View Full Version : Raid by San Luis Obispo Sheriff Dept.
Watch the video on the homepage. It's enough to make your blood boil.
http://www.kccn.tv/
***Please don't bash cops and get this thread locked....we should be able to have a mature discussion about this Tragedy***
QuietShootr
07-20-10, 12:00
COP BASHING!!! MOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!
COP BASHING!!! MOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!
:fie:
Haha, but seriously this is some bullshit! I know that prolly 99% of LEO's may not conduct business like this...but that shit is scary.
NCPatrolAR
07-20-10, 12:02
What is the issue? Some of us are at work and cant watch the video. We (M4C) also have a policy about simply posting a link to something without discussing the material being linked to.
What is the issue? Some of us are at work and cant watch the video. We (M4C) also have a policy about simply posting a link to something without discussing the material being linked to.
Call to dispatch, man shooting a gun. Guy is on his own 2 acre piece of land (residence) sighting in his single shot .22LR. Units respond, video shows dash cam of the whole event and audio is captured. The lead Officer is heard saying his going to make an arrest before he even arrives on scene and knows fully what is going on. The officers bust out of their patrol vehicles locking and loading their Carbines...giving shouting commands to the guy to lay the gun down and approach them slowly. They arrest him and then several officers go into the house and do an illegal search and seizure, finding a gun safe that is locked. They go out to the apprehended suspect and take the keys off his belt forcefully and go in and take his 14 firearms, none of them being illegal. A couple of deputies in the background can be heard talking about how they are going to have to make up shit in the report and such.
You will really have to watch the video to fully get the gist.
When San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Deputy Darren Murphy responded to a “shots fired” call in April 2008, he decided en route that he was going to make an arrest.
He did far more than that. Murphy and other deputies made an unwarranted entry into a home, and then into a locked gun safe. Murphy's uncensored, darkly disturbing observations and behavior following his Code-3 arrival at the rural home of longtime SLO County resident Matt Hart were picked up by Murphy's and other deputies’ own recorders. Those recordings provide a rare, frighteningly revealing, behind-the-scenes perspective of how one local law enforcement agency views the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and other laws its personnel are sworn to uphold.
Sheriff’s spinner Rob Bryn declined to confirm the identities of any of the deputies appearing or heard in the recordings, or to discuss any aspect of the Hart home invasion. So we've done that for you. (Bryn, ever the public servant, eventually stopped responding to e-mails from a KCCN.tv reporter.)
Deputies’ deportment in the field as exhibited by their own words, as well as their plainly audible efforts to fabricate justifications for their actions, are lamentable. Local county prosecutors’ subsequent abuse of power, wielded in a cavalier, clumsy, and transparent effort to avoid a lawsuit, also is troubling.
But in the larger scheme of things, it is the systematic dismantling of the Fourth Amendment by over-zealous cops and an enabling judiciary that should be a cause of concern for every American citizen. Incredibly, Hart's case may be less of an anomaly than it appears.
The question is: Should law enforcement officers like Deputy Darren Murphy be allowed to make day-to-day, life-changing decisions regarding the fate of law-abiding citizens?
Watch. Listen. And then you be the judge.
There's a lot of things happening in the video and being said by the officers that I don't agree with. Everyone who makes any sort of comments should refrain from ignorantly bashing and make constructive criticism where they feel it's justified.
QuietShootr
07-20-10, 12:27
There's a lot of things happening in the video and being said by the officers that I don't agree with. Everyone who makes any sort of comments should refrain from ignorantly bashing and make constructive criticism where they feel it's justified.
Bottom line is, if not for cameras and microphones that are not controllable or alterable by officers, this poor guy would be in deep shit for something.
Next time someone complains about having mics and video in their cars that they can't turn off, I'm pointing to this video.
NCPatrolAR, I know you want to lock this thread so bad you can taste it, but try to let someone else handle it, okay?
ForTehNguyen
07-20-10, 12:34
some videos:
YouTube - Sheriff's deputies' caught on tape creating exigency that don,t exist pt 1 - 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aGD32DENkk)
YouTube - Sheriff's deputies' on tape create exigency that don,t exist 2 - 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt9y9RlMFzA&feature=channel)
I've been to SLO, nice little town, but this is obviously way outside the city limits. Any CA LEO care to comment on shooting on private land in the boonies, is it legal?
If it's illegal I can understand their reasoning for wanting to look in the house for bad guys after making the arrest so that nobody's taking shots from the house. If it's not illegal then say hello and let him know he's possibly disturbing his neighbors or someone driving by had called it in and he should be a little more low key on his chosen shooting spot.
However, opening his safe and confiscating his weapons is way beyond what should've happened in my opinion.
QuietShootr
07-20-10, 12:46
I've been to SLO, nice little town, but this is obviously way outside the city limits. Any CA LEO care to comment on shooting on private land in the boonies, is it legal?
If it's illegal I can understand their reasoning for wanting to look in the house for bad guys after making the arrest so that nobody's taking shots from the house. If it's not illegal then say hello and let him know he's possibly disturbing his neighbors or someone driving by had called it in and he should be a little more low key on his chosen shooting spot.
However, opening his safe and confiscating his weapons is way beyond what should've happened in my opinion.
The discussion on circumventing the subject's rights and create charges so they can take the guns is even more disturbing than the actual taking of the guns, as far as I'm concerned. These guys need to be in jail for conspiracy to deprive civil rights.
Of course we know today's Justice Department isn't going to prosecute it, but it's a nice thought.
The discussion on circumventing the subject's rights and create charges so they can take the guns is even more disturbing than the actual taking of the guns, as far as I'm concerned. These guys need to be in jail for conspiracy to deprive civil rights.
I absolutely agree.
QuietShootr
07-20-10, 12:54
I absolutely agree.
I think this would be the appropriate statute to charge them under:http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
The part in blue is key, now that the Second Amendment is an incorporated right. The part in red seems to be an aggravating circumstance. It appears that the perps were armed with 'dangerous weapons'.
So...I have heard it said that everyone's a felon who just hasn't been caught yet, but what happens when you get caught and no one will prosecute? I guess you're just a lucky felon.
Belmont31R
07-20-10, 12:55
When I was a teenager I once had 2 deputies show up hours after I had done some shooting. We lived in a rural ranch/custom house area where everyone had a few acres, agriculture across the street, etc.
I guess someone reported me. The 2 deputies were very nice about it, and just said to make sure I was shooting in a safe direction. This was in Riverside County, CA about 12 years ago. No guns drawn, no arrests, etc. I think it was som city dweller riding their bike down the road that didn't live in the area. All my neighbors owned guns, and shot on their property, too. In fact my neighbor is the one that got me into guns, and we used to shoot lots of small game on our properties.
Not sure what the motivation for the officers in this video to do what they did but they have no business being LEO's if they can't operate in a professional manner, respect people's rights, and realize they are public servants not the gestapo. They should be fired, and charged with civil right's violations.
And yes this thread will be locked PDQ.
I've been to SLO, nice little town, but this is obviously way outside the city limits. Any CA LEO care to comment on shooting on private land in the boonies, is it legal?
If it's illegal I can understand their reasoning for wanting to look in the house for bad guys after making the arrest so that nobody's taking shots from the house. If it's not illegal then say hello and let him know he's possibly disturbing his neighbors or someone driving by had called it in and he should be a little more low key on his chosen shooting spot.
However, opening his safe and confiscating his weapons is way beyond what should've happened in my opinion.
I found this posted on another forum, it is in reference to San Joaquin County:
CHAPTER 2 DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
Sections:
4-2100 Firing on Highways.
4-2101 Firing in Public Places.
4-2102 Limitation.
4-2100 FIRING ON HIGHWAYS.
(a) No person shall shoot, fire, or discharge upon any public highway in the County or any part of the ground dedicated to such use any firearms of any kind whatsoever.
(b) Any person found guilty of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) or by imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed fifty (50) days, or by both.
(Ord. 387)
4-2101 FIRING IN PUBLIC PLACES.
It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person or persons to discharge any gun, pistol, rifle, or other kind of firearms upon any public street, road, court, alley, or place within the County; provided, however, that it shall be lawful to discharge any rifle or pistol not greater than a twenty-two (22) calibre or a shotgun with a bore not greater than No. 10 when loaded with shot not larger than No. 7.
(Ord. 285)
4-2102 LIMITATION.
It is further provided that such guns as may be lawfully discharged, as stated in Section 4-2101 must not be discharged except when the person discharging is at a distance of more than two hundred (200) yards from any conveyance or horse or person except such person, conveyance, or horse with which the said person is traveling; nor shall it be lawful to discharge any such firearms within two hundred (200) yards of any house, barn, or stock running loose in any field or public road without permission being first obtained from the owner of such house or stock.
(Ord. 285)
QuietShootr
07-20-10, 13:02
I found this posted on another forum, it is in reference to San Joaquin County:
CHAPTER 2 DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
Sections:
4-2100 Firing on Highways.
4-2101 Firing in Public Places.
4-2102 Limitation.
4-2100 FIRING ON HIGHWAYS.
(a) No person shall shoot, fire, or discharge upon any public highway in the County or any part of the ground dedicated to such use any firearms of any kind whatsoever.
(b) Any person found guilty of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) or by imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed fifty (50) days, or by both.
