If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cleveland Plain Dealer)   Cleveland police refuse to return gun to man who consented to a legal search. Naturally, the gun owner is suing for the return of his weapon--and tens of thousands of dollars in damages   (cleveland.com) divider line 147
    More: Asinine, Cleveland Police, Photo of the Day, refuses  
•       •       •

10163 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Aug 2013 at 5:02 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-10 10:15:09 PM

malaktaus: I prefer not to ascribe to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence


Under normal circumstances that would be the correct assumption.  However, when the police are involved, you should assume malice.
 
2013-08-10 10:15:58 PM
HempHead:

You have the most accurate nick I've ever seen.  Remember, when you actually cut the comedy album off of your posts, pan the fake audience L.
 
2013-08-10 10:57:41 PM
RTFA, and if everything in there is true and accurate, I would be going for at least a good million. False imprisonment and the emotional damage due to the inability to trust the local police force (like you could before, but whatever helps pad out the suit) should help to add a few extra zeros to the end of the settlement.
 
2013-08-10 11:47:58 PM

CruiserTwelve: It would seem to me that, in light of the lawsuit and the bad publicity, the city would be glad to return the gun if there wasn't a good reason to keep it. I can't see any reason for the city to keep it without good cause. It's not worth that much.


It's no about the money.  It's about the precedent that Officers always win against civilian sheep, no matter what.  To give the gun back would be a sign of weakness.

Similarly, why would an Officer care about bad publicity?  Nobody's going to lose their job or have any personal liability.  Worst case is that the public fears the Police a little more, and I'm beginning to believe that y'all actually prefer it that way.
 
2013-08-11 12:21:49 AM
Can't have a Police State without Police.
 
2013-08-11 12:40:43 AM

bunner: n0nthing: ZzeusS: .38 Taurus?  What, like $60 at a pawn shop?  Police did him a favor.

My thoughts exactly, you'd think he'd want to tip them for taking it off his hands.

In a situation where I need to defend myself against violence, I'd rather have a working, loaded .38 Cal. Taurus than gun snob cred.


This. My next carry gun will be a Colt Mustang. I used to be a .45ACP guy but now that I don't need to carry I'd honestly rather have something concealable, easy to shoot, easy to be accurate with, and something I can still customize a bit.
 
2013-08-11 12:51:17 AM
The public would be a whole lot safer if we banned the police from carrying firearms and allowed civilians to carry.  The police have become far too gung ho and are too quick to shoot before engaging their rather meager brain.  We shouldn't allow the retarded fat kid to play with dangerous weapons.
 
2013-08-11 12:54:46 AM
What would happen if the victim of one of these firearm theft-by-cop files a stolen weapon report with the police department?
 
2013-08-11 01:08:50 AM

Mr_Crink: So you're basically saying "You don't have anything to worry about if you aren't doing something wrong". That is a comforting thought.


I didn't say anything even remotely close to that. I was questioning what reason the city would have to keep the gun. It seems they have every reason to return it and no known reason to keep it.
 
2013-08-11 01:22:20 AM

The first thing I looked at: tetsoushima: I feel bad for the guy, walking around with your backup piece instead of your primary can feel like you're walking around with a slightly smaller penis.  What if he didn't have a available right away when he got home?  What would he have brought to Starbucks yesterday, a loaner?  How mortifying.

So I take it that if the police took one of your possessions that cost you $500.00, for no legal reason and refused to give it back we would all be invited to mock the size of your genitalia if you complained.

Did I get the rules right?


I have to say as this thread winds down that this was one of the least thought out trolls I have ever done on fark.  It wasn't really all that funny, original, or even remotely close to being good satire.  I am putting more thought into this summary than I did into thinking about what to write initially.  Even though it was flagrantly obvious that I was trolling, I got more than a couple bites.  It was a good day.
 
