BOSTON: Police limit searches for guns
- Thread starter SJG26
- Start date
- Status
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
armedbear said:
Don't twist my meaning into something that it is not.
I never said that a warrant should be issued for that situation. A warrant allows me to do an involuntary search of the home, and it rightfully requires a certain amount of proof to obtain one.
But, asking for consent is quite different.
I never implied in any way that a warrant should be issued for that hypothetical situation.
Your kid, or anybody's kid, would never be involved in any kind of thuggery if they are raised right. It all begins when the child learns to walk and talk. Whatever things he/she learns from that point on will make an overwhelming difference later on.
berettaprofessor
Member
KevinColorado/Rachen
In my opinion, the reason the DC/Boston voluntary searches should NOT occur and the reason most people would be afraid of opening their door is simply that the average trying-to-be-law-abiding citizen knows not how many laws they would be breaking. I'm a straight-arrow and there are no bodies buried in my basement (as someone else put it), but our "it's good for you" society is so regulated that I, a non-lawyer, don't have a clue whether having an opened bottle of Drain-o under my sink would be grounds for some hazardous waste violation or evidence of child endangerment (even though my kids are almost adult). Yet most people, like me, both respect and are intimidated enough by the police to feel they have to say "yes" when they should, for their own protection, say "no".
For Rachen, as a personal example, we did everything I know to raise my children right, we are good examples; parents who never drink, don't smoke, aren't abusive, and live a good life. Yet I had a rebellious and experimentative son who pushed all the barriers. I might be viewed by some as being too permissive, but there were times in his teens when he and I were eye to eye and chest to chest (and he was 7 inches taller by then) and I invited him to take the first punch knowing full well if he ever did I intended for at least one of us to have to leave the room on a stretcher. He was once arrested for pot possession near the school grounds at a time where we were just first suspecting he was using. The car he was standing next to was his, but registered in my name. We cleaned out his room of everything before he got home...he lived with a bare bed and no amenities for quite awhile until he earned back some privileges like his computer...but I lived in some dread for awhile that the "law" would also feel they could justify searching and seizing my home. And, as it turned out, 2 years later when he had moved out and we repainted his room, I removed the return air vent to find alcohol (I had no idea) and a small stash even he'd forgotten. So if the police had searched, who was liable? Would custody of our daughter have been taken because of endangerment? And I'm still not sure there's not a stash hidden somewhere. And I'm still not sure in ten years that if I have an incandescent bulb in a single lamp I won't be breaking the law.
I'm still not sure that the problem with our children isn't that we're too restrictive today...I know it was alot easier for my parents to travel 20 hours with me as a child, laying on the floor of the backseat reading a book, than it is with my children strapped upright and cocooned into a seat belt and I'm not sure I was really any less safe then. And yet, somewhere, the government is actively resisting closing and protecting our borders. Any wonder why I'm a former Republican on the verge of declaring Libertarian?
In my opinion, the reason the DC/Boston voluntary searches should NOT occur and the reason most people would be afraid of opening their door is simply that the average trying-to-be-law-abiding citizen knows not how many laws they would be breaking. I'm a straight-arrow and there are no bodies buried in my basement (as someone else put it), but our "it's good for you" society is so regulated that I, a non-lawyer, don't have a clue whether having an opened bottle of Drain-o under my sink would be grounds for some hazardous waste violation or evidence of child endangerment (even though my kids are almost adult). Yet most people, like me, both respect and are intimidated enough by the police to feel they have to say "yes" when they should, for their own protection, say "no".
For Rachen, as a personal example, we did everything I know to raise my children right, we are good examples; parents who never drink, don't smoke, aren't abusive, and live a good life. Yet I had a rebellious and experimentative son who pushed all the barriers. I might be viewed by some as being too permissive, but there were times in his teens when he and I were eye to eye and chest to chest (and he was 7 inches taller by then) and I invited him to take the first punch knowing full well if he ever did I intended for at least one of us to have to leave the room on a stretcher. He was once arrested for pot possession near the school grounds at a time where we were just first suspecting he was using. The car he was standing next to was his, but registered in my name. We cleaned out his room of everything before he got home...he lived with a bare bed and no amenities for quite awhile until he earned back some privileges like his computer...but I lived in some dread for awhile that the "law" would also feel they could justify searching and seizing my home. And, as it turned out, 2 years later when he had moved out and we repainted his room, I removed the return air vent to find alcohol (I had no idea) and a small stash even he'd forgotten. So if the police had searched, who was liable? Would custody of our daughter have been taken because of endangerment? And I'm still not sure there's not a stash hidden somewhere. And I'm still not sure in ten years that if I have an incandescent bulb in a single lamp I won't be breaking the law.
