Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an appalling story of sheriff's deputies in San Luis Obispo, California conspiring to fake a police report and invent a reason why they violated the 4th amendment. A man was target shooting on his own property in an unincorporated rural area and someone called 911 to report hearing shots fired. Based solely on that information, they cuffed the guy and searched his home -- without anything remotely like probable cause.
They then took his keys from him to open a locked gun safe in his home, again without anything even approaching probable cause. As the deputies admire the guns they found in the safe, they were told by dispatch that the man had a clear record and that the weapons in his safe were legally registered. Having found nothing, they then had to invent a reason why they went in.
The whole thing was caught on the audio recorders the deputies were wearing -- a perfect example of why every single law enforcement officer should have such recorders on them at all times when they're on duty. There are three Youtube videos documenting all of this and they are worth watching in their entirety.
Bear in mind: The man has done nothing illegal at all. All of the weapons that they seized were legally registered. And they were executing an illegal search to even see the guns in the first place. Every one of those deputies should be fired, immediately.
Politics
Comments
You are absolutely right. These deputies all need to be fired. There is no reason to enter anyone's house without a search warrant.
Posted by: Owen | July 30, 2010 11:23 AM
Is is not sad that longtime readers of Dispatches are so used to these type of stories that we cannot bring ourselves to write more than a few comments on each one? So let me add my own thoughts:
Jesus, these guys are a bunch of fucking needledicked assholes.
Posted by: Daniel Kolle | July 30, 2010 11:31 AM
What, they didn't shoot the guy's dog's? Pshaw! They call that a raid!
Posted by: how | July 30, 2010 11:31 AM
That's fucking terrible.
Any chance you have a transcript or could summarise what they're saying for those of us stuck behind work firewalls?
Posted by: Ender | July 30, 2010 11:38 AM
@1 No, having probable cause allows you to enter without a warrant. The problem is you actually need a bona fide probable cause, not the after-the-fact CYA bullshitting these deputies are engaging in. These jackals need to be debadged and kicked to the curb ASAP.
I'd be surprised if their union doesn't come roaring to their defense and the local prosecutor's office & their management doesn't just shrug it off. Remember, constitutional rights are just things criminals use to get in the way of justice being served - I know how the law really works, I've seen Mad Max 20 times! :P
Posted by: Bob | July 30, 2010 11:41 AM
I'd like to echo Ender's request.
Posted by: Freemage | July 30, 2010 11:45 AM
Properly, probable cause allows officers to obtain a warrant. Warrantless search is permissible when there is both probable cause (i.e. a warrant would have been issued if sought) and circumstances prohibit waiting for one, such as hot pursuit.
Neither applies in this case. The contents of a locked safe, for instance, aren't going anywhere.
As usual, IANAL and welcome correction by anyone who actually knows WTF he or she is talking about.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 30, 2010 11:53 AM
I wouldn't say that any officer who violates the 4th Amendment should be fired, because there are enough close cases to make that an overbroad approach (although it wasn't close in this case, it appears).
But I would say that any officer who falsifies paperwork should be fired. I think the concept of perjury should be extended to cover this, as their paperwork forms part of the legal trail.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 30, 2010 11:58 AM
James said:
Absolutely. What is the typical penalty for perjury? I don't think being fired is enough.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 30, 2010 12:02 PM
there is a perfect offence for this in the UK- Conspiring to pervert the course of justice; which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverting_the_course_of_justice
I think you guys could do with something similar.
Posted by: symball | July 30, 2010 12:05 PM
"Do I take everything?" Sounds almost like he was shopping there.
". . . Brennler thinks that eventual solution lies in the consciences of law enforcement top brass."
ROFLMAO. The only way that so many cops get away with shit like this because the top brass and the DA's let them. (If the DA had any integrity he would have never brought charges. But DA's in the States are not officers of the court, but rather politicians. That and elected judges is fully half of the problem with the justice system in the States.) They are entirely responsible. From the grandma who gets shot in Georgia, to the dog who gets shot in Missouri, to the guy who loses his guns in SLO.
