PDA

View Full Version : Convicted Felon's Trip to Range Gets Him 10 Years


shocknm
02-04-2011, 7:15 PM
The law is clear: Possession of a gun is possession, no matter if you’re doing target practice in an enclosed, safe shooting range, or if you own the gun. Convicted felons can’t possess guns and Doland used his driver’s license to rent a gun and practice at Mobile Tactics, an indoor shooting range at 722 .E. Elkcam Circle.

Marco Police Officer Edward D’Allessandro, who was working there that day, thought Doland and his friend, who had tattoos, looked like gang members. Suspicious, he checked whether the two, who signed in, had criminal records — and discovered Doland was a convicted felon.

full article here: http://www.marconews.com/news/2008/apr/08/convicted-felons-trip-marco-gun-range-earns-him-10/

Old news (2008), but it struck me as odd that the LEO working at the range that day (assuming they mean "working" as in at the counter as a part time paid employee) could just run the guy's info and jam him up because of his looks.

That doesn't seem right.

Are LEOs known to walk into a shooting range and tell the counter guy "I don't like the looks of that guy on lane 7. Give me his info so I can run him through the system." ?

Do LEOs go to ranges, ask for a day's/month's/year's worth of sign in sheets in order to run everyone's names looking for felons or other prohibited persons?

Not so much interested in hearing the 'felon / prohibited person' bashing and how this guy got his just deserts.

I'm more interested in the long arm of the law and its 'reach' in this circumstance and the questions I have.

Veggie
02-04-2011, 7:26 PM
Sounds like an illegal search. And no it doesn't matter he was a felon. The officer didn't know that. He just decided to run a civilians Id. Sounds illegal to me but I may be right.

12voltguy
02-04-2011, 7:31 PM
Sounds like an illegal search. And no it doesn't matter he was a felon. The officer didn't know that. He just decided to run a civilians Id. Sounds illegal to me but I may be right.

we live in a police state........next we will have to show papers like they did with the Nazis in WW2:rolleyes:

The Director
02-04-2011, 7:33 PM
Probable cause based on professional experience, not profiling. Most likely totally legal.

IEShooter
02-04-2011, 7:35 PM
Not so much interested in hearing the 'felon / prohibited person' bashing and how this guy got his just deserts.

I'm more interested in the long arm of the law and its 'reach' in this circumstance and the questions I have.

Sounds as if you're only interested in hearing opinions that reinforce your views....:rolleyes:

Personally, I have no issues with the information as described.

It sounds as if a trained LEO, observed someone with what looked like gang tatooes, and based on his training and experience decided that this was very possibly a prohibited person. He acted on this, and the bad guy went to jail.

THE OFFICER IS TO BE APPLAUDED FOR HIS HEADS UP POLICING!!!!!!

Is there perhaps a slipperly slope here where law abiding citizens should be concerned? Not in my view.

If the information were different, then I may have concerns, but based on what was presented, not so much......

Edited: In case my view point wasn't entirely clear.....

Veggie
02-04-2011, 7:37 PM
I don't know about it being legal. Seems the same going up to him and reaching in to his pocket and grabbing his ID and running it without he knowing.

Hippo
02-04-2011, 7:40 PM
This ones hard for me to wrap my brain around. After some thought i'm of the opinion that once the felon gave his information freely to the range officer that what the RO does with it is beyond anyones control but the RO's. If said LEO asked to run the background checks on the customers and the RO gave it freely then it was probably his choice to keep his range safe. Therefore both the LEO and the RO were doing their jobs to protect the average citizen without disrupting the day to day activities of said citizens.

rromeo
02-04-2011, 7:45 PM
Tattoos are PC for search? The story doesn't say gang related tattoos, just tattoos.
Maybe they are, but we don't know. I hope an Eagle Globe and Anchor would be treated differently than if he had ms13 on his arm.

Crom
02-04-2011, 7:48 PM
We don't have enough details from the news article to pass judgment here. My sense is that had it went to trial the convict could have beaten the charge on 4th amendment violations. But the convict was young, ignorant and poor. He had a public defender and in the end he pleaded with the judge to accept the prosecutions offer for a reduced sentence of 10 years instead of life in prison.

five.five-six
02-04-2011, 7:50 PM
we live in a police state, next thing you know, we will all have to be frisked just to get on an airplane

Fjold
02-04-2011, 7:57 PM
A cop can run any name that he wants to as long as it's not for personal reasons.

shocknm
02-04-2011, 8:11 PM
Sounds as if you're only interested in hearing opinions that reinforce your views....:rolleyes:

Personally, I have no issues with the information as described.
...

Is there perhaps a slipperly slope here where law abiding citizens should be concerned? Not in my view.
...

Sounds like you walk on water. Let's hope the man doesn't pass a law making water sports a felony.

Maybe we should close the 'shooting range loophole' - and require a NICS check on everyone before they're allowed use of a shooting range. [this is sarcasim, in case my sarcasim isn't entirely clear].

The Director
02-04-2011, 8:14 PM
Tattoos are PC for search? The story doesn't say gang related tattoos, just tattoos.
Maybe they are, but we don't know. I hope an Eagle Globe and Anchor would be treated differently than if he had ms13 on his arm.

Absolutely. Talk to any gang officer. It's professional experience as I said earlier, it's not profiling. Gang officers can recognize jailhouse tattoos and gang markings, the kind you'd most likely receive in federal prison.

Officer sees man with jailhouse tats handling a firearm. That's all the PC he needs to ask for ID, which the felon gave freely. Good bust!

