Just heard a story..Updated Post #7

[teaser452]

So, a friend just told me about a friend of his (I'll call him Joe) and what happened to him. The story is fuzzy. I'll try to get more details. But let me lay out the basics.

So Joe and this other guy got into an 'altercation'. What type of altercation and when and where did it happen? I have no idea.

This other guy calls the police and says Joe pointed a gun at him.

The next day, police hunt him down (Joe wasn't trying to hide), surround his car in a parking lot (mall?) and arrest him and search him. Joe had no gun on him.

But, Joe did have an unsecured firearm at his home, under a mattress or in a drawer or something. Either way, unsecured. How the police found this? I don't know, I imagine they somehow obtained a search warrant?

Joe is now serving 6 months in prison.

So, very undetailed story, much like a typical newspaper article.
But, even with these sketchy details, I have a few questions.
1) By accusing someone of 'pointing a gun at me' do the police actively seek out the accused? And arrest them? As a matter of course?
2) Do they then obtain a search warrant? Looking for said gun? when they obtain the gun, do they put it in a gun lineup and see if the 'victim' can identify it out of a slew of different guns?
3) Did Joe have prior criminal acts? He did apparently have a gun license. How would he have gotten one? Maybe just misdemeanors?
4) The main thing that stuck with me is that I'm under the impression he's doing jail time for improper storage, and not 'he pointed a gun at me'. Did they really jack up the improper storage penalties that much with the new law in effect on Jan 1st?

I'm sure you guys can come up with more questions. I just wanted to throw this down in writing before I forgot it. And I will talk to my buddy and see if I can get more details. Maybe I'll see if I can visit Joe in prison. I wonder if he was able to get Aaron Hernandez as a roommate.

 

[kalash]

Did Joe remain at the scene the entire time or did he go home first?

Something is very, very fishy here. I don't believe that Joe got six months just for storage.

 

[Len-2A Training]

But, even with these sketchy details, I have a few questions.
1) By accusing someone of 'pointing a gun at me' do the police actively seek out the accused? And arrest them? As a matter of course?
2) Do they then obtain a search warrant? Looking for said gun? when they obtain the gun, do they put it in a gun lineup and see if the 'victim' can identify it out of a slew of different guns?
3) Did Joe have prior criminal acts? He did apparently have a gun license. How would he have gotten one? Maybe just misdemeanors?
4) The main thing that stuck with me is that I'm under the impression he's doing jail time for improper storage, and not 'he pointed a gun at me'. Did they really jack up the improper storage penalties that much with the new law in effect on Jan 1st?

1. Yes they do.
2. Yes they do. They usually will take all guns and computers to find any info that might give them more charges to pile up.
4. You are wrong. ONLY illegal storage of low-capacity long guns is a misdemeanor ($5K and 1 yr HOC), anything else is a felony with $10K and 10 yrs prison possible. C. 140 S. 131L

Police and DAs love to prosecute these charges on otherwise innocent people. It's a great "win" for both of them.

 

[teaser452]

So, granted the details are sketchy, and I want more.

So, if your next door neighbor gets mad at you for your leaves blowing into his yard, he can call the police and say you pointed a gun at him, and blammo, you're arrested and they're searching your house, confiscated computers and guns? I really HAVE to believe that the "altercation" was more serious than I think. Otherwise, if an anti gun person knows you have guns, you are so ****ed. They lie at the drop of a hat. And you're in prison.

If so, I guess we don't live in the United States any more.

- - - Updated - - -

Did Joe remain at the scene the entire time or did he go home first?

Something is very, very fishy here. I don't believe that Joe got six months just for storage.

He left the scene. My impression that I got from my friend is that the altercation wasn't a fistfight, maybe a screaming match, a 'my dick is bigger and better that your dick' type of thing? In other words, no assault and battery. It was the next day. He was in a parking lot. And blammo, surrounded by a bunch of cops. Don't know the town yet. Central MA I imagine though. I updated OP to reflect that.

