Police Attempt To Raid Garage Sale with AirSoft gear, Get Kicked To Curb (video)

reply to post by Ben81


These people should learn how the law works before telling the police how to do their job. Under California law a person must have a handgun safety certificate in order to purchase a gun. Secondly in order to sell a gun in California a perosn must be a licensed dealer and the guns being sold must comply with california law (types of guns allowed to be sold).

Any sale / purchase of a gun in California requires a manatory 10 day waiting period. Airsoft guns that are .177 are generally included in a states gun laws.

The police in this case received a call that guns were being sold at the garage sale. The Police have a legal right to respond and investigate. While an Officer needs either consent or a search warrant to enter a house, the standard is a bit different when it comes to curtilage. The fact they were holding a garage sale is another contributing factor as well since the public was being allowed to come and go on the property.

While the people who own the property can voice their concerns / complaints all they want, the Police were within the law and no rights were violated.

People really should learn the law before attempting to argue it.


Secondly the fact the incident was being recorded from the get go and the fact the female speaking and the officer are familiar with each other tells me these people seem to seek out encounters with the police. To state they are going to file "another" complaint is another red flag. The fact she identifies herself as copwatch is another red flag.

Its an apartment complex, and the parking lot, while being private property, is open to the public. It means only the property management can ask a person to leave the property, not a tenent. Again the police have a right to be present to check the guns.

This made my night on the 4th. Thank you!

reply to post by EyesWideShut


Aye, we got someone from Joisey here huh? Just joshin'

That's a very good point you make, I hadn't initially thought of that, my bad! I forgot there were unfortunately still some totalitarian state governments left. Thanks for the reminder, and it appears you are correct as you can see below

This is taking place in San Jose, where:

You are able to own "high capacity" magazines, but not sell them or buy them. They would be in violation of this, assuming the guns were real. This would most certainly give the officer a right to question the sellers to figure out if the hi-caps were being solid along with the guns. Although such a question could have easily been asked from the sidewalk, off of their private property.

Even private party sales must be completed through a licensed dealer. Although, unless the officer witnessed someone purchase a gun from the sellers and immediately take possession of the gun, without going through a dealer, it's reasonable to assume the buyer and seller would both meet at a dealer to actually make the sale.

California also has their silly "assault weapons" which would definitely make the sale of the guns in the video, if real, illegal. So finally, the officer did have the right to check if they were real firearms or not.

This is why I like ATS, you can be sure to be called out if you are wrong or otherwise fail to take something into account. Star for you EyesWideShut!

Originally posted by Domo1
I really appreciate you're civility. You make very good points.

I don't have a boner for cops per se. It's a thankless job. A few of them really like the control part and come off as jackasses. Unfortunately they're jackasses with weapons, so it's a bit different than having a jackass #-n-git clerk.

Of course, in this case I think it's probably Officer Bubbles vs Attitude-chick and they deserve each other. Maybe they'll eat each other up like Kilkenny cats one day.

I've only had two crap run-ins with cops, the first of which sort of set my baseline skepticism and distrust for them, but that's life, I guess.

reply to post by James1982



The only thing I enjoy more than educating people and changing their point of view, is getting educated and having my point of view changed... =) you get that "Aha, I never thought of that" moment when learning has occured.

As long as there are no "What Exit!?" Jersey Jokes, we're good to go...lol Cheers!

reply to post by Bedlam


After Reading Domo1's post, I went back and read some of your other ones...I wish I had done it sooner because I Basically parroted what you said 1/2 page down. (Facepalm)

As a former Police Officer - I noted that the first officer just barged onto the property without so much as a how do you do. An officer in Australia must announce themselves and their office and state what they are doing...where was that protocol in this exercise????

All the first officer had to do was say - Hello My name is....and I am responding to a call from a concerned citizen about you selling guns. May I have a look at what you have here?

Being polite and professional could have worked well - but - we won't know because it wasn't tried.

American people put up with a lot and I am not surprised at the lengths the American citizens go to protect themselves. This would be a fabulous training/educational resource for each Police intake - on what not to do.

