Flawless MWAG call caught on tape

[Ted]

So I guess being a white guy in a black neighborhood warrants suspicion as well?

I don't see how a report of entirely legal activity can be the basis for a seizure of one's person when the constitution is on the other side of the balance.

There has to be evidence of crime; here there was none and not even a serious allegation otherwise.

Someone out of place, or meeting relevant information obtained, given the totality of the circumstances may warrant an investigatory stop.

If a person called 911 and reported that a man in a brown jacket and a briefcase, was yelling at people and waving a gun around at 5th and Main St......Are you telling me that the police don't have the authority to stop and question a man meeting that description at that location?

 

[iChokePeople]

Couldnt bring myself to read all 10 pages of this, but if the cop in right in thinking the mp5 could be automatic, whats stopping a cop from disarming me of my glock that could possibly be automatic?

Im gonna quote a post earlier today


The 2a dosent say you have the right to bear arms unless it shoots real fast.

The glock thing is tired, IMO. Would a reasonable person assume that a glock he sees is automatic? IMO, no. Why? Because everyone has seen 10k of them, and most have never seen one that's auto. Most probably have no idea that there ARE auto glocks. Some other weapons, though, would seem, to a reasonable person, to be more likely to be auto. Where's the line? Dunno, let a judge rule on it. I've never seen a semi m60. If I saw someone carrying one down the street, I would assume, based on my experience, that it was auto.

 

[downzero]

.Are you telling me that the police don't have the authority to stop and question a man meeting that description at that location?

How is that even remotely comparable if they have a report of what is arguably a crime?

And actually, there is caselaw on that as well in fourth amendment cases, examining whether the call is anonymous or not, whether it is reliable/credible, etc.

In other words, yours is a much closer case. Here, there is NO evidence of crime at all, and hindsight shows that there actually was no crime. How is your hypo comparable?

 

[japartridge]

Not illegal behavior, but given the circumstances of a MWAG 911 call, the populated setting, and any number of other factors; there lies a strong indication that the behavior warrants an investigatory contact to determine such.

Not trying to be an ass, but the Salem witch trials come to mind.... panicky masses go around babbling to the police that someone has a gun, and well that must mean that they are breaking the law, quick, detain, search and seize... never mind that nothing they are doing is illegal, never mind that the person with the gun isn't doing anything suspicious, never mind the person with the gun has their own rights, they must be guilty.

See what I mean?

 

[japartridge]

Someone out of place, or meeting relevant information obtained, given the totality of the circumstances may warrant an investigatory stop.

If a person called 911 and reported that a man in a brown jacket and a briefcase, was yelling at people and waving a gun around at 5th and Main St......Are you telling me that the police don't have the authority to stop and question a man meeting that description at that location?

Well, is he waving a gun around?

 

[iChokePeople]

Well, is he waving a gun around?

Oh, sweet. So they can't stop me as I'm leaving the batman movie because I'm not shooting anymore.

 

[japartridge]

Oh, sweet. So they can't stop me as I'm leaving the batman movie because I'm not shooting anymore.

Not exactly what I meant, and I do see your point as well.

 

[iChokePeople]

Not exactly what I meant, and I do see your point as well.

That's what these threads should be -- less "I'm right, the rest of you are stupid", more reasoning together and trying to understand other viewpoints, whether we agree or not.

 

[Que]

That's subject to plain view, so there's no fourth amendment issue there.

Once the initial stop is justified, anything in plain view is fair game.



So I guess being a white guy in a black neighborhood warrants suspicion as well?

I don't see how a report of entirely legal activity can be the basis for a seizure of one's person when the constitution is on the other side of the balance.

There has to be evidence of crime; here there was none and not even a serious allegation otherwise.

