Gryffydd
Member
Another part that doesn't jive:
And yet you're suspicious of citizens who also respect our constitution...
Just got a visit from the cops
- Thread starter PotatoJudge
- Start date
- Status
Guns and more
member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,929
I'm confused. They thought you sold drugs, so they came to your door and asked?
I wonder how many drug dealers say, "Why yes, officer, what do you need?"
Sorry, but I guess I'll just look guilty when I, (A.) not let them in, and (B.) never consent to a search.
If they have a tip, get a warrant. It's the way the Constitution works.
I wonder how many drug dealers say, "Why yes, officer, what do you need?"
Sorry, but I guess I'll just look guilty when I, (A.) not let them in, and (B.) never consent to a search.
If they have a tip, get a warrant. It's the way the Constitution works.
I probably wouldnt have even opened the door.
I wont let them search and I wont say go get a warrent either I dont understand why people always say go get a warrent. At that point you are challengeing them. They may not even think about a warrent till you mention it.
Judges hand out warrents like halloween candy it they really wanted to search then it will be no problem for them to get a warrent. Never allow them to search!!! start the paper trail and if they get a warrent there will be names on it and the reason for the search. Things your lawyer will need.
I wont let them search and I wont say go get a warrent either I dont understand why people always say go get a warrent. At that point you are challengeing them. They may not even think about a warrent till you mention it.
Judges hand out warrents like halloween candy it they really wanted to search then it will be no problem for them to get a warrent. Never allow them to search!!! start the paper trail and if they get a warrent there will be names on it and the reason for the search. Things your lawyer will need.
mljdeckard
Member
It's not that I don't trust the police. Precisely the opposite. I trust them to do exactly what they are trained to do; look for incriminating evidence and make arrests.
Justice 5, do you show up and make my job easier, or offer to do part of it for me? Why should I do it for you?
Justice 5, do you show up and make my job easier, or offer to do part of it for me? Why should I do it for you?
2000Yards
Member
My understanding from my state, county and federal LEO friends is that an absolutely amazing number of people consent to searches of their person, vehicles and homes, many times knowing that they hold or have contraband (usually drugs) of some kind. At times the search takes a few seconds to turn it up, other times it's better hidden and one may have believed a casual search wouldn't turn it up. Perhaps the people believe they don't have a choice and that that the question is the officer's way of being polite, or that if they cooperate then things will go better for them.
sheepdog
Member
...I think it's that people are easily intimidated by the very authority that WE ENTRUSTED THE GOVERNMENT WITH TO SERVE US...and they are often now using ON us...and they give in rather than ruffling feathers...this old fat ex-cop will make them look like a chicken what's been through a car wash before I'll give up the rights that I've worn two uniforms to preserve....ruffle feathers indeed....
mljdeckard
Member
It is the power of suggestion. Just watch a few episodes of Law & Order. When was the last time Briscoe and Green missed out on a search or a confession because a guy initially refused to let them in? There is a whole book of tricks to make you think you are better off letting them in.
I sold cars for a brief season. The guy who trained me taught me some things about positioning yourself. One of the rules is, you want to negotiate at your desk, not in the lot. At your desk, YOU are in charge. YOU have the presumption of authority. If they want to talk outside, REFUSE. I asked him; "How do you get them to come inside?"
He said; "It's REALLY difficult. You say, Come inside, gesture with your head, and WALK AWAY. They will follow you. One time in thirty years has someone not followed me." When the husband and wife sit down, ask them to please switch places. (No matter where they sat.) When you are giving the test drive, You TELL them where to drive. If they ask; "Can I turn here?", tell them NO. Ask them to turn at the NEXT corner. If they ask WHY, change the subject. The idea here is to get them to follow your directions. If they have already submitted to several of your suggestions, by the time you ask for the sale, they have already decided.
This is what a good detective will do too. He will ASSUME you will let him in. He will be SURPRISED if you refuse. He will act like no one has ever done this before. To enter your home, police need exigency, permission, or a warrant. If a department has a detective who tells his boss every day that he didn't get to search because he didn't have a warrant, how long do you think he will have a job? They are TRAINED to get in one way or another, and a cop who can't get permission at least SOME of the time will last about as long as a salesman who doesn't have the stones to assume the sale and ask for it. Same thing.