For those people thinking - but it was a complaint about guns and he had to rush in and check. Wrong. Every Police officer has an appointment belt with all manner of gear - including a gun and Police firearms training is centred on drawing your gun as fast as you can. If you need to draw it - once you have made that decision - it needs to be fast. The Police were well equipped to protect the public and themselves had their been any violent outburst or a 'real' gun issue. The Police in this instance were out of line and got told - and rightly so.

Much Peace...

Not sure if anyone is going to read this but ... its a fine line here. Yes we have rights and they should be respected by the authorities. However, what if your next door neighbor WAS selling illegal firearms? Or coc aine for that matter? Would you not want the authorities to check it out and follow up on your complaint?

It's a slippery slope. Although this video is good for giving people knowledge of the law, just remember that when you need the police to get rid of that crack house down the street they'll more than likely say "Sorry ma'am there's nothing we can do without evidence and a warrant". You aren't allowed to be upset over this fact, lest you be a hypocrite (which most people are).

Originally posted by Amanda5
As a former Police Officer - I noted that the first officer just barged onto the property without so much as a how do you do. An officer in Australia must announce themselves and their office and state what they are doing...where was that protocol in this exercise????

The police were confronted first by being told its private property and they had to leave. The person who was baiting the police never bothered to find out why they were there in the first place. There are requirements for police to announce themselves and that is situation dependent. However, arriving in a marked police car and wearing a police uniform are an announcement as to who they are (that courtesy brought to you by US Supreme Court rulings dealing with an officers use of force).

Originally posted by Amanda5
All the first officer had to do was say - Hello My name is....and I am responding to a call from a concerned citizen about you selling guns. May I have a look at what you have here?

Being polite and professional could have worked well - but - we won't know because it wasn't tried.

The officers were approached and told to leave without being given a chance to explain what was going on. When they were told to leave the officer explained why they were present. That didnt satisfy the lady baiting the cops and she continued to incorrectly cite laws when she could have allowed the officer to check and then leave without being overly dramatic about it.

Originally posted by Amanda5
American people put up with a lot and I am not surprised at the lengths the American citizens go to protect themselves. This would be a fabulous training/educational resource for each Police intake - on what not to do.

she was not protecting her rights as she has no idea who the laws and her rights work. As far as training I agree in that it allows officers the ability to learn how to deal with people who dont know the law, their rights or how private property that is open to the public works, let alone California gun laws.

Originally posted by Amanda5
For those people thinking - but it was a complaint about guns and he had to rush in and check. Wrong.

Actually that is what the call was and the response of the officers. They received a call that guns were being sold at a garage sale. Yes, the police are required to respond and check and no, they did not violate the law or her civil rights.

Originally posted by Amanda5
Every Police officer has an appointment belt with all manner of gear - including a gun and Police firearms training is centred on drawing your gun as fast as you can. If you need to draw it - once you have made that decision - it needs to be fast.

As a police officer I can say the above comment is wrong. Not only are we not trained in that manner, the US Supreme Court has had a lot to say about that action you are suggesting. In terms of use of force, being in a marked patrol car and wearing a uniform are the first 2 basic levels. Communication is the third and we go from there.

The officer did not draw his gun. Police training for weapons is centered on shooting to stop the threat. While guns were present at the garage sale they did not have to draw their guns on anyone.

Originally posted by Amanda5
The Police were well equipped to protect the public and themselves had their been any violent outburst or a 'real' gun issue. The Police in this instance were out of line and got told - and rightly so.

Much Peace...

The police were within the law as well as the Constitution (4th) as well as 42 USC 1983. The call was valid, the police response was valid and all the crap the 2 cop baiters were sputing is wrong.

I would not be surprised if they werent the ones who called the police in the firt place being their reactions and camera seemed a bit to staged for it to be random.

As I stated if people wish to criticise the police they are more than welcome, however they should know the laws before making claims about them being violated.

