Funny interaction with a sheriff

[Sam1911]

What if it turned out to be a convicted felon selling guns to his buddies who were about to go out and knock over the corner store.

Yes! Of course! I've read of that happening all the time! Convicted felons setting up yard sales and putting out yard signs publicly advertising guns and ammo for sale, as a front for selling those guns to buddies who will then rob a store.




Did you think about that before you wrote it?

 

[TimSr]

Although I'm a little uncomfortable with you feeling the need to prove things were legit.....in THIS country, he needs to prove they aren't, I'm glad it turned out that way.

People need to understand that if they get a call, they have to respond, no matter how ridculous, so that he can report that he responded and there was nothing wrong. The people who made the calls are to blame, and not the officer who repsonded.

Goerge, just curious as to what state you are in?

 

[GBExpat]

So I had a yard sale today but put the signs up thursday listing ammo,fishing tackle,tools and a couple handguns. Since I put the signs up early I had some people stopping buy last evening to inquire about the guns. It was just about dark and my wife calls me from the kitchen and said there was a deputy coming up the walk ...

It would all depend upon the Deputy's demeanor. If he is friendly & laid-back, I would invite him in for coffee, talk and show&tell. If he was cold & "official", I would almost certainly invite him to come back the next day during the yard sale.

Not a Biggie. O'course, I doubt that I would ever sell handguns at a yard sale ... and if I did, I certainly wouldn't advertise it in advance on the signage. Just me.

 

[Mr Woody]

Ok mister moderator let me amend it to a felon selling some stolen guns at a yard sale. Which does happen. Gun bought by bad guy who commits crime.

The point is if they did nothing and there was a real violation going on it would be the police held at fault. They had to check!

 

[Ryanxia]

the problem with so many people now concerning law enforcement is the "us against them" mentality.

I believe the issue has been growing as a result of militarizing the Police force for domestic issues (since Posse Comitatus Act limits actual military in typical civilian situations). Now you have what's being seen as more an occupying force (if you're in an area where the Police are rolling down the streets in armored Humvees and MWRAPs, which if you aren't you soon will be) rather than local neighbors who are there to help.
You also have the issue of asset forfeiture where people have lost everything over minor infractions.

but i wouldn't hesitate to let a single officer or deputy from my county show up if there had been a complaint like that and look in my safe. I have nothing to hide. What's he gonna do? Steal my guns? No. Run my serial numbers? I'll provide the list.

If you choose to do that, great. However under the Firearms Owners Protection Act any kind of firearm registration is illegal, so no one is obligated to 'provide them a list' or let them 'run the serial numbers'. (Because as we all know, registration leads to confiscation).

Mr Woody - In your example where someone would be giving/selling their firearms to a prohibited friend, they wouldn't put up yard sale signs about it would they?

 

[Sam1911]

Felons selling guns at yard sales? They had to check?

Check what? Look at this carefully. What did the deputy do? He looked. What did that tell him? Did that tell him that Mr. H.D. George is not a felon? No. Not unless you're saying that he took Mr. George's ID and called in a check for wants and warrants and a felony record. Should he have? Why? On what pretext would a law enforcement officer call in a check on a person? Because he HAS guns? Because he's selling them? That's not probable cause to suspect any crime is taking place. There's no Terry stop and frisk going on. This is a private citizen doing perfectly lawful things. The officer DID NOT "make sure" he was a non-felon, and did nothing to make sure there wasn't a "real violation" going on.

Now, what about the guns? Did the officer take the guns and run the serial numbers to make sure they aren't stolen? No, Mr. George did not say so. And on what pretext would the officer do that kind of search? "I see you have some guns. Let me do a search on them to prove they aren't stolen!" Really? Do we live in that kind of world where an officer has the right to do a search like that absent ANY indication of wrong-doing? No, no we don't.

So really what happened is that Mr. George invited a law officer into his house and let him conduct a "casual" (no such thing, actually) and voluntary search of part of the premises. That's an enormous red flag and quite dangerous -- even for "perfectly law abiding" (no such thing, actually) people. But hey, it worked out OK for him so we won't learn any real lessons from this.

...

Now, what I will grant you is that the deputy "had to check." By policy, because they got calls, the officer probably did have to stop by so he could fill out his report and say they took a look-see. A simple chat at the front door would have been (and should have been) completely sufficient to satisfy his department policy.

And it would have been just as useful to preserving public safety as the voluntarily invasive probing that did take place.