 

[Hoover]

Did Joe remain at the scene the entire time or did he go home first?

Something is very, very fishy here. I don't believe that Joe got six months just for storage.

Agreed I don't think he got 6 months for storage and even if he did point a gun at the guy, if he had a clean record, I would be surprised if he got 6 months for that or he had one of the worst lawyers in the state.

Boston courts may be different but in the burbs, you really need to earn jail to get it. The judges are adverse to sending people to jail especially for 1st offenses in most cases.

 

[drgrant]

This sounds like one of those deals where "joe" is probably taking creative license with the truth. (and no, im not justifying what happened to joe. )

 

[teaser452]

I figured I'd leave the first post up since people replied to it. This is the updated post. With more info after I grilled my buddy.

So, a friend just told me about a friend of his (I'll call him Joe) and what happened to him. The story is fuzzy. I'll try to get more details. But let me lay out the basics.

So Joe and this other guy got into an 'altercation'. The "altercation" involved the two of them yelling at each other and calling each other names. This happened One week prior to what happens next.

They live in the same town, and happened to see each other driving downtown. The other guy yells at Joe and honks. Joe flips the guy the finger. The other guy calls the police from his cell and says Joe just pointed a gun at him. The police are dispatched and chase Joe down, stop him, and question him. Joe, being a lawful gun owner and knowing he has no gun on him, consents to a search of his vehicle. The Police find nothing, so obviously Joe didn't point a gun at the other dude, and the other dude made a false accusation. The Police then ask Joe if they can search his house. Joe being a lawful gun owner consents to the search. He figures he has nothing to hide.

But, Joe did have an unsecured firearm at his home, under his mattress, that he had forgotten about. Unsecured and loaded. Joe was stupid.

Joe served 6 and a half months in prison and is now a felon, and will never own a gun again.

The moral of the story is do not talk to the cops, do not allow searches and ask if you're free to go. Also, Joe had a clean record. Never been arrested for anything.

And the dude who said Joe pointed a gun at him, that dude has some seriously bad karma and should be in jail. Beware.

And the cops that did this, the DA who did this, and the town, which I will not name are all *******s.

 

[Reptile]

Another reason why not to tell anyone you own guns.

Somehow the dude that said Joe pointed the gun at him knew he had a gun.

Loose lips sink ships.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Another reason why not to tell anyone you own guns.

Somehow the dude that said Joe pointed the gun at him knew he had a gun.

Loose lips sink ships.

Did he have gun stickers on his car? That's all that a vicious anti would need to make such a fraudulent claim.

 

[scheming]

And the cops that did this, the DA who did this, and the town, which I will not name are all *******s.

I'd say out the town so we know where to avoid. Cops like that are gonna try to get you for whatever they can. Must avoid like the plague.

 

[GPP]

Seriously youre not gonna out the town?

 

[knfmn]

Main lesson to learn from this is that Joe was stupid. Never talk to the cops and never, ever under any circumstances consent to a search of your vehicle or your home. Don't invite the cops in, don't talk to them. Don't do anything.

 

[soam]

The updated story reinforces a very important thing to remember as a gun owner (and even if you aren't a gun owner):

Do not ever consent to a search, even if you have "nothing to hide". If the police demand to search anyways, don't attempt to physically prevent them from doing so, but be absolutely clear that you do not consent.

 

[GPP]

The updated story reinforces a very important thing to remember as a gun owner (and even if you aren't a gun owner):

Do not ever consent to a search, even if you have "nothing to hide". If the police demand to search anyways, don't attempt to physically prevent them from doing so, but be absolutely clear that you do not consent.

Wouldnt you like to see just a bit more " fact "here? Just a little? A guy that knows a guy told me this happenned.

 

[W.E.C]

Why search his house if they found he was not carrying when guy one said he was?

som ting wong

 

[teaser452]

Why search his house if they found he was not carrying when guy one said he was?

som ting wong

i agree. The story is incomplete. My buddy is not the greatest at details. Still, I think the broad strokes of this story are accurate. Joe f'd himself by consenting to a search.