I sold cars for a brief season. The guy who trained me taught me some things about positioning yourself. One of the rules is, you want to negotiate at your desk, not in the lot. At your desk, YOU are in charge. YOU have the presumption of authority. If they want to talk outside, REFUSE. I asked him; "How do you get them to come inside?"
He said; "It's REALLY difficult. You say, Come inside, gesture with your head, and WALK AWAY. They will follow you. One time in thirty years has someone not followed me." When the husband and wife sit down, ask them to please switch places. (No matter where they sat.) When you are giving the test drive, You TELL them where to drive. If they ask; "Can I turn here?", tell them NO. Ask them to turn at the NEXT corner. If they ask WHY, change the subject. The idea here is to get them to follow your directions. If they have already submitted to several of your suggestions, by the time you ask for the sale, they have already decided.
This is what a good detective will do too. He will ASSUME you will let him in. He will be SURPRISED if you refuse. He will act like no one has ever done this before. To enter your home, police need exigency, permission, or a warrant. If a department has a detective who tells his boss every day that he didn't get to search because he didn't have a warrant, how long do you think he will have a job? They are TRAINED to get in one way or another, and a cop who can't get permission at least SOME of the time will last about as long as a salesman who doesn't have the stones to assume the sale and ask for it. Same thing.
Golden_006
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 285
I bet someone tipped them off about your guns/reloading and they made up the drug thing to trick you into letting them in to see if you were up to something else involving gun powder.
scoutsabout
Member
Hehe, check out this dude's video. I bet he won both his cases. Any evidence obtained illegally would not be admissible toward fines or criminal charges. Now, from what I understand, the health department DOES have the authority to come onto your property, but they had better (like someone else said here) dot all their i's and cross all their t's if you initially refuse. Just like LEO's, they must respect your constitutional rights. Upon returning, she did not bring documentation, there was no warrant, no court order, no government regulation, nothing. He had every reason to believe she was illegally tresspassing... and I bet she technically was, regardless of her authority, because she didn't provide any proof of anything that would give her that authority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQAJgxMIuM&NR=1
Unbelievable!
I wonder how that whole thing would have panned-out if he had started asking the LEO about his rights to forcibly eject tresspassers and impart his intent to use necessary lawful force if she resisted. I don't know about that state, but in WA I can forcibly detain or eject a tresspasser with any level of force necessary to eventuate that outcome. So long as I am not excessive or detain them longer than necessary to summon the authorities, I'm in the clear.
I can't say that I would have reacted the way this guy did. I would have asked some very important questions and made some very clear assertions. Maybe it's going out on a limb, but after notifying the officer of my intent to lawfully eject the tresspasser, I would have physically removed her. If she resisted, I would escalate appropriately. I tend to think it wouldn't have gone that far. The LEO would probably have told her to back off before everyone gets in over their heads. If not, then he would have had to make a decision about who to arrest. The fact that there was a discussion and suggestions from the LEO suggest that those two were in violation of constitutional law.
The simple reality is that we sometimes have to get unlawfully arrested to secure our rights. Sad but true... and another reason why people don't trust cops anymore. I mean, what was he doing on the radio? Asking for guidance? When in doubt, DO NOT RISK VIOLATING SOMEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She should not have been allowed on the property without a warrant, court order, something legal.
Obviously, the video doesn't tell the whole story... but it tells a lot. What do you guys think? How would you respond to the same kind of scenario? Personally, I would feel it necessary to force the LEO to assert his authority one way or the other. I wouldn't let him sit idly by. That's just me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQAJgxMIuM&NR=1
Unbelievable!
I wonder how that whole thing would have panned-out if he had started asking the LEO about his rights to forcibly eject tresspassers and impart his intent to use necessary lawful force if she resisted. I don't know about that state, but in WA I can forcibly detain or eject a tresspasser with any level of force necessary to eventuate that outcome. So long as I am not excessive or detain them longer than necessary to summon the authorities, I'm in the clear.