(I was really surprised when they didn't shoot his dogs.)
Posted by: Equisetum | July 30, 2010 12:05 PM
I think the penalty for police lying on a police report should be much higher than the penalty for civilians lying on a police report. We give officers enormous authority over the lives of others and we almost always believe what they say over that of a civilian (despite the thousands of cases where they've been caught lying in such circumstances). There needs to be a serious deterrent to doing it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2010 12:06 PM
Fired for falsifying paperwork and voilation of basic rights?
Pshaw. As long as we're dreaming, let's wonder why these guys aren't being arrested for their criminal behavior.
Posted by: longstreet63 | July 30, 2010 12:10 PM
When was this and is there an update to this action?
Posted by: GH | July 30, 2010 12:13 PM
Given how easily it goes down, imagine how many other lies these 4 have reported.
Posted by: Foggg | July 30, 2010 12:25 PM
What most people don't realize is that he was shooting a .22LR caliber rifle - pretty much the smallest cartridge available to the public and one that is completely reasonable to shoot in a large yard without fear of collateral downrange effects. If on the other hand he was shooting a .223 or .308 in his yard, then the officers would have some motivation to investigate. If anything, a .22LR rifle from a neighbor's window sounds like a suppressed .223, but I wouldn't expect them to know or care. SLO is fairly rural, especially the area where it looks like he is (in the valley south of the city, east of Arroyo Grande) - it's surprising that one of his neighbors would call the cops on him, unless of course there was some other motivation. There is a not insignificant encroachment of high income property in that area over the last ten years - a golf course, country club, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a holdout from selling his land...blah blah blah, eh too conspiratorial.
Posted by: Brando | July 30, 2010 12:28 PM
Could we at least start with the penalties that you or I would receive for filing a false police report?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 30, 2010 12:29 PM
They do not deserve to be fired for what they did.
They deserve to be PROSECUTED FOR BREAKING THE LAW. These amendments are not "rules" that they violate. they are LAWS. The punishment for BREAKING THE LAW should be PROSECUTION AND IMPRISONMENT, not merely losing your job.
Posted by: Dugglebogey | July 30, 2010 12:40 PM
That is the job of the union. One of the more frustrating parts of my time as a union rep is having to defend someone for whom there is no defense. But that is what a union is supposed to do. If the officers have done what they are purported to have done (behind a firewall, here), then the union's job is to defend them and make sure that the rules are followed regarding internal disciplinary action up to and including being fired.
Posted by: Ogvorbis | July 30, 2010 12:55 PM
You're right, police should all be recorded and filmed at all times. That way the cops won't have to face as many vexatious, malicious and false complaints from the assholes of the world.
Posted by: Your right | July 30, 2010 1:06 PM
I'm glad to see Judge Alex Kozinski was on the right side of this issue on a previous matter, too bad he was on the dissent.
I don't get the machine gun charge, did he or did he not have one? The process of finding it was certainly unconstitutional, but under Scalia's holding opinion that compromises our castle doctrine rights; does that matter?
The videographers did a great job through-out the show until the end when they left this one question dangling given that it was the only possible illegal act Mr. Hart committed, and then in a manner that didn't provide police power to discover such.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 30, 2010 1:14 PM
Your right wrote:
This is true as well. For the good cops, that is exactly what being recorded does -- prevents false claims from being filed against them. For the bad ones, it does the opposite -- which is why they oppose it so strongly. But both outcomes are good for the public.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 30, 2010 1:19 PM
And there should be an award for the cop who regularly explains that "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" while totally flipping out at the idea of himself being recorded while on duty.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 30, 2010 1:35 PM
Thank the anti-gun attitude in California for a lot of this. Firearm registration = confiscation in many many cases. It's already happened in California. Remember California Highway Patrol officers confiscating legally owned firearms during Hurricane Katrina?