(Ord. 387)
4-2101 FIRING IN PUBLIC PLACES.
It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person or persons to discharge any gun, pistol, rifle, or other kind of firearms upon any public street, road, court, alley, or place within the County; provided, however, that it shall be lawful to discharge any rifle or pistol not greater than a twenty-two (22) calibre or a shotgun with a bore not greater than No. 10 when loaded with shot not larger than No. 7.
(Ord. 285)
4-2102 LIMITATION.
It is further provided that such guns as may be lawfully discharged, as stated in Section 4-2101 must not be discharged except when the person discharging is at a distance of more than two hundred (200) yards from any conveyance or horse or person except such person, conveyance, or horse with which the said person is traveling; nor shall it be lawful to discharge any such firearms within two hundred (200) yards of any house, barn, or stock running loose in any field or public road without permission being first obtained from the owner of such house or stock.
(Ord. 285)
Whoopsies. I guess since it was his house, he probably had permission.
Whoopsies. I guess since it was his house, he probably had permission.
Actually that code I pulled up is only for that county. I'm not sure what county that guy lived in. And it would also depend on the size of his property. If his neighbors house is less than 200 yards from where he was shooting, then he would have to get his neighbors permission as well.
To start it is obvious that the presenter of the video has an agenda. Along with that the video has been edited. Keep in mind we do not know the area, possible past incidents that may have occurred or any of the other things that the deputies might be aware of.
Taking the guy at gunpoint was not an issue. The guy reaching for his cellphone while being directly told to not move was just plain stupid. His cellphone was on his waist...gee what else do people keep there? Action is always faster then reaction. The deputies don't know what the guys intentions are.
The initial clear of the house is justified to see if anyone is injured inside amongst other reasons. Once they determined no one was injured they should have exited the home. Going in the safe...not cool. No exigent circumstances, get a warrant. Seizing the guns, not cool.
I certainly disagree with some of their actions BASED ON THE FACTS AS PRESENTED. Of course we do not know if the presentation is a true and accurate representation of the facts as they occurred.
I had a huge rant about people who think they "know" about police work w/o ever having done it but I feel I would be waisting bandwidth...
QuietShootr
07-20-10, 13:10
Actually that code I pulled up is only for that county. I'm not sure what county that guy lived in. And it would also depend on the size of his property. If his neighbors house is less than 200 yards from where he was shooting, then he would have to get his neighbors permission as well.
Sooo... Let's stipulate that he DID have a neighbor within 200 yards. It is then OK to infringe on his Constitutional rights over a POSSIBLE violation of a county ordinance that is punishable by a $100 fine?
It's this kind of logic that has led us to where we are today.
Sooo... Let's stipulate that he DID have a neighbor within 200 yards. It is then OK to infringe on his Constitutional rights over a POSSIBLE violation of a county ordinance that is punishable by a $100 fine?
It's this kind of logic that has led us to where we are today.
No absolutely not. It is never okay to infringe on someones constitutional rights. I don't care what they are guilty of. If the above is true and he was guilty of it. It should have been a ticket and maybe a summons. that is all.
QuietShootr
07-20-10, 13:16
To start it is obvious that the presenter of the video has an agenda. Along with that the video has been edited. Keep in mind we do not know the area, possible past incidents that may have occurred or any of the other things that the deputies might be aware of.
Taking the guy at gunpoint was not an issue. The guy reaching for his cellphone while being directly told to not move was just plain stupid. His cellphone was on his waist...gee what else do people keep there? Action is always faster then reaction. The deputies don't know what the guys intentions are.
The initial clear of the house is justified to see if anyone is injured inside amongst other reasons. Once they determined no one was injured they should have exited the home. Going in the safe...not cool. No exigent circumstances, get a warrant. Seizing the guns, not cool.
I certainly disagree with some of their actions BASED ON THE FACTS AS PRESENTED. Of course we do not know if the presentation is a true and accurate representation of the facts as they occurred.
I had a huge rant about people who think they "know" about police work w/o ever having done it but I feel I would be waisting bandwidth...
The facts as presented to the police were A) gunfire. Not in and itself illegal, or indicative of illegal activity. B) someone target shooting on his own property. Again, not indicative of illegal activity. When the warrant check on the subject came back clear, they had NO further reason to be on the premises.
Can you explain in concise language the justification for the discussion about how to justify the illegal search and seizure (which they obviously knew was illegal, or there wouldn't have been a discussion on how to justify it)?
ETA: Sorry, it appears we weren't as far apart as my initial reading indicated.
Belmont31R
07-20-10, 13:26
To start it is obvious that the presenter of the video has an agenda. Along with that the video has been edited. Keep in mind we do not know the area, possible past incidents that may have occurred or any of the other things that the deputies might be aware of.
Taking the guy at gunpoint was not an issue. The guy reaching for his cellphone while being directly told to not move was just plain stupid. His cellphone was on his waist...gee what else do people keep there? Action is always faster then reaction. The deputies don't know what the guys intentions are.
The initial clear of the house is justified to see if anyone is injured inside amongst other reasons. Once they determined no one was injured they should have exited the home. Going in the safe...not cool. No exigent circumstances, get a warrant. Seizing the guns, not cool.
I certainly disagree with some of their actions BASED ON THE FACTS AS PRESENTED. Of course we do not know if the presentation is a true and accurate representation of the facts as they occurred.
I had a huge rant about people who think they "know" about police work w/o ever having done it but I feel I would be waisting bandwidth...
What probable cause would they have to believe someone was injured or can they go in without any knowledge or reason to believe someone is inside and injured? Seeing as how the home was empty I have a hard time believing they had a reason to go in without a warrant. It is my understanding exigent circumstances requires probable cause to believe a situation is happening where waiting for a warrant would cause evidence to be lost, someone from being hurt, pursuit of a suspect where the police know the suspect went into the house, etc. Going into a house with no knowledge of any of those is not kosher. "Just to have a looksee" without anything to base it off of does not make exigent circumstances.
The Video should have been shown without the stupid voice over.
However even with that this looks bad for these "officers".
They look like some people who should not be wearing badges.
I have been lucky to never run into police like this. All my interactions have been neutral or good. Of course since in my opinion more than 99% of police are good and upstanding people there is little chance of running into the bad.
Please don't turn this into a Police Bashing thread. These guys did wrong and we all know they don't represent the Majority of officers.
NCPatrolAR
07-20-10, 13:32
NCPatrolAR, I know you want to lock this thread so bad you can taste it, but try to let someone else handle it, okay?
:stop:
Check your PM box; you have something sitting there for you to read.
I had no intention of doing anything in this thread other than reading it; but you've changed that. I started off simply wanting to know what the link was about but I see that isnt going to happen.
Let me post a reminder to everyone here: This isnt TOS and TOS-like behavior wont be tolerated.
I'd like to say all this surprises me, but it is Kalifornia. I'd like to know more about his alleged "possession of a machine gun".
Belmont, exactly how did they know the home was empty until they checked it? Just wondering...
This place is turning into TOS more and more by the day...I knew I should have just wandered on w/o posting and allowed the bashers to have at it. I concede, you win.
"Never argue with idoits. They just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
thopkins22
07-20-10, 14:08
Belmont, exactly how did they know the home was empty until they checked it? Just wondering...
I don't really believe that's the point. In what world is firing a rifle in your rural backyard cause for the officers responding to search your home and safe?
I saw a guy with a video camera yesterday. Somebody really needs to search his home because he very well may be producing child pornography you know.
For the record, I volunteer with a large department here in Texas and am not in any way a "basher." But that doesn't mean I'm going to put on blinders to crap like we saw in the video. Frankly it means I take things like this more seriously because incidents like this make life harder for everyone doing their job honestly.
Littlelebowski
07-20-10, 14:19
I don't really believe that's the point. In what world is firing a rifle in your rural backyard cause for the officers responding to search your home and safe?
California. I believe that the cop resigned. I am stomp down amazed that the dogs weren't shot.
Belmont31R
07-20-10, 14:23
Belmont, exactly how did they know the home was empty until they checked it? Just wondering...
This place is turning into TOS more and more by the day...I knew I should have just wandered on w/o posting and allowed the bashers to have at it. I concede, you win.
"Never argue with idoits. They just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
They don't but they still need a reason to go in that would provide enough PC to not get a warrant.
There was no 2nd suspect that ran into the house, blood trail leading into the house, screaming for help, ect. He was shooting away from his house so the house is disconnected from his actions, and is a separate issue from him shooting on his own property UNLESS something on the scene changed that which doesn't look like there was. They have to have an articulate reason to go in the house without getting a warrant, and that reason has to follow the PC/exigent circumstances criteria. Going into the house to see if anyone is in there that is hurt without any reason to believe that is the case beyond "maybe" doesn't count towards that criteria.
All in all I think this was handled very badly, and I had LE called to my house in very similar circumstances when I was a teenager. In my case the officers just wanted to make sure I was shooting in a safe direction, and let us know someone had called on us. People shoot in rural areas a lot, and they don't need to be placed in cuffs at gunpoint every time someone who is afraid of some shooting calls in. They also don't need their house searched, and firearms seized from them. They don't need LEO's having to make up excuses/lies to justify what they just did. They don't need LEO's deciding the persons fate before they even get on scene and realize what the situation is.