Oh god please shut up .You people are crazy i swear. If those police had received a call , that someone was selling guns, allegedly or not, and they had not responded? someone bought a real gun ans started shooting people ? these cops would screwed. they were saving they're own asses as much as the publics.i hate the cops as much as anyone, but to whinge and bitch about them making sure they are not real guns, is a waste of #ing time

reply to post by Ben81


The police officers weren't " Kicked " anywhere. Use of over emotive language. They appeared to be legitimately checking out reports that theses folk were selling real weapons at the road side. They weren't of course....

The drama was of these people's own making, they were even ready to film it !

If these people had allowed the officers to check this out unhindered, I'm sure the police officers would have gone on their way. And there would have been no drama.

Who would want to be a police officer in the U S of A ...

The police have a difficult enough job these days, no respect from an " I know my rights " public, but I want you to be there If I or my family are in danger...yeah...right...!

I bet the sellers called the cops themselves.

reply to post by Ben81


cant cops shop at garage sells

where were there rights being violated

cops had as much right to be there as anyone else

there money is green to

Originally posted by EyesWideShut


The only thing I enjoy more than educating people and changing their point of view, is getting educated and having my point of view changed... =) you get that "Aha, I never thought of that" moment when learning has occured.

As long as there are no "What Exit!?" Jersey Jokes, we're good to go...lol

Cheers!

Have to agree with ya there! I'm usually pretty aggressive with my opinions and always feel strongly about things, but I'm not too proud to change my mind and admit I'm wrong when things are presented in a different light, or if additional information comes about.

Coming from a state that's pretty lax with its gun laws I don't often take into consideration that things aren't the same way everywhere else in the country. When considering the garage sale airsoft arsenal bust of 2012 (heh heh) I apply my situation to it, and come up with the opinion that the officer was wrong and the seller was completely in the right.

When I'm forced to realize that this took place in California where those types of guns can't legally be sold then I have to reconsider my point of view. I'm no fan of police, trust me, my posting history makes that quite obvious, but I'll defend them when they are in the right (however infrequently that is ) The officer had every right and responsibility to figure out whether or not they were actual firearms. He may not have gone about it the best way possible, but it is what it is.

Like I said, that's why I like ATS, because most of the time when people are debating a topic they only have an interest in defending their point of view. At least on ATS the number of people who have an interest in not only defending their point of view, but also making sure it's the RIGHT point of view is higher than most other places on the web. I find it frustrating when people, after being proven wrong, still refuse to admit it and change their mind, so I can't be guilty of such things myself. Plus, when you get proven wrong about something it makes you feel foolish enough to more deeply research an issue as to not make the same mistake again in the future

Police had every right in this case! There was reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was afoot!

reply to post by Xcathdra


You may be an officer but you have totally disfigured my post. I appreciate your opinion and respect that but you have misconstrued the meaning and intent.

The woman did not bait the officers. When a person is on their own property and the Police are called to attend you announce your office - cars and uniforms regardless - you state your name and your business.

No the officers did not need their firearms and you have misread and misinterpreted my post. IF IF IF there was a problem the officers were all well provisioned with appointments. IF IF IF they needed to defend themselves against real guns or a violent outburst IF IF IF being the main word. I am just making it plain for you.

Police are still required to conduct themselves as professionals. The mere fact the first officer stated - I know who you are - leaves his entire attitude in doubt - he was not relying on his office but his bullying and intimidation tactics.

You can have your opinion - I am just clarifying my opinion and context as you have disfigured it to project your own psychology. Police have a very difficult job - I speak from first hand experience. Putting on the uniform and carrying a warrant card and badge does not give the officer the right to be a law and force unto him/her self - it is an honour and unfortunately some do not see it that way. Protecting and serving your community is about treating people fairly not treating them with no regard.

Much Peace...you sound as though you could use some...take plenty I have plenty to give you...

reply to post by Sek82

Probable cause of what? Is it illegal in CA to conduct a private sale of firearms?

reply to post by JBlitzen


Probably not...But to sell a firearm to any old joe thats walks off the street probably is !! especially if that joe were a felon! Hence the reason for further investigations.

