T He made them look like children looking for attention, which they are.
flawless my ass......that was an illegal seizure.
Illegal in what way?
Cops had no RAS that it was a select fire MP5 in the first place. No basis for the stop.
flawless my ass......that was an illegal seizure.
The officer did a wonderful job with positioning the stop due to not knowing if the rifle was Class III. There was no way for him to know if it was without seeing the rifle. He removed the rifle to check it out and gave it back.
My question is the reason for the presumption of guilt. Had innocence been presumed as is considered standard in US law, would there have been sufficient cause for checking the weapon?
Innocent until proven guilty: he was innocent and the officer was not able to prove any guilt. This was one of the best stops I've seen. I know some will disagree, but they ran into a smart officer who knew the law, which is what I see is posted a lot. People want officers to know the law and respect their rights and that officer did just that.
It was for the most part an excellent piece of work on the part of the officer, I just had to wonder why he ran with the presumption that the gun was full-auto until proven otherwise as opposed to assuming to be the far more common semi-auto which is readily available.
No it wasn't. The officer based the stop on reasonable articulable suspicion that the weapon in question may have been full auto, based on his experience and training. .
What idiots. While I know it is a constitutional right, I condemn such blind activism as this. Why would you try to associate "two police officers detaining two guys with an MP5" with responsible gun ownership?
All these "unlawful detainment and seizure" videos do is fan the flames of people who have irrational hatred for any contact with officers of the law.
And for the "unlawful seizure", come on. How else could he verify that it was indeed SA? You are using a completely different definition of the word seize than was used in the Constitution.