I can't say that I would have reacted the way this guy did. I would have asked some very important questions and made some very clear assertions. Maybe it's going out on a limb, but after notifying the officer of my intent to lawfully eject the tresspasser, I would have physically removed her. If she resisted, I would escalate appropriately. I tend to think it wouldn't have gone that far. The LEO would probably have told her to back off before everyone gets in over their heads. If not, then he would have had to make a decision about who to arrest. The fact that there was a discussion and suggestions from the LEO suggest that those two were in violation of constitutional law.
The simple reality is that we sometimes have to get unlawfully arrested to secure our rights. Sad but true... and another reason why people don't trust cops anymore. I mean, what was he doing on the radio? Asking for guidance? When in doubt, DO NOT RISK VIOLATING SOMEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She should not have been allowed on the property without a warrant, court order, something legal.
Obviously, the video doesn't tell the whole story... but it tells a lot. What do you guys think? How would you respond to the same kind of scenario? Personally, I would feel it necessary to force the LEO to assert his authority one way or the other. I wouldn't let him sit idly by. That's just me.
Last edited:
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
don't quit your day job for a law career
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
if i remember right this guys neighbors had filed complaints about his illegal activities on the property and he lost. i bets hes got sovreign citizen tags too
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
State of Indiana Vs Robert Trimble, appeal from Jennings Superior Court Indiana to the Indiana Supreme Court....... Indiana State Supreme court ruled officer seeing crime / evidence from public that any public citizen could see, investigating a tip of a crime, including parking car in driveway to walk to the home, is allowed to warrantless enter the premises ( yard ) to investigate further. Court further states that officer entry onto private property and their observations do not violate fourth ammendment when they have a legitimate investigatory purpose for being on the property limitting thier entry to places visitors would be expected to go. Indiana Supreme court decided ruled on this type situation 02-21-2006. Also mentions timely tip from a person and health / safety of others.
The Deputy could have walked with the woman to investigate any health hazards to the public.
the guy was a tool/fool
The Deputy could have walked with the woman to investigate any health hazards to the public.
the guy was a tool/fool
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
Between comments on youtube and following a google trail it seems his name is Ray Kirkus and this took place in LaPorte County Indiana. The details on why the health inspector was there are not real clear but apparently someone filed a complaint that he was digging an illegal septic system and had contaminated (or could potentially contaminate) the drinking waters of his neighbors who use wells. Apparently, Julie did have the right to go on the property (though it could be argued she didn't handle the situation very well) though it appears she didn't do everything by the book either (such as complying with his request regarding why she was there).
The judge sided with Julie and Ray was forced to sell his property (on ebay). The Ebay link is now dead but some more info available at this link 4um: When They Won't Listen To Law and Reason Kill Them Dead
Ray was obviously upset by all of this and put a number of signs up on his property. Someone took these photos Pictures by 3rdpartyREP - Photobucket
Of all the links I found, Sheriff Allows Illegal Trespass [Archive] - eBaum's World Forum was the most helpful. You may be able to contact a poster there (if so inclined) and get the actual court documents as she was offering to fax them. I didn't check to see if Indiana court records are available online.
Something very interesting mentioned there (and in the photos) is that he was denied a jury trial despite requesting it. Also, he was in the process of appealing the courts decision and they moved forward anyway. I have no legal training or knowledge beyond the average (or perhaps not even that!) person but I thought you always had the right to a jury. My guess is that the difference here is civil and criminal? I thought the appeals process would prevent the courts from moving forward as well but apparently that's not accurate either.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/great-debates/738627-4th-amendment-3.html#ixzz0d6V1NzcZ
The judge sided with Julie and Ray was forced to sell his property (on ebay). The Ebay link is now dead but some more info available at this link 4um: When They Won't Listen To Law and Reason Kill Them Dead
Ray was obviously upset by all of this and put a number of signs up on his property. Someone took these photos Pictures by 3rdpartyREP - Photobucket
Of all the links I found, Sheriff Allows Illegal Trespass [Archive] - eBaum's World Forum was the most helpful. You may be able to contact a poster there (if so inclined) and get the actual court documents as she was offering to fax them. I didn't check to see if Indiana court records are available online.