Originally posted by Amanda5
You may be an officer but you have totally disfigured my post. I appreciate your opinion and respect that but you have misconstrued the meaning and intent.

I dont believe I did. As far as opinion goes its not. My position is based on law and the facts at hand coupled with Supreme Court rulings that have addressed these types of issues both at the State and Federal level.

Originally posted by Amanda5
The woman did not bait the officers. When a person is on their own property and the Police are called to attend you announce your office - cars and uniforms regardless - you state your name and your business.

Not really no. The officers were checking on the gun claim. Had they shown up and were not confronted, I would wager the end result would have been the same. The cops would have left with no action taken since no law was broken. Instead the lady approached the cops and did not allow them a chance to say anything. She just opened up with leave this is private property.

The police are not required to announce themselves in the manner you are describing.

Originally posted by Amanda5
No the officers did not need their firearms and you have misread and misinterpreted my post. IF IF IF there was a problem the officers were all well provisioned with appointments. IF IF IF they needed to defend themselves against real guns or a violent outburst IF IF IF being the main word. I am just making it plain for you.

The officers always have their weapons with them. I did not misinterp[ret your post in the least. As far as your comment about a "real gun" please learn that in order for a person to be considered a threat they are not required to be holding a gun.

Originally posted by Amanda5
Police are still required to conduct themselves as professionals. The mere fact the first officer stated - I know who you are - leaves his entire attitude in doubt - he was not relying on his office but his bullying and intimidation tactics.

As I stated before that you ignored the lady started the incident in a confrontational manner by telling the police to leave property that she has no control over. She compounded her ignorance by trying to cite laws she is obviously not knowledgable about. Her behavior created the confrontational situation and her refusal to allow the officer to answer compounded it. Her announcement of what group she is a part of is problematic as well and only added to the situation.

Her actions were the ones out of line, not the officers.
Her comments are out of line, not the officers.

Originally posted by Amanda5
You can have your opinion - I am just clarifying my opinion and context as you have disfigured it to project your own psychology.

I responded to your post so nothing was disfigured. I am not giving you my opinion, I am telling you what the law states.

Originally posted by Amanda5
Police have a very difficult job - I speak from first hand experience. Putting on the uniform and carrying a warrant card and badge does not give the officer the right to be a law and force unto him/her self -

What country were you an officer in? I am guessing Australia but I could be wrong. Secondly they received a call about guns being sold. The police have a legal right to investigate that claim to determine whats going on. Ive already been over the curtlidge portion as well as private property open to the public and the way that situation works. I can explain it in a different manner if it helps you understand the legalities involved and actions of the officers.

Originally posted by Amanda5
it is an honour and unfortunately some do not see it that way. Protecting and serving your community is about treating people fairly not treating them with no regard.

I agree however having a citizen who does not know the law nor how their rights work and apply is a problem. To blame the police for that ignorance is ignoring the problem, which is in fact the ignorance. She ignored the officers actions and reason they were there while constantly nagging at them to leave, even though they dont have to. She accused them of violating rights when in fact they did not.

To protect and serve is a 2 way road that requires citizens to be involved in their communities. The fact they asked the lady is she wanted them to get a supervisor, with the lady stating no, after demanding one, also speaks volumes.

To protect and serve... To educate and allow an open exchange of communications. Its not be be lectured and accused by a person who does not know the law. She was not interested in resolving the issue. She was more concerned with getting a confrontation on camera with the police.

Originally posted by Amanda5
Much Peace...you sound as though you could use some...take plenty I have plenty to give you...

I am all stocked up on peace here so you can peddle your crazy somewhere else. Maybe to the lady and man in the video who have no idea what they are talking about, no idea on how the laws and their rights work, etc etc etc. If she had more peace she might actually educate herself, instead iof wasting her time by baiting the police for reasons she thinks are illegal.

Perhaps the people selling the airsoft items could have done a better job by asking the police to stay on the sidewalk while the vendors carried the airsoft items to the police so the police could verify airsoft items? I would think both parties could be happy with that? why upset local police that badly, I bet there's going to be a grudge match.