I'm still not sure that the problem with our children isn't that we're too restrictive today...I know it was alot easier for my parents to travel 20 hours with me as a child, laying on the floor of the backseat reading a book, than it is with my children strapped upright and cocooned into a seat belt and I'm not sure I was really any less safe then. And yet, somewhere, the government is actively resisting closing and protecting our borders. Any wonder why I'm a former Republican on the verge of declaring Libertarian?
ctdonath
Member
My question remains:
How can you assure us that these searches are, indeed, initiated by information that some crime/contraband is involved, and not just fishing expiditions?
Until that's answered, we're not talking about the same issue.
How can you assure us that these searches are, indeed, initiated by information that some crime/contraband is involved, and not just fishing expiditions?
Until that's answered, we're not talking about the same issue.
Titan6
member
Actually I have a better question.
Where in Colorado do you live Kevin? I would like permission to search your home.
If I find any illegal guns I will keep them and let you go about your way. Don't worry about the rest.
Where in Colorado do you live Kevin? I would like permission to search your home.
If I find any illegal guns I will keep them and let you go about your way. Don't worry about the rest.
Anyone who has even begun to read some of the laws in my state would see just how real this problem is. It's not paranoia.
Maybe a cop would see the law as having some connection with right and wrong, but many of us have long since given up on that simplistic view.
In my life I have seen exactly one legitimate indoor pot farm. It belonged to a cop. This was at a party with many of his colleagues present. They seemed to approve of his little enterprise. I wondered how many "busts" they'd done in the past month. I was young at the time; this was probably a watershed moment for me, when I realized that the connections between the law, law enforcement, and morality were tenuous at best, and perverse at worst. I've learned a lot more, since then.
coloradokevin, you may be a straight-up good guy who is true to his word. But if you showed up at my door and wanted to search my house without a warrant, how would I know that?
69Chevy
Member
I think this is just a bad idea. I don't trust police not to twist this to their advantage. You can say that there are plenty of good cops out there, and I am sure there are, but not every cop is a good cop, so you can't deny that this search without a warrant has potential for abuse.
Second, if the kid is a thug, good chance he picked it up from his family(the people who raised him). I don't see the cops going into ghetto neighborhoods and expecting their parents/residents to be sympathetic to the cops cause.
And finally, everyone should know, especially gun owners, that this is just another political power grab. If these politicians wanted to really solve the problem, they would try and figure out why these kids are carrying guns, which is usually drug related. We know that during prohibition, alcohol was still available and their was a criminal element that supplied the users. The same is true with drugs, so its a self reinforcing problem. The more illegal you make it, the worse it will get. We banned herion and cocaine, and now you got meth, and thats banned as well. It's a never ending war, just like in Orwells 1984. You know the politicians won't stop the war on drugs though because most of them get campaign contributions or jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, the same people who fund anti-drug groups (It's in their interest to keep effective drugs illegal, so they can charge you for their latest offerings).
So, I see this as a power grab. Whats next after this when it doesn't work(and we all know it won't)? Will they call to expand it to other neighborhoods? other items? We all know how people hate to cut failing programs to save face (or because they serve some other purpose). Going door to door seems like preparation for mandatory door to door searches, which is what the army does.
Second, if the kid is a thug, good chance he picked it up from his family(the people who raised him). I don't see the cops going into ghetto neighborhoods and expecting their parents/residents to be sympathetic to the cops cause.
And finally, everyone should know, especially gun owners, that this is just another political power grab. If these politicians wanted to really solve the problem, they would try and figure out why these kids are carrying guns, which is usually drug related. We know that during prohibition, alcohol was still available and their was a criminal element that supplied the users. The same is true with drugs, so its a self reinforcing problem. The more illegal you make it, the worse it will get. We banned herion and cocaine, and now you got meth, and thats banned as well. It's a never ending war, just like in Orwells 1984. You know the politicians won't stop the war on drugs though because most of them get campaign contributions or jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, the same people who fund anti-drug groups (It's in their interest to keep effective drugs illegal, so they can charge you for their latest offerings).
