Pistols and Ammunition Seized Without Warrant.

[MOTOR51]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Jlong1691]

Bashing-
Informal To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: "My point is not to bash teachers or healthcare providers" (Richard Weissbourd).

v.intr. Informal
To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

You figuratively, blanketly accused cops of lying during an investigation if it suits them. That is the definition of bashing.
Source: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bashing

Is it Bashing really though if it can be proven that at least some police do lie during investigations, if it suits them?

I know for a fact that interrogators lie, and some lie often if it suits them, and it is publically posted. I'll get you the video if you want of a career interrogator admitting to such. Also unverifiable sources. I'll never talk, have personal relationships with people in this line of work, who also have spoken on occasion of similar obscuring of fact being common practice when it suits them, or even others like them.

 

[Gator 45/70]

I don’t want to cop bash here, but I learned long ago that cops are under zero expectation to tell the truth, unless under oath. I’ve also learned that they will exploit that fact to the extreme if it suits their whims or agenda.
I’ve also seen countless incidents, stories, videos, etc where people would have been better served by simply not involving law enforcement in their every little personal squabble.
That being said, long ago, I decided that I will not open my door to police unless it’s clear that they have a warrant in hand. I will not call police or invite police to my home unless I am faced with a problem that I feel can or should only be handled by law enforcement and at such time, I will be fully prepared to accept the outcome and consequences of opening that door. Except where bound by law, I will not talk to police without an attorney present and unless my attorney advises me to do so. I will not willingly give up any of my constitutional or civil or God given rights at any time to any individual for any reason.

As to the OP’s question, I believe the officers were being officers.

Why you baiting the cops on here for?

You know every single time one of em' is going to play ''You must hate cops card''

You'll probably get pulled over tonight going to work and tazed until you crap those pants, Thrown into the drunk tank with Bubba and have a bullseye painted on that backside before you hit the floor.

We all know cops ain't got time to lie when plenty hot donuts and vag out there free for the taking?

 

[Magdump]

"those officers were being officers"
-----------(A)-----------------(B)---

Is your beliefs were very specific to the officers as mentioned in the article, bot officers (A) and officers (B) would be the same. That would be akin to me saying "That's just John being John." Unless I know John, that statement has no meaning because I would not know John to have a basis for comparison. Unless you know the officers mentioned in the article, your statement "I believe the officers were being officers" is meaningless. Without knowing those specific officers, your statement would only have meaning if the basis of comparison, officers (B), were known to you, i.e., officers in general. So one of three options must be true: (1) you know the specific officers mentioned in the article, (2) your statement is meaningless, or (3) you were making a blanket statement about officers.

Somehow I knew you’d show. Never let me down. Nice to know I can count on something these days. But why you gotta bring John into it?
And you managed to nit pick your one point that you thought you could drive home but that’s not what was in question here.
Again, like I stated, nothing derogatory here. That’s what was on the table in case you missed that part. No cop bashing here. Simply divulging tactics that are generally not denied when it comes down to it. If the cops said they weren’t going to take any guns if he would willingly go to the hospital, then did so after the fact, guess what happened there. I’ll give you a hint, they lied. And let me just say that I’ve seen deputies make (and later break) verbal agreements with people on countless occasions during a CEC just to get them to cooperate. I’ve seen them knowingly mislead and lie to subjects and others involved in a call about situations, circumstances, laws, etc to get the info or outcome they wanted. It was common practice and one thing I can guarantee you is that they would vouch for eachother both at the scene and afterward. I watched that go on for over 15 years, first hand. Do I disagree with it or condemn them for it? Absolutely not. I’m sure they see that as an everyday part of their job, and I don’t want to do their job. It is enough for me to know that it exists and I plan accordingly.
Again, let me say that I know why they do it. Because that’s part of their procedure. I knew to never attempt to interject or even confirm or deny any statement made by any officer in the course of doing my duty during those years. I didn’t come to that conclusion on my own. It was explained to me on more than one occasion by more than one cop. On the other hand, I can’t remember ever having to compete with any deputy for the ear of a subject or significant other/family/room mate during my assessment. I was always given adequate time and space and control of the conversation when my turn rolled around. That afforded me the ability at the 72 hour hearings to state that I was not part of any conversation between the subject and LEO’s should it ever come up that a subject was intentionally misled. Also why I never ever directly quoted anyone other than the subject or family/friend/observer in my statement or CEC assessment.

Btw, it may or may not be procedure to remove firearms from a home in the event someone is brought in on a CEC. I can only say that it should be expected. I can also say that if there is no responsible person to take charge of those firearms until the subject is cleared or a decision has been made to detain that person in a facility, securing those firearms is the proper thing to do.

