ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: R.I.P. 4th Amendment (5/2/2014 1:49:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 Yes he was targeted. What if that call would have been valid though? What if he was a wack job who decided to shot people going down the road and he wasn't stopped and checked out. The whole thing was a hysterical and overdone. But its not uncommon for people to use a gun in a way to hurt others. Just because this police force in this area acted in such a way doesn't mean it would have been played out the same way somewhere else. Give the police some credit, there are some good police officers out there. If you don't want too, that's fine, but I will regardless of that circumstance. I am just looking at the coin from both sides. I'm giving the police plenty of credit. As long as it's legal to do, and SCOTUS just said that it was, then they have every right to make use of anonymous calls. I may find it personally repugnant, but they're within the letter of the law. Since they were following the law, I'd even say that I don't think they over-reacted in your nephew's case. They had a "good" report that a man was brandishing a gun. As you said, what if he really was a wack job? Operating under that assumption, they were well within their rights to put him on the ground. What you've been failing to see in all your arguments is that I'm not arguing against the police, I'm arguing over their use of anonymous tips. My guess as far as your nephew goes, is that someone knew he normally carried a gun, and went after him with that call. You did say that he works in an occupation that gets people pissed at him. He was just lucky that he wasn't carrying, otherwise he'd have been in a world of trouble. All because an anonymous source said so. I can understand needing to be anonymous in certain situations, but for a run of the mill 911 call?
|
|
|
|