So, I see this as a power grab. Whats next after this when it doesn't work(and we all know it won't)? Will they call to expand it to other neighborhoods? other items? We all know how people hate to cut failing programs to save face (or because they serve some other purpose). Going door to door seems like preparation for mandatory door to door searches, which is what the army does.
Dave Workman
Member
ArmedBear wrote:
I beg your pardon!
Item #1: What is the difference between a cop and a "civilian?" None. Police are "civilian law enforcement." They are not soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines. They are civilians who wear often colorful uniforms with badges and sidearms.
This subliminal effort to differentiate between police and citizens they serve is insidious.
Okay, now that's out of the way...
Item #2: Warrantless "consent searches" are insidious in nature as well, and we all know, or at least should know, how to coerce something out of someone when they're apprehensive about what's going on.
"(clear throat) Ma'am, you mean you're going to keep me from doing my job?" (feigned voice inflection here, with a combination of innocence and surprise, and raise your eyebrows in disappointment, hurt and "aw shucks" shock)
Once the public is lulled into accepting warrantless consent searches, of their homes, cars, boats, your name it, as "business as usual," we're all in trouble, and the Fourth Amendment is dead, kaput, terminated with extreme prejudice.
If there is evidence that some little jerk has a gun illegally, then take that evidence to a judge, get a warrant, and do this the way it is supposed to be done.
I beg your pardon!
Item #1: What is the difference between a cop and a "civilian?" None. Police are "civilian law enforcement." They are not soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines. They are civilians who wear often colorful uniforms with badges and sidearms.
This subliminal effort to differentiate between police and citizens they serve is insidious.
Okay, now that's out of the way...
Item #2: Warrantless "consent searches" are insidious in nature as well, and we all know, or at least should know, how to coerce something out of someone when they're apprehensive about what's going on.
"(clear throat) Ma'am, you mean you're going to keep me from doing my job?" (feigned voice inflection here, with a combination of innocence and surprise, and raise your eyebrows in disappointment, hurt and "aw shucks" shock)
Once the public is lulled into accepting warrantless consent searches, of their homes, cars, boats, your name it, as "business as usual," we're all in trouble, and the Fourth Amendment is dead, kaput, terminated with extreme prejudice.
If there is evidence that some little jerk has a gun illegally, then take that evidence to a judge, get a warrant, and do this the way it is supposed to be done.
Poper
Member
Upon reading this the name "Serpico" came to mind...
Poper
Yes it's insidious.
However, I do not agree with you that cops are civilians where I live.
In my state, "assault weapons" are banned, NFA guns are banned, and magazines are limited to 10 rounds, except to cops and military personnel.
The college campus cops have M4's, hi-caps and SBS's in every car. I'm not allowed as a civilian to possess these "weapons of war." Some cops even buy these as personal weapons -- they can legally buy them to have at home, where they're supposedly civilians like anyone else. Even military personnel can only have their issue weapons if they're banned, not buy personal ones, and only SOF guys have issue weapons at home.
So tell me, if you put a uniform on someone, issue him weapons that are not allowed to the rest of the population, and send him out, what does that sound like? A civilian, or a soldier?
And that's just a beat cop. SWAT teams with battering rams and .50 BMG rifles (I'm not allowed to buy one of these "WMD's" either) seal the deal.
It's more than subliminal. The shift is quite real.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
armedbear said:
No. The homeowner did not face charges for allowing us into his house. The contraband was clearly not his (by contraband I am refering to drug paraphernalia and unauthorized controlled substances).
Also, thanks for the clarification... I just want it to be clear that I am not advocating warrants be issued on hearsay.
titan6 said:
Thanks so much for asking! No offense, but I prefer to exercise my rights, and do not wish to consent to a search. If you insist on searching my house, please get a warrant!
(see, it is just that simple!)
armedbear said:
I guess it would just have to be a decision that you made based on the circumstances, the conversation with the LE officer, etc.
No two cops are the same, and even I don't see eye-to-eye with all of my peers. That's why we always have the right not to consent to anything other than a lawful order by a police officer, or a warrant by the court (by lawful order I am more refering to the stuff that is safety related during a contact, like providing a correct name on a traffic stop).
