Reasonable suspicion????

[phatgemi]

Raw Video: Smart SWAT officer professionally handles open carry cop blockers

like always, I'm probably a day late on this but wondering what the experts on here think? I'm thinking the Leo went a little far on the suspicion. I think he had ascertained it was a semiauto prior to disarming the individual and the encountered should have ended. I would be a little nervous if the officer went to coonfingering to the point of dry firing. Should have left it alone. If I've duped, I apologize.

 

[HoughMade]

"Am I being detained?"

"Yeah"

Seems simple.

This gem: "how do you know if it's a fully automatic firearm just based on look?"

Um....yeah.

The officer, being better at his job than I ever would be, could have explained the difference between the non-legal "know" and "suspicion", but simply chose not to engage.

and yeah, the video has been around for a while, but what the heck.

 

[TheSpark]

Regardless of the law in reference to this situation which I am not clear on here is my opinion:

The officer had no way of knowing if the firearm was fully auto or not just by looking at it which he even admitted. That does not constitute reasonable suspicion for a search.

A good analogy would be if an officer observed a 15 year old walking down the street drinking something from a thermos. The officer can't know without looking into the thermos if it contains alcohol or not. This doesn't give him a right to stop the 15 year old kid and demand to look into the thermos to find out what the kid is drinking.

 

[HoughMade]

You analogy would only be apt if the 16 year old were carrying a can wrapped to look like a beer can.

 

[TheSpark]

You analogy would only be apt if the 16 year old were carrying a can wrapped to look like a beer can.

So you think the officer was right or just don't like my analogy? I see your point but for the most part it holds up. If the officer was right then we all could have all our guns searched at anytime under the suspicion that it is a fully automatic.

 

[Hogwylde]

The officer had no way of knowing if the firearm was fully auto or not just by looking at it...............................

Anybody that has actually fired an M16/full auto AR15 and has ANY familiarity with the platform SHOULD be able to GLANCE at the side of the receiver and see if it has the auto sear pin hole filled with an auto sear pin. The presence or lack of this hole/pin would quickly identify whether it was full auto capable or not.

 

[KokomoDave]

Anybody that has actually fired an M16/full auto AR15 and has ANY familiarity with the platform SHOULD be able to GLANCE at the side of the receiver and see if it has the auto sear pin hole filled with an auto sear pin. The presence or lack of this hole/pin would quickly identify whether it was full auto capable or not.

There were/are various "widgets" floating around the Lafayette area which are configured by bending tabs and laser cutting thin stock to make full auto fire w/o the full auto sear that uses a sear pin. They are also called RDIAS or Rear Drop In Auto Sear. There were some manufactured legally pre-1986 as opposed to the Lafayette ones.

 

[Denny347]

A good analogy would be if an officer observed a 15 year old walking down the street drinking something from a thermos. The officer can't know without looking into the thermos if it contains alcohol or not. This doesn't give him a right to stop the 15 year old kid and demand to look into the thermos to find out what the kid is drinking.

Like HoughMade said, if the can was made to look like a beer can but contained Coke, that would be a better analogy. To take it further, If someone who looked under 21 was walking around with a can dressed up as a beer can, the officer has RS, based on training and experience, to stop that person long enough to determine if the person is truly under age AND/OR determine if that truly is beer in the can. Once those are cleared up, RS ends and they must be released. THe officer believed that they were carrying a NFA weapon and the possessor lacked the proper paperwork, RS. The RS ended the minute the officer determined the weapon was NOT NFA. No ID's were demanded, no ser # were ran. It was quick and clean.

 

[KLB]

Like HoughMade said, if the can was made to look like a beer can but contained Coke, that would be a better analogy. To take it further, If someone who looked under 21 was walking around with a can dressed up as a beer can, the officer has RS, based on training and experience, to stop that person long enough to determine if the person is truly under age AND/OR determine if that truly is beer in the can. Once those are cleared up, RS ends and they must be released. THe officer believed that they were carrying a NFA weapon and the possessor lacked the proper paperwork, RS. The RS ended the minute the officer determined the weapon was NOT NFA. No ID's were demanded, no ser # were ran. It was quick and clean.

Do you honestly think he had suspicion that the rifle was an auto?

 

[dudley0]

What was with the function check and dry fire? How does that help the officer determine if the weapon is full auto while empty?

That was my only concern, besides the fact that some busy body called LEO in the first place.

 

[cobber]

What a douche bag. He did nothing to further the rights of citizens by being a douche and then posting the video.

 

[Denny347]

Do you honestly think he had suspicion that the rifle was an auto?

I will NOT presume to know what the officer was thinking or believed, only what I saw and heard. He didn't demand ID's, or ran serial numbers, didn't disassemble the weapon, what was the officer's endgame if he didn't believe what he was telling them? It seems biased to believe the officer was lying without any evidence to support that.

 

[KLB]

I will NOT presume to know what the officer was thinking or believed, only what I saw and heard. He didn't demand ID's, or ran serial numbers, didn't disassemble the weapon, what was the officer's endgame if he didn't believe what he was telling them? It seems biased to believe the officer was lying without any evidence to support that.

I didn't question the officer's professionalism. He seemed to handle the whole thing very professionally.

I think his endgame was to school the punk on the law. The guy was out to show how much he knew about his rights when confronted by an officer, and he obviously didn't know the law as well as he thought he did.