Posted by: Janey | July 30, 2010 1:36 PM
I agree that audio, at the minimum, GB has video recorders on some of its LEOs, should be standard equipment on all police. The police in England have found it keeps the police in a more circumspect frame of mind and, much favored by the police themselves, limit the need for note taking and frequently back up the police in figuring out what the sequence of events was and who did what.
Instead of having to testify flat-footed what they saw and what they did it is far easier for the policeman to simply offer commentary on the video. It helps keep everyone honest and also points out being a LEO is a complicated, hazardous and often conflicted job.
Of course some police like being bullies who are kept above suspicion so they can make up any story they like to excuse their behavior and such types don't like the idea of being monitored. Look for the police to object to the audio monitoring because without it there would be no issue.
The issue here lines up well with the bromide that it is the coverup that gets you, not the original offense. Had the police simply committed an illegal search it could be written off as a lack of training and judgment. Unpaid time off, a black mark on their records, possible loss of rank, and the injured party gets a cash settlement for their trouble and everyone is happy.
The problem is that they doubled down on their initial mistake by trying to cover it up and provide excuses for their mistakes. Then again I'm not sure imposing greater penalties and making an example of them gets you better behavior. They may have tried to cover up their mistakes out of simple fear of an unforgiving and punitive institutional environment.
You seldom get any closer to perfection by simply demanding perfection and increasing penalties. Any more that letting them make up their own rules gets you there. Too slack and too tight often end up at the same place.
Posted by: Art | July 30, 2010 1:46 PM
jesus christ! In my home town? In the town i live 12 miles from most of my life? I am always appalled by your reports of police misconduct, but when it hits home like this... I'm off to write an angry letter!
Posted by: Doug | July 30, 2010 1:55 PM
But they never get fired. Ever...
Posted by: Brian W | July 30, 2010 2:10 PM
I know there are only a few bad police, unless you count the nearly 100% who lie to cover for other police.
As long as accusations of police misconduct are investigated by the police, these problems will never end.
Posted by: Gary | July 30, 2010 3:21 PM
Well, yeah, but even after that you get the effect commented on here: cop assaults citizen, is caught on camera doing so, Department brings charges, cop's partner testifies against him ... and jury lets him off clean.
At some point the police may figure out that even if their lapel mikes and cameras catch them selling hard drugs to kindergartners, murdering blind old ladies, and boinking the Mayor's wife they're still not at any risk of real trouble.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 30, 2010 3:30 PM
"As long as accusations of police misconduct are investigated by the police, these problems will never end."
I believe this falls under the category of "Inmates running the Asylum"...Or when a teacher/professor/boss asks you "How do YOU think you did?/Grade yourself"
Nobody's ever going to say, "Boy, I sure fucked that up...I should fail!"
Posted by: Josh | July 30, 2010 3:33 PM
Understood.
Posted by: Owen | July 30, 2010 3:33 PM
Nothing will happen to these cops. Nothing at all. The justice system in San Luis Obispo County is worthlessly corrupt from the top down.
A friend of mine died up there several years ago, while he was a freshman at Cal Poly University. Those authorities were very quick to call it an accidental overdose and close it at that. They mishandled personal property--they threw away the decedent's clothes, rather than return them to his family. My friend died of a drug overdose at a party, drugs that several of his fraternity brothers (and their guests) were also using. This was a fraternity which had already been kicked off campus by Cal Poly's administration (though not yet had its charter revoked by its national organization.)
There was no investigation conducted into the drug trafficking within the fraternity--they simply didn't want the ill appearance of a "drug problem". Neither the DA's office cared to pursue it, nor did the SLO city police. When my friend's family hired private investigators, city and county authorities stonewalled or lied at every turn.
These cops were doing their jobs, as their superiors and the elected officials around them defined it. It doesn't matter if it's illegal, nobody with the authority to stop it is interested in doing so.