Not sure if you are addressing me by your TOS comments but I havent read anything in this thread where people violated the site rules of bashing LE in a general manner. Unless the site rules have changed we can talk about specific LEO's in a specific case. If not then that is a real shame because these are cases that often directly deal with firearms ownership which is the purpose of this site (discussing guns). Legal issues, and interactions with LE revolving around gun ownership should be able to be discussed. Just like the CCW holder who was killed be LE in the other thread. We can discuss these issues in an adult like manner, and if someone "ruins" it then that person should be dealt with independently of the rest of us. I can't stand threads getting locked because of one dipshit. Talking about legalities, and if someone violated their civil rights is not cop bashing unless you happen to think LE are justified in everything they do and should be immune from criticism/public opinion.
Littlelebowski
07-20-10, 14:24
I hope that there was legal action over this. Such a clear cut case.
Littlelebowski
07-20-10, 14:27
Belmont, exactly how did they know the home was empty until they checked it? Just wondering...
Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
There's no way anyone in this thread can stick up for the Officer's actions and words. There's video/audio proof of him in the wrong. End of story.
It shows a complete lack of integrity. That's all I'm saying. Not cop bashing.
**I'm all for the boys in blue that put their lives on the line everyday and keep our streets safe...but this is unacceptable. This is Gestapo-like.
For the person/s in this thread that think this sort of thing is ok and normal police work, you need to get your heads checked.
Littlelebowski
07-20-10, 14:36
We can only hope that this is being fixed. I've gone hunting in that area. Nice area, good folk about. Not your typical liberal gun grabbers. It bothers me that rural cops acted in this manner. I am very glad it was recorded. Oft times, recording audio/video is your only defense against crooked cops like these who do not represent the majority of law enforcement.
Joe R: I don't see copy bashing in this thread. I see idiot bashing. Big difference. I would hope that are finest in blue ( or green or whatever color you wear) would be the first to be distancing themselves.
Belmont31R
07-20-10, 14:45
We can only hope that this is being fixed. I've gone hunting in that area. Nice area, good folk about. Not your typical liberal gun grabbers. It bothers me that rural cops acted in this manner. I am very glad it was recorded. Oft times, recording audio/video is your only defense against crooked cops like these who do not represent the majority of law enforcement.
Most of CA is just like any other red state. Just 3 huge population centers control the entire state like Chicago does to IL. Go outside SD, LA, and SF....its just as conservative as anywhere else is.
All my neighbors owned guns, and its how I got into shooting. We had a "predator" in our area, and I knocked on one persons door to ask about it, and mentioned that I'd be shooting probably at night. The guy said he'd been trying to get it for 2 weeks, and if I got a shot to go ahead even if it was on his property. We lived about 1hr from SD, and 1.5hrs from LA.
But yeah it is a pretty state, and there is tons to do there. I am however glad I don't live there anymore. The gun laws suck, the taxes suck, and the politics of the state suck. All due to the 3 big population centers controlling the entire state. TX is getting that way too but we still have enough rural people left, and our big population centers are not close in size to SD, LA, and SF areas.
Littlelebowski
07-20-10, 14:47
Watching these videos is amazing. It's like a train wreck of rationalization and lies. I encourage all of those taking part in this thread to watch the videos before commenting.
Belmont, exactly how did they know the home was empty until they checked it? Just wondering...
This place is turning into TOS more and more by the day...I knew I should have just wandered on w/o posting and allowed the bashers to have at it. I concede, you win.
"Never argue with idoits. They just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
What post or posts are you referring to? I said it in the other thread but I guess I'll repeat it here; a lot of the moderators and staff here are LEO so the typical happy-horse-shit that goes on over there isn't allowed here. Please show me which post(s) you feel is like the TOS and I'll address it.
Littlelebowski
07-20-10, 15:12
Because one guy didn't stand up (out of five) and point what they were doing is illegal, their department's name is now smeared through the mud. There are legal actions going through. Sad.
This is so bad; it's like a scripted, fake version of police confiscation.
Littlelebowski
07-20-10, 15:13
Also, they still have some of his weapons. He was charged with a felony.
ForTehNguyen
07-20-10, 15:22
"Id really like to have that one" when searching his gun safe was a nice gem of wisdom
Perhaps my initial post didn't cover it. I'll try again...
Given the "facts" as we saw them, the initial response was on it's face, justified. He's got a gun, he's shooting, we don't know who it is. He's got the gun when we arrive. Yes, he may just be approached at gunpoint. Would I have done it that way? I Don't know because I wasn't there and I don't know what the officers on scene might have know, what's the neighborhood like? Have they been there before? For what? Have they dealt with this guy before? With what is shown/known on the vid I probably would have approached with my hand on my gun or even the gun drawn and behind my leg if I had an officer standing by as backup with weapon in hand. When he reached for his waist, in spite of repeated commands not to, he may well have been looking down the muzzle of my gun.
Entering the home. Who lives there? Is it his house? Do we KNOW that? Does he live alone? Do we know that for sure? Shots have been fired. Is anybody hurt? Is there a history of domestics/violence at the residence? I don't know. If there was I'd probably check the house as well. I don't see a safety check of the house as a big deal. Once the safety check is done, get OUT of the house.
Taking his keys and entering the safe. As I said BEFORE, this is not cool! They were wrong, pure and simple. No I am not defending them blindly, nor did I in my first post. If they wanted in the safe they should have obtained a warrant.
Yes, there are more then a few cops who should be doing something else, whether it be due to corruption, abuse of power or just plain incompetence. Maybe they should go be priests, or even politicians! To condem someone on the basis of an edited and biased video in and of its self is judgmental. We do not know what, if anything else the responding officers may have been aware of. Having said that, if the facts are AS DEPICTED, yes, they went too far. No question.
Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive when it comes to people screaming about police misconduct having been sued for civil rights violations and being found liable for excessive use of force. Keep in mind I was cleared by two other agencies and the FBI declined to investigate the incident. Of course many of you will assume a cover up by the other agencies (plaintiffs attorney certainly screamed it from the highest mountaintop for all to hear...oh yea, he's in federal prison now for tax evasion and forging his brother's will).
I have learned more then a few things in 23 years of doing this. Just a few; we need professional jurists. People that can sift through the "show" put on by attorneys and glean the facts. Civil trials are all about who puts on the best show (see previous point). Everybody thinks they know what it takes to be a cop (but I don't see them in the car next to me). I should have been a firefighter. :blink:
ETA: IF the facts are as depicted, the dude has one hell of a case.
Littlelebowski
07-20-10, 15:32
Have you watched the videos, Joe?
ForTehNguyen
07-20-10, 15:33
its pretty damn clear what happened when you watch the video and what laws they broke and what "evidence" they tried to fabricate.
Post #8 in this thread
thopkins22
07-20-10, 15:37
Having said that, if the facts are AS DEPICTED, yes, they went too far. No question.
Hell, even if they AREN'T as depicted, and this guy did have all that history, these guys are on tape figuring out how to spin their actions after the fact and what white/bold faced lies are going to be acceptable to avoid problems.
The trumped up charges were icing on the cake. Charged with possession of a machine gun...but no machine gun. Charged with brandishing his firearm to a police officer, but he was on his own property and complied with orders.
I understand what you're saying, and very rarely have I seen a single individual brought to jail that didn't scream at the top of their lungs about brutality, civil rights, and so forth. That really doesn't seem to be the case here. It's like hearing about statutory rape and a high profile athlete or politician. The vast majority are complete bull, and it does a disservice to those who truly are in that position.
I'd really like to see a tape without the editing...though seeing and hearing what was on the edited version I doubt my opinion will be swayed.
ETA: IF the facts are as depicted, the dude has one hell of a case.See, I knew we were on the same page. :)
CarlosDJackal
07-20-10, 16:07
...If it's illegal I can understand their reasoning for wanting to look in the house for bad guys after making the arrest so that nobody's taking shots from the house. If it's not illegal then say hello and let him know he's possibly disturbing his neighbors or someone driving by had called it in and he should be a little more low key on his chosen shooting spot...
IMHO, whether what he was doing was legal or illegal is not relevant to the subsequent illegal search and seizure of the gun cabinet/safe. The legal detention and arrest for illegally discharging of a firearm is one thing. Searching the house for additional suspects is another.
But neither of these (if they were legal) do not warrant them forcibly opening a gun safe or cabinet and confiscating any firearm that were contained within; unless they had the proper paperwork (IE: warrant). I can't even come up with any probable cause for this action since they observed the subject using the firearm he was shooting with. It's not like they had to look for the gun he was using. JM2CW.
Terrible event for the citizen who was doing nothing wrong.
Terrible event for the honest and hard working men and women of the SLO community, who are now tarnished by actions of their colleagues.
I'm a bit surprised, and not, that a call like this went so haywire.
Agencies in rural areas, or urban with rural periphery, get calls like this all the time. Occasionally, a newcomer to the neighborhood, a well-meaning passerby, or someone annoyed or with an axe to grind reports shots fired/someone shooting. Critical thinking officers contemplate pertinents of area, circumstances, time, history, complainant and other variables and form their response plan. I have responded to more calls of shots in my outlaying areas than I can count. I don't recall rolling in to any and taking people at gunpoint. There's a time and place for that, and being tuned in to your patrol area ensures that it's used appropriately.
Contact - Cover
Hello?