BUT, that was one of the issues in Terry. I guess if there was no gun found, then everything would have been alright? The very basis of Terry was a violation of the 4th Amendment, but it's the case we use as the backbone to protect the 2A rights of legal gun owners? Where was the EVIDENCE of a crime in Terry that warranted the search? There wasn't any, but the Court determined that a little violation was alright. So, now that it's law for a little violation to be alright, what's wrong with a little intrusion in this instance? In the video, the officer at least presented his reason to suspect the rifle was possibly full-auto. What was Terry doing that was illegal? Why was he searched? I can tell you that the officer in the video thought the rifle was automatic. He conducted an investigation and was wrong. He then returned the rifle to the 'protestor' and left.

 

[Ted]

How is that even remotely comparable if they have a report of what is arguably a crime?

And actually, there is caselaw on that as well in fourth amendment cases, examining whether the call is anonymous or not, whether it is reliable/credible, etc.

In other words, yours is a much closer case. Here, there is NO evidence of crime at all, and hindsight shows that there actually was no crime. How is your hypo comparable?

Do you know what the 911 caller said? My example was meant for you to realize that while the police may not see anything, information of a potential crime is permissible to be used by LE to conduct a cursory investigation.

While there may not be any discernible evidence of a crime, all I am stating that depending upon the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, that reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop may have very well been warranted.

 

[japartridge]

That's what these threads should be -- less "I'm right, the rest of you are stupid", more reasoning together and trying to understand other viewpoints, whether we agree or not.

That I can agree with wholeheartedly!

 

[kyotekilr]

Two douche bags looking for a confrontation. Was it legal to check the gun or not is obviously up for discussion. Do I think we should let police use their best judgment at times? Yes. We shouldn't get so caught up in "if we could" rather, we should consider "if we should". Standing on a street corner with a video camera and a mp5 makes you look like an ass not an activist.

 

[japartridge]

Do you know what the 911 caller said? My example was meant for you to realize that while the police may not see anything, information of a potential crime is permissible to be used by LE to conduct a cursory investigation.

While there may not be any discernible evidence of a crime, all I am stating that depending upon the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, that reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop may have very well been warranted.

See my post above about the Salem witch trials....

 

[GBuck]

No, you are incorrect... if it was "illegal to carry a handgun in Indiana. Period." We would be living in IL. It is not illegal to carry in IN.

Good one. Read the IC, or talk to a lawyer. I won't even say I told you so.

 

[downzero]

Good one. Read the IC, or talk to a lawyer. I won't even say I told you so.

This is not a meaningful response. I could similarly tell you to read the constitution, which requires that the state prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The law, even if written that way, cannot presume that one is a criminal unless he can prove a defense. Doing so would be a violation of due process of law. Even if it's written that way, it doesn't mean what it says, or at a minimum, it doesn't mean what it says in isolation. The state still has to produce evidence of guilt for every single element.

 

[japartridge]

Good one. Read the IC, or talk to a lawyer. I won't even say I told you so.

If it was illegal to carry, none of us could carry legally; and since we can, your interpretation is incorrect. I'm really not sure why you insist on saying that it is illegal to carry in IN, as it is not; in fact you can carry on your own property without any license or permit or anything... you keep telling me to read the IC... I think you need to do the same.

 

[GBuck]

If it was illegal to carry, none of us could carry legally; and since we can, your interpretation is incorrect. I'm really not sure why you insist on saying that it is illegal to carry in IN, as it is not; in fact you can carry on your own property without any license or permit or anything... you keep telling me to read the IC... I think you need to do the same.

Sorry, the distinction is not on your property. I thought we were past that part.

 

[griffin]

Was it legal to check the gun or not is obviously up for discussion. Do I think we should let police use their best judgment at times? Yes.

The whole point is not to allow LEOs to make up law on the spot. That's why we have laws. And that should be the focus here, were the actions of the LEO legal and justified or not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I still want to know why the man was presumed guilty until proven otherwise.

 

[japartridge]

I still want to know why the man was presumed guilty until proven otherwise.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!!