Posted by: Jason | July 30, 2010 4:44 PM
I'm not entirely sure the cops were violating the fourth amendment - it seems a little more grey than black and white. When responding to a call of shots fired/armed person, IIRC cops would be justified in searching the immediate vicinity to both insure their safety and secure any potential victims of the shooter/armed suspect. I'd also note that the number of shooters was unknown at that time. The gun safe was easily large enough to have contained a person. (This level of vigilance would have saved at least one victim of Jeffrey Dahmer - the naked young man pleading with police who were responding to a disturbance call.) Police deal with this all the time in cases like domestic disturbance - they can break in and assess the situation, search for victims, etc. The constitution also allows them to act on anything else they find in the process of that constitutionally-permitted search, like contraband, dangerous conditions, etc.
However, there is the issue of that pesky recording which shows the officers were clearly searching for justifications for the extensive search. It seems like the deputies should have called and gotten a warrant once the suspect and grounds were secured, which would almost certainly have been granted.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | July 30, 2010 5:32 PM
WTF? If the cops think you can't use guns in those settings, what the hell are guns for? Oh yeah, they're for bringing to teabag parties in the middle of the fucking city.
As for audio and video recordings, they should not only be mandated but the people being monitored should have absolutely no control over their operation and the people who do control 'em should have nothing to do with the people being monitored. I have been suggesting similar systems to deal with complaints about inappropriate behavior by paramedics.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 30, 2010 5:41 PM
So's my basement. And the trunk of my car. As well as my coat closet. Hell, we'd better just start searching every corner of every house in the country, because they all are big enough to contain dead bodies!!!
Thank god our Constitution, unlike some of our citizens, doesn't allow the cops to work on a worst-case-scenario basis.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 30, 2010 7:11 PM
TGAP @ 33:
All shooters know a target shooting set-up when they see one, especially given the type of rifle Mr. Hart was using, a .22LR caliber rifle. Certainly they should use caution on arrival to protect themselves, but the evidence alone argued only one obvious conclusion - the man was a target shooter and merely practicing.
I get how people not involved in shooting wouldn't understand this, but the cops should, otherwise they're not spending sufficient time of their own on ranges to insure they are capable of using their weapons wisely. These cops showed a lack of professionalism well below the typical citizen with a concealed weapon permit - we need to demand far better.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 30, 2010 7:40 PM
Everything seemed okay until the officers got at the property. Then everything went to hell for no good reasons.
My two cents? Deputies should respond to calls concerning gunfire. They need better training to discern when its the property owner doing target practice or something with more ill intent.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 30, 2010 8:53 PM
This is in the news here in slo too:
Judge for yourself
A video appears to contradict a police officer's version of an emotionally charged incident
BY ROBERT A. MCDONALD
Posted by: den | July 30, 2010 10:33 PM
@36 Michael Heath
Neither the police nor any investigator should arrive at the scene and assume that the situation is as it first appears. In California, Charles Chitat Ng tortured and murdered between 11 and 25 people, yet nothing was amiss at his isolated little rural home. The police were not there to hear the gunfire, so would not have been able to assess whether the shots were the muted pop of a .22LR, the sharp crack of an AR-15's .223, or the earsplitting roar of a .357 magnum. The gun, that the fellow unwisely carried with him to meet the police did not look like a proper match rifle that I recognized, and there would be no way from a distance to determine it's caliber. All the sheriff deputies knew was that a concerned citizen had called and reported gunshots at that location. When they arrived, they found a man holding a gun. Once they were in that position, they have a duty to secure the suspect and the scene, assess any threat, look for possible victims (some of whom may be hiding - possibly too scaed to come out).