This is just like the example they use in PC832 class. Officer approaches a minor, and smells smoke on the minor's clothes. Officer has the PC to search the minor for cigarettes due to the fact that it is illegal for the minor to have or use any. Totally legit and upheld.

IEShooter
02-04-2011, 8:15 PM
"the man"..... :rolleyes:

Not worried about "the man" here. Not in the least.

How about you?......

dustoff31
02-04-2011, 8:31 PM
According to the article, the guy was on probation after release.

Chances are that he has no 4A rights as they are usually waived by the felon as a condition of release.

An LEO can do pretty much as he pleases with a parolee/probationer.

shocknm
02-04-2011, 8:46 PM
:rolleyes:

Not worried about "the man" here. Not in the least.

How about you?......

Yes ;)

Thanks to all providing constructive insight. Gang tattoos sound like good PC for a search. Most likely what happened in this situation.

Not cool if the LEOs PC was the guy's sagging pants and gold teeth [more sarcasim]

tileguy
02-04-2011, 8:49 PM
amazing well let me see if i go by what ive heard on this thread. by my experience reading and seeing videos on this site and others about bad LEOs we should have them all investigated and laid off until we can prove they are ok because "they looked bad" as stated in this thread

IEShooter
02-04-2011, 8:58 PM
Yes ;)

Thanks to all providing constructive insight. Gang tattoos sound like good PC for a search. Most likely what happened in this situation.

Not cool if the LEOs PC was the guy's sagging pants and gold teeth [more sarcasim]

Once again, you're missing the point. Jailhouse tatoos are not PC, nor are gold teeth.

Sagging pants on the other hand are not just PC, but clear grounds for the immediate use of deadly force.....

Okay, sorry.... I just don't like saggy pants. Its a personal thing.... Is that SO wrong?!?!?!?!? :cool:

Just kidding... Makes for great fun, though..

Kid Stanislaus
02-04-2011, 10:37 PM
we live in a police state, next thing you know, we will all have to be frisked just to get on an airplane

Aw now c'mon, lets keep things in perspective!;)

Carnivore
02-04-2011, 10:51 PM
Although I think it is complete BS that the cop would run IDs given to him at a range I do agree that jail house tats are very recognizable to anyone that has been around them. 2X2=4 here but I still think it is chicken sh*t.

CCWFacts
02-04-2011, 10:57 PM
we live in a police state........next we will have to show papers like they did with the Nazis in WW2:rolleyes:

We already do have to show papers. On the street, to travel by train, by plane, to get a phone, to do financial transactions, have a drink, buy cold medicine, everything. Everything we thought was wrong with the Soviet Union has now happened here.

Falconis
02-04-2011, 11:38 PM
Although I think it is complete BS that the cop would run IDs given to him at a range I do agree that jail house tats are very recognizable to anyone that has been around them. 2X2=4 here but I still think it is chicken sh*t.

How do you figure it's unfair? I'd agree with you if it was The Globe and Eagle as someone mentioned above. If it was an obvious jailhouse tat the cop recognized, like you said or a gang tat, I would think the cop would be derelict for not following up on good probable cause.

vmwerks
02-04-2011, 11:53 PM
Sounds as if you're only interested in hearing opinions that reinforce your views....:rolleyes:

Personally, I have no issues with the information as described.

It sounds as if a trained LEO, observed someone with what looked like gang tatooes, and based on his training and experience decided that this was very possibly a prohibited person. He acted on this, and the bad guy went to jail.

THE OFFICER IS TO BE APPLAUDED FOR HIS HEADS UP POLICING!!!!!!

Is there perhaps a slipperly slope here where law abiding citizens should be concerned? Not in my view.

If the information were different, then I may have concerns, but based on what was presented, not so much......

Edited: In case my view point wasn't entirely clear.....

+1

run me, I don't care I'm not a scumbag. Personally I applaud the LEO for being very well trained in spotting a scumbag who was breaking the law.

gorblimey
02-05-2011, 12:27 AM
[]
An LEO can do pretty much as he pleases with a parolee/probationer.

Is it any different, ultimately, with the rest of us?

If the cameras aren't rolling, it's the furtively moving decedent's "word" against that of the Only Ones.

oaklander
02-05-2011, 12:37 AM
The issue here is whether or not police officers can check your offender status, based merely on thinking you are an offender.

I do not know the answer.

It seems to me that running a database query is akin to a search, and should only be done when there is probable cause to believe that you committed a crime.

If the answer were anything else, police would be allowed to walk through Wal*Mart parking lots and run the plates on every single car, just looking for one that was driven by a known felon.

They would also be able to keep a list of who was there that day.

That is verging on police state stuff.

That does not seem American, somehow - even though I do not like criminals.

gorblimey
02-05-2011, 12:37 AM
+1

run me, I don't care I'm not a scumbag. Personally I applaud the LEO for being very well trained in spotting a scumbag who was breaking the law.


Even according to our exalted DHS Dwarf and the AG you're not a scumbag? Not a clinger to guns and religion, a dangerous right winger and/or returning veteran? A pity.

Carry on being a Good German then, but if history is any indication, best keep your ear to the ground for personally meaningful changes in these slippery classifications.

JagerTroop
02-05-2011, 12:40 AM
Absolutely. Talk to any gang officer. It's professional experience as I said earlier, it's not profiling. Gang officers can recognize jailhouse tattoos and gang markings, the kind you'd most likely receive in federal prison.

Officer sees man with jailhouse tats handling a firearm. That's all the PC he needs to ask for ID, which the felon gave freely. Good bust!