Something very interesting mentioned there (and in the photos) is that he was denied a jury trial despite requesting it. Also, he was in the process of appealing the courts decision and they moved forward anyway. I have no legal training or knowledge beyond the average (or perhaps not even that!) person but I thought you always had the right to a jury. My guess is that the difference here is civil and criminal? I thought the appeals process would prevent the courts from moving forward as well but apparently that's not accurate either.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/great-debates/738627-4th-amendment-3.html#ixzz0d6V1NzcZ
scoutsabout
Member
Here's another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcL-b0Gdopg&feature=related
When in doubt, the LEO makes an arrest... which, from the video, looks very much like vindictive behavior.
Last time I checked, you can video and audio record anyone in a public setting. What do you guys think about THIS one? Is it a good example of an LEO abusing his authority? An LEO and government official trying to push the line and sequester permission through threatening behavior? Was the arrest vindictive? Was it illegal?
Either way, the whole thing was just unbelievable. Why are we seeing people negotiate their constitutional rights?
Again, my behavior probably would have been slightly different in this instance... but I may still have been arrested. See, if there are true damages (like an unlawful arrest), then we can sue the pants off of the organization and maybe curb their bad habits. If we submit to questionable tactics and surrender our rights... we gain nothing.
On the other hand, and from the outcome of the previous example, you'd darn well better be right! Even if our rights are violated, a legitimate infraction on our part tends to push judges to side with the other guys... especially if they're cops and government employees.
Basically, I think it boils down to a "law of the jungle" kind of thing: Choose your battles and, if you expect a fair shake of the stick, don't piss anybody off and be diplomatic even if you're totally in the right... which you'd better be. Even then, there's still danger in just walking out your front door. It's all about knowledge, wisdom, guts and choices.
Like those before me, I fully admit that my knowledge of the massive amount of laws is relatively small... like most other average civilians. Seems to me that you've got to know how to fight, when to fight, and who to fight. I would imagine that having a lawyer would help the average citizen avoid most of the common pitfalls.
Basically, I just try to keep myself squeeky clean and stay out of trouble. When in doubt, I would instantly seek quality legal counsel from a qualified, reputable attorney. But what do we do when we're in the moment? What do we do if we think our rights are being trampled RIGHT NOW? What if we get arrested for recording the event in an attempt to prove our innocence later?
What if bad things happen to good people? What if there's no Santa Claus?!
Anyway, great discussion so far. Where do we draw the line? They teach us in school that the Constitution takes care of that... but does it? Posting the U.S. Constitution next to your "no tresspassing" sign would probably have no affect... so what do we do?
Oh well... the answers seem pretty clear, actually. Try to be familiar with the law, especially when it might pertain to your specific situation or behavior, try to stay clean, be curteous, and try to know where to draw the line. This is all anybody can do, right?
I'm still curious about these videos, though... like the failures of the LEO and health inspector to do things "by the book" and how the property owner still lost. Maybe that's one source of animosity we're seeing in posts like this. How tollerant, exactly, are we supposed to be? At what point is a government official or LEO abusing their authority? What are we supposed to think when people get hit with maximum sentences for lawfully resisting and the authorities get a total pass on their procedural errors?
Guy gets arrested for videotaping an LEO after the initial call-out decision is made? Looked to me like retribution and abuse of authority. Why didn't the LEO just leave?
Hmmmm.....
Weighty subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcL-b0Gdopg&feature=related
When in doubt, the LEO makes an arrest... which, from the video, looks very much like vindictive behavior.
Last time I checked, you can video and audio record anyone in a public setting. What do you guys think about THIS one? Is it a good example of an LEO abusing his authority? An LEO and government official trying to push the line and sequester permission through threatening behavior? Was the arrest vindictive? Was it illegal?
Either way, the whole thing was just unbelievable. Why are we seeing people negotiate their constitutional rights?
Again, my behavior probably would have been slightly different in this instance... but I may still have been arrested. See, if there are true damages (like an unlawful arrest), then we can sue the pants off of the organization and maybe curb their bad habits. If we submit to questionable tactics and surrender our rights... we gain nothing.