 

[Magdump]

Bashing-
Informal To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: "My point is not to bash teachers or healthcare providers" (Richard Weissbourd).

v.intr. Informal
To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

You figuratively, blanketly accused cops of lying during an investigation if it suits them. That is the definition of bashing.
Source: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bashing

Harshly? Threateningly?
How about factually? You left that one out. I didn’t accuse anyone of anything. I made a statement. A factual statement. It’s not like I let the cat out of the bag or anything. Court records and testimony are public record after all.

 

[thperez1972]

Somehow I knew you’d show. Never let me down. Nice to know I can count on something these days. But why you gotta bring John into it?
And you managed to nit pick your one point that you thought you could drive home but that’s not what was in question here.
Again, like I stated, nothing derogatory here. That’s what was on the table in case you missed that part. No cop bashing here. Simply divulging tactics that are generally not denied when it comes down to it. If the cops said they weren’t going to take any guns if he would willingly go to the hospital, then did so after the fact, guess what happened there. I’ll give you a hint, they lied. And let me just say that I’ve seen deputies make (and later break) verbal agreements with people on countless occasions during a CEC just to get them to cooperate. I’ve seen them knowingly mislead and lie to subjects and others involved in a call about situations, circumstances, laws, etc to get the info or outcome they wanted. It was common practice and one thing I can guarantee you is that they would vouch for eachother both at the scene and afterward. I watched that go on for over 15 years, first hand. Do I disagree with it or condemn them for it? Absolutely not. I’m sure they see that as an everyday part of their job, and I don’t want to do their job. It is enough for me to know that it exists and I plan accordingly.
Again, let me say that I know why they do it. Because that’s part of their procedure. I knew to never attempt to interject or even confirm or deny any statement made by any officer in the course of doing my duty during those years. I didn’t come to that conclusion on my own. It was explained to me on more than one occasion by more than one cop. On the other hand, I can’t remember ever having to compete with any deputy for the ear of a subject or significant other/family/room mate during my assessment. I was always given adequate time and space and control of the conversation when my turn rolled around. That afforded me the ability at the 72 hour hearings to state that I was not part of any conversation between the subject and LEO’s should it ever come up that a subject was intentionally misled. Also why I never ever directly quoted anyone other than the subject or family/friend/observer in my statement or CEC assessment.

Btw, it may or may not be procedure to remove firearms from a home in the event someone is brought in on a CEC. I can only say that it should be expected. I can also say that if there is no responsible person to take charge of those firearms until the subject is cleared or a decision has been made to detain that person in a facility, securing those firearms is the proper thing to do.

I read most of the threads. I just feel the need to reply to every one. The point of my post is that you took exception to being accused of making a blanket statement. You claim your statement was specific to the officers in the article. But your statement was saying the officers in the article are typical of all officers, which is a blanket statement. I also don't believe you are "bashing" all cops. But I do believe you have a negative bias towards them.

Yes, cops lie. It's a very useful tactic in a number of situations. If the cops in the article felt they were justified in confiscating the weapon, and I believe they felt that way and even had it approved by a supervisor, they would be justified in lying to the guy about not confiscating them in order to advance the progress without escalating things. The same holds true for lying to the wife about the guy's consent. Those are textbook examples of why cops should be allowed to lie. Is that what happened? Maybe so. If it is, then they lied about lying when there was no reason not to just explain why the lie was needed. Could the guy and his wife be lying about what the cops said? Maybe so. How many times do you see the police release body cam footage that refutes the claims made by civilians about how the cops acted? But that's just civilians being civilians.

 

[Jf837]

I highlighted accusatory or a reason. Reading comprehension owns you..

 

[Magdump]

I read most of the threads. I just feel the need to reply to every one. The point of my post is that you took exception to being accused of making a blanket statement. You claim your statement was specific to the officers in the article. But your statement was saying the officers in the article are typical of all officers, which is a blanket statement. I also don't believe you are "bashing" all cops. But I do believe you have a negative bias towards them.

Yes, cops lie. It's a very useful tactic in a number of situations. If the cops in the article felt they were justified in confiscating the weapon, and I believe they felt that way and even had it approved by a supervisor, they would be justified in lying to the guy about not confiscating them in order to advance the progress without escalating things. The same holds true for lying to the wife about the guy's consent. Those are textbook examples of why cops should be allowed to lie. Is that what happened? Maybe so. If it is, then they lied about lying when there was no reason not to just explain why the lie was needed. Could the guy and his wife be lying about what the cops said? Maybe so. How many times do you see the police release body cam footage that refutes the claims made by civilians about how the cops acted? But that's just civilians being civilians.