This is just like the example they use in PC832 class. Officer approaches a minor, and smells smoke on the minor's clothes. Officer has the PC to search the minor for cigarettes due to the fact that it is illegal for the minor to have or use any. Totally legit and upheld.

I say, illegal search.

So, because I have tattoos that may be similar to what may be perceived as "gang/prison tattoos", that relieves me of my 4th amendment rights?! There is no law against looking like a criminal.

Don29palms
02-05-2011, 12:42 AM
The cop caught a bad guy. I say good for him getting the scumbag back off the street. It was a felon breaking the law. The cop did has job. FELONY= NO FIREARMS. FELONY+FIREARMS=10years. If you are on probation/parole you have no 4A rights.

JagerTroop
02-05-2011, 12:46 AM
The cop caught a bad guy. I say good for him getting the scumbag back off the street. It was a felon breaking the law. The cop did has job. FELONY= NO FIREARMS. FELONY+FIREARMS=10years.


Yes, it is good that there is one less criminal on the street, but what price are you willing to pay? Would you be ok with house to house searches, looking for illegal weapons and prohibited persons in possession? Where do you draw the line?

Don29palms
02-05-2011, 12:51 AM
If you re on probation/parole a cop doesn't even have to knock on your front door before he comes in to search your house. There are sweeps all the time that they pick people up on violations. When you get pulled over in your car a cop will ask you if you are on parole/probation. If you say no he has to get your consent to search. If you are then no consent needed.

PBRStreetgang
02-05-2011, 12:53 AM
Absolutely. Talk to any gang officer. It's professional experience as I said earlier, it's not profiling. Gang officers can recognize jailhouse tattoos and gang markings, the kind you'd most likely receive in federal prison.

Officer sees man with jailhouse tats handling a firearm. That's all the PC he needs to ask for ID, which the felon gave freely. Good bust!

This is just like the example they use in PC832 class. Officer approaches a minor, and smells smoke on the minor's clothes. Officer has the PC to search the minor for cigarettes due to the fact that it is illegal for the minor to have or use any. Totally legit and upheld.


Absolutely correct. "These are skills that officers are specially trained in, such as: being able to read gang graffiti and tattoos, detecting tools that are used in burglaries or knowing when certain movements or gestures indicate that a criminal activity is about to occur, thus providing probable cause."

However, court precedent has been set that the officer can't be wrong either, "a pot leaf tattoo may give probably cause that you are a drug user, however if that pot leaf is actually a laurel leaf and the tattoo'd suspect is actually a Roman history teacher, a possible civil rights violation has occurred. "

AndrewMendez
02-05-2011, 12:58 AM
I am probably one of the younger CalGunners. For work, I wear a business suit every single day. I work anywhere from 6 am, til midnight. I drive a ton for work. I have been pulled over 2 times while working in the last few years, 1 talking on the phone, 1 cracked windshield. No questions asked, straight forward, and went on with my day.

Now...Outside of work, I drive much less. I always have my Blue Dodgers hat on, blue Levi's, short hair, a plain or gun tshirt, and my clean Nike Cortez', oh and I have tattoo's (daughters names). I drive the same car, in the same area, and I have been pulled over at least 20 times.
Out of those 20 times, I have been asked to step out of the car and patted down at least 15 times.
Out of those same 20 times, I have been asked at least 12 times to take a look around the car.
7 out of those 20 times, I have been given a field sobriety test.
3 out of 20 of those times, I have been put into the back of a cop car while they illegally searched my car because they smelled drugs (none were found).
14 of those 20 times I had at least one of my daughters in the car with me.
16 of those 20 times, I filled formal complaints against the officer.
3 of the 20 times, it was the same officer.
0 of those 20 times, I received a ticket.

With that being said, No, the cop didn't have PC to run the guys info. What was a cop doing at a range working? A cop has no right nor business running random people's information based solely on looks, bottom line. To say that guy (or myself above) was not illegally profiled is a joke. Its not good police work, its over stepping boundaries. Anyone thinking a cop running your info is a good idea, might as well ship themselves to China, as you would fit right in with their thinking.

bjl333
02-05-2011, 1:02 AM
I am probably one of the younger CalGunners. For work, I wear a business suit every single day. I work anywhere from 6 am, til midnight. I drive a ton for work. I have been pulled over 2 times while working in the last few years, 1 talking on the phone, 1 cracked windshield. No questions asked, straight forward, and went on with my day.

Now...Outside of work, I drive much less. I always have my Blue Dodgers hat on, blue Levi's, short hair, a plain or gun tshirt, and my clean Nike Cortez', oh and I have tattoo's (daughters names). I drive the same car, in the same area, and I have been pulled over at least 20 times.
Out of those 20 times, I have been asked to step out of the car and patted down at least 15 times.
Out of those same 20 times, I have been asked at least 12 times to take a look around the car.
7 out of those 20 times, I have been given a field sobriety test.
3 out of 20 of those times, I have been put into the back of a cop car while they illegally searched my car because they smelled drugs (none were found).
14 of those 20 times I had at least one of my daughters in the car with me.
16 of those 20 times, I filled formal complaints against the officer.
3 of the 20 times, it was the same officer.
0 of those 20 times, I received a ticket.

With that being said, No, the cop didn't have PC to run the guys info. What was a cop doing at a range working? A cop has no right nor business running random people's information based solely on looks, bottom line. To say that guy (or myself above) was not illegally profiled is a joke. Its not good police work, its over stepping boundaries. Anyone thinking a cop running your info is a good idea, might as well ship themselves to China, as you would fit right in with their thinking.