Hi there. Sheriff's Office. Can you please step to the gate?
Sir, would you mind putting that rifle down so we can talk to you?
Would you mind keeping your hands where I can see them? I don't want any misunderstandings between us.
We received report of some shooting here. Is everything okay?
Target shooting? Cool. What are you shooting?
Would you mind showing me what you're shooting so my boss knows I double checked?
Thanks, Sir. Sorry to bother you. Have a nice day.
At each point, there's a behavioral, physical, and threat assessment. If things go well, that where the conversation stays. If responses go poorly, there's a plan to deal with them.
The SLO cops can argue, with some merit, that their initial arrival actions were permissible. They may not have known the guy, his past activities of shooting on property, or related data. They're not expected to know everything, only to use the information at hand. They're not obligated to be nice, or leave the public with warm fuzzies, though we'd hope that they would at least try. They are obligated to be professional, as rigid and unfriendly as that can be at times. They are obligated to follow the law and SOPs. Law, case law, and SOPs allow some of their first arrival actions. Some additional common sense should have guided those first actions, however. Unless the full videos show differently, subsequent actions after arrival range from very iffy to completely inappropriate and/or unlawful.
For the resident, doing anything other than what he was told, such as going for a cell phone, was stupid stupid stupid. Given the attitude and demeanor of officers, frankly, I'm surprised he was not shot. It's interesting to note that had they shot and killed him, it's possible that they would have received less public scrutiny and less personal and legal peril than they otherwise have. Strange world.
I'd like to see the full content of all the tapes from deputies on scene before pronouncing too much judgement. What I have seen thus far is pretty disgraceful though, and doesn't prompt much benefit of the doubt.
To condem someone on the basis of an edited and biased video in and of its self is judgmental. We do not know what, if anything else the responding officers may have been aware of.
Sorry Joe.
Unless you are arguing that the "editing" done constructed the statements of the SLOSD deputies presented in the video out of thin air, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Their statements stand on their own, and they should be appalling to everyone in this country, particularly those sworn to uphold the Constitution. There is no context into which some of the things said can be put into that would justify them. Taken collectively, it's clear that there is no missing context to try to put it into. Square peg, round hole and all.
montanadave
07-20-10, 16:17
The edited video is a bit confusing as portions were obviously recorded after the fact as part of a recreation of the events, but it seems to me that if this guy was target shooting in the manner depicted (i.e. with a shooting stand, the single shot rifle, hearing protection, targets down range, etc.) all the deputies had to do was walk up to where the guy had been firing from (after he had been restrained and the rifle was confiscated) to verify what he was doing.
Once it became apparent he had been target shooting outside his home towards a designated target area, I don't see any reason whatsoever for the deputies to enter his home. THERE ARE NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. Nobody is in danger, the evidence (i.e. the rifle) and the suspect are both in custody.
And I'm amazed that these deputies and the detective on the scene conversed like they did. Don't they know both audio and video are recording? I'd like to know if there is a history of prior run ins between this guy and the sheriff's department because it sure looks like they were looking for any excuse to toss him in the pokey.
And I'm amazed that these deputies and the detective on the scene conversed like they did. Don't they know both audio and video are recording?
My experience... When I've found cops that aren't particularly worried about what they say or do on tape, there's usually a reason for that found in the organizational and supervisory culture.
Not an indictment of same in SLOSD. Just sayin'.
Belmont31R
07-20-10, 16:32
Skintop-
I agree with you, and that is how my own experience was handled. The officers were very nice, and they realized shooting is something that happens a lot of rural property. They don't need to get the carbines out, and put people on the ground every time a report comes in of someone shooting on their property. The area has a lot to do with it, and the property in this question looked pretty rural to me. Obviously a shots fired call downtown has to be handled a lot differently than shots fired out in the country just based on the locations, and with nothing else to go on. Prepared for anything yes but a rural community is not going to take too well to this type of response just for shooting on someones land.
Speaking of TOS there is a long running thread/incident of someones private range, and the neighbor reporting them everytime they are shooting. Its about 30 minutes from me, and out there is pretty rural. There are some people who are not used to people shooting on their land, don't like it, etc, and will report it. In my case I am 90% sure it was a byciclist from the city as they used to go out there to ride on the roads that go by the wineries and ranches. Anyways this guy out here has had the sheriff's called on him numerous times by this neighbor even though its been explained to her by the SO's that its completely legal. You get people riding backs out on country roads, city people that buy land out there, pure assholes who want to control what people do on their own land, etc, and Im sure those people make up the majority of calls. Unfortunately there is not a lot of places left in the US where you can buy enough land to shoot on without having to worry about this kind of thing as neighbors are almost always within earshot. My uncle whom Ive gone hunting on his land before told me about a environmentalist type that reported people poaching deer if she saw them with hung deer in their yards just because she didn't like seeing people hunting.
Assuming that everything was as it was depicted and as I heard it is very disturbing. I am still trying to make sense of their justification for entering a locked safe. Here are a few more WTF's?
1. What was the "machine gun" charge all about? I saw that he had some AR type rifles? I wonder if they were Cali compliant (possibly pre-ban) or what? Maybe an "assault rifle" not registered with DOJ?
2. What evidence was there that he brandished a firearm at the officer?
3. Why was his legal action to get his firearms returned dismissed?
John_Wayne777
07-20-10, 17:27
There wasn't any justification for going into the safe. They might be able to potentially justify sweeping the house, but going into a locked gunsafe when they've determined that there's nobody at home flys so far past the boundaries of propriety that Ray Charles could call it...and he's blind and dead.
"Officer safety" is a pretty stretchy concept, but it doesn't stretch that far. No reasonable officer safety or exigent circumstances argument can be made for that.
What I don't understand is: The primary charge of negligent discharge was thrown out. How on earth did they get a conviction on anything that came about as a result of the illegal search?
Belmont31R
07-20-10, 17:52
What I don't understand is: The primary charge of negligent discharge was thrown out. How on earth did they get a conviction on anything that came about as a result of the illegal search?
Says he plead no contest to a misd. when confronted with 5 felony charges.
Says he plead no contest to a misd. when confronted with 5 felony charges.
Yeah, but that still doesn't make sense. His attorney must be green.
What I don't understand is: The primary charge of negligent discharge was thrown out. How on earth did they get a conviction on anything that came about as a result of the illegal search?
It seems to me that maybe the guy couldn't afford legal representation because of the public defender so he took whatever out they'd give him. You think if he looked a little harder he would have found a lawyer who was chomping at the bit to file a lawsuit after he got the guy's charges dismissed pro bono.
ForTehNguyen
07-20-10, 18:09
2. What evidence was there that he brandished a firearm at the officer?
when the cops came, his dogs were going nuts. He was outside shooting and had his hearing pro on while officers were shouting so he didnt hear it. Then seeing what the dogs were barking at he walked out behind his truck to peek and he was holding his rifle. So they wanted to get him for brandishing
Moose-Knuckle
07-20-10, 18:13
This thread reinforces my belief that one should have a good attorney on retainer.
So they wanted to get him for brandishing
And any thing else they could think up like the charge of resisting arrest. In my eyes it amounts to an UCMJ Article 134 being the "catch all" throw that on the list too offense. From what I could see there was no resisting but there was definitely a very stupid move to take out his cell phone which just about got him shot. When confronted with LEOs who have their weapons drawn do not reach for your waistband or anything else for that matter!
Business_Casual
07-20-10, 18:35
From what I could see there was no resisting but there was definitely a very stupid move to take out his cell phone which just about got him shot. When confronted with LEOs who have their weapons drawn do not reach for your waistband or anything else for that matter!
On your own property when you've done nothing wrong? Wow, welcome to California.
B_C
John_Wayne777
07-20-10, 18:37
Yeah, but that still doesn't make sense. His attorney must be green.
Attorneys cost money. Good ones cost a lot of money...as in enough to leave you with the choice of bankruptcy or a criminal conviction. Prosecutors can pile on charges and indictments 'til their heart's content...and you have to fork out money to defend against them. Unless you're a Colombian drug lord, you can only fight so much.
Not really a big fan of the prosecutor threatening to use this tactic on a guy who didn't do anything wrong. Prosecutorial discretion is supposed to be used to further the interests of justice...not as a way to cover asses. I would imagine his public defender acquainted him with the reality that a prosecutor with a hard-on is eventually going to ruin his life, so it's best to take the deal.
RogerinTPA
07-20-10, 20:48
Wow! This is absolutely insane!
What is the most disturbing part for me was after the dispatcher said he had 8 registered firearms, and they found the targets down range, they still went on with their course of action of breaking into his house, then safe, and concocting a story to fit a crime that didn't exist. My head is spinning right now with the piss poor judgment and lack of common sense being displayed.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-21-10, 11:42
I feel like a few pages are missing here...
The cell phone thing is just stupid?
What happened to the 'machine gun'?
Why didn't the NRA or anyone step up to bat for the guy?
Who called in the shots fired?
The report is cheesy. The facts speak louder than words. Guess who would be the 'high' bidder on the nice semi-auto shotgun when it is disposed of. You can tell there is a class issue going on too- they can't believe that he has all these nice guns- were they thinking that if they looked a bit further they'd find drugs or something?
To keep it from happening?