 

[soam]

Wouldnt you like to see just a bit more " fact "here? Just a little? A guy that knows a guy told me this happenned.

Even if this particular story is an embellishment or an outright fabrication, it doesn't change the fact that consenting to a search is just dumb.

It does seem strange that the officers would want to search the house after it had been established that there was no gun on "Joe"'s person or in his car. That part of the story points to either some bad police work, or a piece of the story that "Joe"'s friend left out.

 

[W.E.C]

Was his name Jim?

 

[milktree]

So, it seems like the "correct" course of action (where "correct" is "least bad given a bunch of bad options") would have been to refuse a search of the car and house, and file a counter-suit against the **** who called the cops on him for whatever the less serious version of "SWATing" is. I'm sure the cops have no love for jackasses that use them to settle petty feuds.

And of course, store everything legally.

 

[GPP]

Even if this particular story is an embellishment or an outright fabrication, it doesn't change the fact that consenting to a search is just dumb.

It does seem strange that the officers would want to search the house after it had been established that there was no gun on "Joe"'s person or in his car. That part of the story points to either some bad police work, or a piece of the story that "Joe"'s friend left out.

No argument from me, consenting to a search is asinine.

A licensed gun owner with an unsecured gun in his home serves 6 months???? No ****ing way.

This past summer, while executing a search warrant, one of the patrol guys located an improperly stored pistol and rifle, owned by the properly licensed homeowner.
Homeowner was charged criminally with the 2 counts. Homeowner had no record.
This ended up at a clerks hearing (as it should have) at Stoughton District Court.
Homeowner kept LTC, and was able to get the 2 guns back.

Im not buying the story.

 

[iofneedle]

Main lesson to learn from this is that Joe was stupid. Never talk to the cops and never, ever under any circumstances consent to a search of your vehicle or your home. Don't invite the cops in, don't talk to them. Don't do anything.

You are allowed to say, " I want my lawyer!" That's about it.

 

[knfmn]

You are allowed to say, " I want my lawyer!" That's about it.

You make it sound as if there is never any choice in the matter, so you might as well just give in and give them permission. I strongly disagree.

The important thing to follow "I want my lawyer" with is "I do not consent to any searches of myself or my property." Cops have to come up with probable cause for the search after that. If the dude referred to the in OP really didn't do anything, I'm pretty sure it would be very hard for the cops to get a search warrant for his home and I'm very sure that any halfway decent lawyer could get anything discovered in that search thrown out.

 

[Len-2A Training]

. I was wrong here, read it and skipped an important point.

 

[GPP]

You make it sound as if there is never any choice in the matter, so you might as well just give in and give them permission. I strongly disagree.

The important thing to follow "I want my lawyer" with is "I do not consent to any searches of myself or my property." Cops have to come up with probable cause for the search after that. If the dude referred to the in OP really didn't do anything, I'm pretty sure it would be very hard for the cops to get a search warrant for his home and I'm very sure that any halfway decent lawyer could get anything discovered in that search thrown out.

Correct. How these cops went from searching this guys car to searching his home is ridiculous in the first place. Had "Joe" said NO to the search of his home, the cops would have zero PC and would never be given a search warrant.
The OP refusing to give the jurisdiction this supposedly took place under makes it that much more ridiculous.

 

[soam]

You are neglecting one very important factoid from what we've been told. It appears that the police stopped him and arrested him 1 WEEK after the alleged incident. Thus the lack of a gun in the car a week later wouldn't work to prove that he didn't have it when the initial incident occurred. That's enough for the police to get search warrants for the car, house and computer IMNSHO IANAL opinion.

The story in post 7 has two incidents: the initial "altercation" which involved yelling and name calling, and the second incident in the cars with the honking and the flipping off. This second incident is where "Joe" is accused of having a gun, and the police stop him and search his car and person and find no gun. Since at this point it's clear that the other guy has made a false accusation, why would the police need to search his home?

