Flawless MWAG call caught on tape

[popsmoke]

Good Guy Cop Vs. Douchebag Activists - Funny Videos at Videobash

I gotta commend the officer. I wish we had more like him.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Cops had no RAS that it was a select fire MP5 in the first place. No basis for the stop.

 

[Que]

That was hilarious. I would not have even put that on the internet. He made them look like children looking for attention, which they are.

 

[Gabriel]

T He made them look like children looking for attention, which they are.

Exactly.

 

[Booya]

Didn't he have duty to respond to a MWAG gun call? I don't know the ins and out per se, but I like this video, the guy with the gun sounds like a total A$$ clown out looking for trouble. Seemed confused when he didn't find it. Tools like this will do nothing to further our cause. Some of these idiots get on a gun forum, read a bit and think their some local law/constitutional scholar.

Good stop, good vid. Even if he has no RAS, I think he continued just to show the guy that all JBT's are JB all the time

 

[HoughMade]

How did he know it was semi-auto? Just believe the guy carrying it? Reasonable suspicion does not even have to rise to 50% certainty. It's just a reasonable belief that it could be illegal.

I just wish I had the time to go out an bait cops....I wouldn't do it, but at least I'd have more time for leisure.....or something useful.

 

[esrice]

If those guys were out there talking to the police, who was down in their Mom's basement?!?

 

[mmills50]

Holy (poop). That was like Christmas

 

[downzero]

flawless my ass......that was an illegal seizure.

 

[Que]

flawless my ass......that was an illegal seizure.

Illegal in what way?

 

[45calibre]

Illegal in what way?

Cops had no RAS that it was a select fire MP5 in the first place. No basis for the stop.

^^^

 

[Solitaire]

flawless my ass......that was an illegal seizure.

No it wasn't. The officer based the stop on reasonable articulable suspicion that the weapon in question may have been full auto, based on his experience and training. The detention and temporary seizure and inspection of the weapon was a minimal intrusion, and I don't think there is a court in the nation that would not side with the legitimate government interest in public safety vs. the minimal scope of the intrusion. Heck, the officer didn't even ask for ID.

On a personal note that has nothing to do with the legality of the situation, these douchebags need to grow up and find some adult activity instead of being professional YouTube ass-clowns.

 

[Que]

^^^

The officer did a wonderful job with positioning the stop due to not knowing if the rifle was Class III. There was no way for him to know if it was without seeing the rifle. He removed the rifle to check it out and gave it back.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The officer did a wonderful job with positioning the stop due to not knowing if the rifle was Class III. There was no way for him to know if it was without seeing the rifle. He removed the rifle to check it out and gave it back.

My question is the reason for the presumption of guilt. Had innocence been presumed as is considered standard in US law, would there have been sufficient cause for checking the weapon?

 

[Que]

My question is the reason for the presumption of guilt. Had innocence been presumed as is considered standard in US law, would there have been sufficient cause for checking the weapon?

Innocent until proven guilty: he was innocent and the officer was not able to prove any guilt. This was one of the best stops I've seen. I know some will disagree, but they ran into a smart officer who knew the law, which is what I see is posted a lot. People want officers to know the law and respect their rights and that officer did just that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Innocent until proven guilty: he was innocent and the officer was not able to prove any guilt. This was one of the best stops I've seen. I know some will disagree, but they ran into a smart officer who knew the law, which is what I see is posted a lot. People want officers to know the law and respect their rights and that officer did just that.

It was for the most part an excellent piece of work on the part of the officer, I just had to wonder why he ran with the presumption that the gun was full-auto until proven otherwise as opposed to assuming to be the far more common semi-auto which is readily available.

 

[Que]

It was for the most part an excellent piece of work on the part of the officer, I just had to wonder why he ran with the presumption that the gun was full-auto until proven otherwise as opposed to assuming to be the far more common semi-auto which is readily available.

It's not good to make assumptions. Besides, if he didn't do that, it would possibly have been an illegal seizure of property.

 

[downzero]

No it wasn't. The officer based the stop on reasonable articulable suspicion that the weapon in question may have been full auto, based on his experience and training. .

Your "standard" is allowing the police to make the judgment as to what is reasonable--an idea that has been already specifically rejected by every recent Fourth Amendment case. The police do not make the constitutional judgment. The Court does. And this guy got it totally wrong.

There's no interest balancing when the stop is suspicionless. The government just loses. That's what we are dealing with here, no matter what the cop said at the scene. A suspicionless stop, or a suspicionless stop premised on some ridiculous and obviously incorrect 'training and experience' grounds is still an unreasonable (and thus unconstitutional and illegal) seizure no matter what FoxNews told you.

I hope this guy has a good lawyer, but fortunately for the police department in question, I suspect that he doesn't.

 

[wolfts01]

What idiots. While I know it is a constitutional right, I condemn such blind activism as this. Why would you try to associate "two police officers detaining two guys with an MP5" with responsible gun ownership?

All these "unlawful detainment and seizure" videos do is fan the flames of people who have irrational hatred for any contact with officers of the law.

And for the "unlawful seizure", come on. How else could he verify that it was indeed SA? You are using a completely different definition of the word seize than was used in the Constitution.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What idiots. While I know it is a constitutional right, I condemn such blind activism as this. Why would you try to associate "two police officers detaining two guys with an MP5" with responsible gun ownership?

All these "unlawful detainment and seizure" videos do is fan the flames of people who have irrational hatred for any contact with officers of the law.

And for the "unlawful seizure", come on. How else could he verify that it was indeed SA? You are using a completely different definition of the word seize than was used in the Constitution.

Why would he have reason to believe otherwise? I find the general trend toward putting the onus on the people to prove compliance with the law to be disturbing, even if these two are not the best spokesmen for the cause.

Seizure is the removal of property from its owner contrary to the owner's wishes regardless of the duration of that removal.