1. Higher fences?
2. Keys in pocket, not outside?
3. Suppressors :)
Can't believe the dog wasn't shot either.
Notice one cop said "Where's the woman? Here are some panties." I'm starting to think the panties where the homeowners.
Belmont31R
07-21-10, 11:55
I feel like a few pages are missing here...
The cell phone thing is just stupid?
What happened to the 'machine gun'?
Why didn't the NRA or anyone step up to bat for the guy?
Who called in the shots fired?
The report is cheesy. The facts speak louder than words. Guess who would be the 'high' bidder on the nice semi-auto shotgun when it is disposed of. You can tell there is a class issue going on too- they can't believe that he has all these nice guns- were they thinking that if they looked a bit further they'd find drugs or something?
To keep it from happening?
1. Higher fences?
2. Keys in pocket, not outside?
3. Suppressors :)
Can't believe the dog wasn't shot either.
Notice one cop said "Where's the woman? Here are some panties." I'm starting to think the panties where the homeowners.
The phone thing was kinda dumb.
Machine gun charge was dropped. He didn't have a machine gun.
I think this was kept quiet, and these videos just came out. On calguns the reporter who got the video posted, and calguns lawyers are most likely going to do something for him. Either to get his guns back and/or pursue civil rights violations under Federal law. They posted the statutes, and civil rights violations have a 5 year limit. This happened in 2008 so he could still sue.
To keep it from happening WE have to do OUR jobs. That means electing sheriffs that don't do this sort of thing. DA's that don't try to ramrod people when they didn't do anything illegal. People that don't cover up their own crimes by going after innocent people. Demanding accountability of elected officials. Your suggestions have merit but high fences and cans won't protect you from tyranny.
Yes they probably went in the home to look for something else to charge him with, and going in the home is grey area. Going in the safe without a warrant doesn't fit into any legal doctrine. Even searching for bodies as the one cop said. Protective sweeps, and exigent circumstances don't allow that sort of thing.
He plead no contest to resisting/obstruction. Everything else was tossed out or dropped.
Womens underwear....you're saying hes a cross dresser or something? Maybe he has a GF, SO, ect. Still has nothing to do with the case even if he likes to dress up in womens clothing. We all are supposed to have equal protection under the law...:cool:
NCPatrolAR
07-21-10, 12:04
Guess who would be the 'high' bidder on the nice semi-auto shotgun when it is disposed of.
Many agencies don't auction weapons off. A great deal of agencies destroy those items that aren't returned to their owners at the conclusion of the case.
If such a claim is going to made; there better be some proof of it.
Many agencies don't auction weapons off. A great deal of agencies destroy those items that aren't returned to their owners at the conclusion of the case.
If such a claim is going to made; there better be some proof of it.
this will be the last comment of this type made in this thread. This one has netted someone an infraction.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky does. I've seen the list of weapons for auction...mostly pretty crappy stuff like Jennings and Hi-Points.
Thought the video was pretty cheesy, and almost stopped watching it with that opening, but the story was very interesting, and really really sad. I could see this kind of thing happening in my state, and what freaks me out is that like what JohnWayne said lawyers cost money, and fighting something like this would be an absolute nightmare.
Without trying to say anything about individuals, I have found that this seems to be one of the largest hindrances towards true justice. If people are literally too poor to defend their own civil rights, then who exactly is there to defend them? It boils down to having agencies, and not for profits that are willing to take on cases, and these groups have a long list of people on their plate.
I was talking about this case to my wife last night, and what is scary is how easily the exact same thing could happen to so many gun owners that own property, and shoot on their property. It really only takes one pissed off neighbor to start a major shit storm for someone.
I tend to believe this is the exception, not the rule. There are knuckleheads in every profession.
All I hope for is that Hart's misdemeanor conviction is overturned in some fashion, his record gets completely expunged, and he gets the guns back. Anything else would be a bad day for Lady Justice.
All I hope for is that Hart's misdemeanor conviction is overturned in some fashion, his record gets completely expunged, and he gets the guns back. Anything else would be a bad day for Lady Justice.
I agree but would also hope that the officers involved get the book thrown at them, as well. Vindication of the innocent without the punishment of the wrongdoings doesn't do Lady Justice any favors, either.
I tend to believe this is the exception, not the rule. There are knuckleheads in every profession.
[Let me preface this with saying this isn't aimed at LE, rather it's just an observation of what is.]
The difference being that a knucklehead in any other profession (i.e. not someone in the LE/Gov't field) typically doesn't hold the power to screw up someone else's life while being justified to do so. If an electrician wires your house incorrectly and it burns down, they're held responsible for it. If a bus slams into your car, the driver is held responsible. When a cop screws up like this, the only thing that is usually done is 1) they're put on leave or fired (big deal) and 2) any charges against you are dropped. Now tell me, where is the "responsibility" at? If someone else (again, non-LE) came onto my property like those officers did, barging into my house and breaking open my safe and confiscating my property, I'd shoot them without any regard to their lives and I'd also be cleared of any wrong-doing because of castle doctrine in my state.
When police do this, there's RARELY accountability. Really, there isn't. Getting back one's property and a cleared name isn't "accountability," it's simply undoing what was done. Accountability and justice would require not only undoing the wrongs, but treating those who infringed on his rights as criminals. They should be treated and charged as felons instead of getting off with "Well it was just a misunderstanding" (which may not even happen).
I'm not anti-LEO in any way whatsoever (in fact I almost applied to the local PD recently), but people like these cops sicken me, whether they're LE or not. I'll tell you what, if that had happened to me, I'd make it a goal in life to wreck those officer's lives, Monte Cristo style.
[Let me preface this with saying this isn't aimed at LE, rather it's just an observation of what is.]
The difference being that a knucklehead in any other profession (i.e. not someone in the LE/Gov't field) typically doesn't hold the power to screw up someone else's life while being justified to do so. If an electrician wires your house incorrectly and it burns down, they're held responsible for it. If a bus slams into your car, the driver is held responsible. When a cop screws up like this, the only thing that is usually done is 1) they're put on leave or fired (big deal) and 2) any charges against you are dropped. Now tell me, where is the "responsibility" at? If someone else (again, non-LE) came onto my property like those officers did, barging into my house and breaking open my safe and confiscating my property, I'd shoot them without any regard to their lives and I'd also be cleared of any wrong-doing because of castle doctrine in my state.
When police do this, there's RARELY accountability. Really, there isn't. Getting back one's property and a cleared name isn't "accountability," it's simply undoing what was done. Accountability and justice would require not only undoing the wrongs, but treating those who infringed on his rights as criminals. They should be treated and charged as felons instead of getting off with "Well it was just a misunderstanding" (which may not even happen).
I'm not anti-LEO in any way whatsoever (in fact I almost applied to the local PD recently), but people like these cops sicken me, whether they're LE or not. I'll tell you what, if that had happened to me, I'd make it a goal in life to wreck those officer's lives, Monte Cristo style.
The problem is in this particular case I believe it said he didn't even get his property back.
Many agencies don't auction weapons off. A great deal of agencies destroy those items that aren't returned to their owners at the conclusion of the case.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky does. I've seen the list of weapons for auction...mostly pretty crappy stuff like Jennings and Hi-Points.
Varies widely by locale, with some trends regionally.
Wherever possible, agencies should auction or sell those firearms that can't be returned to owners. It's fiscally beneficial and much more responsible than simple destruction.
If agencies are required to destroy them, those requirements might be satisfied by simply destroying the receiver rather than all component parts. There are parts houses, business, and other folks that will buy those parts. Law and local preference remain satisfied, and there's still some potential income from the process.
NCPatrolAR
07-21-10, 16:11
Wherever possible, agencies should auction or sell those firearms that can't be returned to owners. It's fiscally beneficial and much more responsible than simple destruction.
If agencies are required to destroy them, those requirements might be satisfied by simply destroying the receiver rather than all component parts. There are parts houses, business, and other folks that will buy those parts. Law and local preference remain satisfied, and there's still some potential income from the process.
I believe our guys destroy them due to liability concerns
I agree but would also hope that the officers involved get the book thrown at them, as well. Vindication of the innocent without the punishment of the wrongdoings doesn't do Lady Justice any favors, either.
Amen......
I tend to believe this is the exception, not the rule. There are knuckleheads in every profession.
All I hope for is that Hart's misdemeanor conviction is overturned in some fashion, his record gets completely expunged, and he gets the guns back. Anything else would be a bad day for Lady Justice.
Like the others said, some of these deputies need to be punished and/or lose their badges. That must happen for a non-bad-day for Lady Justice to occur.
Like uncle Joe Stalin's police chief said, "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."
Treason by any other name.
Police officers are trained how to work within the constitution to their favor to nail the badguys. If the badguys don't know their rights, too bad. It is routine to load badguys up on every charge that is potentially provable in the event some of them don't stick in court for whatever reason. It has the added benefit of acting as a de-facto countersuit in case of officer misconduct.
I'm fine with that, badguys should be dragged into the gutter and shot, they're lucky they are afforded rights now that they were never afforded for the first 200 years of the republic. It's like the Gitmo torture issue. Why would I care about the torture of people that should be beat to death with baseball bats? Those hadjis should have been fertilizer 8 years ago.
