Medford PD Stops Wrong-Way Driver, Arrest Two For Possession Of Ghost Gun

A carload of geniuses.

Many years back, I was chatting with the licensing officer here in Wayland while renewing my LTC. I mentioned to him that I was surprised how, in a small town like Wayland, that it seemed every week the police blotter included a traffic stop resulting in an arrest for someone out on warrants. I told him that if I had a warrant out on me that I would be driving like a grandma. He replied "Those folks don't think like you or me. If you had a warrant out on you, you would go to court and get it taken care of."

So, while my first thought on reading that article was "if I was carrying a gun illegally, I would be drive more carefully than to be driving the wrong way on a street." But, as the licensing officer told me, these criminals don't think that way.
 
A had a similar chat with a former co worker who went on to be a trooper. He essentially said that they routinely broke laws out of habit. He said that most of the time when he stopped someone he had a good idea that there was going to be more to the stop than just a citation.



M1911 said:
A carload of geniuses.

Many years back, I was chatting with the licensing officer here in Wayland while renewing my LTC. I mentioned to him that I was surprised how, in a small town like Wayland, that it seemed every week the police blotter included a traffic stop resulting in an arrest for someone out on warrants. I told him that if I had a warrant out on me that I would be driving like a grandma. He replied "Those folks don't think like you or me. If you had a warrant out on you, you would go to court and get it taken care of."

So, while my first thought on reading that article was "if I was carrying a gun illegally, I would be drive more carefully than to be driving the wrong way on a street." But, as the licensing officer told me, these criminals don't think that way.
Click to expand...
 
From article:
A 17-year-old from Belmont was arrested and charged with possession of a large capacity firearm, possession of a large capacity feeding device, unlawful possession of ammunition, resisting srrest, carrying a firearm without a license, unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to stop for police.

Alex Paul, 20, from Cambridge, was arrested and charged with failure to stop for police, improper operation of a motor vehicle, and resisting arrest.

Our "leaders' answer to this? PASS MORE LAWS. Genius! The only thing that will accomplish is adding more words to descriptions like the on above,. :rolleyes:
 
Garys said:
A had a similar chat with a former co worker who went on to be a trooper. He essentially said that they routinely broke laws out of habit. He said that most of the time when he stopped someone he had a good idea that there was going to be more to the stop than just a citation.
Click to expand...

I've seen some extreme cases of "habitual offenders".
One really stands out.
This was about 20 years ago, one afternoon a PO was working a school crossing on a heavily trafficked main road.
There was also a traffic light and crosswalk at that location.
While the light was red, with kids crossing, and the PO holding up his hand, some nitwit blows right by them.
The PO got on his radio and called another unit that was a block away.
The other PO made the stop and here's what he found;
The car was unregistered and uninsured. It had a stolen plate on the back, and a stolen plate on the front from an entirely different car.
The inspection sticker was also scraped off from another car.
The drivers license was revoked for being a "habitual offender".
Now you'd think that someone with only one of those factors against them would be the most law abiding driver on the road, but no.
People like this just don't give a f*uck, and never will.
 
Zappa said:
whdh.com

2 charged after ghost gun found in vehicle when driver pulled over for going wrong way in Medford - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

MEDFORD, MASS. (WHDH) - On Tuesday, October 15, 2024, at approximately 7:30 p.m., a Medford police officer observed a driver going the wrong way on<a class="excerpt-read-more"...
whdh.com whdh.com
Click to expand...
Where does it say they were arrested for possession of a ghost gun? They were arrested for everything BUT having a ghost gun, according to the article!

And how did they charge TWO people with driving the car? Three Stooges skit with two people at the wheel?

And what happened to the third person? Maybe he was related to somebody too impotent to charge?


(setting aside the obviously made up charges for the firearm possession, they sound like they really needed busting)
 
Somewhere in there is a line about being charged with a possessing a Ghost Gun and an incorrect explanation of what that is. Somewhere towards the end of the article.

If the police can't identify the actual driver, they'll charge both people in the front seat and let the court sort it out.

namedpipes said:
Where does it say they were arrested for possession of a ghost gun? They were arrested for everything BUT having a ghost gun, according to the article!

And how did they charge TWO people with driving the car? Three Stooges skit with two people at the wheel?

And what happened to the third person? Maybe he was related to somebody too impotent to charge?


(setting aside the obviously made up charges for the firearm possession, they sound like they really needed busting)
Click to expand...
 
HorizontalHunter said:
From the article:

It was later discovered that the firearm was a ‘ghost gun,’ an illegal firearm that is privately assembled and untraceable.”
Click to expand...
Do you really trust the news to get that right, or do you think it's more likely they called it a ghost gun and someone slapped a definition int here that may or may not be correct?
 
This seems like pretty loose probable cause. If only they didn’t consent, kept their mouths shut, and did as demanded. … but they did what criminals to.

“During the stop, the patrol sergeant who arrived for back up noticed a light typically mounted on a firearm next to the back seat passenger,” Medford police said in a statement. “Believing that someone in the vehicle might be armed, the officers ordered all three occupants out of the car. ”
 
IPSC_DRL said:
From article:
A 17-year-old from Belmont was arrested and charged with possession of a large capacity firearm, possession of a large capacity feeding device, unlawful possession of ammunition, resisting srrest, carrying a firearm without a license, unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to stop for police.

Alex Paul, 20, from Cambridge, was arrested and charged with failure to stop for police, improper operation of a motor vehicle, and resisting arrest.

