Unconstitutional Abuse of Power - Questioned by Police for Buying Ammo?

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I'm feeling somewhat optimistic today, so...

Here's what I think I might do: Get in the habit of carrying a couple copies of the constitution on me at all times. Whenever I interact with the police, try to strike up a friendly conversation and 'place' the copies with the officers.

We gotta remember that TPTB will not teach the cops anything about 'rights' because they don't want the cops to know this stuff! Police truly understanding the rights of their brother, and their proper role in society only undermines the gameplan.

If folks like us work to educate police OUTSIDE of (what cops perceive as) felony stop situations, maybe a seed could be planted...

As for the OP video...as others have pointed out: The police investigated, obtained name/phone number & questioned. The 'investigation' alone was a violation of the 4th amendment, no cause other than ERMEHGERD! HE BERT BURRETZ!
edit on 12-9-2012 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 



Moreover, given the rash of shootings around the country lately, maybe it is a good idea for the police to check up on ammunition buyers to see what their stories are.


So now we're advocating for preemptive crime fighting?

So it's completely acceptable for cops to target law abiding citizens when they make a purchase of ammunition because of what they "might" do? 

What's next? Maybe cops should pull over all sports cars and see what those drivers are up to. After all, they might speed. Given the rash of obesity in America maybe cops should question your purchase at the grocery store because you might buy fatty foods that are bad for your health?


Hasn't pre-emptive crime fighting been a component of police work for a long time? Isn't that the idea of keeping tabs on potential terrorists? Isn't that what a policeman questioning a suspicious person hanging out in a neighborhodd is all about? What the hell is the TSA all about? Guess there shouldn't be metal detectors at court buildings either. Are you telling me that if some guy is loitering all day next to a grade school and somebody reports this to the police, the police have no business sending a patrol car and questioning the man?

It sounds like in the case that this post is about, the clerk who sold the ammo had some reason to be suspicious -- warranted or unwarranted -- and called someone he/she knew in the police about it. The police were likely covering their butts, because if the person who bought this ammo did go on a shooting rampage, the police would have been blamed for not following up on the matter. As for the clerk who reported the matter to the police, obviously he/she has some experience of selling ammo, if it is a product in the store, and doesn't call the police upon every purchase. Something evidently made the clerk suspicious of this buyer, and so acted accordingly.

As for your example of stopping a red sports car, there are already sobriety/safety stops sometime setup by the police during holidays, in which cars are pulled over without provocation. Not saying I agree with this method, but it is already done and much more intrusive than receiving a call by the police about a purchase of several boxes of ammo.

Your junk food analogy falls flat. It's not against the law to be obese, and it is a victimless crime, i.e. the perpetrator is hurting no one else directly. There is no comparison with someone who is buying ammo and might be going on a shooting spree.

And I note you didn't respond to my point that questioning a person is not the same as search and seizure, and hence isn't a violation of any Constitutional right. But why acknowledge that the main reason for your outrage is wrong in the first place when you can bring up some spurious, ridiculous analogy involving junk food and obesity? -- Oh yeah, because you got nothing better to use to make your point.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Uhhhhh..... do you know what the words "search" and "seizure" mean? Hint: neither means "to question". There's nothing in the Constitution that says law enforcement officers can't ask questions of citizens.


There is nothing that says we have to answer them ...

edit on 12-9-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


Did I say otherwise? No. What is your point? The OP was conflating questioning a person with unwarranted search and seizure, claiming police questioning a person without probable cause is unconstitutional. And this is utterly wrong.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 



I think the police were described as being almost apologetic when they phoned the guy who bought the ammo.

I'm a bit curious why the clerk selling the ammo would call the cops on a customer. Obviously, this is a move that would lose that customer's business, as well as the business of people he might tell about it. THAT doesn't make any sense. One would expect that a person working at a gun store might support the right of people to have guns and buy ammo.

So...the question here isn't about the police hassling someone because he bought ammo. To me, the question is what the heck prompted the clerk to call the police and report this guy> There simply had to be a reason.

And, if I ever did call the police with a concern, I'd expect them to follow up, or be able to reassure me that I was incorrect in my concern. Wouldn't you?

I STILL don't get how the cops did anything odd or wrong here. It's kind of their job to follow up on leads of suspicious activity, particularly when it involves weapons, and is reported by a pro-gun person who deals every day in sales of ammo and guns.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 



Moreover, given the rash of shootings around the country lately, maybe it is a good idea for the police to check up on ammunition buyers to see what their stories are.