You drinking coffee at 2 in the morning? That was a great writeup dude!! I am way too sleepy to think straight much less write something like that!!!

AAMOF ... Good Night!!

Falconis
02-05-2011, 1:02 AM
Dude was in a public place where his tats were seen. He wasn't hiding in somewhere where there was an expectation of privacy.

JagerTroop
02-05-2011, 1:05 AM
Absolutely correct. "These are skills that officers are specially trained in, such as: being able to read gang graffiti and tattoos, detecting tools that are used in burglaries or knowing when certain movements or gestures indicate that a criminal activity is about to occur, thus providing probable cause."
However, court precedent has been set that the officer can't be wrong either, "a pot leaf tattoo may give probably cause that you are a drug user, however if that pot leaf is actually a laurel leaf and the tattoo'd suspect is actually a Roman history teacher, a possible civil rights violation has occurred. "


Wow! I hope you're never in control of anything.

Here's a scenario:
Myself and a friend stop in at a liquor store. He goes in, while I wait in the car. It's a hot day, so I leave the engine running to keep the AC running.

In your opinion, does an officer have PC to pull me out of the car and detain/search me, believing that we were attempting to rob the store?

AndrewMendez
02-05-2011, 1:05 AM
Dude was in a public place where his tats were seen. He wasn't hiding in somewhere where there was an expectation of privacy.

So a cop is ok to stop you at McDonalds?



You drinking coffee at 2 in the morning? That was a great writeup dude!! I am way too sleepy to think straight much less write something like that!!!

AAMOF ... Good Night!!

the worst part was trying to remember how many times each event happened. You know I never sleep. Get to sleep man. See you at Burro in 14 hours.

Don29palms
02-05-2011, 1:10 AM
HE WAS A FELON BREAKING THE LAW AND GOT CAUGHT! TOO EFFIN BAD! HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

AndrewMendez
02-05-2011, 1:16 AM
HE WAS A FELON BREAKING THE LAW AND GOT CAUGHT! TOO EFFIN BAD! HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

The cop ran his information based on his tattoo's.
You know damn well that if a good attorney was defending him, that the charges would have been ruled as a violation of his 4th amendment rights. He had no knowledge that he was a felon. Regardless if the guy was a scum bag or priest, it was an illegal search. I agree, glad he is locked up, at tax payers expense, but the search was illegal anyway you slice it.

JagerTroop
02-05-2011, 1:16 AM
HE WAS A FELON BREAKING THE LAW AND GOT CAUGHT! TOO EFFIN BAD! HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS!

If you grant the absolute power of search, do you think you can just "turn it off" whenever you please? I agree... he was a criminal. He deserves to be punished, but there is no way to make the law apply to him only. If cops can search him without PC, they can search anyone.

I will never back down... not even an inch.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Maybe you deserve neither.

JagerTroop
02-05-2011, 1:17 AM
The cop ran his information based on his tattoo's.
You know damn well that if a good attorney was defending him, that the charges would have been ruled as a violation of his 4th amendment rights. He had no knowledge that he was a felon. Regardless if the guy was a scum bag or priest, it was an illegal search. I agree, glad he is locked up, at tax payers expense, but the search was illegal anyway you slice it.

I'm glad to see we're on the same page here.:)

JagerTroop
02-05-2011, 1:22 AM
Hey Don,

Here's some food for thought...

Ignore your rights.......They'll go away!

Look familiar?

oaklander
02-05-2011, 1:23 AM
What you are saying seems wrong. If it were true, the below photo would be enough probable cause to investigate me and/or detain me. As you might know, I am a lawyer in good standing with the CA Bar. Their investigation or arrest would lead nowhere. Yet, my civil rights would be abrogated, merely based on the fact I have a tattoo and like guns?

Do you have a cite for your assertion that tats + gun = PC????

Officer sees man with jailhouse tats handling a firearm. That's all the PC he needs to ask for ID, which the felon gave freely. Good bust!

Me and my expensive .380 ammo:

http://oi51.tinypic.com/2nuqhs0.jpg

Falconis
02-05-2011, 1:29 AM
[QUOTE=TemporarilyIncognito;5756598]So a cop is ok to stop you at McDonalds?
QUOTE]

You have a gun in your hand? I'm not basing this here on one single thing but rather than the sum of everything. I'm also making some assumptions as the rest of us are doing.

JagerTroop
02-05-2011, 1:29 AM
Me and my expensive .380 ammo:

http://oi51.tinypic.com/2nuqhs0.jpg

That's good enough for ME! Lock him up!



and we'll take that .380 ammo too.

:shifty:

Falconis
02-05-2011, 1:36 AM
I know the argument is the cop recognized it as a jailhouse tat and it's an assumption we're making here like a lot of other assumptions. Hey Oaklander, you get that in the pen? ;)

AndrewMendez
02-05-2011, 1:47 AM
Falcon, I understand where you are coming from.
I don't doubt that some trained cops are able to identify certain types of tattoo's. However, the average LEO working the beat probably doesn't know the difference, not to mention their are a ton of gangs in prison. My tattoo's looks pretty damn gangster if your looking at them from 15 feet away....its not til you get closer that you can clearly see what it says, and even then...I have seen gangsters with names tattooed on them like mine....must mean I am a felon too.


Oaklander, that tattoo, mixed with those assless chaps...you are looking for trouble mister.

Falconis
02-05-2011, 1:54 AM
Like I said Incognito, we're all making assumptions about this case. As far as I am concerned, it's something to keep me occupied till my insomnia decides to go away.