Also, I see that the parenting issue has come up again in the thread. Just for clarification, I am not talking about the suburbanite rebelious teenager who smoked pot... Rather, I am talking about the hood-rat covered in gang tats, driving an Escalade despite not having a job, who runs his neighborhood like a conquering dictator.
Such a "kid" typically has dirtbag parents... Parents who are life-long criminals, living on welfare without working, while teaching their kids to hate the police (not just to be cautious of us, but to hate us). Their level of parenting pretty much ceases as soon as they get home from the hospital after giving birth. The families are usually split (often without a father in the picture), and the children have normally been left to their own devices since they were five years old.
I was walking up to a house on a call one day a couple of summers ago. A lady was walking down the opposite side of the street with her small child (probably three years old, riding a tricycle). The little kid started shouting at me "I ain't afraid of the Po-Po, I ain't afraid of the Po-Po", and then proceeded to tell me that I couldn't arrest him. Are you serious??? That is a prime example of a kid who has learned this behavior from his parents, and will likely end up following in their footsteps!
Anyway, we seem to be three pages into this thread, and we're still looking at this issue from opposite sides of the fence:
Position One: Government is potentially looking to take more power from the people, and will probably conduct blanket door-to-door random searches. We can't prove that they won't
Position Two: Police have simply explained to the public that they conduct consent searches as a part of their jobs, and that they will gladly help if you want your child's room searched. We can't prove that they intend to exceed their lawful authority.
Obviously, none of us really know for sure on this particular case, and we are all trying best to make an educated guess! I'm not a Boston cop, and as far as I know none of us work for the city of Boston.
I can appreciate where some of this lack of trust comes from, particularly from folks like Armedbear (a people's-republic of CA resident).
At the same time, I just want to make it clear that LE isn't always out to do a gun-grab from citizens, and that may not be what was happening here (obviously I can't speak for an entire nation, but I can speak from the perspective of at least one officer in at least one department!).
lanternlad1
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2007
- Messages
- 770
Consent can be a slippery slope that can come back to bite you, too.
Case in point: (As seen on Another 48)
Police ask to search home of murder suspect's sister. She has no clue what they are talking about, so she consents. After all, she didn't do anything, so what does she have to fear? During search, they find murder weapon, and car used in murder, THEN PROCEED TO ARREST HER AS AN ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER. They use these charges as leverage to get her to talk about her brother (the suspect) and get info to arrest him. They charge them both and go on their merry way, while the apparently innocent sister goes to jail for no real reason at all.
Lessons learned:
1) NEVER CONSENT - Use your rights, make 'em work for it.
2) KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT - You'll put yourself in jail faster than the police ever could. 90% of those in jail put themselves there.
I come from a LEO family, I have no problem with cops. But the truth is, most cops don't want justice, and neither do the courts. They want to arrest and jail and look good to superiors. Superiors want to look good to voters. Voters are not in jail so they don't care about those who are. Like 1% of the American population. Justice in America does not exist anymore, we just think it does.
Case in point: (As seen on Another 48)
Police ask to search home of murder suspect's sister. She has no clue what they are talking about, so she consents. After all, she didn't do anything, so what does she have to fear? During search, they find murder weapon, and car used in murder, THEN PROCEED TO ARREST HER AS AN ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER. They use these charges as leverage to get her to talk about her brother (the suspect) and get info to arrest him. They charge them both and go on their merry way, while the apparently innocent sister goes to jail for no real reason at all.
Lessons learned:
1) NEVER CONSENT - Use your rights, make 'em work for it.
2) KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT - You'll put yourself in jail faster than the police ever could. 90% of those in jail put themselves there.
I come from a LEO family, I have no problem with cops. But the truth is, most cops don't want justice, and neither do the courts. They want to arrest and jail and look good to superiors. Superiors want to look good to voters. Voters are not in jail so they don't care about those who are. Like 1% of the American population. Justice in America does not exist anymore, we just think it does.
Dude, Massachusetts makes California look like Idaho.
As far as #1 vs. #2, there has never been a government which didn't try to increase its power. That's pretty much a law of nature.
It's simply safer and more realistic to go with the Founding Fathers and assume #1, instead of #2. The negative consequences of being overprotective of one's rights are what? Nothing. The negative consequences of mistakenly trusting in "truth, justice and the American way" can be dire.