 

[Mr Woody]

guess we are going to have to disagree.

 

[guyfromohio]

I bet a simple "yep, got some for sale" would have resulted in an "ok, have a good night". I don't think the cop was looking to search his safe. He did have to answer the call. George was over-accommodating. His choice. As for Woody.... Guns being sold legally are guns being sold legally. No more, no less.

 

[Sam1911]

guess we are going to have to disagree.

Then you're going to have to provide some counter points to any of the things I said.

What did the deputy do that proved "real violations" weren't taking place?

What public good was performed by that deputy running his eyes over Mr. George and Mr. George's possessions?

How is this something more than "security theater"?

By what right or law or legal pretext should the deputy have the ability to inspect, search, and verify the person and items at that address? (Assuming you feel he should have actually done so...which he didn't.)

You can't say "I disagree," with any credibility, if you can't explain your view and support it with facts and logical arguments.

 

[unclenunzie]

Law enforcement officers are agents of the state. Friendly, nice, casual or otherwise, this is something I hope to keep in mind if I interact with them.

 

[Ryanxia]

Now, what I will grant you is that the deputy "had to check." By policy, because they got calls, the officer probably did have to stop by so he could fill out his report and say they took a look-see. A simple chat at the front door would have been (and should have been) completely sufficient to satisfy his department policy.

And it would have been just as useful to preserving public safety as the voluntarily invasive probing that did take place.

What I don't understand is why would there be a policy that required an officer to check a legal activity? It's like those sticky situations of Man With a Gun calls, it should be common sense to ask the caller, 'Is he holding/brandishing/threatening with it? Or is it on his belt while he goes about his business?'

Saying the officer 'had to check' is saying he had to drive out to the house in question and spend his time and the time of the individual "checking on" a legal activity. And this is the stuff they probably spend half their time on, it's no wonder towns that have eliminated their police departments are getting along just fine.

 

[newfalguy101]

What I don't understand is why would there be a policy that required an officer to check a legal activity?

Uhhhh, ummmm, How would they know if what was happening is legal or not without following up on the "reports" ?

 

[Sam1911]

How would they know if what was happening is legal or not without following up on the "reports" ?

Because nothing in the reports of a man selling firearms at a yard sale would suggest that anything illegal is happening.

Would you expect the police to dispatch an officer if passers-by called 911 and reported that he was selling baseball bats, hunting knives, axes, or any number of other completely legal (though potentially dangerous) items? No, of course not.

What many of us are pointing out is that possessing a firearm, and selling a firearm are not AT ALL indicative of unlawful activities, and it is inappropriate for law enforcement to treat a citizen as though he needs to be investigated for engaging in activities which do not suggest or imply any law breaking. It smacks of harassment and intrusiveness.

Citizens don't need to be checked up on to make sure they aren't law-breakers. They need to be left alone until/unless some evidence is presented that a law is being broken.

...

Several very good analogies apply:

1) "Sir, I see you with a very nice watch there. I'm going to need to see some identification and your receipts to prove you didn't steal that. Sure it COULD be yours, but I'm going to need to see proof."

2) "Ma'am, I've observed you walking out of the mall with these two children. Please step over to the car here and produce your identification and birth certificates for those kids. While having kids with you in public is perfectly legal, we have to check that you didn't just kidnap them..."

3) "Sir, you were observed leaving X,Y,Z firing range. Open your trunk, I'm going to inspect your firearms and run the serial numbers to make sure they aren't stolen..."

4) "Sir, you purchased cough medicine from CVS drug store a few moments ago. While you probably do have a cold, I'm going to need to inspect your apartment to make sure you aren't making methamphetamine."

5) "Sir, someone called and said you are selling guns at a yard sale, which is perfectly legal in this state, but I need to walk through your house and look into your gun safe to satisfy myself that things are on the up and up here..."

 

[X-Rap]

Even in Colorado where we now must have private sales background checked it is still legal to advertise a sale and all formalities done prior to the transfer (post BC).
In short I could advertise a wheelbarrow full of pistols at a garage sale and so long as there was no physical transfer prior to a BC there would be no violation. Now if they wanted to set me up they would sadly be within their professional ability to do that.

 

[newfalguy101]

Because nothing in the reports of a man selling firearms at a yard sale would suggest that anything illegal is happening.

and you know what the callers said when they made their reports how????

