New Boston, NH Police Chief abuses power Update Post #704

strangenh said:
Just another plot by the Woman to have the Man bring us down?[wink]

I agree protection orders are used outside their intent (and if you believe the stats DeBecker talks about, they are also ineffective in the very circumstances most people think they are necessary). But let's pause to note that all the talk asking how anyone knew which guns he had has a rather dull, likely explanation - his spouse may have told the judge.
Click to expand...

In fact, DeBecker asserts the Restraining Order is often the trigger for violence.

You raise a valid point about the spouse telling the judge about the guns, although we're talking something in excess of 20 guns here. (9 to Kiirkell, 12 to Pratt, and something like 9 to MFL). It would be a well-informed spouse, indeed, that would be able to accurately account for that many guns.
 
ScottS said:
In fact, DeBecker asserts the Restraining Order is often the trigger for violence.

You raise a valid point about the spouse telling the judge about the guns, although we're talking something in excess of 20 guns here. (9 to Kiirkell, 12 to Pratt, and something like 9 to MFL). It would be a well-informed spouse, indeed, that would be able to accurately account for that many guns.
Click to expand...

TRUE, but a divorce lawyer she consulted before filing may well have told her to get a count. For all we know he has a nice folder in a filing cabinet with every purchase and disposition. Like Scriv says, we just don't have a lot of facts to go on.
 
strangenh said:
TRUE, but a divorce lawyer she consulted before filing may well have told her to get a count. For all we know he has a nice folder in a filing cabinet with every purchase and disposition. Like Scriv says, we just don't have a lot of facts to go on.
Click to expand...

See? Right there you got yet another reason to hate lawyers.
 
cekim said:
Silly question - isn't the issue of ownership secondary to MFLR's 4A rights?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to make a 4A argument in this case since MFLR voluntarily turned over the firearms after consultation with his attorney. A 4A argument could have been made if MFLR ultimately refused to hand over the guns and the CLEO took them anyway.

I do not blame MFLR for turning over the guns given the circumstances but it took it out of the 4A context.
 
Last edited:
one-eyed Jack said:
What's with this 4473 thing that you guys keep bringing up? Nothing goes into dealer inventory via 4473. A contract could specify the future disposition, such as legal return after a certain time, sell them for me, transfer to other parties, etc. Jack.
Click to expand...

We are aware of that. I think the point that was trying to be made was that entering into the bound book in and of itself would not be a determining factor in determining ownership but that a 4473 filed subsequently logging the firearm out to someone would support that ownership claim along with any additional documentation (i.e. contracts/bill of sales).
 
Half Cocked said:
There is no 4A argument in this case that can be made. It is not applicable since MFLR voluntarily turned over the firearms after consultation with his attorney. A 4A argument could have been made if MFLR ultimately refused to hand over the guns and the CLEO took them anyway.

I do not blame MFLR for turning over the guns given the circumstances but it took it out of the 4A context.
Click to expand...
Neither do I - and your answer, sadly sounds correct.

I say "sadly," because too often we are "voluntarily" trading our rights under duress without bruises or blood...

I think we make a mistake in our justice system in viewing this sort of thing as "voluntary". We need to close the loop and punish those who violate civil rights (if indeed it is found that this is the case) under the assumption that there is no such thing as "voluntary" when there are armed officers threatening you with arrest.

It's obviously a balancing act, as I mentioned previously. I don't want LEO's terrified to do their job, but at least one plausible scenario here has the Chief knowing he was on the line and choosing to step further. If that's the case, there needs to be sanction to prevent bad behavior in the future. If "voluntary" is rolled out as the explanation for why no civil rights violation occurred here, we all pay the price...
 
cekim said:
We need to close the loop and punish those who violate civil rights (if indeed it is found that this is the case) under the assumption that there is no such thing as "voluntary" when there are armed officers threatening you with arrest.
...
Click to expand...

There can always be an argument made as to the "volutariness" of the consent given the circumstances. When you are given the opportunity to make consultation with your attorney prior to the "voluntariness" i think it would be a difficult argument to make.

Just my opinion.
 
Half Cocked said:
There can always be an argument made as to the "volutariness" of the consent given the circumstances. When you are given the opportunity to make consultation with your attorney prior to the "voluntariness" i think it would be a difficult argument to make.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The presence of the attorney doesn't really make any difference to me if the answer is: "You'll win, but expect to get arrested now, spend some time behind bars and pay lots of money - oh and your business will suffer as I expect some difficulties with your FFL in the mean time."

This, like most things, isn't "black and white" for me, but just working through the publicly available information, I don't see anything I'd call "voluntary" here...

If you stop someone from murdering you - they still get charged with a crime... An extreme example, but hopefully it demonstrates my point. You should not have to show that you had a worse go of it than Nelson Mandela to demonstrate your civil rights were violated. It's all about "feedback" for me in correcting bad behavior to prevent it in the future - regardless of who is behaving badly.
 
Last edited:
cekim said:
The presence of the attorney doesn't really make any difference to me if the answer is: "You'll win, but expect to get arrested now, spend some time behind bars and pay lots of money - oh and your business will suffer as I expect some difficulties with your FFL in the mean time."
Click to expand...

That is between you and your attorney. As far as the court is concerned.. you consulted with your attorney and then you voluntarily turned over the firearms. I am not defending the way the CLEO acted or conducted himself if the reports are true. I am only stating that there really is not a good 4A case here.
 
Half Cocked said:
There can always be an argument made as to the "volutariness" of the consent given the circumstances. When you are given the opportunity to make consultation with your attorney prior to the "voluntariness" i think it would be a difficult argument to make.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

The devil is in the details. We all know there is a different ballgame between:

"Sir I would like to search your vehicle but I need your permission to proceed. "
and
"Give me that now or I will arrest you... "
and
"I have a (presumably lawful) court order for the seizure of items X, Y, and Z, and if you do not surrender them I can arrest you. "
etc.

I can imagine that in the first two cases it would be easy to say "I don't consent" and have it actually mean something in the end but in the third case the notional of "unlawful search and seizure" is rendered moot by a court order/warrant. Obviously this goes flying off the rails if that warrant or court order is legally invalid, of course, but even if it is, the sad part is that Chief Jerkwad there is likely still protected from any disciplinary action or other wrongdoing. The most anyone can flog him on is for being a an unrepentant Jerkwad..... when's the last time a LEO ever got in trouble for following what was presumed to be a lawful order? (Doesn't make it right, of course.... but in a lot of ways a LEO is insulated from mistakes caused by the other arm of the system. )

-Mike
 
Half Cocked said:
And what contract are we referring?
Click to expand...

You assert that Jim handing over the guns was voluntary. It wasn't.

Let's say I'm walking down the street and Thuggie confronts me with a 9mm. He asks for my wallet and I give it to him. I guess Thuggie isn't *really* guilty of any crime since I voluntarily gave him my wallet. I mean, I had a choice, right?

This is no different.

IF you stipulate that Jim had a legal right to retain the guns, and the chief said gimmie or else and Jim handed them over, it wasn't voluntary.

Lets suppose the chief said gimmie or I'll shoot you (instead of arrest). Is it STILL voluntary that Jim handed them over?

Voluntary is a matter of choosing to do something, not doing something because there is no viable alternative.
 
Half Cocked said:
That is between you and your attorney. As far as the court is concerned.. you consulted with your attorney and then you voluntarily turned over the firearms. I am not defending the way the CLEO acted or conducted himself if the reports are true. I am only stating that there really is not a good 4A case here.
Click to expand...
Agreed - based on how the courts will perceive this, I think you are 100% right.

Which is a problem far bigger than this case. One of the flaws of our justice system is that it is too willing to accept the outcome regardless of the intervening abuse. I'm thinking specifically of various forfeiture/confiscation laws as I type this...

The system is going to make mistakes, but they need to be corrected and those who suffer need to be compensated. Particularly those who were negligent in those mistakes need to pay a price befitting their level of negligence.

drgrant said:
The devil is in the details.
Click to expand...
Well, there and my Rice Crispies right? [laugh]
 
Here's a twist... what if this man had instead turned his firearms over to a MA FFL for consignment. Would the NH order have been binding on a MA FFL?

I wonder where that would have gone?
 
richc said:
Here's a twist... what if this man had instead turned his firearms over to a MA FFL for consignment. Would the NH order have been binding on a MA FFL?

I wonder where that would have gone?
Click to expand...
Much slower - owing to a cluster-!@#$ of interstate power assertion, but I am sure MA would find a way to make it worse... [laugh]
 
namedpipes said:
Let's say I'm walking down the street and Thuggie confronts me with a 9mm. He asks for my wallet and I give it to him. I guess Thuggie isn't *really* guilty of any crime since I voluntarily gave him my wallet. I mean, I had a choice, right?

This is no different.

IF you stipulate that Jim had a legal right to retain the guns, and the chief said gimmie or else and Jim handed them over, it wasn't voluntary.

Lets suppose the chief said gimmie or I'll shoot you (instead of arrest). Is it STILL voluntary that Jim handed them over?

Voluntary is a matter of choosing to do something, not doing something because there is no viable alternative.
Click to expand...

When you want to talk apples to apples and the fourth amendment let me know. [rolleyes]
 
How is this not apples to apples? The fact one wears a badge and the other is a thug? It is not meant to be snide but truly curious. One is threatening ones life, the other is very much threatening your livelihood if you do not do what they want.

This could very well be an excellent 4A case in reguards to police officers conduct and using lies to obtain property. Yes the courts have ruled that Officers may lie to suspects during interrogation etc, but don't think that ruling would cover what happened here.
 
Skald said:
How is this not apples to apples? The fact one wears a badge and the other is a thug? It is not meant to be snide but truly curious. One is threatening ones life, the other is very much threatening your livelihood if you do not do what they want.
Click to expand...

The first example deals with a thug.. not a gov't agent therefore the fourth amendment doesn't apply... pretty simple. The example of the CLEO threatening to shoot the person is a very serious "crime" and would again have no bearing on the fourth amendment, a civil violation.
 
Ok, can understand that aspect. But to think that the case may not revolve around the 4A is bit premature. There is an argument as to who has possession of said firearms, which is a clearly dealing with property, and the CLEO possibly coming in and obtaining property under unusual means and motives.
 
I think everyone is overcomplicated the whole wretched business.

The Constitution is quite clear - Thou shalt not take property without a warrant. Everyone seems to have an argument why this is valid or that is incorporated or the other is human right but not a civil right and bananas should never be eaten with chocolate pudding.

To say an officer has the right to take property without that warrant and justify it with legalese is utter cr@p. To say an officer acting without honor is "covered" because otherwise how could the "good" cops do their work without fear of being arrested themselves is hypocrisy.

HC: Is the LAW on [STRIKE]your side[/STRIKE] the side of chief-k? I don't know and frankly I don't care. Morality, in this case, is not.
 
Last edited:
namedpipes said:
To say an officer has the right to take property without that warrant and justify it with legalese is utter cr@p.
Click to expand...
I think what HC is saying is something else.

He is saying under the eyes of the law, the surrender was "voluntary" because MFLR didn't refuse, get arrested, etc...

This is the rub - if you don't put yourself in harms way you are rewarded by the courts with the judgment that your civil rights weren't harmed.

I believe upon further reflection after asking the question that he is entirely correct about this. You and I find this reprehensible, but that does not change whether or not it IS how the law is interpreted today.

OT: Which is why "suitability" is so horrible in MA since you are prohibited from even suggesting that you disagree with the system for fear of losing suitability and in doing so, lose your standing with the courts on civil rights violations. Compliance through silence...
 
Well, I stopped down and said hi to Jim last night, and of course he chewed my ear off [smile].

BUT, I figured out a way to make him take my money.

Membership: +1[dance][thumbsup] Anyone else?
 

Similar threads

New Orleans Police Chief Pushes More Gun-Free Zones — Where Tourists Can’t Be Armed for Self-Defense
Replies
21
Views
365
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
767
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
  • Poll
NH - Governor's race
Replies
17
Views
487
Grendizer138
Grendizer138
Police Officers Firearm, New York Post
Replies
10
Views
757
powerman
powerman
Additional new caselaw affirms: the police and the courts believe cops are allowed to kill people
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
1K
ThePreBanMan
ThePreBanMan
Back
Top Bottom