Those officers on tape are worse than criminal, they're criminally stupid. Literally from the first blubbering comment about making sure to charge the person with something when they got there. Like a LEO friend of mine said, "we don't catch the smart ones." I guess this goes for cops that arrest people they're angry at too. Next time I engage in a criminal conspiracy to steal someones property and make false sworn statements, I'll have to remember to not record it.
MarshallDodge
07-21-10, 20:45
Because one guy didn't stand up (out of five) and point what they were doing is illegal, their department's name is now smeared through the mud. There are legal actions going through. Sad.
This is so bad; it's like a scripted, fake version of police confiscation.
You are right on.
There are a lot of good solid police officers out there but unfortunately San Luis Obispo has a couple bad apples on their force.
Hopefully the good guys will prevail and Mr. Hart will get his guns and dignity back.
Rebel Rifle Ordnance
07-21-10, 20:52
This is wrong on so many levels. I agree that one cannot reasonably form an opinion from one point of view, however it is very clear that the officers were struggling to justify the way this was handled.
The comment that the deputy made that he was going to charge him with whatever he could suggests that he already had his mind made up before he arrived on the scene to gather the facts.
I'm former law enforcement and when I see stuff like this it makes my blood boil as much as the next law abiding citizen. If the facts portrayed in this video are accurate, those officers involved should lose their jobs and be sued civilly. I'm not a big proponent of "pain and suffering" in lawsuits but this may be one that it would be justified. Having charges floating over you for weeks at a time if you've done nothing wrong is not fun (a felony in this case).
When a cop is looking to "punish" because someone is an "asshole" the job has gone to his head. It seems that he has a bad case of "us" against "them." Time to find a different job.
Business_Casual
07-21-10, 21:47
Keith, you are spot on.
Bladerunner: If you're not cop, you're little people.
That's an attitude our country can do without.
B_C
Belmont31R
07-21-10, 21:57
This is wrong on so many levels. I agree that one cannot reasonably form an opinion from one point of view, however it is very clear that the officers were struggling to justify the way this was handled.
The comment that the deputy made that he was going to charge him with whatever he could suggests that he already had his mind made up before he arrived on the scene to gather the facts.
I'm former law enforcement and when I see stuff like this it makes my blood boil as much as the next law abiding citizen. If the facts portrayed in this video are accurate, those officers involved should lose their jobs and be sued civilly. I'm not a big proponent of "pain and suffering" in lawsuits but this may be one that it would be justified. Having charges floating over you for weeks at a time if you've done nothing wrong is not fun (a felony in this case).
When a cop is looking to "punish" because someone is an "asshole" the job has gone to his head. It seems that he has a bad case of "us" against "them." Time to find a different job.
If I have my facts right it was not "A" felony it was FIVE (5) felonies, and that was AFTER half of the original charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.
A man without much money, sitting there with a public defender....looking at however many years in jail takes the easy out. Id do it too if I was in that spot. Not everyone has the benjamins to drop on top lawyers and make a big deal about it. The county on the other has has what basically amounts to unlimited resources to bury this guy, send him to jail, etc. This was after being ramrodded by every cop that showed up at his home. He probably has to feel like a midget standing next to a 200ft statute.
So there are really THREE wrong doings that the county put on this guy:
1. The initial arrest, search, and seizure.
2. The ramroding by the DA
3. The continued seizure of his firearms TWO years after the incident.
Every single person involved in all three need to be investigated, and perhaps prosecuted for civil rights violations, fired, and made an example of. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice.
Like the others said, some of these deputies need to be punished and/or lose their badges. That must happen for a non-bad-day for Lady Justice to occur.
Problem I have is that some good cops are going to get railed in the "investigation" if it's done, and heads actually roll. I'm not Ok with that aspect of going all out to cull this guy from the force.
Maybe his superiors should "suggest" a career change?
Problem I have is that some good cops are going to get railed in the "investigation" if it's done, and heads actually roll. I'm not Ok with that aspect of going all out to cull this guy from the force.
Maybe his superiors should "suggest" a career change?
Then those "good" cops should have done the right thing and reported their fellow officers for blatant fabrication of evidence and unethical actions. Anyone who believes that this is the "first time" this has happened with this department is lying to themselves - the attitudes and behavior the officers displayed doesn't cultivate overnight (admitting before they got there that they were going to charge the guy?? seriously?). It's VERY obvious that some head-turning has been going on for quite awhile.
In my opinion, the entire department should be held accountable. This isn't a case of a bad judgment call - this is a corrupt department.
In my opinion, the entire department should be held accountable. This isn't a case of a bad judgment call - this is a corrupt department.
I doubt it. Probably the one bad guy we saw in the vid pushing, pushing, pushing...and then one or two bad superiors in the chain...and a dumbass DA who apparently didn't get to see the video we all watched.
This is the problem I have with the "burn that witch" investigations and actions. You generally end up with good honest guys getting caught up as scapegoats or whatever. I have a problem with that.
Blackstone's Formulation.
In my opinion, the entire department should be held accountable. This isn't a case of a bad judgment call - this is a corrupt department.
wow...really??
do you have knowledge of the total numbers of leo & support people on the payroll & their characters that tie them to corruption??
I can even understand you saying all those on the crime scene but you want to skillet shoot the whole covey??
Everyone on tape that agreed with making-up charges should get hung out to dry. Depending on how many people work on the dept. it might be that the whole dept should be investigated.
Everyone there had a chance to say "Just let the guy go, yell at him for grabbing at his phone and say he caused all the extra drama". If you think that this is the only time it has been done you are kidding yourself. Any honest LEOs should want these crooked ones locked up because it is exactly situations like these that undermine what you do, causes distrust in you, and makes even supporters of LE question what they are supporting.
Everyone on tape that agreed with making-up charges should get hung out to dry. Depending on how many people work on the dept. it might be that the whole dept should be investigated.
Everyone there had a chance to say "Just let the guy go, yell at him for grabbing at his phone and say he caused all the extra drama". If you think that this is the only time it has been done you are kidding yourself. Any honest LEOs should want these crooked ones locked up because it is exactly situations like these that undermine what you do, causes distrust in you, and makes even supporters of LE question what they are supporting.
Agreed completely.
Perhaps my initial post didn't cover it. I'll try again...
Given the "facts" as we saw them, the initial response was on it's face, justified. He's got a gun, he's shooting, we don't know who it is.
So what? A guy is shooting a .22 in his own 2 acre back yard in what seems to be a rural area? Why is that cause for alarm?
The problem here is much bigger than these shitbird, disingenuous cops. And yes, that's what they are, and I'm not bashing all cops - most of them are quite honest and fair in my experience. The real problem is that too many people - "society" if you will - think that plinking in a rural backyard is an issue in the first place. So it gets turned into a "man with a gun, shots fired!!11!!" call and the rolling ball of snow comes tumbling and growing down the hill.
Your consistent attempts to rationalize clearly awful behavior do nothing more than feed and broaden contempt for LE. You'd be much better off simply not commenting, or saying "there are a few bad apples and most LEOs would never behave this way."
Rebel Rifle Ordnance
07-22-10, 09:08
So what? A guy is shooting a .22 in his own 2 acre back yard in what seems to be a rural area? Why is that cause for alarm?
The problem here is much bigger than these shitbird, disingenuous cops. And yes, that's what they are, and I'm not bashing all cops - most of them are quite honest and fair in my experience. The real problem is that too many people - "society" if you will - think that plinking in a rural backyard is an issue in the first place. So it gets turned into a "man with a gun, shots fired!!11!!" call and the rolling ball of snow comes tumbling and growing down the hill.
Your consistent attempts to rationalize clearly awful behavior do nothing more than feed and broaden contempt for LE. You'd be much better off simply not commenting, or saying "there are a few bad apples and most LEOs would never behave this way."
Right on, right on. If shooting in your backyard in the county is wrong (and it's not in my book), then I would be a felon as I shoot 100's of rounds .22 every week. I went to suppressed to keep from pissing my neighbor off too bad.
I can even understand you saying all those on the crime scene but you want to skillet shoot the whole covey??
Maybe I should reword myself, as I think I was misunderstood...
Do I WANT the good guys to go down? No, but if that's what it takes, then I'd rather see the entire department go down than see those cops in that video go unpunished (and they need to be punished, as in criminally charged as felons). Any "good" the department might do is eclipsed by the massive rights infringements, illegal seizures and searches, fabrication of evidence, lack of moral character, and abuse of power showed in that video. All those guys are is a bunch of thugs with guns who want to prove how tough they are (that isn't a shot at LE - I have much respect for most) and were willing to wreck someone else's life because they did something stupid.
Again, this is obviously (meaning you have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to see it) NOT the first time this has happened and EVERY officer in that video was playing along with the scheme of charging an innocent person. You can't tell me that people whose profession is to look for gross abnormalities in potential lawbreakers didn't see the attitudes of their fellow officers. Someone in that department is letting that behavior go unchecked and they are stripping the people they are supposed to protect of their rights, their property, and their dignity.
So yes, the entire department should go under investigation and anyone found to have participated in similar events or who knew about these issues without reporting them should be criminally charged.
So what? A guy is shooting a .22 in his own 2 acre back yard in what seems to be a rural area? Why is that cause for alarm?