I got plenty of friends that have a lot of tats per square inch. They're all law abiding and well pretty much look like thugs to the average citizen that has never stepped out of mayberry. Me personally, I hate needles :)

Carnivore
02-05-2011, 2:11 AM
How do you figure it's unfair? I'd agree with you if it was The Globe and Eagle as someone mentioned above. If it was an obvious jailhouse tat the cop recognized, like you said or a gang tat, I would think the cop would be derelict for not following up on good probable cause.

Because (to me) it is no different then any cop that stops an UOC person and does an E check. They have a gun I must check it. Just because you have jail house tats doesn't mean you are a felony or are a prohibited person. Now if the guy was talking to his buddy and said something like "finally, we couldn't do this in the pen" then I could back up the move a little more.

AndrewMendez
02-05-2011, 2:12 AM
My insomnia goes away about an hour before I have to wake up and go to sleep. I would like more info on this case, as yes, we are assuming things.

Don29palms
02-05-2011, 2:27 AM
I get people looking at my tats all the time. One question that was pointed out earlier is was it really an illegal search when the felon voluntarily gave up his info? I know what you mean and I do know how you feel about being profiled. I have been there but not to the extent you described earlier.

Let me just ask one question though. Are you saying that if a cop sees a guy with jailhouse tats at a gun range he shouldn't be suspicious? I'm not a cop and I would be. Again I'm glad the guy got busted. The guy was obviously an arrogant idiot. That's probably why he was a convict to begin with.

AndrewMendez
02-05-2011, 2:39 AM
I get people looking at my tats all the time. One question that was pointed out earlier is was it really an illegal search when the felon voluntarily gave up his info? I know what you mean and I do know how you feel about being profiled. I have been there but not to the extent you described earlier.

Let me just ask one question though. Are you saying that if a cop sees a guy with jailhouse tats at a gun range he shouldn't be suspicious? I'm not a cop and I would be. Again I'm glad the guy got busted. The guy was obviously an arrogant idiot. That's probably why he was a convict to begin with.

Arrogant I am sure. Stupid, probably. I don't agree that merely signing in is giving up your rights to the 4th. This is my issue...say the guy writes down his name on the list....LEO runs over and see's he signed "Joe Blow." He calls it in, and dispatch says yes, the name Joe Blow comes up with a warrant, and a parole..however, the LEO is not certain its the same person as he has not actually seen a valid ID...does the LEO have justification to detain that person, and ask for valid id to confirm whether or not he is in fact the person the dispatcher is talking about? I personally know 2 people (non family members) who have the same first and last name as myself. As I stated earlier, a good lawyer, without a doubt would have been able to get this guy off.

Pleasure chatting gents. I am off to bed.

Nodda Duma
02-05-2011, 2:46 AM
Lot of fail in this thread. Easy to armchair general the situation...

If the reporters for the story did their job properly and actually investigated the case (answering the question why was PC justified), then there wouldn't be any debate.

Too bad journalism studies don't offer a "fact-finding" course any more to teach today's reporters how to do their job properly.

oaklander
02-05-2011, 2:48 AM
We are speculating on the limits of PC. That is different than armchairing. Your quote assumes that there *was* PC. It is possible that there was not.

Lot of fail in this thread. Easy to armchair general the situation...

If the reporters for the story did their job properly and actually investigated the case (answering the question why was PC justified), then there wouldn't be any debate.

Too bad journalism studies don't offer a "fact-finding" course any more to teach today's reporters how to do their job properly.

stix213
02-05-2011, 3:28 AM
I say good job

vantec08
02-05-2011, 3:45 AM
The policeman did his job the only way he knows how . .. legally. Great. It doesnt begin to make a dent in real crime or the sheer volume of criminality, nor does it inhibit criminals from obtaining guns or this particular criminal from gunning-up on release. When is gubmint going to get it that we need to protect ourselves from these very criminals? I keep coming up with they dont want us to.

Vic
02-05-2011, 4:03 AM
Slightly off topic, but I love how the logic behind defeating civilian gun rights are entirely disregarded when an ex-convict is involved.

By this, I mean the entire argument whereas "If someone wanted to commit murder they would disregard any lesser laws to do do, and by lesser laws, I mean gun laws"

But when someone we deemed acceptable to introduce back into society touches a firearm, "screw em, let em burn". Again, gun laws would do nothing, if they wanted to murder someone, they'd ignore the gun laws.

More of a complaint about the law, just sayin'.


BTW, I wonder how many posters would continue saying this type of profiling was ok if the officer was wrong.

anthonyca
02-05-2011, 4:11 AM
:rolleyes:

Not worried about "the man" here. Not in the least.

How about you?......

How about this?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

If the guy was on probation I can see his name being run. I am much more worried about a police state and over reaching government then some criminals that I have atleast a chance of defending myself against.

VictorFranko
02-05-2011, 4:12 AM
The officer ran the ID's because he thought they looked like gang members, not just because of the tattoos.
The article could have said "Doland and his friend, who were eating bananas, looked like gang members".
It was the fact they looked like gang members.

Knock a cop for using his experience to get, not just a convicted felon, but a convicted felon on probation (in the commission of yet another crime) off the streets. The cop may have saved the life of an innocent liquor store owner or more.

oaklander
02-05-2011, 4:32 AM
The question is how many rights are "we" willing to give up in order to have a "safe" society?

It amazes me that folks don't see that this is the same argument that the gun banners use (safety at any price).

