Flawless MWAG call caught on tape

[IndyDave1776]

Here's the problem. The citizens of this country have, by and large, ceased to understand the concept of vigilance. The burden of protection of personal property or life falls first on the potential victim. If individuals took responsibility for their own rights, and took the measures necessary to protect them, then the only function of the police would be to bring justice after a crime has been committed.

The apathy of the public at large has lead to a reliance on law enforcement alone to give peace of mind in frightening situations. Law enforcement, as an extension of government has simply done what government always does when apathy sets in on a certain aspect of daily life. It intrudes on that formerly individual responsibility, performs the role less effectively, and infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens in the process. Over time this gradual intrusion slowly becomes the norm, and so called Constitutionalists give in to the fear factor, allowing their rights to slip through their fingertips without even knowing it. Worse yet, those who see through the lies, and interpret the Constitution as it was written are called radicals, or alarmists.

To the examples of men standing in front of your house while your wife and kids are home alone, is it not YOUR HOME, is it not YOUR WIVE'S LIFE, if so then it must also be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to arm your wife, to train with your wife regularly, to ensure that you are both equipped to protect your own rights. If nothing happens with the men in front of your house then all is well. If they begin to trespass on your property then you are within your right, and moreover you are obligated, to do something about it. The police needn't be involved in anything but the investigation after the crime is attempted.

The point at which we demand that the government preemptively take action against a perceived, and unsubstantiated threat is the point at which we surrender all freedoms. The purpose of law enforcement is to bring about justice. How can you bring to justice someone who has not yet committed a crime.

Damnit arthrimus, you're a genius!

 

[japartridge]

Damnit arthrimus, you're a genius!

Damn it Dave you beat me too it!

 

[kyotekilr]

Ok... Have ur wife confront a two guys in front of ur house with a gun and potentially put her in the line of fire. Good for u....great for u. Maybe that is what u could get her for Christmas. I don't care if the guys are breaking the law or not I don't want them in front of my house.

 

[arthrimus]

Ok... Have ur wife confront a two guys in front of ur house with a gun and potentially put her in the line of fire. Good for u....great for u. Maybe that is what u could get her for Christmas. I don't care if the guys are breaking the law or not I don't want them in front of my house.

Excellent, you eschew logic in favor of an emotion. Splendid performance. This emotionally driven knee jerk reaction to cast off our inalienable rights is exactly how we got to this sad state. The progressive method to strip individuals of their rights is entirely based on emotional reaction. Whether you realize it or not, you are pushing forward an anti individualist agenda with posts like that. You devalue the principles of self reliance, which serve as the foundation for this nation.

Tell me, how often do two men stand on the sidewalk in front of your house with a semi automatic MP5 in hand? You would cast off not only their rights as law abiding citizens, but also your own in other yet to be known scenarios, all based on a fictional scenario that has one in a million odds of ever happening to anyone on this forum, in this state, this nation?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Here's the problem. The citizens of this country have, by and large, ceased to understand the concept of vigilance. The burden of protection of personal property or life falls first on the potential victim. If individuals took responsibility for their own rights, and took the measures necessary to protect them, then the only function of the police would be to bring justice after a crime has been committed.

The apathy of the public at large has lead to a reliance on law enforcement alone to give peace of mind in frightening situations. Law enforcement, as an extension of government has simply done what government always does when apathy sets in on a certain aspect of daily life. It intrudes on that formerly individual responsibility, performs the role less effectively, and infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens in the process. Over time this gradual intrusion slowly becomes the norm, and so called Constitutionalists give in to the fear factor, allowing their rights to slip through their fingertips without even knowing it. Worse yet, those who see through the lies, and interpret the Constitution as it was written are called radicals, or alarmists.

To the examples of men standing in front of your house while your wife and kids are home alone, is it not YOUR HOME, is it not YOUR WIVE'S LIFE, if so then it must also be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to arm your wife, to train with your wife regularly, to ensure that you are both equipped to protect your own rights. If nothing happens with the men in front of your house then all is well. If they begin to trespass on your property then you are within your right, and moreover you are obligated, to do something about it. The police needn't be involved in anything but the investigation after the crime is attempted.

The point at which we demand that the government preemptively take action against a perceived, and unsubstantiated threat is the point at which we surrender all freedoms. The purpose of law enforcement is to bring about justice. How can you bring to justice someone who has not yet committed a crime.

AMEN! And welcome to INGO!

 

[kyotekilr]

So I can only assume u provide ur own health care grow all your own food and cut ur own hair. After all it is ur health and hair

 

[downzero]

For the record, the part I emphasized above is specifically what the Supreme Court UPHELD in Terry, a veteran officer acting on really nothing more than a hunch and arguably suspicious behavior (though you could certainly argue that the decision really didn't address the issue of what constitutes reasonable suspicion at all and really focused on the issue of the resultant "frisk"/search...)

Furthermore, they upheld the officer's right to pat the suspects down for concealed weapons, again, on a HUNCH that someone that the officer had a HUNCH might have been casing a store (or might have just really liked something in the window...) might intend to use a weapon if, in fact, that person was intending to rob the place. Nothing but a hunch for the stop, nothing but a hunch for the patdown/frisk, and it was upheld. And from the sounds of it, Officer McFadden wasn't as polite and gentle as our video star.

Except it wasn't a hunch, because they paced back and forth numerous times and that was testified to in open court, making it evidence of specific facts. No such facts appear in this video.

The evidence wasn't "training and experience," it was sworn testimony of specific observations, that the court was able to weigh and consider. The court made the constitutional ruling, not the officer.

 

[iChokePeople]

Except it wasn't a hunch, because they paced back and forth numerous times and that was testified to in open court, making it evidence of specific facts. No such facts appear in this video.

The evidence wasn't "training and experience," it was sworn testimony of specific observations, that the court was able to weigh and consider. The court made the constitutional ruling, not the officer.

Oh, walking back and forth on a public sidewalk is enough? Yes, I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but all they did was walk back and forth on a public sidewalk looking in store windows and engage in conversation. That's enough to justify a stop, a pat down based on the idea that IF, in fact, they were up to no good there was a chance that maybe they had weapons, and to have the weapons that were recovered solely on the basis of "well, they looked suspicious to me..." admitted in court, and you're OK with that, but the scenario in the video just goes too far? Wow.

The only "evidence" was ~"I watched them walking back and forth in front of the stores, looking in the windows, and talking, and that looked suspicious to me". If "they were doing nothing illegal, but looked suspicious" is the standard, I think Officer North is going to be fine. As someone else pointed out, with the plethora of lawyers looking for cases out there and the nature of youtube, if there was an attorney around who thought there was a winnable case, it would be happening.

 

[Ted]

OK, there was nothing illegal happening.
The subject did not give consent.
There was no suspicion of wrong doing.

even if you only take 2 of those 3, it is still an illegal seizure.

there was nothing illegal happening.

How does LE know this before launching an investigation?

The subject did not give consent.

Consent to a weapon in plain view to be inspected by police during an investigation? Really?

There was no suspicion of wrong doing.

You mean other than the 911 dispatch?

You may wish to review Terry, in which the exclusionary rule is to from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for the other purposes of prevention, investigation and self protection of LE. Hence, the seizure was in fact legal.

Please view the link in my sig line for more information upon this subject.