy in the bank from his settlement

raubvogel
March 9, 2012, 06:32 PM
"I just follow orders" or "I'm just doing my job" or "I don't make the laws I just enforce them"

I thought that defense did not work in Nuremberg.

Bonesinium
March 9, 2012, 07:58 PM
"I just follow orders" or "I'm just doing my job" or "I don't make the laws I just enforce them"

I thought that defense did not work in Nuremberg.
It didn't which is exactly my point. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent it from still happening, and it also doesn't mean they are held accountable.

Big_John1961
March 9, 2012, 09:17 PM
Dave really? What would the safe distance be on a high power rifle?

10 yards if you have a safe backstop. Even if he was guilty of nd [which the court said he wasn't ] they had no right to search his house. Your missing the whole point. His 4th amendment rights were violated his guns were seized and your worried about how much land he owns.

Yes Intercooler, you are completely missing the point but that doesn't keep you from coming back to it over and over. This story demonstrates a clear violation of this man's 4th amendment rights and is a perfect example of illegal search and seizure, by a gaggle of buffoonish LEO's. That's what matters.

Keep talking about the size of his lot or whether he should be allowed to shoot there (he should). It's completely irrelevant.

Neverwinter
March 9, 2012, 09:51 PM
Yes Intercooler, you are completely missing the point but that doesn't keep you from coming back to it over and over. This story demonstrates a clear violation of this man's 4th amendment rights and is a perfect example of illegal search and seizure, by a gaggle of buffoonish LEO's. That's what matters.

Keep talking about the size of his lot or whether he should be allowed to shoot there (he should). It's completely irrelevant.
The size of his lot and the nature of any backstop present are relevant to whether he was discharging the firearm in a manner negligent to the safety of those around him.

guntech59
March 9, 2012, 11:28 PM
Good Lord!! It has been stated several times and is in the video that he was shooting into a berm. What more do you want?

The dimensions of the land are immaterial...it has already been established that he was NOT being reckless..

langenc
March 10, 2012, 12:20 AM
The size of his lot and the nature of any backstop present are relevant to whether he was discharging the firearm in a manner negligent to the safety of those around him.


10 acres to discharge a firearm.. Does that make it right?/

What about 'shall not be infringed'??

1stmarine
March 10, 2012, 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raubvogel
"I just follow orders" or "I'm just doing my job" or "I don't make the laws I just enforce them"

I thought that defense did not work in Nuremberg.
It didn't which is exactly my point. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent it from still happening, and it also doesn't mean they are held accountable.

Not it didn't that is why law enforcement, military need to be aware that if in the process of taking an order someone believes that they might be engaging in something unlawful they have the right to say now and that if they do they might be found accountable and will have to answer before a judge. Hitler was very smart, first he created his secret machine including the secret police so I am sure many people had to follow suit based on fear alone.
So the Nazis, even if some military didn't like what they were doing according to their morals they had to do it or risk being arrested by the SS or even shot.
That is not the case here.

Shadow 7D
March 10, 2012, 04:22 PM
"I just follow orders" or "I'm just doing my job" or "I don't make the laws I just enforce them"

I thought that defense did not work in Nuremberg.
KINDA
if they were following orders the police union AND department will defend them short of tossing the entire chain of command to the wolves, as it's cheaper to claim they were in the right when the civil penalty phase of the trial kicks in, maybe limiting what the jury is willing to make them pay the 'bad' guy. It ends up a political/money issue.

BIGGBAY90
March 10, 2012, 04:37 PM
Nothing newwww

230RN
March 10, 2012, 05:46 PM
I was waiting for someone to ask about this... unless I missed it in the above posts:

I can't figure out why he insisted on reaching "slowly, and with two fingers" for his cell phone. He could have bought it right there, and in at least that respect, I admire the officers' restraint.

Was he still wearing ears and not hear the order? Did I hear him say something about that when he was by the truck?

Somebody enlighten me on this, please?

Terry, 230RN

Hocka Louis
March 11, 2012, 12:15 AM
Surprised anyone would say anything about most cops being good after this. How many officers broke the law and then conspired to cover-up their criminal activity and falsely accuse the victim? Apparently none refused to participate.

It has been suggested that every such LEO should be imprisoned for the same time as the charges leveled against the victim from the start as though they were found guilty, plus a minimum of a year -- only fair. That might make them think twice about abusing their authority. And then the organized crime conspiracy on top of that? These "officers" of the law would, apparently should, be going to jail for a really long time.

lobo9er
March 11, 2012, 11:24 AM
Sounds like the one cop stole the AR-15 to me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Police arrest target shooter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!