So now we're advocating for preemptive crime fighting?

So it's completely acceptable for cops to target law abiding citizens when they make a purchase of ammunition because of what they "might" do? 

What's next? Maybe cops should pull over all sports cars and see what those drivers are up to. After all, they might speed. Given the rash of obesity in America maybe cops should question your purchase at the grocery store because you might buy fatty foods that are bad for your health?


Hasn't pre-emptive crime fighting been a component of police work for a long time? Isn't that the idea of keeping tabs on potential terrorists? Isn't that what a policeman questioning a suspicious person hanging out in a neighborhodd is all about? What the hell is the TSA all about? Guess there shouldn't be metal detectors at court buildings either. Are you telling me that if some guy is loitering all day next to a grade school and somebody reports this to the police, the police have no business sending a patrol car and questioning the man?

It sounds like in the case that this post is about, the clerk who sold the ammo had some reason to be suspicious -- warranted or unwarranted -- and called someone he/she knew in the police about it. The police were likely covering their butts, because if the person who bought this ammo did go on a shooting rampage, the police would have been blamed for not following up on the matter. As for the clerk who reported the matter to the police, obviously he/she has some experience of selling ammo, if it is a product in the store, and doesn't call the police upon every purchase. Something evidently made the clerk suspicious of this buyer, and so acted accordingly.

As for your example of stopping a red sports car, there are already sobriety/safety stops sometime setup by the police during holidays, in which cars are pulled over without provocation. Not saying I agree with this method, but it is already done and much more intrusive than receiving a call by the police about a purchase of several boxes of ammo.

Your junk food analogy falls flat. It's not against the law to be obese, and it is a victimless crime, i.e. the perpetrator is hurting no one else directly. There is no comparison with someone who is buying ammo and might be going on a shooting spree.

And I note you didn't respond to my point that questioning a person is not the same as search and seizure, and hence isn't a violation of any Constitutional right. But why acknowledge that the main reason for your outrage is wrong in the first place when you can bring up some spurious, ridiculous analogy involving junk food and obesity? -- Oh yeah, because you got nothing better to use to make your point.


I would suggest that, like junk food, there is nothing inherently criminal nor suspicious in purchasing ammo.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 



Uhhhhh..... do you know what the words "search" and "seizure" mean? Hint: neither means "to question". There's nothing in the Constitution that says law enforcement officers can't ask questions of citizens.


It violates the spirit of the constitution. Do police have a right to call you at home? Sure, but my point was that IN THIS CASE police had no business calling in the first place. Calling someone at their home to question them about a purchase that was made legally is above and beyond stupid. This guy did nothing wrong! When the police begin harassing people at home because they are worried about what ‘could’ happen as a result of a purchase you made then TO ME that’s crossing the line.

It’s nobody’s business how much ammo or milk or concrete or shampoo a person buys!! I have a novel concept; go investigate real criminals!!



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway
 



I STILL don't get how the cops did anything odd or wrong here. It's kind of their job to follow up on leads of suspicious activity, particularly when it involves weapons, and is reported by a pro-gun person who deals every day in sales of ammo and guns.


I expect them to follow up when someone reports a crime. What crime was perpetrated in this case? I expect them not to follow up when someone calls to report LEGAL activity.

My neighbor called the cops on me one night when he heard me shooting my gun in my backyard. Do you know what the cops said to him? They said “So what? You live outside the city limits. There’s nothing illegal about shooting guns there” and they never came out or called me. That’s how I expect police to act when stupid reports are made.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 



Your junk food analogy falls flat. It's not against the law to be obese, and it is a victimless crime, i.e. the perpetrator is hurting no one else directly.


Buying ammo isn’t against the law either, which is why I made the valid comparison. Buying ammo is no more a crime than being obese.



There is no comparison with someone who is buying ammo and might be going on a shooting spree.


Why on earth would any rational person assume that someone who is buying ammo is potentially going on a shooting spree???


Sounds like some anti-2nd amendment crap to me!



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You missed MY point.

Do we know what this clerk at a gun store reported? Do we know that he didn't tell the police that this guy had made threats, or mentioned his intention of shooting someone?

I still contend that it is almost totally surreal that a GUN STORE clerk would turn someone in to the police for simply buying ammo - a transaction that happens in his store all day, and that is the backbone of the store's business. Why would you do that? It sounds like a great way to ruin business forever. Buy here, and we'll call the cops on you.