On the other hand, and from the outcome of the previous example, you'd darn well better be right! Even if our rights are violated, a legitimate infraction on our part tends to push judges to side with the other guys... especially if they're cops and government employees.
Basically, I think it boils down to a "law of the jungle" kind of thing: Choose your battles and, if you expect a fair shake of the stick, don't piss anybody off and be diplomatic even if you're totally in the right... which you'd better be. Even then, there's still danger in just walking out your front door. It's all about knowledge, wisdom, guts and choices.
Like those before me, I fully admit that my knowledge of the massive amount of laws is relatively small... like most other average civilians. Seems to me that you've got to know how to fight, when to fight, and who to fight. I would imagine that having a lawyer would help the average citizen avoid most of the common pitfalls.
Basically, I just try to keep myself squeeky clean and stay out of trouble. When in doubt, I would instantly seek quality legal counsel from a qualified, reputable attorney. But what do we do when we're in the moment? What do we do if we think our rights are being trampled RIGHT NOW? What if we get arrested for recording the event in an attempt to prove our innocence later?
What if bad things happen to good people? What if there's no Santa Claus?!
Anyway, great discussion so far. Where do we draw the line? They teach us in school that the Constitution takes care of that... but does it? Posting the U.S. Constitution next to your "no tresspassing" sign would probably have no affect... so what do we do?
Oh well... the answers seem pretty clear, actually. Try to be familiar with the law, especially when it might pertain to your specific situation or behavior, try to stay clean, be curteous, and try to know where to draw the line. This is all anybody can do, right?
I'm still curious about these videos, though... like the failures of the LEO and health inspector to do things "by the book" and how the property owner still lost. Maybe that's one source of animosity we're seeing in posts like this. How tollerant, exactly, are we supposed to be? At what point is a government official or LEO abusing their authority? What are we supposed to think when people get hit with maximum sentences for lawfully resisting and the authorities get a total pass on their procedural errors?
Guy gets arrested for videotaping an LEO after the initial call-out decision is made? Looked to me like retribution and abuse of authority. Why didn't the LEO just leave?
Hmmmm.....
Weighty subject.
Last edited:
Do I understand correctly that you not only got a more correct story from the neighbors than the officers at the door, but also that they were at the wrong address to begin with ? If so I find that amazing.
But I cannot really find real serious fault with how you proceeded to allow them entry, but the whole house search makes me squirrelly for some reason. Of course you were aware of what they might find, so no surprises there.
I would just expect a higher degree of precision regarding the address and the reason for knocking in the first place.
There are a few major issues here. Let's start by assuming that the police are indeed, somewhat on the level, and that they will not plant anything. Let's examine a scenario, a way that it could have played out, in which the police want to get you.
You invite the police in and inform them that there is a gun in the couch. The police inform you that you are under arrest for violation of the laws regarding concealed firearms. You take a step back, throwing up your arms in confusion while protesting that you are well within your rights to conceal a gun on your own property. The cop tells you to tell it to the jury and gets you down to the police station. By the time you talk to your lawyer, you find that you are in jail on charges of resisting arrest (stepping away from them was construed as attempting to get away) and assault on a police officer (Throwing up your arms was obviously an attempt to menace them). Unsurprisingly, the idea of a concealed firearm has been conveniently dropped. Yes, I have seen this in real life. No, not every cop will do that, however, it is not illegal like planting evidence, and there are a number of cops who do this kind of thing as a regular matter of course. It's just another play in the book.
But hey, let's take a step back. Let's assume that the friendly smiles, warm handshakes, and polite demeanors are really honest, and the cops are not trying to get you for something.
What would happen if I showed up at your doorstep, asking to come in and search your house? Nothing that will take all that long, maybe poke through your wife's underwear drawer, check out pictures of your kids, whatever. Somehow, I'm guessing I'd get punched in the face. I don't see why it is any different when the guy has a badge. Sure, he may just be doing his job, but the invasion of privacy is not somehow lessened by the fact that it is happening in an official capacity.