Our "leaders' answer to this? PASS MORE LAWS. Genius! The only thing that will accomplish is adding more words to descriptions like the on above,. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So did one misceant jump into the driver's seat after the first miscreant exited it? Or is there a way for a pasenger to improperly operate a motor vehicle?

If you carry a gun, legally or not, you shouold strive to be the gray man and get lost in a crowd of one. I know of one group of competitors who got hassled by the NYSP for guns because the state trooper saw the edge of a CT carry permit in the driver's wallet when he presented his driving license. The tropper appeared to be unaware of the 265.20§13b that provides a non-resident exemption, but a passenger in the car was able to produce badge immunity and the problem went away.
 
PappyM3 said:
This seems like pretty loose probable cause. If only they didn’t consent, kept their mouths shut, and did as demanded. … but they did what criminals to.

“During the stop, the patrol sergeant who arrived for back up noticed a light typically mounted on a firearm next to the back seat passenger,” Medford police said in a statement. “Believing that someone in the vehicle might be armed, the officers ordered all three occupants out of the car. ”
Click to expand...
But this is MA. I suspect the judge will use the sophisticated judicial reasoning “because gunz” to uphold the search.
 
M1911 said:
But this is MA. I suspect the judge will use the sophisticated judicial reasoning “because gunz” to uphold the search.
Click to expand...
If the gun was found on a search of the person and not the car, Terry would probably cover it. I know a spent shell caseing was uses as the basis to search for a gun in a car parketd on school property by a person known to hold an LTC. The fact that carry was not "on one's person" and thus not illegal on school property did not disuade the court from approving the warrant, or the district court from telling defense counsel "I don't want to hear anything about the warrant".
 
Last edited:
In fairness to those kids, the roads around town hall in Medford were designed by the dullest engineering minds in the commonwealth.

And I want a ghost gun or two.
 
They might have swapped seats for some stupid criminal reason or another. I've responded to crash calls where the driver and passenger swapped seats because the driver wasn't supposed to be driving. The driver and passengers in the other vehicle would usually tell the police about it.

Then there was a crash with six teen age girls in one car. They ALL claimed to have been sitting in the back seat when the crash happened.

Rob Boudrie said:
So did one misceant jump into the driver's seat after the first miscreant exited it? Or is there a way for a pasenger to improperly operate a motor vehicle?

If you carry a gun, legally or not, you shouold strive to be the gray man and get lost in a crowd of one. I know of one group of competitors who got hassled by the NYSP for guns because the state trooper saw the edge of a CT carry permit in the driver's wallet when he presented his driving license. The tropper appeared to be unaware of the 265.20§13b that provides a non-resident exemption, but a passenger in the car was able to produce badge immunity and the problem went away.
Click to expand...
 
I think that the gun will be admissible.

After officers were able to pull one of the occupants out of the car, he attempted to flee on foot.

“During a brief struggle, the suspect tried to pull a firearm from his waistband, but officers successfully took him down to the ground and recovered the firearm. It was later discovered that the firearm was a ‘ghost gun,’ an illegal firearm that is privately assembled and untraceable.”
Click to expand...

Rob Boudrie said:
If the gun was found on a search of the person and not the car, Terry would probablyu cover it.
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
Somewhere in there is a line about being charged with a possessing a Ghost Gun and an incorrect explanation of what that is. Somewhere towards the end of the article.

If the police can't identify the actual driver, they'll charge both people in the front seat and let the court sort it out.
Click to expand...
I suppose that makes some sense on the id of the driver, but the other part:

“During a brief struggle, the suspect tried to pull a firearm from his waistband, but officers successfully took him down to the ground and recovered the firearm. It was later discovered that the firearm was a ‘ghost gun,’ an illegal firearm that is privately assembled and untraceable.”
Click to expand...

I'm not saying these clowns were upstanding citizens. Just a little sick and tired of the term "ghost gun". It's not. It's just a gun which is in turn, just a tool.
 
PappyM3 said:
This seems like pretty loose probable cause. If only they didn’t consent, kept their mouths shut, and did as demanded. … but they did what criminals to.

“During the stop, the patrol sergeant who arrived for back up noticed a light typically mounted on a firearm next to the back seat passenger,” Medford police said in a statement. “Believing that someone in the vehicle might be armed, the officers ordered all three occupants out of the car. ”
Click to expand...
I was going to post the same.

Penn vs Mimms is the granddaddy SC ruling that allows police to lawfully order you to exit the vehicle on a valid legal traffic stop. The stop was valid and legal, so technically the cop could've ordered exit without PC.

However, Terry v Ohio is likely what the cop was leading to due to the gun flashlight. After vehicle exit, the cop would need RAS that the suspects were "armed and dangerous" to conduct a "Terry frisk" (brief outer pat on garments only to search for weapons). Fortunately, the cops were right that they were "armed and dangerous", but I don't think that having an accessory flashlight on the seat means you're a gun threat. Any of us could have en empty holster, or loose shell casings, or maybe a pro-2A bumper sticker that a cop can use as RAS to enter Terry territory.
 
"Ghost Guns" is just latest cliche that the Leftist Media uses. I'm old enough to remember when every gun was an "Uzi" even if it was a revolver. Then every gun was an "invisible to metal detectors Glock."

Journalists are mostly people too stupid to get into law school who seek to "change" the world and "do good."

namedpipes said:
I'm not saying these clowns were upstanding citizens. Just a little sick and tired of the term "ghost gun". It's not. It's just a gun which is in turn, just a tool.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top Bottom