JagerTroop
02-05-2011, 4:45 AM
The officer ran the ID's because he thought they looked like gang members, not just because of the tattoos.
The article could have said "Doland and his friend, who were eating bananas, looked like gang members".
It was the fact they looked like gang members.

Knock a cop for using his experience to get, not just a convicted felon, but a convicted felon on probation (in the commission of yet another crime) off the streets. The cop may have saved the life of an innocent liquor store owner or more.

While I appreciate gut instinct, years of experience, and recognition of gang affiliation in order to prevent crime, it doesn't give him the right.

The cop didn't know he was on probation until he illegally searched the guy (by running his name). Sounds like he really lucked out. There is no crime in "looking like a thug". I look like a thug, but I'm not prohibited. If I went to a range, and an off duty cop working the counter ran my name, I'd be furious.
There IS an assumed amount of privacy. When you hand over your ID at a range, it is for the ranges use only.

How would you feel if you went to a club, and the bouncer(of duty cop) at the door whipped out a laptop and did a background check on you when he carded you?

The fact that this guy turned out to be a prohibited person is beside the point. If cops were allowed to "go off of their gut", they wouldn't need PC, search warrants, or even reasonable suspicion. They could just search at will. Our 4A rights would be null and void.

Even cops have to abide by the law.

(I had an afterthought) The only way I could see this being legit, is if the range had a disclaimer/release that patrons sign. People frequently sign things without reading them. He could've agreed to a prohibition check without even knowing it. Although, I've never heard of/seen this at any ranges. Just trying to look at all angles.

VictorFranko
02-05-2011, 5:22 AM
While I appreciate gut instinct, years of experience, and recognition of gang affiliation in order to prevent crime, it doesn't give him the right.

The cop didn't know he was on probation until he illegally searched the guy (by running his name). Sounds like he really lucked out. There is no crime in "looking like a thug". I look like a thug, but I'm not prohibited. If I went to a range, and an off duty cop working the counter ran my name, I'd be furious.
There IS an assumed amount of privacy. When you hand over your ID at a range, it is for the ranges use only.

How would you feel if you went to a club, and the bouncer(of duty cop) at the door whipped out a laptop and did a background check on you when he carded you?

The fact that this guy turned out to be a prohibited person is beside the point. If cops were allowed to "go off of their gut", they wouldn't need PC, search warrants, or even reasonable suspicion. They could just search at will. Our 4A rights would be null and void.

Even cops have to abide by the law.

(I had an afterthought) The only way I could see this being legit, is if the range had a disclaimer/release that patrons sign. People frequently sign things without reading them. He could've agreed to a prohibition check without even knowing it. Although, I've never heard of/seen this at any ranges. Just trying to look at all angles.

Of course I understand and actually agree with most of what you say.
Using me as an example going into is a club is a poor analogy.
There is nothing against the law about me going into a club. There is law against this convicted felon from doing what he was doing.
I have a past (we won't go into detail here :p) and I find it funny when I support LE.
It is kind of blurred here, the felon was not stopped on the street and detained or even searched. He willfully surrendered his identification and then committed a crime. If this had been a case of the felon going into a club, then I feel it would definitely be wrong, but he was not going into a club.
Stupidity should be painful, I always say.

NightOwl
02-05-2011, 5:23 AM
I see lots of people here talking about the felon who had his information run through the computer and was arrested because of it. What about the other guy, who was not a criminal, who had his information run? To all of you screaming how the felon got what was coming to him, did the non-felon get what was coming to him by having his information run? Do you all support law abiding citizens having their information run without their knowledge, consent, or cause?

Because (to me) it is no different then any cop that stops an UOC person and does an E check. They have a gun I must check it. Just because you have jail house tats doesn't mean you are a felony or are a prohibited person. Now if the guy was talking to his buddy and said something like "finally, we couldn't do this in the pen" then I could back up the move a little more.

For an echeck, the cop does NOT need to check it, there is absolutely no requirement in the law to do so.

Wrangler John
02-05-2011, 5:56 AM
As an aside, branding criminals, runaway slaves, Gypsies and brawler's were marked with a branding iron to identify them under British law adopted in 1547. As late as 1779 criminals pleading "benefit of clergy" were branded on the thumb. During the Civil War deserters were branded to identify them. Up until 1870 Japanese criminals were tattooed on the forehead or upper arm to identify them.

Now imagine today, a law is introduced to tattoo or brand felons. Can you hear the outcry? Imagine the violation of civil rights. Strange then, isn't it, that we have gang members and other felons (or even the miscreant wannabes) tattooing themselves for our convenience? Should not society take advantage of such testosterone induced self-incrimination, such an imperative to self-identify as a member of a criminal organization? Good police work on the part of the arresting officer - not much wiggle room for a parolee.

dustoff31
02-05-2011, 6:15 AM
Arrogant I am sure. Stupid, probably. I don't agree that merely signing in is giving up your rights to the 4th.

No. Signing in at the range doesn't waive your 4A rights. Being on parole/probation does. When one is on parole, they are still under sentence. Essentially they are still in prison. They just get to sleep somewhere else. They don't have the same civil rights as you or I.

You also have to remember that the cop had to articulate his RS/PC, that is he had to explain why he thought this guy was dirty, to the DA to get a filing, and again to the judge at trial. They both obviously felt it was adequate.

Will Goes Boing
02-05-2011, 6:56 AM
Good bust.