The problem here is much bigger than these shitbird, disingenuous cops. And yes, that's what they are, and I'm not bashing all cops - most of them are quite honest and fair in my experience. The real problem is that too many people - "society" if you will - think that plinking in a rural backyard is an issue in the first place. So it gets turned into a "man with a gun, shots fired!!11!!" call and the rolling ball of snow comes tumbling and growing down the hill.
Your consistent attempts to rationalize clearly awful behavior do nothing more than feed and broaden contempt for LE. You'd be much better off simply not commenting, or saying "there are a few bad apples and most LEOs would never behave this way."
Society isnt the problem, he pissed off his neighbor or even if it was some random person that called, just calling the police doesnt mean someone needs to go to prison. EVERYONE here knows how it should have worked out, hand shake with the police and he kept on shooting.
Society isnt the problem, he pissed off his neighbor or even if it was some random person that called, just calling the police doesnt mean someone needs to go to prison. EVERYONE here knows how it should have worked out, hand shake with the police and he kept on shooting.
Yes, it is society. That include the neighbor. In the good old days, you'd call or walk over and talk to your neighbor about the issue before you got the authorities involved. Now, everybody is such a nervous Nancy, and the government (including most LE agency brass who have ungrounded fears of liability) encourage people to cower in a closet and call 911 instead of dealing with minor issues like normal adults. You can never be too careful, you never know, and all that bullshit.
That's in addition to the increasingly, and annoyingly, prevalent attitude that anything and everything involving a "gun" must be a serious crime that requires an overwhelming response. A guy walking down the street and doing nothing suspicious or threatening, who is merely carrying a gun, is not a ****ing emergency. Neither is a guy plinking in his enormous rural backyard.
CarlosDJackal
07-22-10, 10:56
On your own property when you've done nothing wrong? Wow, welcome to California.
B_C
Just because you are on your own property, it doesn't mean that you haven't broken some law. In a lot of places, discharging a firearm within a certain distance of another person's property is illegal - regardless of whether or not it is dangerous.
Before you do any of the sort, you should do some research to validate your intentions one way or another. This way you can stay within the boundaries of the written law.
In this case, the subject being on his own property doesn't mean that reaching into his pocket for a cell phone when the responding Officers are giving him a lawful order is okay. That's a damned good way to get shot (as the case in the Las Vegas COSTCO incident).
They may or may not find the Officers to be in the wrong, but in the end you're still shot. When you have a bunch of Officers pointing a gun at you and ordering you to do something, don't do anything outside of what they are ordering you because any furtive movement can and probably will get you shot. JM2CW.
I am very pro LE, but this was blatant BS based upon what I viewed (I have nothing other to base my opinion on but what I viewed). It certainly does not represent all of LEO but these small minorities of LEO's are disgraceful.
The question I always pose to the LEO's who might be involved in these discussions, is how would they feel if it was themselves, their mother, father or another loved one being put through that... My guess is they would be enraged just like any one of us would be.
I cant find a way to defend the LEO's in this one particular incident. How someone can determine en route that he will make up whatever is necessary to make an arrest is simply disgusting and speaks directly to their character. The other officers covering up is just as disturbing...
That's a damned good way to get shot (as the case in the Las Vegas COSTCO incident).
This is not a factual statement and is only a guess on your part, unless of course you were a witness. No audio, video or 911 call has been released from the incident and there are different accounts of what happened on all sides of the fence. The rest of your statement was right on the money.
Yes, it is society. That include the neighbor. In the good old days, you'd call or walk over and talk to your neighbor about the issue before you got the authorities involved. Now, everybody is such a nervous Nancy, and the government (including most LE agency brass who have ungrounded fears of liability) encourage people to cower in a closet and call 911 instead of dealing with minor issues like normal adults. You can never be too careful, you never know, and all that bullshit.
That's in addition to the increasingly, and annoyingly, prevalent attitude that anything and everything involving a "gun" must be a serious crime that requires an overwhelming response. A guy walking down the street and doing nothing suspicious or threatening, who is merely carrying a gun, is not a ****ing emergency. Neither is a guy plinking in his enormous rural backyard.
Well considering this is a gun incident, you suggest confronting your neighbor that you do not know when you hear gun shots?
It wasnt loud music or him burning leaves, it was gun shots, maybe it was just a concerned neighbor that had never heard shot from there.
This is not a factual statement and is only a guess on your part
I'm assuming you're talking about the COSTCO incident and not "reaching for a cellphone," because I WAS almost shot when I was 16 (nearly 11 years ago) because I had a large motorola "brickphone" in my front jeans pocket.
I was out past curfew and an officer pulled over and shined a light at me. He asked me my age and told me I was out past curfew (I had just moved there that year and didn't know that curfews even existed). He told me to raise my hands and get on my knees - well, I couldn't with the large phone in my front pocket (the size of it kept me from raising my knees towards my waist as I knelt down), so I pulled it out. He drew down on me and later told me he almost pulled the trigger.
I was always one of those "goodie two-shoes" kind of kids, so I had zero experience with cops or what to-do/not-to-do. I chalked it up to experience. Never had a run in since.
Point being, NEVER reach for ANYTHING in front of an officer.
I'm assuming you're talking about the COSTCO incident and not "reaching for a cellphone,"
Your assumption is correct. ;)
CarlosDJackal
07-22-10, 11:40
...The real problem is that too many people - "society" if you will - think that plinking in a rural backyard is an issue in the first place. So it gets turned into a "man with a gun, shots fired!!11!!" call and the rolling ball of snow comes tumbling and growing down the hill...
Yes and no. The cause of this type of "the sky is falling" calls by soccer moms are twofold.
The first is the fact that most "rural" areas are anything but. With more and more people encroaching what used to be rural land (thanks to the greedy Developers who see no problem with cutting up farmland into 1/4-acre homes) the number of people who are living in these areas who actually understand that just because someone is using a gun it doesn't mean they're trying to kill anyone or anything.
The second major cause are the MORONS WHO OWN GUNS and ruin it for the rest of us. When I was stationed in Alaska during the mid-80s there were a lot of places that you can go and do some target practice. In the 26-months I was stationed there (just outside of Anchorage) I personally know of two that were cleaned up and had ordinances passed making it illegal for use as a shooting range. In both these cases it happened because more than one idiot did something that endangered someone else's life.
I once observed a guy shooting perpendicular of the highway that ran along the mud flats we were shooting at. This moron actually thought it was okay to do so despite the fact that he was shooting perpendicular to everyone else's direction of fire. This moron actually argued that he's been doing it this way for years. He finally packed up and left when he realized that he was not only outnumbered, but outgunned.
On a second location, I was detained by a local Police Officer because I was not aware that they had passed the ordinance because they had not had the chance to put in place any of the signs saying so (he let me go with a warning). It was at the side of a mountain and for years people have been using that maintain side as a backstop.
As it turns out just a couple of weeks before, some idiot decided that he was going to shoot along the mountainside instead of into it. Unfortunately, the Glen Highway was in his line of fire. The result was one of his .30-06 rounds penetrated a car's windshield and embedded into the back seat about a foot away from the driver's baby daughter.
I've met individuals who found bullet holes in their homes because some hunter did not bother to look beyond the meadow their prey were standing in.
We cannot blame this solely on society. There are a lot of gun owners that cause such laws to be enacted. JM2CW.
CarlosDJackal
07-22-10, 11:43
This is not a factual statement and is only a guess on your part, unless of course you were a witness. No audio, video or 911 call has been released from the incident and there are different accounts of what happened on all sides of the fence. The rest of your statement was right on the money.
Point taken. I was basing this on what I have read AND what I have seen when I was in uniform. I've had to reach for my own sidearm a couple of times - thankfully, I never had to draw it out of the holster.
variablebinary
07-22-10, 11:43
I hope the future punitive damage award is measured in millions.
...and a dumbass DA who apparently didn't get to see the video we all watched.
Not being familiar with the normal flow of info and evidence I could be wrong but I find it hard to believe that no supervisor or the DA reviewed those tapes. I would stop short of calling it a witch hunt or going after the whole department but there are probably a few more bad apples that knew what happened that need to be outed.
Based on my military experience if people don't seem concerned about being caught doing something wrong I agree with Skintop911, "there's usually a reason for that found in the organizational and supervisory culture."
Just makes it harder for the good guys out there who don't get enough thanks for dealing with societies problems every day.
daughter.
We cannot blame this solely on society. There are a lot of gun owners that cause such laws to be enacted. JM2CW.
Yes, we can, because that IS the problem: society. Instead of enforcing harsher punishments on those who destroy other's property through negligence, we slap them on the wrists and then pass laws that supposedly "fix" the problem (which in reality only restrict our rights even more). That's the mentality our society has been cultivated into accepting for the last two or three decades.
Ronald Reagan said it best: We need to take responsibility for our actions and stop blaming the laws when people break them.
Making more laws doesn't and won't fix the problem. Punishing those who break them does.
Yes, we can, because that IS the problem: society. Instead of enforcing harsher punishments on those who destroy other's property through negligence, we slap them on the wrists and then pass laws that supposedly "fix" the problem (which in reality only restrict our rights even more). That's the mentality our society has been cultivated into accepting for the last two or three decades.
Ronald Reagan said it best: We need to take responsibility for our actions and stop blaming the laws when people break them.
Making more laws doesn't and won't fix the problem. Punishing those who break them does.
Agreed wholeheartedly...but, how do we enforce people taking responsibility for their actions? How can you bring about that kind of change to society when it has literally gone down the shitter, progressively.