I don't think I was biased at all. I just looked at the situation and made a judgement like everyone else. I don't believe officers assume a weapon is an automatic until proven otherwise. Of course I am not a LEO, so my perception could be wrong.

Let's change it around. Do YOU automatically assume a weapon is an automatic until you have confirmed it isn't?

 

[Denny347]

I didn't question the officer's professionalism. He seemed to handle the whole thing very professionally.

I think his endgame was to school the punk on the law. The guy was out to show how much he knew about his rights when confronted by an officer, and he obviously didn't know the law as well as he thought he did.

I don't think I was biased at all. I just looked at the situation and made a judgement like everyone else. I don't believe officers assume a weapon is an automatic until proven otherwise. Of course I am not a LEO, so my perception could be wrong.

Let's change it around. Do YOU automatically assume a weapon is an automatic until you have confirmed it isn't?

What I do is irrelevant as we all police differently. I can understand what the officer said/believed. Some firearms lend themselves to be mistaken as NFA (MP5, .30cal belt fed, Uzi, Tec9, etc). I've seen more pre-86 MP5's than I have the clones so I understand where he was coming from. A clone of an MP5 is rather uncommon to be seen walking down the street. AK/M16 clones are a dime a dozen. The MP5 was a judgement call, I cannot fault him on it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What was with the function check and dry fire? How does that help the officer determine if the weapon is full auto while empty?

That was my only concern, besides the fact that some busy body called LEO in the first place.

How that works is that you try the selector in a couple of different positions and cycle the bolt with the trigger held back. If it is SA, it will be cocked and ready to fire after you release the trigger and pull it again. If FA, it will fire upon closing and be uncocked if you release and pull the trigger again. Nothing wrong with the method of testing the function of the gun. I fail to see where a reasonable suspicion existed for such a test to be performed. I don't buy into the idea that the 'ugliness' of an 'evil black gun' is sufficient.

 

[LeeStreet]

What a douche bag. He did nothing to further the rights of citizens by being a douche and then posting the video.

Exactly! He just wanted to be mister big man on the street,so he thinks.

 

[KLB]

What I do is irrelevant as we all police differently. I can understand what the officer said/believed. Some firearms lend themselves to be mistaken as NFA (MP5, .30cal belt fed, Uzi, Tec9, etc). I've seen more pre-86 MP5's than I have the clones so I understand where he was coming from. A clone of an MP5 is rather uncommon to be seen walking down the street. AK/M16 clones are a dime a dozen. The MP5 was a judgement call, I cannot fault him on it.

Yes, you do all do the job differently. I still think what other officers would have done in a situation is relevant. A different reaction would have no affect on whether the decision was correct or not.

In this case, this wasn't even a MP5. It was a .22 replica. I can't imagine that those are full auto very often. The view of the magazine alone should have shown that with his training and experience. Not to mention the lack of an auto selection. The officer then went on to make sure it wasn't modified to be a FA with the function test. Since he took the step of function testing the weapon, I don't know that it would be a big leap to assume he would have done the same with an AR. It also "looks" like a FA, which he stated was the reason he was checking.

I still believe the officer was just screwing with the guy because he could. Doesn't mean it was unlawful, nor that the other guy was right in going out looking for the interaction in the first place.

 

[indiana36Bravo]

Yes, you do all do the job differently. I still think what other officers would have done in a situation is relevant. A different reaction would have no affect on whether the decision was correct or not.

In this case, this wasn't even a MP5. It was a .22 replica. I can't imagine that those are full auto very often. The view of the magazine alone should have shown that with his training and experience. Not to mention the lack of an auto selection. The officer then went on to make sure it wasn't modified to be a FA with the function test. Since he took the step of function testing the weapon, I don't know that it would be a big leap to assume he would have done the same with an AR. It also "looks" like a FA, which he stated was the reason he was checking.

I still believe the officer was just screwing with the guy because he could. Doesn't mean it was unlawful, nor that the other guy was right in going out looking for the interaction in the first place.

The thing is, the officer didn't just see him and role up and ask him to "screw" with the guy. Their was a call in with someone saying it was an Automatic. So he is doing his job and following up on the call like his job states.

 

[KLB]

The thing is, the officer didn't just see him and role up and ask him to "screw" with the guy. Their was a call in with someone saying it was an Automatic. So he is doing his job and following up on the call like his job states.

How does anyone else tell it was an automatic weapon? Unless of course he had been firing it, but that would have been a totally different call.

It is a MWAG call. Treat it as such and go on with life.

 

[indiana36Bravo]

How does anyone else tell it was an automatic weapon? Unless of course he had been firing it, but that would have been a totally different call.

It is a MWAG call. Treat it as such and go on with life.

Exactly, but as an officer and when calls come in, no matter the stupidity(even the really stupid ones) you have to check them out. he was doing his job and checking it out, which by the way includes checking if it's an automatic. <--- it's protocol, especially since it was being recorded you most surely should follow exact protocol as in means of checking to make sure it's a semi-auto because well as you see, it was posted online and for some, he could easily be fired or suspended for not following such procedures when responding to a call and then next thing you know something does happen and it is an auto( because of the fact he didn't check it out, he gets fired and taken to court also). so he is covering his butt. I don't see anything wrong with either of these they both acted fine and he did his job and well the guy was acting a little arrogant but other than that it's a check and he is fine and he reports back to dispatch that it's clear and good to go, he writes his report and moves on.