I don't know what the people said when they called, you don't know what the people called, and whats more, I don't see in the OP anywhere that the responding deputy ASKED to see the firearms, the OP offered, and it seems made a SALE in the process.

Based solely on the OP, it looks like all the deputy did was swing by and asked the OP about the sale..........you know, followed up on multiple reports, heck as far as we know, it could have simply been an excuse for the deputy to go shopping!!!

 

[Sam1911]

and you know what the callers said when they made their reports how????

Clearly I don't know any more than you do about the reports, but unless there was quite a bit of false information given, nothing they could have correctly said would indicate a law being broken.

And the entire premise (man ADVERTISES TO THE PUBLIC that he's having a yard sale at his own home) makes almost zero sense when trying to pin it into a "criminals at work" context. So any seat-of-the-pants analysis by the police dispatcher of what was being reported should have concluded with, "Uhh...I don't see a problem here...why do we need to send someone?"

The more nefarious way of looking at it is to keep in mind what some cops have told me: They catch a lot of folks in legal snares by letting them talk themselves into jail. In other words, hey, just stop by for a chat and see what this nervous homeowner manages to admit to while trying to be super polite and helpful to the "nice officer." Most folks have no idea what or how many laws they accidentally violate in a given month, and there are plenty of folks who've ended up with criminal records because they just didn't know when to shut up and say, "Goodbye officer. Have a nice day!"

I don't see in the OP anywhere that the responding deputy ASKED to see the firearms, the OP offered, and it seems made a SALE in the process.

That's true, and it's something I pointed out before. This was just a "friendly" fishing expedition of one sort or another. Stop by and see what folks will tell you. Might get to put someone in the back of a cruiser. Might get a nice deal on a lightly used pistol. Win-win for the officer!

Perhaps not so smart of the OP, though.

Based solely on the OP, it looks like all the deputy did was swing by and asked the OP about the sale..........you know, followed up on multiple reports, heck as far as we know, it could have simply been an excuse for the deputy to go shopping!!!

Exactly. And that's the most positive face we can put on it.

Unfortunately, the lessons taught us by the best case scenario are not the ones we really need to learn. You could hold a lit firecracker in your teeth and it might not blow up. But you'd be better off not to count on that result in the future.

 

[newfalguy101]

And the entire premise (man ADVERTISES TO THE PUBLIC that he's having a yard sale at his own home) makes almost zero sense when trying to pin it into a "criminals at work" context. So any seat-of-the-pants analysis by the police dispatcher of what was being reported should have concluded with, "Uhh...I don't see a problem here...why do we need to send someone?"

I completely agree, however, I am doubtful that a dispatcher is allowed/authorized to make that sort of determination.

My wife, years ago, worked as a dispatcher, and has told me more than once of times when calls came in that were ( even to her untrained eye ) not really anything worth sending a deputy to check out, However, her job required her to send a deputy to respond to all calls..........it wasn't her job to decide which ones were worth the time and which ones were just time wasters

 

[Sam1911]

Surely that's so. I didn't really mean to blame the dispatcher. But decisions are made about whether to respond or not in the chain somewhere.

Of course, if they really got "about a dozen" calls it probably is simply easier to send a deputy over to walk around and say hi, because they can then tell callers, "yeah, we've got it covered."

But I sure wouldn't invite any LEO into the house, or to look at my guns(!), just because he "had to respond."

A simple, "hi, howdy" was about all a response that was needed.

 

[newfalguy101]

again, I completely agree

I would think a polite explanation on the front step would have sufficed

 

[Teachu2]

Then you're going to have to provide some counter points to any of the things I said.

What did the deputy do that proved "real violations" weren't taking place?

What public good was performed by that deputy running his eyes over Mr. George and Mr. George's possessions?

How is this something more than "security theater"?

By what right or law or legal pretext should the deputy have the ability to inspect, search, and verify the person and items at that address? (Assuming you feel he should have actually done so...which he didn't.)

You can't say "I disagree," with any credibility, if you can't explain your view and support it with facts and logical arguments.

1) Actually, I defend his 1A right to disagree with you on his own terms.
2) Nuisance calls are part of being a patrol officer. Usually the officer has a great deal of discretion as to how much effort to expend on these calls.
3) This officer was a uniformed shopper. Sounds like he found the gun that fit his needs, and made a positive contact with George.