I've had a lot of encounters with police. Some of them were very polite and friendly. Some of them were very much not polite. Some of them were filled with the kind of language that would make a prostitute blush. In general, though, it is always reciprocal. If the cop is polite, I'm going to be polite. If the cop is rude, he's gonna get it right back. The thing is, I've never had a polite cop ask if he could invade my privacy. I've had them ask if I could hand over my knife while we were talking and keep my hands where he could see them. The cops who wanted to invade my privacy were always rude though. Now, my policy is that the very act of asking to invade my personal space, to go searching through my house as not even my close personal friends do, is an act of extreme rudeness in of itself. If you want to violate my privacy, you'd better have a god awfully good reason for doing so, not because the kid that I told off for throwing rocks at my dogs decided to get back at me by telling the cops that I deal drugs. If you want to know if I'm dealing drugs, set up surveillance outside my house. It will be very obvious that I'm not dealing drugs.
Next time a cop asks me if he can search my house/car, I might just go and tell him to go right ahead, provided I get to perform a similar search of his house/car. I doubt I'll have any takers.
You invite the police in and inform them that there is a gun in the couch. The police inform you that you are under arrest for violation of the laws regarding concealed firearms. You take a step back, throwing up your arms in confusion while protesting that you are well within your rights to conceal a gun on your own property. The cop tells you to tell it to the jury and gets you down to the police station. By the time you talk to your lawyer, you find that you are in jail on charges of resisting arrest (stepping away from them was construed as attempting to get away) and assault on a police officer (Throwing up your arms was obviously an attempt to menace them). Unsurprisingly, the idea of a concealed firearm has been conveniently dropped. Yes, I have seen this in real life. No, not every cop will do that, however, it is not illegal like planting evidence, and there are a number of cops who do this kind of thing as a regular matter of course. It's just another play in the book.
But hey, let's take a step back. Let's assume that the friendly smiles, warm handshakes, and polite demeanors are really honest, and the cops are not trying to get you for something.
What would happen if I showed up at your doorstep, asking to come in and search your house? Nothing that will take all that long, maybe poke through your wife's underwear drawer, check out pictures of your kids, whatever. Somehow, I'm guessing I'd get punched in the face. I don't see why it is any different when the guy has a badge. Sure, he may just be doing his job, but the invasion of privacy is not somehow lessened by the fact that it is happening in an official capacity.
I've had a lot of encounters with police. Some of them were very polite and friendly. Some of them were very much not polite. Some of them were filled with the kind of language that would make a prostitute blush. In general, though, it is always reciprocal. If the cop is polite, I'm going to be polite. If the cop is rude, he's gonna get it right back. The thing is, I've never had a polite cop ask if he could invade my privacy. I've had them ask if I could hand over my knife while we were talking and keep my hands where he could see them. The cops who wanted to invade my privacy were always rude though. Now, my policy is that the very act of asking to invade my personal space, to go searching through my house as not even my close personal friends do, is an act of extreme rudeness in of itself. If you want to violate my privacy, you'd better have a god awfully good reason for doing so, not because the kid that I told off for throwing rocks at my dogs decided to get back at me by telling the cops that I deal drugs. If you want to know if I'm dealing drugs, set up surveillance outside my house. It will be very obvious that I'm not dealing drugs.
Next time a cop asks me if he can search my house/car, I might just go and tell him to go right ahead, provided I get to perform a similar search of his house/car. I doubt I'll have any takers.
I don't mean to be rude, but if you think that police are here to protect the constitution, I'd suggest you head down to the nearest police station and ask for advice on how to build a constitutionally protected fully automatic firearm. I think you will find that police do not believe in the constitution. If you have ever arrested someone for illegal possession of a firearm, you do not believe in the constitution of this United States. You can not say that you are there to protect it when you use your authority and force of might to urinate all over the document. It just doesn't work that way.Justice 5 said:
SSN Vet
Member
We had a fox den in our wood pile with 8 cubs (kits?) one spring and the neighbor plugged the momma after she made several repeat visits to his hen house. (shame, as the mother was really beautiful, with a bright orange-red coat)
We called the game warden to see if he could trap the cubs and take them to a rehab. place.