I think the officers were acting (mostly) out of good faith here, unlike officers from Ottawa Hills, OH, New York, NY, and countless others. To me the cops reacted vigorously, and realized that they may have crossed the line and looked for justification in retrospect. One little factoid I gleaned from the videos was that he was in fact found to be in possession of a machine gun. Even in the light of recent court decisions on the second amendment's right to bear arms (decided incorrectly in my opinion, as these hooligans hardly constitute a "well-regulated militia," and "people" in this context has for decades been understood as referring to states, so this clause has until recently referred to states' rights to formation of their own militias, i.e. National Guard), possession of a machine gun by (most) private parties is still illegal.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | July 31, 2010 12:47 AM
I'll agree with #33, above. Deputies should have waited for feedback from Dispatch, regarding his record and weapons registration.
San Luis Obispo has a reasonably sophisticated Sheriffs Office, with special units. If I recall correctly, the county in on a major drug trafficking route that runs up the coast. While not called out on a domestic dispute incident, the deputies made clear the intention of searching to discern whether or not persons had been hurt from shots fired on the property.
The guy should not have reached for his cell phone. That was dumb and it set off suspicions of criminal activity, as in alerting individuals upon being approached by police.
OTOH, police made several serious mistakes, including what amounts to a illegal body search (for the keys), illegal entry (property damage) and questionable cause (exigency) that was clearly impossible to support - illegal search and seizure of property.
The firearms should have been returned. The charges should have been dropped and the district prosecutor warned off and the defendants record cleared of wrongdoing.
That did not happen, and it's troubling.
Recently in the UK, a man in his 60s, on his way home from work at his news stand, passed through a crowd involved in public protest. The individual was assaulted by police - hit by a heavy baton strike and knocked to the ground. He was seen to by a paramedic briefly, got to his feet and continued on his way home. Unknown to police, he sustained internal damage and later bled to death after collapse on the street. There was findings of liver disease that may have hastened death from the injury, but it does not excuse the act to subdue an individual who was clearly not involved in crowd violence. He was just an unfortunate passing by.
From the inquest, the coroners report stated that the victim died of a heart attack. No charges were made against the policeman who dealt the blow. No additional investigation of the case was warranted, as determined by the Pc's superiors. The family raised alarm bells over the apparent suppression of questionable findings and protests ensued. It was this protest by the public over questions unanswered
The original finding of cause of death was later refuted, when two other coroners confirmed internal damage sustained from a heavy strike to the body. The original coroner has since been charged in suspicious findings in four cases. The police, at a much higher internal level, reversed it's position and decided further investigation and charges might be in order. That was last week.
Yes, I find these actions problematic. I also would like to point out that your average seasoned officer is paid less than an similarly experienced teacher who works only 9 months per year. The ratio of emergency response personnel (police, fire, ambulance) to population served has been dropping, and average response time lengthening, over the past decade. That follows from tightening city and county budgets for municipal services, increased operating costs (including specialized gear and vehicles) inadequate manpower and training time for police, and a rapid jump in population from lax immigration controls - especially in the 1990s, when the increase surpassed that of population jump in the postwar babyboom era.
You think about that. We have much more drug trafficking and violent crime than ever before. Although the FBI states that reported crime rates for violent offenses and theft are falling larger cities, they have risen in moderate sized towns, as drug dealing the crime that accompanies drug use moved to the suburbs.
Population will continue to rise, because the US Congress will NOT address lax immigration laws that allowed the pretext of "family and relatives" of legal citizens to seek visas within the US, post 1965.
Too many people stretch thin the veneer of civil obedience and legal controls. Police are then forced to walk a tightrope of decisions.
Do they make mistakes? Yes. Do they get killed if they they double think their actions?
That too. The cowboy mentality we see in the videos, above, arise when we have too many laws and legal layers (many outdated) and when population mass rises and living space to be patrolled rises above that which can be prudently managed and attended to by municipal authority and social services under limited budgets and manpower.