2013-08-11 02:36:22 AM

Arthur Jumbles: I'm not a fan of gun owners but this is theft by the police.


exactly. they do the same thing around here, only its restricted to confiscating them, holding them for a week (and firing them without cleaning them if mine was any indication) and then returning them only if you go down to the police department and fill out forms to request it formally.

i got one of mine back after a few days delay, with no further hassle (after the several calls back to get through the stonewalling, and after jumping through all the hoops anyway). they didn't make me go to court to get it back, but they didn't look happy i came back for it, either.
i had a local lawyer tell me that half the people don't even bother trying, and many of those that do get frustrated at the lack of information and won't run it to ground. means the cops keep half of the guns without even trying, and list the other half of the folks that do as people who are 'known armed' in the computer, and therefore treated to the full armed threat response at any contact, even a minor traffic stop or welfare check.
 
2013-08-11 02:47:24 AM
CliChe Guevara: and list the other half of the folks that do as people who are 'known armed' in the computer, and therefore treated to the full armed threat response at any contact, even a minor traffic stop or welfare check.

Bullshiat. No such database exists.
 
2013-08-11 03:01:05 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: The lawsuit said police unlawfully searched his car and seized the weapon. He was arrested for possessing a weapon while a  felon. He was held in the city jail for three nights.

Not charged =/= legally allowed to have a gun


Except, of course, that his attorney says he has no crinimal record.  If you're a felon found to be in actual or constructive possession of a firearm, it's generally a pretty easy case for prosecutors to make.  It sounds as if the person who had the gun seized was NOT a felon, the PD is just doing their typical anti-gun BS.  They NEED to be sued, and get slapped with hefty damages, to keep them from doing this crap, which violates some very basic tenets of American jurisprudence.
 
2013-08-11 03:12:48 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Permit (possibly invalid*), receipt, and allegedly no felony record.

*based on the possible felony record



They generally do perform a background check before issuing concealed permits.  They also generally require fingerprints, at least the first time out.
 
2013-08-11 03:21:10 AM

lacydog: Agreed. But it's hard to determine from the article if the guy is actually a former felon. You'd think that would be easy enough for a journalist to double-check, since there are databases out there for those sorts of things. But apparently they're content just to write quotes and not do any research.

/Checked one such database really quick, but "Derrick Washington" is too generic of a name to be sure.


Well, considering that he bought the gun from a licensed dealer (hence a background check was conducted at the time of sale) and that he had a CCW permit (hence a background check was done before it was issued) coupled with the fact that that if the police introduced evidence that he was in fact a felon his case would disappear almost instantly, it seems pretty unlikely that he was a felon.  And just to let you know:  Once you've been convicted of a felony, you're a felon, period.  The only way to become a "former felon" is to have your conviction overturned or to be pardoned, with your rights restored.
 
2013-08-11 03:27:23 AM

Giltric: CruiserTwelve: I can't see any reason for the city to keep it without good cause. It's not worth that much.

It's not like the "city" is going to pay for their mistakes.

That comes out of the taxpayers pocket.

There is no incentive to not be dicks.


Well, if Washington prevails, his attorney could ask that the damages be in the form of, say, however many new police cars.

Have you ever noticed that cops seem to have really new cop cars?  I can't recall any of the local departments around me having cars that are over 5 years old...most are less than 2 years old.
 
2013-08-11 03:33:33 AM

OgreMagi: The public would be a whole lot safer if we banned the police from carrying firearms and allowed civilians to carry.


Originally, cops were not allowed to carry guns.  Then somebody pointed out that despite being cops, they hadn't given up their basic civil rights, so they should be allowed to carry whatever weapons were legal for your average non-cop to carry.  Now, there are many cops in certain parts of the country who believe that they should be the only ones allowed to carry.  There are also many decent cops who actually understand the Constitution and the law, and respect them both.  "Me likey" the decent cops, but not so much the other kind.
 
2013-08-11 03:36:26 AM

CruiserTwelve: CliChe Guevara: and list the other half of the folks that do as people who are 'known armed' in the computer, and therefore treated to the full armed threat response at any contact, even a minor traffic stop or welfare check.

Bullshiat. No such database exists.


 the local cops certainly do have such a thing. don't know if they share it or not with the county sheriffs dept or not, but the local cops at least sure as hell do have notations on contacts with both individuals and addresses of concern in the past. name a police department that doesn't. that isn't some conspiracy theory, that is just S.O.P. for any department.

 had a co-worker that got the full 'get out on the ground' at gunpoint thing a couple times at trivial traffic stops, eventually got a lawyer to look into it after a scary event where his roommate called the police to report something minor like having his car broken into, and had the cops bust in with shotguns until they could 'secure' my co-worker as his name came up related to that address through DMV records (keep in mind that he had no criminal record AT ALL). they searched him at gunpoint in his own home, then detained him in a corner so that other officers could take his roommates totally unrelated victim report.
 his lawyer foundout this came from him having a 'known to carry small revolver' notation on his record that the dispatcher would inform any officers of when running a check on him. guess how they knew he owned/carried a revolver? they took it originally at a traffic stop where they asked if he was armed, and per the rules of having a CCW he replied in the affirmative that there was one in the car. this resulted in a violent takedown and handcuffing, search of the car, and confiscation of the revolver, later to be released without charge (but without the gun) an hour or more later.he filed the papers to get it back, and his life was not the same again.
 not the only person they did that to, either.
 
2013-08-11 03:38:40 AM
CliChe Guevara:exactly. they do the same thing around here, only its restricted to confiscating them, holding them for a week (and firing them without cleaning them if mine was any indication) and then returning them only if you go down to the police department and fill out forms to request it formally.

I've heard of cases in which the police "confiscated" a firearm, shot a LOT of corrosive ammo through it, and stored it in conditions designed to encourage rust, so when the owner finally got it back, it was basically destroyed.  At the same time, one of my legally owned machineguns ended up in a police storage locker, and once I explained to them WHY they shouldn't "test fire" it, they ended up letting UPS come and pick it up to deliver it to me in under a week.  I got it back with absolutely no damage to it whatsoever.
 
2013-08-11 03:39:48 AM
ah crap. i got suckered into responding to an officer twelve troll post. should have looked at the handle.

of course his persona would condone and support this kind of property theft.
 
2013-08-11 03:52:07 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Have you ever noticed that cops seem to have really new cop cars?  I can't recall any of the local departments around me having cars that are over 5 years old...most are less than 2 years old.


Do you realize that you're talking to a cop that drives a 7 year old police car with almost 180,000 miles on it every day?
 
2013-08-11 04:14:07 AM

CruiserTwelve: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Have you ever noticed that cops seem to have really new cop cars?  I can't recall any of the local departments around me having cars that are over 5 years old...most are less than 2 years old.

Do you realize that you're talking to a cop that drives a 7 year old police car with almost 180,000 miles on it every day?


Who'd you piss off in your department???
 
2013-08-11 04:51:48 AM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Have you ever noticed that cops seem to have really new cop cars? I can't recall any of the local departments around me having cars that are over 5 years old...most are less than 2 years old.


To be fair, cop cars get a lot of hard miles on them. What do you think the average age of taxis are in the city?
 
2013-08-11 06:20:41 AM

TopoGigo: To be fair, cop cars get a lot of hard miles on them. What do you think the average age of taxis are in the city?


Oh, I know that patrol cars get driven a lot, which is why they are replaced so often, at least locally.
 
2013-08-11 08:36:34 AM
The story as written makes me upset, but that is what makes me pause. This is from the one guys perspective, I feel like we are missing a key piece of information here. If it is true as written the police have got something coming to them big time.

Part of the reason I feel we Are missing something in this story is very simple, the gun was being stored in his car. That is a responsible gun owner. Why on earth would it be in his car for storage? That stupidity alone makes me want to take his gun away. This is what the rest of us see when gun owners are ranting about their rights. If you can't properly store your weapon you are being irresponsible.
 
2013-08-11 09:30:06 AM

CruiserTwelve: It seems they have every reason to return it and no known reason to keep it.


...and yet, they are still keeping it. That's the point. The system is either broken, or corrupt. Either way, it's not good.
 
2013-08-11 09:36:25 AM

CruiserTwelve: CliChe Guevara: and list the other half of the folks that do as people who are 'known armed' in the computer, and therefore treated to the full armed threat response at any contact, even a minor traffic stop or welfare check.

Bullshiat. No such database exists.


There certainly is a database that cops have access to. How do they, say, look up a license plate if there's no database to look it up in? How do they see if the person owning that license plate is a wanted man (or woman)? They look it up in the database. And that database will now show the fact that this man was arrested on a weapons charge. And thus, any cops who pulls him over will know he was once (and quite probably is now) armed.
 
2013-08-11 11:51:39 AM

fredklein: There certainly is a database that cops have access to. How do they, say, look up a license plate if there's no database to look it up in? How do they see if the person owning that license plate is a wanted man (or woman)? They look it up in the database. And that database will now show the fact that this man was arrested on a weapons charge. And thus, any cops who pulls him over will know he was once (and quite probably is now) armed.


You're talking about two different systems. If a cop on the street runs your license plate, the response will tell him if the car is stolen or wanted and if the driver is wanted. If the cop wants to look at your criminal history, he'll have to access another database altogether. That database is more regulated and requires a higher level of security, and also requires more input such as the reason for the inquiry. Your everyday street cop doesn't have immediate access to that.

All of that, however, requires that the cop knows your name before he can look up anything. If a cop is approaching you and you're not in your car or you're in someone else's car, the cop won't know anything about you unless, of course, he already possesses that knowledge.
 
2013-08-11 03:11:03 PM

CruiserTwelve: fredklein: There certainly is a database that cops have access to. How do they, say, look up a license plate if there's no database to look it up in? How do they see if the person owning that license plate is a wanted man (or woman)? They look it up in the database. And that database will now show the fact that this man was arrested on a weapons charge. And thus, any cops who pulls him over will know he was once (and quite probably is now) armed.

You're talking about two different systems. If a cop on the street runs your license plate, the response will tell him if the car is stolen or wanted and if the driver is wanted. If the cop wants to look at your criminal history, he'll have to access another database altogether. That database is more regulated and requires a higher level of security, and also requires more input such as the reason for the inquiry. Your everyday street cop doesn't have immediate access to that.

All of that, however, requires that the cop knows your name before he can look up anything. If a cop is approaching you and you're not in your car or you're in someone else's car, the cop won't know anything about you unless, of course, he already possesses that knowledge.


That is, until we all have to carry ID cards with an scannable RFID chip in it, right?  Then the cop will know who you are before you even stop the car.   And just about anything else he wants to know.

Ha!  But that's just crazy talk, right?
 
2013-08-11 03:48:48 PM

OgreMagi: Oh, right.  The Constitution died when the towers collapsed.


It started long before that. Possibly with the war on drugs and police seizures.
 
2013-08-11 04:19:29 PM

BravadoGT: That is, until we all have to carry ID cards with an scannable RFID chip in it, right?


You ask too many questions, citizen.
 
2013-08-11 04:24:38 PM

ArcadianRefugee: zamboni: The My Little Pony Killer: The lawsuit said police unlawfully searched his car and seized the weapon. He was arrested for possessing a weapon while a  felon. He was held in the city jail for three nights.

Not charged =/= legally allowed to have a gun

Well, except in this case it kind of is. He has a permit, a receipt and, apparently, no felony record.

That is to say, it never should have been seized in the first place and should now be returned.

Permit (possibly invalid*), receipt, and allegedly no felony record.

*based on the possible felony record


Cool, so you're ok if the cops seize and hold your car until you can prove that your alleged DL is valid, your alleged registration is valid, your alleged proof of insurance is valid and that you don't have any outstanding tickets... allegedly; or for that matter, any of your property until you prove that you actually own it?

Seems like that'll be quite an inconvenience. But, oh well... as long as you're consistent!

Good luck getting your stuff back.
 
2013-08-11 04:52:15 PM

zamboni: ArcadianRefugee: zamboni: The My Little Pony Killer: The lawsuit said police unlawfully searched his car and seized the weapon. He was arrested for possessing a weapon while a  felon. He was held in the city jail for three nights.

Not charged =/= legally allowed to have a gun

Well, except in this case it kind of is. He has a permit, a receipt and, apparently, no felony record.

That is to say, it never should have been seized in the first place and should now be returned.

Permit (possibly invalid*), receipt, and allegedly no felony record.

*based on the possible felony record

Cool, so you're ok if the cops seize and hold your car until you can prove that your alleged DL is valid, your alleged registration is valid, your alleged proof of insurance is valid and that you don't have any outstanding tickets... allegedly; or for that matter, any of your property until you prove that you actually own it?

Seems like that'll be quite an inconvenience. But, oh well... as long as you're consistent!

Good luck getting your stuff back.


It would suck, yes, but yes: if there records show that I have a felony conviction, I expect they would treat me as having such until I get it cleared up. For them to not do so seems rather risky, and it isn't the cop's fault that faulty records exist.

After I get things cleared up I would then take action to get to the bottom of why faulty records existed, sue, etc. But I would not expect a cop to "take my word for it" that I was something other than what their records show.

/no, I don't like cops
//I avoid them when I can
///still expect them to behave a certain way
////which is why I avoid them
 
2013-08-11 04:56:41 PM

zamboni: But, oh well... as long as you're consistent!


And, yes, I try to be consistent. if I say, "The best thing for the human race right now would be if a third of the population simplyt vanished," I do so knowing full well that that means 1/3 of my friends/family (statistically) would vanish and that, as a matter of fact, I might be one of those 1-in-3 people; I don't say "People shouldn't be allowed to..." and then say, "except me, of course."

/I may still do those things, but I shouldn't be allowed to...
 
2013-08-11 05:00:30 PM

CruiserTwelve: fredklein: There certainly is a database that cops have access to. How do they, say, look up a license plate if there's no database to look it up in? How do they see if the person owning that license plate is a wanted man (or woman)? They look it up in the database. And that database will now show the fact that this man was arrested on a weapons charge. And thus, any cops who pulls him over will know he was once (and quite probably is now) armed.

You're talking about two different systems.

First you say there is no such database, and now you say there's actually TWO. Make up your mind.

And as for your 'they'd have to know your name- that's in the first DB they look in, the one that links to your drivers license and (less accurately) your license plate.

 
2013-08-11 05:17:02 PM

namatad: OgreMagi: Oh, right.  The Constitution died when the towers collapsed.

It started long before that. Possibly with the war on drugs and police seizures.


That's when they started choking the life out of the Constitution. They chopped its head off on 9/11.
 
2013-08-11 05:23:11 PM

zamboni: ArcadianRefugee: zamboni: The My Little Pony Killer: The lawsuit said police unlawfully searched his car and seized the weapon. He was arrested for possessing a weapon while a  felon. He was held in the city jail for three nights.

Not charged =/= legally allowed to have a gun

Well, except in this case it kind of is. He has a permit, a receipt and, apparently, no felony record.

That is to say, it never should have been seized in the first place and should now be returned.

Permit (possibly invalid*), receipt, and allegedly no felony record.

*based on the possible felony record

Cool, so you're ok if the cops seize and hold your car until you can prove that your alleged DL is valid, your alleged registration is valid, your alleged proof of insurance is valid and that you don't have any outstanding tickets... allegedly; or for that matter, any of your property until you prove that you actually own it?

Seems like that'll be quite an inconvenience. But, oh well... as long as you're consistent!

Good luck getting your stuff back.


Now imagine the cops seizing EVERYTHING you own won't give it back until you prove you own it.  How many of your personal effects do you have receipts for?  I can prove two things.  My motorcycle and my car.  That's it.  All my clothes, furniture, appliances, computers, several hundred books etc, I doubt I have receipts for any of them.  Would a two year old picture of me holding my electric bass be considered adequate proof?  Only if the police are in a good mood.  Which means, not farking likely.
 
2013-08-11 05:41:27 PM

OgreMagi: How many of your personal effects do you have receipts for?


Actual receipts? Few. But credit card statements going back to [whenever] and presumably from there I can get more detailed information. Like I said, yes, it would be annoying, but also like I said, I wouldn't expect them to behave differently "just for me" which is why I avoid them as best I can.
 
2013-08-11 05:56:27 PM

ArcadianRefugee: OgreMagi: How many of your personal effects do you have receipts for?

Actual receipts? Few. But credit card statements going back to [whenever] and presumably from there I can get more detailed information. Like I said, yes, it would be annoying, but also like I said, I wouldn't expect them to behave differently "just for me" which is why I avoid them as best I can.


My bank records don't normally show what I bought, just where I made the purchase.
 
2013-08-11 08:16:41 PM

CruiserTwelve: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Have you ever noticed that cops seem to have really new cop cars?  I can't recall any of the local departments around me having cars that are over 5 years old...most are less than 2 years old.

Do you realize that you're talking to a cop that drives a 7 year old police car with almost 180,000 miles on it every day?


How do you drive 180,000 miles every day?
 
2013-08-11 08:25:45 PM
fredklein:First you say there is no such database, and now you say there's actually TWO. Make up your mind.

C'mon Fred, you know what I was replying to. There is no database available to police that lists anyone as "known armed." Yes, there is a criminal history database that will show if you've been previously arrested for an offense involving arms, but it's not immediately available to your average street cop. I can't run your license plate and find out if you're "known armed."

And as for your 'they'd have to know your name- that's in the first DB they look in, the one that links to your drivers license and (less accurately) your license plate.

As a cop approaches you, he doesn't know your name so he has no information about you. He obviously can't access any information about you until he knows who you are. If the cop runs your license plate he can access information about your car and some information about the registered owner. If you're the driver but not the registered owner, the cop still doesn't know anything about you until he gets your name and runs it.

Why are you always so obtuse?
 
2013-08-11 11:28:49 PM

CruiserTwelve: C'mon Fred, you know what I was replying to. There is no database available to police that lists anyone as "known armed."


the dispatcher has notations that come up from somewhere, made locally by other officers. they seem to know how many times certain kinds of calls have been made to an address and other red flags to watch out for that make perfect sense for officers to be aware of going into situations with people unknown to them. things not part of NCIC or even local arrest records. even stuff the cops shouldn't know. hell, it even lists if someone pawned any firearms or other weapon locally before. i don't know how it works, only that it does.

if you are really a police officer, you have to be aware of this. to claim not to know anything about that is what is truly acting obtuse.

 the fact that some localities are adding flags for known gun owners is disturbing, but not surprising. its been documented in other communities as well. this isn't some random tinfoil hat thing no matter how much you would like to dismiss it as such.
 
2013-08-12 01:08:25 AM
CruiserTwelve:

C'mon Fred, you know what I was replying to. There is no database available to police that lists anyone as "known armed." Yes, there is a criminal history database that will show if you've been previously arrested for an offense involving arms, but it's not immediately available to your average street cop. I can't run your license plate and find out if you're "known armed."

However, you guys DO know I have a CCW right off the bat. That certainly seems to predispose the LEO I'm interacting with to assume I AM armed. At least it has so far. More, whatever local database they're accessing seems to have annotations from previous encounters. To wit, I have been interacting in a calm, nearly friendly manner with a LEO who was trying to ascertain my BAL coming out of my favorite local dive, the Florabama. Our major contractor has this pesky personal behavior clause which precludes me from having more than two drinks in public, so I'm at about a .01. I offer to skip the test and go right for the breathalyzer. He's about to let me go when over the radio comes "Be advised subject may be armed and can be violent". Given that I was on a motorcycle and look medium large and unsavory, he jumped to the obvious conclusion and went all Barney. Well, I wasn't armed, I do have a carry permit, and where the other came from I don't know. I do know it didn't come from NCIC or the FBI database, because if they had checked there they'd have seen I am a known, registered, government approved "good guy".


 If you're the driver but not the registered owner, the cop still doesn't know anything about you until he gets your name and runs it.


If I were a LEO, if I ran your plate and the registered owner came back as a CC permit holder, I'd jump to the somewhat reasonable assumption that the driver might be that person, and might be armed. Unless the registered owner was "Lisa" and you're a guy or something. Even then, I'd assume the vehicle might have a firearm in it somewhere due to the owner being a permit holder.
 
2013-08-12 02:02:28 AM

erewhon: whatever local database they're accessing seems to have annotations from previous encounters...He's about to let me go when over the radio comes "Be advised subject may be armed and can be violent".


Exactly. Sounds like -exactly- what they do here.

I suspect BootlickerTwelve is either;
a)not a real cop, just a wannabe, and has no real knowledge one way or the other
b)does have the knowledge, and is lying just to further the apologist agenda, or
c)all of the above
 
2013-08-12 02:43:06 AM

CliChe Guevara: the dispatcher has notations that come up from somewhere, made locally by other officers. they seem to know how many times certain kinds of calls have been made to an address and other red flags to watch out for that make perfect sense for officers to be aware of going into situations with people unknown to them. things not part of NCIC or even local arrest records. even stuff the cops shouldn't know. hell, it even lists if someone pawned any firearms or other weapon locally before. i don't know how it works, only that it does.


That's a dispatch database that contains information about certain addresses. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally provides information about prior calls to that address or "flags" for safety concerns like threats made against officers. In my jurisdiction at least, it will not show prior convictions or any prior arrest information for the residents.

When I run a license plate prior to making a traffic stop, I get the following information: Whether the car is stolen or wanted for some crime, and the registered owner's information. The system will then check the registered owner's name and show whether there are any warrants for someone of that name. In addition to warrants, it will show if a person with that name has a CCW permit, is a registered sex offender or flagged as a gang member. If the registered owner has a common name, I might get many hits which I don't have the time to page through before making contact with the driver.

What I WON'T have available is the registered owner's criminal history. That's in another, more secure, database.

In other words, as I've said before, I won't know if the driver is "known armed" when I approach him. I might know if he has a CCW permit, but generally cops aren't worried about them. CCW holders are almost always responsible people.
 
2013-08-12 02:53:56 AM
Well, there sure seems to be a local database of some sort they contribute to. I couldn't get an explanation from the guy after the fact where the "may be violent" thing came from, other than there was a strong insinuation that someone I knew had put it in there as a joke, haha.

I think Cruiser is a real cop, and in his area they might NOT have a local notes file. I can see why they might want such a thing. It wouldn't be hard to set up. I'm not talking nationwide, just some sort of local cop sql server with some access wrappers.

In my case, before I got tired of it, I used to teach IDPA point-shoot and knew some of the SWAT guys as students. I'm guessing one of them was the evil culprit. Had they pinged the FBI server it will tell you I'm the CSSO/FSO at a local shrine to the military/industrial complex, and thus technically a fed. I even haz me a badj an a ID. They're in my desk somewhere. I think the NCIC does too, but I don't have access to it and apparently cops aren't supposed to just look for no reason so I've never been able to prove it one way or the other.
 
2013-08-12 03:02:11 AM

CliChe Guevara: I suspect BootlickerTwelve is either;
a)not a real cop, just a wannabe, and has no real knowledge one way or the other
b)does have the knowledge, and is lying just to further the apologist agenda, or
c)all of the above


There's an incredible number of assumptions and misbeliefs about cops on Fark and I try to correct those when I can. Yes, I assure you I'm a real cop. I try to be straightforward and accurate in my posts, but I speak from my own personal experience which is quite abundant. I try to make it clear that things may be different in other jurisdictions, but some people want to believe that every police agency is identical. That's the kind of lazy thinking that I try to combat.

I'm often called a "bootlicker," but I call 'em as a see 'em. Sometimes the cop hate on Fark is based on misconceptions or a lack of understanding of police procedures, and I try to correct those. Those that have actually followed my posts know that I've been as critical of bad cops as anyone else. I, however, know that those "bad cops" are the minority that get all the publicity. While I won't defend every member of my profession since they vary widely in their actions, motivations and beliefs, I will defend my profession as a whole. The vast majority of cops are good, hard working, decent people that would take a bullet for you. The good guys just don't get the publicity that the bad guys do.
 
Displayed 47 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report