When the warden came to the house, we invited him in to watch some video clips we had filmed of the cubs (really cute and playful rascals).
I had just purchased a .30-30 Marlin a week or so b4, as my BIL wanted me to come up north to dear hunt with him that year. So I had two boxes of .30-30 ammo (full boxes, no rounds fired) on the kitchen counter.
The game warden sees those and promptly goes off on a witch hunt making thinly veiled accusations that I had shot the momma fox and repeatedly tries pumping me for a confession.....
I had a shovel in my truck bed and was picking up fresh road kill for a week trying to keep those little buggers alive and this yahoo comes to the conclusion that I'm the one who offed the momma.
Unfortunately the neighborhood Fisher Cat heard them whimpering and made nightly visits to feed on fox cubs b4 the warden could make arrangements with a animal rehab. place. He only got one in his box trap. Mr. Fisher got several and the next spring we saw the scrappiest, bone skinny adolecent fox come poking around the old family homestead and perch on the same log his momma used to mark.
That darn warden turned out to be quite the jerk.
I'm tellin' ya, you just don't know what a visiting LEO is going to key in on.
My BIL is a Statey and even his advice is "don't talk to the cops without a lawyer"
Last edited:
PotatoJudge
Member
Thanks for the tips guys. Lots to think about that honestly I hadn't before. We'll just have to wait and see if anything comes of this. It's nice to know I'm not the only person that would have handled the situation this way (right or wrong) and the overwhelming response to the contrary is helpful. There are so many things in retrospect that I didn't think about at the time (nerves, and unfamiliarity with this type of situation), and I wish I'd asked more questions and given fewer answers.
In regards to the address, I'm just repeating what I was told. The cops told me the tip was my place, the neighbors told them it was the other place but that it was an empty lot so they tried the East side (admittedly, not the nicer side). As if drugs can't be dealt from an empty lot, right?
None of the neighbors know I'm a gun owner and reloader and by all appearances we're well liked in the neighborhood, so I think that a bogus tip from one of them seems pretty unlikely. You never know though.
As stated, there was a marked car, many uniformed officers, and it was broad daylight with EVERYONE out watching. I've considered the possibility of fake cops in the past but it's really an extremely rare event in the first place and didn't jive with what I was seeing at the time.
If it seems there are inconsistencies in the story, well in retrospect there are and on top of that I'm not exactly the best story teller, and there's some recall issues since there was so much going on so fast and I was under a bit of stress.
In regards to the address, I'm just repeating what I was told. The cops told me the tip was my place, the neighbors told them it was the other place but that it was an empty lot so they tried the East side (admittedly, not the nicer side). As if drugs can't be dealt from an empty lot, right?
None of the neighbors know I'm a gun owner and reloader and by all appearances we're well liked in the neighborhood, so I think that a bogus tip from one of them seems pretty unlikely. You never know though.
As stated, there was a marked car, many uniformed officers, and it was broad daylight with EVERYONE out watching. I've considered the possibility of fake cops in the past but it's really an extremely rare event in the first place and didn't jive with what I was seeing at the time.
If it seems there are inconsistencies in the story, well in retrospect there are and on top of that I'm not exactly the best story teller, and there's some recall issues since there was so much going on so fast and I was under a bit of stress.
I'm still of the opinion that it's not too much to ask of the police to get the address right. That's not an advanced skill that requires a lot of training and experience. If those clowns coudn't get past that "obstacle", who in thier right mind would trust them to get it right at any point following that first titanic foul-up?
Bunch of amateurs...
Bunch of amateurs...
Gatorbait
member
I'm trying to sort out the idea of being in a courtroom asking that evidence about to be presented against me be withheld because it was obtained pursuant to an illegal search. (The cop was offended because I wouldn't let him enter the house, so he came in saw a bag of the wrong stuff on the coffee table.) So I tell the judge he didn't even have probable cause to search, much less a warrant. So the judge asks, "What do you say to that, Cop?" And the cop responds, "Well, Judge, I axed him if I could come in and look around and he said I couldn't so that gave me probable cause."
- Status