Posted by: Passerby | July 31, 2010 1:47 AM
Innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that the phrase we hear all the time in this otherwise backwards country? It doesn't matter if he was holding a gun and went to talk to the officers with it - that is perfectly within his right. Now, I can certainly understand that an officer might feel some distress at the sight of a person carrying a gun while approaching, but that is part of what they get paid to do. Deal with it.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert, but I didn't see anything that would cause me to think probable cause was present or even likely. I can only conclude that, for whatever reason(s), there was concern about this guy, but rather than passively assess the situation further, it was decided to act, despite the lack of overwhelming reason to do so. This is sloppy and lazy and the fact that it happens to extend the lifespan of an officer by some margin is completely irrelevant to the situation. This is by no means unique to the police - laziness and sloppiness are everywhere, in all (well, maybe not at ALL, but seemingly all) fields of endeavor. And we all have moments of such and that's not something for us to worry TOO much about; certain areas require more, however - law enforcement is an excellent example.
And while it is true that machine guns are by and large not allowable to the average citizen, that does not mean it is an absolute. From what I've read, he was found to have proper registrations for ALL of his guns, which would certainly seem to imply that the machine gun was included. It seems such a strawman...
To summarize the summary of the summary - people are a problem. That's why we have police and that's why we police the police right back. It matters not that the job is dangerous - that is the job.
Posted by: IasasaI | July 31, 2010 2:01 AM
@38
No, that's about an entirely different incident--Where a police officer tried to use a tazer on an 82 year old man that was fully cooperating, and then lied about the man's behavior to justify his tazer use. Arroyo Grande PD, if I'm not mistaken.
But yeah, Cops in the San Luis area kinda suck.
Posted by: Alan Scott | July 31, 2010 6:30 AM
Here's how this call should have gone down: Officers arrive, tell him to put down the gun, then walk over and talk to the man. Ask him why he's shooting the gun. He says he's just siting his gun and taking target practice. They look at the setup, see that this is, in fact, exactly what is going on, do a basic check to make sure the weapon is legally registered, as it was, and then apologize to the man for the inconvenience and return to the office. All perfectly reasonable, all within their authority, and no dishonesty or invented rationalizations for an illegal search required.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 31, 2010 8:28 AM
This could have all been avoided if only the deputies had gotten a dog to alert to possible drugs at the gate, then the front door and then the safe, thereby having irrefutiatable probable cause.
Posted by: Steve | July 31, 2010 12:44 PM
@42. No, you are the one referring to a different case.
@43: You didn't watch the video, as one of the officers comes to the same conclusions and advises his cohorts to take this same tact.
This guy lives on 2.5 acres. He has a practice range set up. As you can see in the video, he practices with high-powered rifles and scopes. On a frigging one-acre lot.
Yes, he is discharging a registered weapon on his property, however we don't know if it's legal to discharge weapons in this rural area. We'll get to that later.
Bullets discharged from rifles aren't necessarily going to stay on a small one-acre lot. Firing ranges tend to be out in the middle of nowhere for a damn good reason. Bullets can travel for a mile or more very easily.
I grew up on 5 acres, on the dead-end of a dirt road in SE Michigan. Our back acre was a grass field; it could have been used for target practice, but it would be within hittin' distance of two neighbors homes. I'm reasonably confident, that even in the laid-back 70's Oakland County Sheriffs deputies would have been called by neighbors and responded in a not to pleasant manner, had I elected to stupidly engage in target practice at home.
Even back then, it was tacitly illegal to discharge weapons in a semirural residential area.
The neighbor who called the SLO Sheriffs Office must have known he practiced shooting his weapons - admits that he had been doing so for some time. I think there just might be more going on here than breach of 4th amendment rights.
Among the 14 weapons (of which only 8 were registered), he had a machine gun. Did you notice? This guy had modest gun collection with not one, but two gun safes.
He was not clearly visible when officers arrived - this was mentioned about 5 times in the video sequence leading up to officers confronting the suspect at his front gate.
1. Possession of a machine gun is illegal in California without a special Federal permit. They are tightly controlled everywhere in the US and illegal in many areas.
2. Shooting in a rural area closed to the use of firearms in California may result in a misdemeanor charge of Penal Code §12031 (possessing a loaded firearm in an area closed to shooting).