BigDogatPlay
02-05-2011, 7:55 AM
There is a huge amount of difference between the tat work that so many people are getting these days and the specific, message driven work that is applied in jails, prisons and by gang members in general. Officers are trained to recognize specific symbols and messaging. Officers who are perhaps only marginally trained could make mistakes or, through their own interpretations, infer that any one with tats = bad.... which is completely fallacious and will eventually get the officer's rear end in a sling.

OTOH if I, as a trained peace officer, see work on a guy that I recognize and can articulate from my training and experience as consistent with gang affiliation / membership and that person is renting a firearm at a range, then I believe I have sufficient grounds to initiate an investigation as to whether or not he is a prohibited person as the officer has formed a reasonable suspicion that the person may be prohibited.

dantodd
02-05-2011, 8:09 AM
Ultimately we do not have enough information to decide much of anything in this case.

First, I don't know about the legality of a cop running someone as part of his moonlighting.

Second, I don't know about the legality of simply running anyone he wants if he has the requisite info to do so. See Oaklander's post about fishing in the WalMart parking lot for why this is BAD.

Third, we don't know the exact nature of the tats in question, nor do we know the extent of the officer's expertise in identifying "jailhouse" tats. If the tats in question were clearly ones indicating where he was housed it may well be PC for investigation. If you wear a sign saying you are a felon don't blame someone for believing you.

Finally, This sort of search is particularly troubling because unless you ARE a bad guy you will never know it was even made. If we assume that PC is needed (I don't know if that is the case) and we assume that he had PC in this case what about the other 200 people he ran out of curiosity buy found nothing on? They would never even know that their rights had been violated?

CHS
02-05-2011, 8:29 AM
We already do have to show papers. On the street, to travel by train, by plane, to get a phone, to do financial transactions, have a drink, buy cold medicine, everything. Everything we thought was wrong with the Soviet Union has now happened here.

You don't actually have to show ID to travel by train or plane inside the US.

CHS
02-05-2011, 8:51 AM
One of the most absurd things about this case is that everyone keeps harping on how the guy looked, and how the police officer was right to do what he did based on how the guy looked. Tattoos or no.

WHO CARES?

Him and his friend were at the range, renting guns, to have a good time. That's it. Hell, he MAY not have actually known that he couldn't possess guns at a rental range.

He didn't look like he was high or suicidal, he didn't look like he was going to run off with the guns and commit mass murder, he just looked "undesirable" to the cop and that was enough to get his ID run. That's absurd.

If the guy wasn't doing anything actually suspicious then it shouldn't matter one bit what he looked like.

Does this mean I need to stop hanging out with my tattooed friends for fear of having my ID run everywhere I go?

Suspicious behavior = Possibly probable cause
Looking a certain way = Not probably cause

tileguy
02-05-2011, 8:58 AM
for those believers who think this was fine and dandy were do you draw the line when its you they are profiling. is that when you draw the line. i know you say i have nothing to hide i dont do anything wrong let them. well what if they put you in jail till they make sure and then they let you go 2 days later and say sorry our mistake. just think about it. its wrong. this is just a scenario did not happen to me but it has happened to people.

Will Goes Boing
02-05-2011, 9:04 AM
The guy was a convicted felon..... he has NO business with a gun..... PERIOD. Once again.... he's a convicted FELON. I'm sure the officers could tell the difference between a gang member who's all tatted up as oppose to a punk rocker or regular Joe who happens to have tats. If any of you have seen a tatted up gang member/parolee.... trust me, you could tell.

Stonewalker
02-05-2011, 9:18 AM
HE WAS A FELON BREAKING THE LAW AND GOT CAUGHT! TOO EFFIN BAD! HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Based on this post I have to assume you just love cops like this one -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wKRKGqYZjI

snobord99
02-05-2011, 9:20 AM
There was on 4A violation. The officer saw tattoos, thought he may have been a gang member, and may have been a prohibited person. So what? He didn't need any of that.

The 4th protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, it protects against both unreasonable searches and unreasonable seizures. I hope we could all agree here that there was no seizure as it doesn't appear that the officer stopped the defendant at any point prior to obtaining his ID. He ran the defendant's criminal history by using the identity that was already provided to the range, not by forcing the defendant to hand over his identity. So the only real possible 4A violation is if there was an unreasonable search.

The threshold question to whether an unreasonable search occurred is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. If there's no reasonable expectation of privacy, there's no search in the 4A constitutional sense. Here, I don't believe the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his identity. There's no indication that the range agreed to keep the identity confidential or that they wouldn't turn it over to anyone (granted this isn't something I'd expect a news article to cover even if it existed). Basically, once he gave his name and license to the range, he could no longer expect that no one would know who he is.

Where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy, cops need neither PC nor reasonable suspicion.

Pushing all that aside (and as much as people here would prefer not to acknowledge this), there ARE tattoos you could get that would allow a cop to immediately recognize you as a felon. Gang tattoos alone shouldn't do it, but what if you saw a guy with a prison tattoo (tattoos people get to signify that they've been in prison)? Yes, they exist. If a cop saw a guy with a prison tattoo on his face, would that not be enough PC to believe that the guy is a convicted felon (forget that no PC was needed)? No doubt Oaklander's tat would not be PC for a search, but I reckon he didn't get that while in prison. The fact of the matter is, the article doesn't specify the tattoos the defendant had and everyone here is just assuming he didn't have anything that could immediately give a cop with some experience PC to believe that he's a convicted felon.

PBRStreetgang
02-05-2011, 9:29 AM
Wow! I hope you're never in control of anything.

Here's a scenario:
Myself and a friend stop in at a liquor store. He goes in, while I wait in the car. It's a hot day, so I leave the engine running to keep the AC running.