Thanks for pointing out that you ‘believe’ I’m biased. I’m biased when it comes to justice. That goes for any person, cop, civilian, doctor, lawyer, priest etc. but I assure you I’m not cop biased. I don’t dislike cops at all. I do not like bad people. Also, thanks for being honest and pointing out that it’s exactly as I stated when it comes to cops and lying. Part of the job. And as you said in your statement, justified. My statement to that effect was to say that you should expect nothing different. I said what I said to squelch any naivety on the subject. In hindsight, I could have started my first post with, ‘I fully expect the LEO’s here to accuse me of being a cop hater but I feel that people need to know the truth’.
So there is is. I’m not accusing anyone of anything that’s not factual. I wasn’t even trying to condemn cops for lying. I give them a full pass. It’s part of their job and apparently part of their training. And having that knowledge has better prepared me for any contact I may have with law enforcement in the future. I will always practice my right to protect myself and my interests.

 

[Magdump]

I highlighted accusatory or a reason. Reading comprehension owns you..

And what exactly is it you’re looking for at this point? I do not concede to your argument and you’ll get no apology from me because none is due. Is there anything else?

 

[DAVE_M]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Jf837]

@Magdump. Nope. Stay in your lane and don't opine on something you know nothing about if you don't want someone to call you on it when you are grossly mistaken. If you'd like to PM me and discuss it further, I sent you a friend request. Otherwise, enjoy your friday. Cheers.

 

[Magdump]

@Magdump. Nope. Stay in your lane and don't opine on something you know nothing about if you don't want someone to call you on it when you are grossly mistaken. If you'd like to PM me and discuss it further, I sent you a friend request. Otherwise, enjoy your friday. Cheers.

You wish I was wrong.
You have no idea what I know but thanks for assuming. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

 

[Jf837]

Well, doesn't appear much going on up there. But ok. Have fun.

 

[SKIPP3R L.]

I've read it. And there is a lot factually incorrect in it, sprinkled with a little truth. But good luck to you.

Ok Karren. Time to put down the kaleidoscope. I mean consider the irony of a LEO making this statement in this thread. Late night stand up is begging for this level of ironic comedy.

 

[thperez1972]

Ok Karren. Time to put down the kaleidoscope. I mean consider the irony of a LEO making this statement in this thread. Late night stand up is begging for this level of ironic comedy.

For those that don't see it, could you explain what is ironic about the LEO making a statement in a thread whose subject involves LEO's?

 

[SKIPP3R L.]

For those that don't see it, could you explain what is ironic about the LEO making a statement in a thread whose subject involves LEO's?

It all started with JF873's post

@Magdump.
Your first line -"I don’t want to cop bash here" and your last line -"I believe the officers were being officers" do not seem to correlate. Swing and a miss.

Just because someone does not want to do something does not invalidate doing it. I do not want to pay taxes to a government that is going to fund abortions in other countries, but I have to. Just because I do not want to take a stand by deleting my social media accounts and stop buying some of my favorite things, but if I want my words to match my actions and be honorable, I have to.

Just because Mag does not want to dump on LE doesn't negate his "dump on LE." Then LEO steps in and says its untrue - trust him, he is LEO.

Forgive me if I don't blindly trust the governments civilian management arm.

The story in reference is about LEO's falsely claiming what they wanted to hear to confiscate guns and ammo in direct opposition to the evidence and none of their own. Enforcing punishments of law when there is no clear infringement is very dangerous and happens daily in the US now. Just look at any government agency on a daily basis. They do what they want and no-one is there to stop them.

A LEO saying he read a printed, unedited commentary and standing firmly with "I've read it. And there is a lot factually incorrect in it, sprinkled with a little truth" is ironic to me when the LEO is making this statement on a thread about LEO's not being honest in gun confiscations/legal prosecutions.

Thats some ironic **** to me.

 

[Jf837]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth Skipper. I never said the LEO's weren't being honest in reference to the legal prosecutions. It did not appear that the gentleman was charged with a crime in original post, no I am not quite sure what legal prosecutions you are even referring to. The "truth" I was referring to was that as Magdump stated, he did not wish to involve law enforcement in simple family squabbles. However, in the OP's story, the man allegedly tried to entice his wife to shoot him with a firearm, in which case law enforcement should definitely be involved. Based on the allegations and the fact that the gentleman "admitted to the incident" but denied being suicidal yet went to the hospital in order seek a mental evaluation, then I believe the officers were well within their rights to take the weapons for safekeeping until such a time that the evaluation could be performed. As it turned out, the gentleman was not admitted into the hospital and it took the police department a month to return the weapons to the gentleman. Neither paints the situation in a good light nor were foreseeable to the initial officers that took custody of said weapons. As I stated previously, the officers did not happen upon the residence with the intent of stealing weapons. They were called there by a legal adult of the residence who claimed her husband was suicidal and tried to get her to use the weapons on him during an argument. The key here is the "totality of the circumstances". I believe than any reasonable officer would think twice about walking away from that incident leaving the husband and guns in the residence without some sort of mental evaluation, taking the guns for safekeeping or a combination of the two; which is what happened. I say the officers acted with sound judgement and had a duty to intervene given what I interpreted from the OP's article. It may be "ironic ****" to you, but that is about as clear as I can make it.