 

[TomJ]

I have mixed feelings about this interaction. On one hand, in a day and age where police are vilified and literally under attack, it was refreshing to read about a citizen having a friendly interaction as well as a cup of coffee with an officer. If done in a way that does not put the citizen at risk, I'd like to see more of that. The sceptic in me, however, keeps thinking about what any defense attorney will tell you, and that's to say as little as possible, and preferably nothing to police in any interaction with them. It's unfortunate, but I'd have to recommend option 2 when talking to the police.

 

[HOME DEPOT GEORGE]

People need to understand that if they get a call, they have to respond, no matter how ridculous, so that he can report that he responded and there was nothing wrong. The people who made the calls are to blame, and not the officer who repsonded.

Goerge, just curious as to what state you are in?

I'm in Florida but I grew up in NJ where I was an absolute terror in my neighborhood, the police hated me and the feeling was mutual to the point that I wouldn't even go to get together s with my wifes family as 2 cousins and an uncle were on the local PD. Fast forward to Florida 15+ years ago I mellowed a bit but still had my moments and on one night after being on a 2 night bender my wife called the sheriff out of concern and one officer in particular spoke to my wife and told her that if I entered treatment voluntary right away he would make all the rest go away. I kept my word and he kept his and I've been doing great, and I even get a visit once and a while. With all that said even though I'm social with my wifes family I still think they are a bunch of want to be commandos with a god complex. Florida deputies on the other hand are the most polite and professional cops I know.

 

[BigBore44]

Guys I'm just lost on this whole thing. Maybe it's because my grandfather was a U.S Marshal, dad was a 25 year vet of a large department, and my brother is a Shift Sup and Fed Drug Task Force agent.

Maybe it's because I live in a fairly small town. But our cops are not militarized. Sure, they have AR's. But that's not militarized. And if they all drove Strykers who cares. "Well they don't need Hummers and APC's" yeah? And? I don't "need" the lift on my truck and oversized tires everyday. But when I do, it's sure nice to have. You don't need air bags in your vehicle. Or seatbelts.....until you get in a wreck. Same goes for the cops. There's a lot of things they don't need, until they do. Like the bank robbery in L.A. Or the riots in Ferguson, or name a 1,000 other times cops needed to be protected. You guys don't seem to get it. How are they supposed to help protect us if they can't protect themselves? Now someone please bring up the saying that "when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away". While the statement holds true sometimes, maybe even most of the time, our times are changing. Riots happen at the drop of a hat (or "gentle giant"). Who keeps the streets safe then? Who keeps the cities from burning? Who's out their risking their lives while you're in your Lazy Boy a thousand miles away, watching the show live on the news, while drinking a beer and Monday morning quarterbacking everything? Cops are. They're taking the rocks, bricks, random gunshots, fire bombs etc. for what? 30-35 grand a year? And we want to gripe about them having APC's and Hummers, riot gear, helmets, body armour, and tear gas. Oh lord what are we gonna do. The cops look scary. You ever stop to think that maybe the cops are scared? Heavens no. They aren't scared. They're angry and threatening (eye roll) But we want to gripe about everything that they do. At what point are you all going to realize that being a cop today is DANGEROUS? This ain't Mayberry folks. I wake up every morning praying that today isn't the day my brother gets killed by some worthless POS just waiting for a cop to walk by so he can kill one and get 15 minutes of fame and his name in the paper.

Did the officer do anything wrong? He showed up, asked a couple questions, got invited inside, had a cup of coffee, purchased a pistol, and made a new contact. What a terrible event. How stupid to ever be cordial and hospitable to any man or woman with a badge. Don't you know they're all out to get you? To find any reason to ransack your house, seize all your property, taze you 6 times and drag you off to jail hog tied and near death? Don't you all see that you're only exacerbating the problem. How about instead of shunning an officer, next time you see one in a convenient store, buy him/her a cup of coffee and say "thanks". Would probably make his/her day. Because 99.9999% of the time, being a cop is a thankless job.

 

[Pikums]

It sounds like you got lucky but I heard some stories about people selling guns at yards sales and getting arrested.

 

[guyfromohio]

BigBore...... I respect your rant, but I'm not sure that respect and admiration are mutually exclusive to protecting your rights. Personally, I don't think the officer did anything wrong. I think the op did what he wanted to do and that's his prerogative. The point is being made that the op did not HAVE to do anything that he did. Whether it was pressure, naivity, or simple kindness, there was no obligation to show him anything. I think the officer would have been just as satisfied and friendly towards the "yep, selling a few...have a good evening" response.