They arrested him on the latter item, but I suspect that his machine gun may have been one of the firearms confiscated that not had been correctly registered.
See:10 Common “Legal Traps” For California Gun Owners
www.gunlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=28
The video source is also troubling. This was an amateur video (with crappy audio recording and silly music) from a community internet news station. They chose a very inflammatory event to launch their little news service.
http://www.kccn.tv/
I tracked it back from the rightwing TheFreeRepublic website. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic
Is it heavily biased to attract attention?
Does it tell the whole story?
You decide.
Posted by: Passerby | July 31, 2010 1:50 PM
Wow, with as blatant as the self-incrimination was by the police on this video, it angers me that the P.D. convinced the man to plead no contest to a BS charge. (unless he didn't have access to it until after?) But in a way, he is lucky; it could have been much worse. One lesson everyone should know. When faced with angry shouting cops pointing firearms at you, DO NOT MOVE UNLESS THEY TELL YOU TO. He's lucky he didn't get shot reaching for his cellphone. Even when you say "Cellphone" and do it slowly, believe it or not, it's not in their best interest to trust you and therefore relax. Also, when you don't listen, it makes them think you aren't taking them seriously, and that pisses them off. So they are simultaneously scared and pissed-off guys with guns. And in that situation, it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, unfortunately, the guys with the guns win. Death by misunderstanding is a crappy way to go.
Posted by: May Destroyer | July 31, 2010 11:38 PM
TGAPDad wrote, of the 2nd Amendment;
Not so. That's how some people interpreted it, but that interpretation was strongly contested by others. Most importantly, it had almost zero judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court in recent cases was not reversing some decades-old judicial understanding of the 2nd Amendment, but operating in what was mostly unmarked and (judicially) unexplored territory.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 1, 2010 1:11 AM
I’ve read a lot about this case ever since the video was posted on www.calguns.net. I know that the calguns group has been very busy getting this passed around. The reporter and several of Mr. Hart’s friends and neighbors have joined in the discussion there. There are a lot of details being tossed around and it is difficult to sort out what really happened. Apparently the reporter has in total 5 or so hours of video/audio recording that he edited down to get the 22 minute video report. Some of the less controversial bits…
This happened in April 2008. He was charged with felony discharge of a firearm with gross negligence, felony brandishing a firearm at a police officer, felony possession of a machine gun, felony possession of an assault weapon and misdemeanor obstructing.
After the preliminary hearing, the judge dismissed the discharge, brandishing and machine gun charges leaving the assault weapon and obstructing charges.
In October 2009 he pled no contest to obstructing and the DA dropped the assault weapon charge.
They never charged him with violation of PC 12031 possession of a loaded firearm most likely because he was both on his own fenced property and in unincorporated territory where discharge of a firearm is not prohibited. Either of which would allow him to possess a loaded firearm under PC12031.
The charges and their dismissal seem to support his story.
First, he was charged with felony discharge of a firearm with gross negligence. His story is that he was firing at a target with an adequate backdrop and that there were no houses, persons, cars, roads, cows, etc. beyond. Since this is a simple fact to check and it ended up being dismissed I’d say that someone checked and found that it was probably safe to shoot where he was.
Second, he was charged with felony brandishing a firearm at a police officer. His story was that he held his 22rifle pointed up and looked around his truck to see what was up. He then put the rifle down and walked out to talk to the cops. The judge probably didn’t believe that he pointed his gun at the cops menacingly since if he had he would probably be dead.
Third, he was charged with felony possession of a machine gun. Now this was likely in his safe so we might have a problem with the search/seizure. I don’t know if there was a suppression hearing on this or not. Now possession of an unregistered machine gun is a really big deal if true and usually the feds (BATFE) jump all over these cases. Even people with malfunctioning semi-autos that double-fire get the feds attention. I find it hard to believe that if this guy really had a machine gun that they would have let some superior court judge in Podunk San Luis Obispo let the guy walk so easily. Also, apparently he had 14 guns, all but one (the assault weapon) have been returned. So it seems likely, that they charged that one as both a machine gun and an assault weapon and it really wasn’t a machine gun.
Fourth, he was charged with felony possession of an assault weapon. Now California Assault Weapons laws are difficult to interpret and understand. California Assault Weapons are identified either by being on a list or by a combination of features. His story is that he had an Off-List-Lower receiver (OLL in the jargon) in his safe. If this is true then it is not an assault weapon although it could be made into one. Note that it could also be made into a California legal semi-auto rifle depending on how it is assembled. This charge was dismissed by the DA when he pled no contest to the obstruction charge. Again, perhaps the DA doesn’t think this can be admitted based on the search of the guys safe. Note that the guy has petitioned the court to instruct the sheriff to return this OLL receiver to him. On 7/19/2010 the judge denied this motion “pending new prepared order” whatever that means.
Also, some mention of registration has been made up thread. In California only handguns and assault weapons are generally registered, typical rifles and shotguns are not. Also, handguns owned prior to the enactment of the registration law need not be registered until they are sold or otherwise transferred. So it is no issue that only 8 of his 14 firearms were registered. It could simply mean that 6 of his firearms are rifles.
This guy lives in an unincorporated part of San Luis Obispo County where discharge of a firearm is not prohibited. I am not familiar with his specific area but in the rural areas of California I am familiar with seeing a ‘man with a gun’ and hearing ‘shots fired’ are daily and routine experiences. A 911 call reporting this without more wouldn’t warrant even a casual contact by the cops. I would be interested in hearing the 911 call(s) and radio traffic to see what the cops were expecting and how they might try to justify their way over the top actions to some dude plinking in is rural backyard.
Even if their behavior at first contact could be justified based on the 911 call(s), professionals should have quickly been able to determine that nothing wrong is going on. They should have dusted him off and apologized and then made contact with the 911 caller for more info.
Posted by: Wolverine | August 1, 2010 2:26 AM
Thanks for posting! Police State in Full Effect!
Posted by: batteredbypd | August 4, 2010 10:46 PM
The government is corrupt from top to bottom, inside and out. Nobody cares, nobody does anything except yammer on once in a while when someone gets -really- done over. Every day people are being sent to prison for things like drugs, statutory rape, and involuntary manslaughter while the government and their friends are constantly selling poisons while calling them therapeutic, raping the land and our wallets, and flat out killing and destroying people and their possessions not just in the US, but all over the world.
What baffles me is that those cops haven't been lynched already, and that I had to discover this event by googling 'is make up a lie' (A philosophical question that I have a perspective on). Some day a lot of people are going to realize that something is horribly wrong, and when they do they will decide something needs to be done. Unfortunately it is likely that at that point, there will be nothing they can do and it will be too late.
Posted by: A person | October 27, 2010 6:11 AM
These deputies don't just need to be fired, they need to be executed on a public stage. Fuck this country. The USA, whatever it was meant to be, no longer exists.
Posted by: George | December 1, 2010 6:54 AM
Oh, and just remember people! The only people in the WORLD who should be allowed to own guns are rejects who have a high school diploma and a piece of paper that says they spent a few months down at the community college cop school. Yes, only THEY are intelligent enough to own and shoot guns.
Fuck, I hope somebody has already assassinated those fucking worthless piece of shit cops, who are sad excuses for human beings and Americans.
Posted by: Jon | December 1, 2010 7:02 AM
I think this is a remake of Furhman except the "suspect" is white. I hope that one day this does not come back to bite the officers in the butt as I am quite sure they have guns at home too! We target practice here often and enjoy the "sport". It is one of the pleasures of living in the country. My husband says he hopes these actions from officials do not require the people to defend the constitution as that should be the job of our law enforcement and our government. We know that if they do not defend our rights (defending the constitution) people will be hurt on all sides.
Posted by: Diane Palmer | December 5, 2010 6:19 PM