Cops confiscate firearms in Lakewood ...Ohio

[Elhuero]

does every LEO in ohio have their heads up their asses?

[SuperiorDG]

And of course the manager should have asked to see the warrant before unlocking the door.

This is a problem. Most people see the cops as "individuals in a position of trust." Kind of like teachers with our kids. But the problem is they are not held to the same standard. Teacher talks dirty to there student on Facebook they get 50 years. Cops violate one's constitutional rights they get reprimanded, take a little time off, or get fired. Person in a position of trust should be held to a much higher standard. If you or I would have done the same we would be behind bars.

[Zundfolge]

The only way I can see for this to slow down or stop if every time it happens the police get the crap sued out of them! Then it would't be financially wise to confiscate guns illegally.

And it has to be personal too, not just the department getting sued.

If you're going to violate the basic constitutional rights of American "civilians" and you think you can because you're "special" with your little badge, you need to be sued into oblivian and thrown into jail. Period.

"I vas just followink orders" was the most oft repeated phrase at Nuremberg ... it has no place with our police and it should not be accepted as an excuse any longer.


US CODE- TITLE 18-PART I-CHAPTER 13-§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

WHY AREN'T MORE CROOKED COPS PROSECUTED UNDER THIS STATUTE?

[Irving]

I could post an article every single day about officers doing bad things. It would reflect poorly on my true personality though; and the police.

[kidicarus13]

This is not just an example of a single officer doing something "wrong", this is about an entire dept. taking away an individual's right.

[Irving]

I know it is. I was just commenting on the cop hating.

[Elhuero]

there are a few things that could make me go on the warpath.

something like this might be one of them.

[Stingray]

Holly shiite. Unbelievable.

Is this what our country will turn into? Some gov't employee doesn't like what you have so they take it and hide behind the judicial system.

[SuperiorDG]

This event has me really thinking. What makes a gun a different piece of property then lets say a TV. If the cops came in and took her TV then it would be seen as stealing by most. Guns, however, being that the they are an item that has been granted to us by the Constitution, and therefore possession of which is open to legal interpenetration and thus lives in a grey area are seen differently. Some in our society see guns not as property but as something else thus "allowing" the government to take said items. Is this a slippery slop? Will government one day see other items as they now see guns?

[Bailey Guns]

This event has me really thinking. What makes a gun a different piece of property then lets say a TV. If the cops came in and took her TV then it would be seen as stealing by most. Guns, however, being that the they are an item that has been granted to us by the Constitution, and therefore possession of which is open to legal interpenetration and thus lives in a grey area are seen differently. Some in our society see guns not as property but as something else thus "allowing" the government to take said items. Is this a slippery slop? Will government one day see other items as they now see guns?

What legal interpretation is that? I'm pretty sure the whole thing has been settled by the Constitution, McDonald v Chicago and Heller v DC. I don't think it's being interpreted incorrectly by those that infringe on the 2A rights of citizens, it's just that, so far, they've been able to get away with it without much worry of any sort of consequences for their actions. They infringe upon our 2A rights because they don't like the 2A.

(I'm pretty sure you meant interpretation...but interpenetration does seem more like what's going on in terms of what the .gov is doing to citizens! I may have to steal that word and start using it more often.)