 

[thperez1972]

It all started with JF873's post

Just because someone does not want to do something does not invalidate doing it. I do not want to pay taxes to a government that is going to fund abortions in other countries, but I have to. Just because I do not want to take a stand by deleting my social media accounts and stop buying some of my favorite things, but if I want my words to match my actions and be honorable, I have to.

Just because Mag does not want to dump on LE doesn't negate his "dump on LE." Then LEO steps in and says its untrue - trust him, he is LEO.

Forgive me if I don't blindly trust the governments civilian management arm.

The story in reference is about LEO's falsely claiming what they wanted to hear to confiscate guns and ammo in direct opposition to the evidence and none of their own. Enforcing punishments of law when there is no clear infringement is very dangerous and happens daily in the US now. Just look at any government agency on a daily basis. They do what they want and no-one is there to stop them.

A LEO saying he read a printed, unedited commentary and standing firmly with "I've read it. And there is a lot factually incorrect in it, sprinkled with a little truth" is ironic to me when the LEO is making this statement on a thread about LEO's not being honest in gun confiscations/legal prosecutions.

Thats some ironic **** to me.

The story is not about anyone hearing anything that was or wasn't said. The story is about whether or not the police had the authority to confiscate the weapons under the community caretaking exception to warrant searches. The below quote could have been left out of the article and the point of the story would be the same. The guy said the cops said something. The cops said they didn't say it. The wife said the cops said something. There is no statement from the cop on that allegation. But at the end of the day, whether the cops did or didn't say those things is irrelevant. The information contained in the statements that were or weren't said did not contribute to the confiscation. In fact, it does not appear the information used to confiscate the weapons is even in dispute. That information was give to the cops by the wife before the cops went to the location. The cops were completely honest with why they confiscated the weapons.

So, based on your post, the irony comes from your lack of understanding about the point of the lawsuit. Glad we could clear that up.

"In talking with the officers, Edward agreed to go by ambulance to a hospital for a mental evaluation and claims that the officers told him that they would not confiscate his guns if he went voluntarily. Officers deny making that promise, but Edward had made it clear he did not want his property seized. Once Edward was gone, Kim directed the officers to each of the two guns, their magazines and ammunition. The Caniglia’s claim that officers informed Kim that Edward consented to the seizure of the two guns and took them with approval from a supervisor."

 

[323MAR]

I have always been bothered by a cavalier attitude towards privately owned firearms displayed by some of the members of LE and DAs. The property sometimes becomes devalued by authorities and never seen again. If the situation were reversed, the citizen would be arrested for theft.

In any case, if someone is a danger to anyone, then incarcerating or committing the individual is the only safe way to address the problem. Confiscating probably does not work, since that will not stop the subject from obtaining additional weapons.

 

[ozarkpugs]

The story is not about anyone hearing anything that was or wasn't said. The story is about whether or not the police had the authority to confiscate the weapons under the community caretaking exception to warrant searches. The below quote could have been left out of the article and the point of the story would be the same. The guy said the cops said something. The cops said they didn't say it. The wife said the cops said something. There is no statement from the cop on that allegation. But at the end of the day, whether the cops did or didn't say those things is irrelevant. The information contained in the statements that were or weren't said did not contribute to the confiscation. In fact, it does not appear the information used to confiscate the weapons is even in dispute. That information was give to the cops by the wife before the cops went to the location. The cops were completely honest with why they confiscated the weapons.

So, based on your post, the irony comes from your lack of understanding about the point of the lawsuit. Glad we could clear that up.

"In talking with the officers, Edward agreed to go by ambulance to a hospital for a mental evaluation and claims that the officers told him that they would not confiscate his guns if he went voluntarily. Officers deny making that promise, but Edward had made it clear he did not want his property seized. Once Edward was gone, Kim directed the officers to each of the two guns, their magazines and ammunition. The Caniglia’s claim that officers informed Kim that Edward consented to the seizure of the two guns and took them with approval from a supervisor."

Sooooo, the man was on the way to be mentally evaluated so he was not a threat to anyone except the ambulance driver . The wife was at home and safe unless the man is dangerous and escapes or the hospital decides he is crazy but turns him loose anyway . If one of those things happen she can always use one of the guns to protect herself . Oh , that is right she can't defend herself because the cops took her means of protection .


Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk