• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Police Draw Guns On Man Assembling Toy Weapon

Agreed...

I can tolerate their first reaction. May not have been the best way to go about it, but whatever...

As for the searching afterwards, questioning the kid... THROWING the gun against the dashboard???

After they found out it was a toy?

What's up with that? That is inexcusable! This is where I would ask to see the tape.


That's a good gun law question anyhow... the gun was NOT concealed... and in NH you do NOT need a license anyhow for a non-concealed loaded weapon. Sure it wasn't a pistol, but even if it was real.... I don't see how that would be against the law.
 
You're right Carter. I wouldn't sue, but I would file a formal complaint with the department or the city.
 
derek said:
You're right Carter. I wouldn't sue, but I would file a formal complaint with the department or the city.

The only reason I would advocate a suit is my doubt a formal complaint would amount to anything. I'd LIKE to think the complaint would work, then the suit would be gross overkill.

There definitely needs to be accountability here. This is a gross violation of "Propable Cause" and definite heavy handedness by the LEO's involved.
 
Did you watch the video?

The gun HAD THAT PLASTIC ORANGE TIP. My understanding was the reason that that was put on plastic guns so THIS WOULDN'T HAPPEN!

Not anything against the LEOs here. But this sounds like a board cop that was just looking for some action. Or one that was picked on when he was younger and is now getting the power trips that go with being a cop.
 
Gimme a break, outside of a supermarket putting together a (replica) rifle. What do yo expect the police to do when they receive a call like that?
If the cop walked up to the truck and was shot by a would be robber, everyone would be saying how stupid the cop was for not following procedures.
After reading and seeing that report, I would have done the same exact thing. And I would hope that every other police officer getting a call like that would also follow suit. That's how you go home at the end of the shift, like it or not.
 
But when you look over and see that it has that big orange tip on it why do you pull the guy out, search him, question his kid, throw the gun around in his car, and hold him while you search the rest of the car.

I just think that it's a little overkill.

I mean, I can see him pulling the gun and asking him to get out of the car. But when you see that it's a plastic toy, I would think that you would just say, sorry. And be on your way.
 
I personally don't have a problem with the LEO pulling the gun. Unless there is a positive ID on the firearm he has no choice. I didn't like the handling of the Americans who broke no law, but were treated like criminals.
 
dwarven1 said:
derek said:
Jon,

Was there a need to search the vehicle if no law was broken?

Or does possession of a toy gun indicate that he might have a real one stashed somewhere?

Sure, it's common knowledge that while criminals keep their real gun concealed, they frequently carry toy guns openly to show how tough they are, and to give police a reason to search them. We now return to our regularly scheduled real world.

Ken
 
derek said:
Jon,

Was there a need to search the vehicle if no law was broken?
Absolutley, the vehicle HAD to be cleared. Just because a toy gun was found doesn't mean there wasn't a real firearm in the vehicle, like it or not. Did the caller say "He had an AR15 with an aimpoint and an orange tip on it"? We wouldn't know if any laws were broken until the search was completed. You have to look at the call in it's totality.
The officers had no way of knowing that rifle was a toy without handling it, orange tip or not. Is an officer on a "hot" call to disreguard a "gun" because of an orange tip? NO.
The officer did nothing wrong and there will not be a lawsuit. If anything, the guy will get a $10k's from the town's insurance company.
The guy did a stupid thing. But he should be thanking God that he followed their directions and didn't make any stupid moves.
 
NOT that I'm defending how the police acted, however, I'm familiar with Salem (I used to live in Lawrence and spent a lot of hours in Salem in my younger days). It's just over the border from Lawrence, MA and they get quite a bit of Lawrence's scum up there.

They could have apologised to the guy after finding out that it was a toy, and the orange tip was definately visible when the guy was holding it out the window.

If it were me, I'd file more than just a complaint, especially after them seeing it was a toy. That's not justification to search the truck.
 
Searching the vehicle when no law is broken is about as good as always arresting and jailing a male in a domestic when the only evidence is the statement of the female.

If the call would have been someone saw a man handling a plastic bag of white powder at the back of his car, and when the officer showed up it was a bag of baking soda to ease the smell of hockey gear in the trunk. Would they continue to search the car for drugs when the probable cause was lost?

I'm all for catching bad guys, and I'll always give consent to search, but when all it takes is a false statement to violate someones rights, I have a hard time dealing with it.

IMO, if the LEO arrived at the car, drew down on them, secured the suspects, found the toy gun, took statement from the father and child. I don't see why they would still have cause to continue to violate human rights.
 
They didn't need probable cause, the standard is lower in this case and a reasonable suspicion was all that was needed for a "frisk" of the passenger compartment.
Again, it was not known that no law was broken until the permissible search was completed.
They did not open the engine compartment, trunk (if there was one) rip seats apart, pull door panels off. It was a "frisk" of the vehicle's passenger area for weapons.
 
I would think reasonable suspicion would be null in void when the resonable suspicion was found out to be a plastic toy gun.
 
3 or 4 officers respond. 1 officer orders him out of the vehicle, without the gun. The other's are covering. 1 comes to the first officer and helps secure the "suspect". 1 or 2 officers proceed to the MV where the gun is. Get it, the gun is in the truck.
Watching the vid again, dad says "they searched me and then they went over to the truck and they looked in the truck". Was the truck even "searched"? We don't know. Could it have been leagally? Yup.
 
Maybe, maybe not. It's not good to arm chair QB anyways. If they searched on their own after I dont like, if they just looked in through the windows fine, if the father gave consent to search fine. [wink]

I'll pipe down now. :D
 
Salem, NH???

You mean the same place where my car was broken into DIRECTLY in front of MAIN GATE to the Rockingham Mall; where they took so long inside my car that they UNWRAPPED THE WIRE CONNECTORS rather than cutting the wires to the stereo?

And when the cops arrived, all they said was, literally, "We get these calls every day".

Let's face it, they were looking to lay the smack down on someone who WASN'T a gang-banger.

After all, if he bought his son a toy gun, he's OBVIOUSLY an eeevil white male and can therefore be hassled/profiled/badgered without fear of retribution...
 
Jay G said:
Salem, NH???

You mean the same place where my car was broken into DIRECTLY in front of MAIN GATE to the Rockingham Mall; where they took so long inside my car that they UNWRAPPED THE WIRE CONNECTORS rather than cutting the wires to the stereo?

Yup - the one with all those great security folks who drive around in that neat "Security" car with the bubble on top and most of whom are so damn fat that it's a miracle they can fit inside it.
 
Lynne said:
Jay G said:
Salem, NH???

You mean the same place where my car was broken into DIRECTLY in front of MAIN GATE to the Rockingham Mall; where they took so long inside my car that they UNWRAPPED THE WIRE CONNECTORS rather than cutting the wires to the stereo?

Yup - the one with all those great security folks who drive around in that neat "Security" car with the bubble on top and most of whom are so damn fat that it's a miracle they can fit inside it.

Bingo. They've got $40,000 SUVs with $8/hour rent-a-cops in 'em who are more concerned with flirting with the "Hot Topics" salesgirls than checking out the scumbags doing smash-n-grabs in the parking lot...

Not that I'm bitter, mind you...
 
While I can understand the original gung-ho attitude of cops going to a call like this, it sounds rather obvious that it was a toy gun. I don't get why they had to question the kid. What was that about?
 
SiameseRat said:
While I can understand the original gung-ho attitude of cops going to a call like this, it sounds rather obvious that it was a toy gun. I don't get why they had to question the kid. What was that about?
Everyone but the stupid cops knows that toy guns are never used by criminals to commit crimes, right?
Talk to the kid? Ya, calm him down first. Confirm his identity and question him to make sure you get the whole story for the report that you have to leave to CYA from the complaint that will be filed and the impending lawsuit.

Not to mention that if they didn't talk to the kid and someone saw their 8 yr old kid on the 6 o'clock news that was just abducted by some pervert who lured him out of the yard with a toy gun, they'd be vilified for not doing their job and "protecting us" like we pay them to do.
 
JonJ said:
Not to mention that if they didn't talk to the kid and someone saw their 8 yr old kid on the 6 o'clock news that was just abducted by some pervert who lured him out of the yard with a toy gun, they'd be vilified for not doing their job and "protecting us" like we pay them to do.

That part I'll give ya. I think that that made good sense. He's an underage kid, and you need to make sure that he belongs with who he's in the truck with. As a parent, I would hope that any cop would be do that with my child if she wasn't with me...
 
Back
Top Bottom