 

[GPP]

You are neglecting one very important factoid from what we've been told. It appears that the police stopped him and arrested him 1 WEEK after the alleged incident. Thus the lack of a gun in the car a week later wouldn't work to prove that he didn't have it when the initial incident occurred. That's enough for the police to get search warrants for the car, house and computer IMNSHO IANAL opinion.

I have to disagree Len. The guy is known to the PD. What did they lock him up for a week later? The ABDW? No way. They would have gotten a warrant well before that, or would have went to the guys house when it first happenned.
No way in hell are you getting a SW a week after the incident, especially on a licensed gun owner.

 

[xtry51]

I figured I'd leave the first post up since people replied to it. This is the updated post. With more info after I grilled my buddy.

So, a friend just told me about a friend of his (I'll call him Joe) and what happened to him. The story is fuzzy. I'll try to get more details. But let me lay out the basics.

So Joe and this other guy got into an 'altercation'. The "altercation" involved the two of them yelling at each other and calling each other names. This happened One week prior to what happens next.

They live in the same town, and happened to see each other driving downtown. The other guy yells at Joe and honks. Joe flips the guy the finger. The other guy calls the police from his cell and says Joe just pointed a gun at him. The police are dispatched and chase Joe down, stop him, and question him. Joe, being a lawful gun owner and knowing he has no gun on him, consents to a search of his vehicle. The Police find nothing, so obviously Joe didn't point a gun at the other dude, and the other dude made a false accusation. The Police then ask Joe if they can search his house. Joe being a lawful gun owner consents to the search. He figures he has nothing to hide.

But, Joe did have an unsecured firearm at his home, under his mattress, that he had forgotten about. Unsecured and loaded. Joe was stupid.

Joe served 6 and a half months in prison and is now a felon, and will never own a gun again.

The moral of the story is do not talk to the cops, do not allow searches and ask if you're free to go. Also, Joe had a clean record. Never been arrested for anything.

And the dude who said Joe pointed a gun at him, that dude has some seriously bad karma and should be in jail. Beware.

And the cops that did this, the DA who did this, and the town, which I will not name are all *******s.

Yes, Joe is stupid for 1) Allowing a search and 2) living in MA.

How is it possible that stories like this don't immediately make the rest of you move out of that shithole?

 

[Len-2A Training]

The story in post 7 has two incidents: the initial "altercation" which involved yelling and name calling, and the second incident in the cars with the honking and the flipping off. This second incident is where "Joe" is accused of having a gun, and the police stop him and search his car and person and find no gun. Since at this point it's clear that the other guy has made a false accusation, why would the police need to search his home?

You are right, I didn't catch that when I posted. Mea culpa!

I have to disagree Len. The guy is known to the PD. What did they lock him up for a week later? The ABDW? No way. They would have gotten a warrant well before that, or would have went to the guys house when it first happenned.
No way in hell are you getting a SW a week after the incident, especially on a licensed gun owner.

See above. I blew this one on reading it and missing that the 2nd event happened a week later.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Without knowing any details of the case, I would wager that Joe was offered a no jail time (but possible "prohibited person" status) plea deal, and was sent to jail for having the audacity not to take the deal.

If the dude referred to the in OP really didn't do anything, I'm pretty sure it would be very hard for the cops to get a search warrant for his home and I'm very sure that any halfway decent lawyer could get anything discovered in that search thrown out.

You're new to this MA law thing aren't you?

 

[GPP]

Without knowing any details of the case, I would wager that Joe was offered a no jail time (but possible "prohibited person" status) plea deal, and was sent to jail for having the audacity not to take the deal.

Wait, so you place bets on stuff without having any details?
Joe has no record, according to the OP
Joes only crime is improper storage, according to the OP
You think its reasonable that Joe received 6 months to serve for not accepting a plea?

You actually are taking the OPs story at face value, arent you.