This isn't paranoia. I don't get my "truth" from movies and TV. I'm not Dale Gribble, I'm not holed up in some basement, I have a wife, a home and a day job, though I'm not at work right now because I have a nasty head cold.
I'm just old enough to have seen a few things -- including some great cops, and some not-so-great, just like I've seen all sorts of people in every walk of life.cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
darn funny how the folks in the most whitebread of areas are so worried about what happens in neighborhoods they drive around.will all the folks who live in or have lived in an affected area please raise their hands
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
"The college campus cops have M4's, hi-caps and SBS's in every car."
really?
at best hyperbole at worst fertilizer
really?
at best hyperbole at worst fertilizer
You're wrong, cassandrasdaddy. It's the straight truth. I see them every day. Come on down and look.
You forget that many of our rights were established in court cases involving unsympathetic characters.
I suppose you're going to wave your street credentials around again now.
You forget that many of our rights were established in court cases involving unsympathetic characters.
I suppose you're going to wave your street credentials around again now.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
what college has m 4's in every car?
The California State University system.
I haven't checked the selector. Maybe they're semi-auto SBR's. But we aren't allowed those, either.
The rifles and shotguns are easy to see, as they are in a rack between the front seats of every patrol car. Given that the M4's fit in the car easily and have a distinct notch in the barrel, I'm guessing they're military surplus, but they might have ordered them with the 14.5" barrels. I know what a 16" M4gery looks like.
I also know for sure that local agency uniformed officers carry full-autos in their cars. The club where I'm on the Board of Directors derives some of our income from renting them range time, and the gun shop I frequent sells NFA items to them. BTW full-autos have a rather distinct sound, and police cars and uniforms are pretty easy to recognize. It would be hard to be mistaken about this.
Most local cops have their AR-type weapons in the trunk, with a shotgun in a front seat rack. The campus police have both in the rack up front. Given a few days, I can post a picture (unless there's something illegal about photographing a cop car on a public street).
I haven't checked the selector. Maybe they're semi-auto SBR's. But we aren't allowed those, either.
The rifles and shotguns are easy to see, as they are in a rack between the front seats of every patrol car. Given that the M4's fit in the car easily and have a distinct notch in the barrel, I'm guessing they're military surplus, but they might have ordered them with the 14.5" barrels. I know what a 16" M4gery looks like.
I also know for sure that local agency uniformed officers carry full-autos in their cars. The club where I'm on the Board of Directors derives some of our income from renting them range time, and the gun shop I frequent sells NFA items to them. BTW full-autos have a rather distinct sound, and police cars and uniforms are pretty easy to recognize. It would be hard to be mistaken about this.
Most local cops have their AR-type weapons in the trunk, with a shotgun in a front seat rack. The campus police have both in the rack up front. Given a few days, I can post a picture (unless there's something illegal about photographing a cop car on a public street).
Yeah, and once inside, anything they happen to see on the way to the kid's room is fair game, right?
How dumb do the police think civilians are? If this program actually started, wouldn't the kids with the guns hide them in other parts of the house? The basement, or garage, or whatever?
Waste of resources.
K
How dumb do the police think civilians are? If this program actually started, wouldn't the kids with the guns hide them in other parts of the house? The basement, or garage, or whatever?
Waste of resources.
K
ProguninTN
Member
Like D.C.
Hmm, just like D.C. Trying to convince people to waive their rights. Rather sleazy, isn't it ?
Hmm, just like D.C. Trying to convince people to waive their rights. Rather sleazy, isn't it ?
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
Your kid, or anybody's kid, would never be involved in any kind of thuggery if they are raised right. It all begins when the child learns to walk and talk. Whatever things he/she learns from that point on will make an overwhelming difference later on.
hmmmm would one be too bold if they enquired as to how many critters you've raised?
i can think of a number of times i've seen the bolded part prove untrue, in real life
hmmmm would one be too bold if they enquired as to how many critters you've raised?
i can think of a number of times i've seen the bolded part prove untrue, in real life
Titan6
member
Well Kevin one of sources that we just popped for dealing crack for the thrid time gave up your 16 year old son's name as having a hand gun stored somewhere in his room. We are afraid he will use it to kill you and everyone in your home. Most people are killed by guns and by people they know. If you don't let us in we can come back with a warrant and search everywhere in the house and then we will take him to jail and maybe you as an accessory for obstructing justice. So how about you let us in now?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked