Gun Owners Claim Deputy Violated Their Rights

King5 ^ | October 2, 2010 | TRICIA MANNING-SMITH

[seowulf]

However, one can't escape the fact that officers approached Brewster at a Spanaway coffee shop, which is located mere miles away from another coffee shop: Forza coffee in Parkland, where four police officers were killed less than a year ago. Many people in this community have very strong feelings about guns.

I too have strong feelings about guns.

If there had been a few more citizens carrying guns in the Forza coffee shop, maybe there would be four fewer dead cops.

[AvOrdVet]

Why else would he admit that they would harass a lawfully carrying citizen?

Because they can... and often do harass law abiding citizens all across this country.

If you haven't noticed there is a low intensity "war" going on over our rights all across this nation, right now it is over the Second Amendment... tomorrow, who knows.

I am just glad that many are standing up and fighting back the attempted oppression by LEOs.

[gundog]

Since when does it violate someone’s civil rights to see someone else carrying a firearm?

Never heard of freedon from fear? /s

[School of Rational Thought]

Does one show a cop ID if he sees you are eating pancakes?

Beautifully made point.

[OneWingedShark]

>You have no obligation to show your “papers” to any LEO if you are not suspected of having committed a crime. You do not have to prove that you aren’t a felon by showing your ID.

Indeed so; under the presumption-of-innocence mindset it’s actually the official’s obligation to show “papers” [that is, a warrant].
Maybe it’s a bit of a jerk’s stance, but I don’t like the idea of people being snapped up under the “probable cause” excuse that’s been given the police; the 4th Amendment states that WARRANTS are to be issued on probable cause, not arrests — make them do the extra effort/paperwork. They’ve lost all “benefit of the doubt” credits with me with such prevalent stories like this and the dismissal of concerns about legal contradictions (ie enforcement of laws which are expressly forbidden by the state or federal Constitution).

[vox_freedom]

Does one show a cop ID if he sees you are eating pancakes?

It may depend on if the peanut butter on them is chunky or smooth.

[supercat]

Maybe it’s a bit of a jerk’s stance, but I don’t like the idea of people being snapped up under the “probable cause” excuse that’s been given the police; the 4th Amendment states that WARRANTS are to be issued on probable cause, not arrests — make them do the extra effort/paperwork.

Warrantless entry, searches, and seizures may be done under exigent circumstances. There would be nothing inherently wrong with that, except that courts have taken it upon themselves to decide in advance that certain searches are "reasonable", despite the fact that reasonableness can only be determined given all the facts surrounding a search (and may thus only be determined with certainty by a jury).

If jurors were informed of the facts surrounding searches, and instructed that no evidence from a search they deem "unreasonable"(*) given the totality of the circumstances should be construed in a manner detrimental to the defendant, police would probably be inclined to act much more reasonably.

(*) For a search to be reasonable, the jury would have to find that (1) knowing everything the people seeking the warrant knew [including information that may not have been given to the warrant judge] a reasonable person would consider it likely that the requested search would produce evidence of a crime; (2) if exigent circumstances are claimed, a reasonable person, knowing what was known by the cops on scene, would believe them to exist; (3) a reasonable person would judge that the way in which the search was conducted minimized the risk and/or harm to persons and/or property. If cops are doing their duty, they should have no problem convincing a jury of all points; that jurors might balk at some of today's procedures is not a reason to withhold such information from them, but instead is a reason to provide it.