Agreed wholeheartedly...but, how do we enforce people taking responsibility for their actions? How can you bring about that kind of change to society when it has literally gone down the shitter, progressively.
It honestly starts with your vote, more importantly at the local level. Vote for those who have no tolerance for crime whatsoever. Vote for those who understand the issues. And vote in your LOCAL elections, not just state and national elections. Where do you think these dimwits come from? They slip in the cracks and crawl up the ranks because people have passively sat by and not voted them out.
I'm not sure about your locale, but the local elections in Nashville are within the next few weeks. Tell your friends, explain to them the issues, and make it an event - go out grab some lunch, then go vote with them. MAKE IT FUN! Talk to them about doing the same. If we all did this, this country would be turned around in 8 years, guaranteed. The problem is we haven't.
The only reason we're where we are is because we've done nothing. We can't change it, so let's move forward. Vote.
Also, pray to God (if you believe in Him) and stock up on ammo, because if we don't get a change, we'll be needing both real soon.
It honestly starts with your vote, more importantly at the local level. Vote for those who have no tolerance for crime whatsoever. Vote for those who understand the issues. And vote in your LOCAL elections, not just state and national elections. Where do you think these dimwits come from? They slip in the cracks and crawl up the ranks because people have passively sat by and not voted them out.
I'm not sure about your locale, but the local elections in Nashville are within the next few weeks. Tell your friends, explain to them the issues, and make it an event - go out grab some lunch, then go vote with them. Talk to them about doing the same. If we all did this, this country would be turned around in 8 years, guaranteed. The problem is we haven't.
The only reason we're where we are is because we've done nothing. We can't change it, so let's move forward. Vote.
Also, pray to God (if you believe in Him) and stock up on ammo, because if we don't get a change, we'll be needing both real soon.
Pretty sure this will happen before voter's actually go out and vote for real "change" and this country does a 180 and the evil and corrupt in this world stop ruling, leaving ppl with honesty and integrity to run things.
LegalAlien
07-22-10, 15:42
If I have my facts right it was not "A" felony it was FIVE (5) felonies, and that was AFTER half of the original charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.
A man without much money, sitting there with a public defender....looking at however many years in jail takes the easy out. Id do it too if I was in that spot. Not everyone has the benjamins to drop on top lawyers and make a big deal about it. The county on the other has has what basically amounts to unlimited resources to bury this guy, send him to jail, etc. This was after being ramrodded by every cop that showed up at his home. He probably has to feel like a midget standing next to a 200ft statute.
So there are really THREE wrong doings that the county put on this guy:
1. The initial arrest, search, and seizure.
2. The ramroding by the DA
3. The continued seizure of his firearms TWO years after the incident.
Every single person involved in all three need to be investigated, and perhaps prosecuted for civil rights violations, fired, and made an example of. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice.
Highlighted part.
A lot of discussion about the actions of the deputies and not much on the DA.
This DA is/was in collusion with the officers and willingly assisted in pressing false charges.
The DA must have had all the audio and video evidence available at the time of making the decision to file charges. Any half-brained, semi honest DA, that is not out just to score points, should have tossed this whole thing on lack of evidence. This case should never have gone to trial if there was an honest and competent DA (just my non-legal opinion).
In my opinion, the DA is as culpible as the deputies in this case.
From another forum:
This story is being ignored by our local mainstream media. We need emails to the Sheriff and local press:
Gerald Shea, District Attorney, gshea@co.slo.ca.us
Patrick Hedges, Sheriff/Coroner, phedges@co.slo.ca.us
Rob Bryn, Sheriff P.I.O., rbryn@co.slo.ca.us
LOCAL PRESS CONTACTS (for your copy-and-paste pleasure):
dbemis@timespressrecorder.com,
dsneed@thetribunenews.com,
ekiefer@ksby.com,
janscully@santamariatimes.com,
jim.bunner@keyt.com,
linda@tolosapress.com,
mustangdailynews@gmail.com,
news@ksby.com,
rmiller@santamariasun.com,
t@tolosapress.com,
acharlton@timespressrecorder.com,
CarlGescheider@kcoy.com,
dbemis@santamariatimes.com,
sduerr@thetribunenews.com,
econnolly@newtimesslo.com,
eslater@timespressrecorder.com,
jennifergrant@edbroadcasters.com,
jenniferrock@kcoy.com,
josebaltierra@kcoy.com,
sunrise@kcoy.com,
news12@kcoy.com,
assignmentdesk@keyt.com,
mustangdaily@gmail.com,
mhodgson@timespressrecorder.com,
rmiller@newtimesslo.com,
nwilson@thetribunenews.com
Believe me, short emails from all over the country will eventually get attention.
There is ongoing discussion in one local alternative media source:
http://calcoastnews.com/2010/07/deputies-transgressions-caught-on-videotape/
http://calcoastnews.com/2010/07/9463/
OPINION by JOE CORTEZ
The video blog released by KCCN.TV depicting the San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Department activities is extremely disturbing. To be fair, it should be noted that the posted video contains excerpts of a real event interspersed with video recreating the event. As viewers, we do not have all the information surrounding the April, 2008 incident that is needed to make a definitive judgment.
I strongly believe that local law enforcement agencies are the gatekeepers for upholding the rights of all individuals. Our citizens must have confidence that our deputies are working in their best interest by applying our laws fairly, justly, and compassionately. It is the responsibility of the Sheriff to set the highest standards of accountability to ensure our deputies function within the law, and further, that we break the ‘Code of Silence’ that stands in the way of deputies bringing to light any egregious actions of their peers.
It is troubling that no patrol supervisor appeared to be on scene to offer guidance and assistance on this call. Patrol sergeants are the ‘keepers of the standards’ and it is essential that they be present and available on high profile incidents to ensure it is handled prudently and appropriately. In these situations, it is imperative that sufficient patrol supervision is provided on a daily basis to avoid situations just as this.
As your Sheriff, I will have zero tolerance for the violation of our constitutional rights, just as I have for 36 years in law enforcement, including 15 years as a chief of police. When we find that constitutional rights have been intentionally violated, I will not hesitate in bringing these matters to the attention of the FBI’s Office of Civil Rights, in addition to any disciplinary action or criminal charges that we take on the local level.
We cannot afford to have the trust and faith of our citizens undermined by the over zealousness of a few who may feel they are above the law.
Joe Cortez is the former Chief of Police for the City of Pismo Beach, and a 30-year law enforcement veteran who has served 15 years as a chief of police. He is currently a candidate for Sheriff of San Luis Obispo County.
Littlelebowski
08-10-10, 17:11
Any updates?
Littlelebowski
07-25-11, 15:33
Any updates?
Deputy posts rebuttal (http://calcoastnews.com/2010/12/san-luis-obispo-sheriff-deputys-playboy-rebuttal/).
I still don't see how this warrants him taking keys off of the citizen, "clearing" his home, and seizing weapons out of his locked gun safe.
Deputy posts rebuttal (http://calcoastnews.com/2010/12/san-luis-obispo-sheriff-deputys-playboy-rebuttal/).
I still don't see how this warrants him taking keys off of the citizen, "clearing" his home, and seizing weapons out of his locked gun safe.
I saw the response back in December. I sent an email to KCCN (the folks who broke the story) requesting information of the disposition of the story, we'll see if I get a response. I'll certainly post it here if that happens.
On your own property when you've done nothing wrong? Wow, welcome to California.
B_C
I would hope that any officer would react in a tactical fashion to a person reaching in their waistband. Location/property has little to do with it.
That's of course not meant to be specific to the thread, but a generalization.
http://calcoastnews.com/2010/07/9463/
Hmmmm. Seems like a decent candidate.
I've been to SLO, nice little town, but this is obviously way outside the city limits. Any CA LEO care to comment on shooting on private land in the boonies, is it legal?
If it's illegal I can understand their reasoning for wanting to look in the house for bad guys after making the arrest so that nobody's taking shots from the house. If it's not illegal then say hello and let him know he's possibly disturbing his neighbors or someone driving by had called it in and he should be a little more low key on his chosen shooting spot.
However, opening his safe and confiscating his weapons is way beyond what should've happened in my opinion.
To clarify, theses were deputies, and as such, are not subject to the jurisdictional limitations of the corporate limits of a city, town or villiage.
I saw this video a while back and I dont remember it being edited. It was pretty lengthy. Even if they did edit out some parts, many of these deputies actions were over the line.
As a LEO, If I was on that scene I could kinda see them going into the house to make sure no one was shot there. I dont know what they saw when they showed up and If I thought he might have been shooting at the house, then I would do a check welfare on anybody inside. I know this is all hypothetical, but Im just outlining a possible reason for entering the house.
But, after that there is no reason to be in the house. Law enforcement 101, if you find evidence of a crime in the residence where there is no exigent circumstances, you pull out and get a warrant.
I cant think of any reason a locked safe in this situation would need to be opened. If it was illegal for him to be shooting there, all the evidence is outside.
Littlelebowski
07-26-11, 06:45
I know that they had some of his guns for over two years. Not sure if he ever got them back. Yes, they seized legal, registered guns that were in the safe.
Rebel Rifle Ordnance
07-26-11, 06:50
Another reason not to live in California the Land of Liberals.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.