Really?

Nope, there is more to this story than is presented. The police followed up on a tip that they felt had merit. THey didn't violate any laws to my eyes.

I agree that if there was some collusion there between the police and this clerk - some kind of deal where the clerk was a paid informant or something, then I'd agree it was really bad. But the clerk would eventually ruin the gun store's business. I just can't imagine doing that intentionally?
edit on 13-9-2012 by JustSlowlyBackAway because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway
 



Do we know what this clerk at a gun store reported? Do we know that he didn't tell the police that this guy had made threats, or mentioned his intention of shooting someone?


All we know is what we’re told in the video (beginning @ 0:22). This gentleman claims the policeman who called said he “needed to talk to him because he purchased a large quantity of ammunition” and that “someone at the store contacted them and they wanted to make sure he wasn’t going to do anything crazy.”

I don’t know if that was the exact conversation because I wasn’t on the phone. My posts are based on what we’ve been told in the video. Maybe there is more to the story but I find it odd this guy would come forward publicly and make these claims for no reason. He's not seeking money and he's not trying to go after the police or the store; he simply told his story. If he was suing someone I'd be more suspicious....do you know what I mean?

edit on 13-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway
 



I STILL don't get how the cops did anything odd or wrong here. It's kind of their job to follow up on leads of suspicious activity, particularly when it involves weapons, and is reported by a pro-gun person who deals every day in sales of ammo and guns.


My neighbor called the cops on me one night when he heard me shooting my gun in my backyard. Do you know what the cops said to him? They said “So what? You live outside the city limits. There’s nothing illegal about shooting guns there” and they never came out or called me. That’s how I expect police to act when stupid reports are made.


So he called the cops, and you never heard about it from the cops... Did your neibhor call you then and tell you he called? if it was after a certain time, you may have been violating an noise ordnance or been too close to an occupied structure to be shooting (though I don't know all of your local laws). Also, how would your neibhor know it was you shooting? maybe he just heard the shooting and thought you were in trouble?

How do you feel about reporting a possible drunk driver? Should the police pull em over? Or just wait until they crash?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 



So he called the cops, and you never heard about it from the cops... Did your neibhor call you then and tell you he called?


I found out weeks later from another neighbor he told.



if it was after a certain time, you may have been violating an noise ordnance or been too close to an occupied structure to be shooting (though I don't know all of your local laws). Also, how would your neibhor know it was you shooting? maybe he just heard the shooting and thought you were in trouble?


There is no restriction on shooting in rural Texas counties. It was broad daylight and I was in plain sight shooting at a target. He just either didn't like the noise or was annoyed.



How do you feel about reporting a possible drunk driver? Should the police pull em over? Or just wait until they crash?


If you see someone committing a crime then you should report it. Police won’t pull that person over simply because you called. They will follow the person and look for “reasonable suspicion” that the person is intoxicated. I have no issue with that.

FOR THE RECORD – I’m NOT anti-cop in any way nor am I opposed to law and order (2 close friends of mine are police officers as is my brother-in-law). I’m opposed to overzealous cops (or government officials) that abuse their power and go beyond what SHOULD BE reasonably acceptable behavior. I expect them to be professional and respect the rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect. Is that too much to ask?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


FOR THE RECORD – I’m NOT anti-cop in any way nor am I opposed to law and order (2 close friends of mine are police officers as is my brother-in-law). I’m opposed to overzealous cops (or government officials) that abuse their power and go beyond what SHOULD BE reasonably acceptable behavior. I expect them to be professional and respect the rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect. Is that too much to ask?



It is not too much to ask. I think that the police in this instance sounded like they were professional, polite, reasonable, and doing their job trying to protect the citizens they are sworn to protect.. They didn't overstep, and they backed down when the man satisfied them that he was not doing anything wild and crazy.

You expect the police to follow tips of possible trouble. They were not watching the gun shop trying to catch people buying ammo, were they?

That clerk is the one who made the report. Goodness knows what he "reported." But I seriously doubt that he "reports" every single customer who buys a lot of ammo. Obviously, the police seemed hesitant to call, but felt the report of this gun ammo selling dude merited one.

I am the first to object to police heavy handed handling or abuse. I do not support the loss of Constitutional freedoms, either.

But this whole incident smacks of "we don't have the whole story."



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Forgiveme, but since when is two boxes of ammo "a lot" of ammo? That's only 40 - 50 rounds. That's barely enough to go to the range with!





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join