In your opinion, does an officer have PC to pull me out of the car and detain/search me, believing that we were attempting to rob the store?

For the record: I quoted it, ("These are skills that officers are specially trained in, such as: being able to read gang graffiti and tattoos, detecting tools that are used in burglaries or knowing when certain movements or gestures indicate that a criminal activity is about to occur, thus providing probable cause.")....not my words. It was from the Mirimar college Police Officer's Patrol Guidelines and Probable Cause Workbook.

glockman19
02-05-2011, 9:42 AM
Based on this post I have to assume you just love cops like this one -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wKRKGqYZjI

WOW...
Collusion and conspiracy amongst the deputies.

beauregard
02-05-2011, 9:49 AM
Nice profiling officer.

I am covered with tattoos, have never been arrested, and would relish the opportunity to relieve a bad cop of his job.

Yeah, he got a bad-guy, but he didn't do it clean.

PBRStreetgang
02-05-2011, 9:52 AM
The cop ran his information based on his tattoo's.
You know damn well that if a good attorney was defending him, that the charges would have been ruled as a violation of his 4th amendment rights. He had no knowledge that he was a felon. Regardless if the guy was a scum bag or priest, it was an illegal search. I agree, glad he is locked up, at tax payers expense, but the search was illegal anyway you slice it.

I have nothing but love for you Incognito :), and I do totally agree with two parts, first lock the dirt bag up, second, holy crap what if that was me and mine? I have been down that same road with you, stopped, searched, detained, no reason, and let go....and I was LEO at one time in my life. However, as much as I do not like it, as much as I agree with you, we are literally out gunned on this:

"Expertise" gets us every time.

From the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorney’s (Shapiro, B. (1993). Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence. Sacramento: Univ.)

• Observation -- These are things that the police officer obtains knowledge of via the senses: sight, smell, hearing; but this category would also include the kinds of inferences to be made when the experienced police officer is able to detect a familiar pattern (of criminal activity) that contains a series of suspicious behaviors (e.g., circling the block twice around an armored car unloading at a bank).

• Expertise -- These are the kinds of things that a police officer is specially trained at; such things as gang awareness and identification, recognition of burglar tools, the ability to read graffiti and tattoos, and various other techniques in the general direction of knowing when certain gestures, movements, or preparations tend to indicate impending criminal activity. Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)

• Circumstantial Evidence -- This is evidence that points the finger away from other suspects or an alibi, and by a process of elimination, the only probable conclusion to be drawn is that the person or things left behind is involved in crime.

• Information -- This is a broad category which includes informants, statements by witnesses and victims, and announcements via police bulletins, broadcasts, and at roll call.

I also noticed that subject pled out, and it didn't even get close to a trial.

Stonewalker
02-05-2011, 9:57 AM
It doesn't look like there was a violation of the 4th amendment here.

1. As snobord99 said, the felon probably did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he signed into the range.

2. The 4th amendment doesn't apply to information that 3rd parties keep about you, for example, Google maintains records of what is searched for by whom. These records can be subpoenaed without having to consider the 4th amendment. I assume a check-in sheet would fall under this category. I'm not sure what the rules are about an LEO investigating versus an attorney subpoenaing the information.

Now, the crux is, what happened when the LEO approached the suspect? Did the LEO say the suspect's name and the suspect responded? He could have kept his mouth shut, but how was he supposed to know the LEO was an LEO?

These are all questions that will have to be figured out in court and thank God I don't have a criminal record and don't ever plan on it!

shocknm
02-05-2011, 9:59 AM
...The cop may have saved the life of an innocent liquor store owner child or more.

Fixed it for you.

...

It amazes me that folks don't see that this is the same argument that the gun banners use (safety at any price).

I see it !!

Amazes me that folks are happy to give up someone else's rights because it doesn't affect 'them.'

What the... where's the 'flame suit' smilie?

Chadster
02-05-2011, 10:11 AM
When I sign in at the local gun range I can clearly see in plain view all of the other people who have signed in. Sometimes I take a minute and read through the list. That is completly legal. I can then go home and run their names through public online databases that will show if someone if a convicted felon.
How could what the cop did in any way shape or form be considered unlawful ? What code prevents it ?

Lets use a different scenario.....a cop is with his son at their local elementary school for a drama play. All parents and adults sign in before they can enter the school and watch the play. A local cop see's a man that raises his suspicion but cant point a specific thing. The cop checks the registration and runs the mans ID. He comes back as a registered sex offender. How do you feel about that ?

Warhawk014
02-05-2011, 10:17 AM
According to the article, the guy was on probation after release.

Chances are that he has no 4A rights as they are usually waived by the felon as a condition of release.

An LEO can do pretty much as he pleases with a parolee/probationer.

this is correct. anyone on parole or probation is subject to search and seizure at anytime by any leo. as far as probable cause, you dont get a prison/jail house tattoo unless you have been inside. although the atricle didnt specifically mention them being exactly that. but its the media, and they will spout what they want.

shadowofnight
02-05-2011, 10:18 AM
If these tattoo's were visible, and a recognized gang tattoo known to gang protocol as to be gotten only when the individual has already been in prison...then I see no issue with this and it was a good bust.

But that tattoo better be available as a picture in a book available to LEO's, and be known to other members of that said gang as a tat only to be worn after you had been to prison ( Pretty easy to prove by documented pictures of other prison graduate members of said gang ) ...where being a poser with said tat would get the poser a serious beatdown/death.

If it was just a dude with a tat that said he was in such and such gang...with no other meaning...then the harrassment was wrong.

M198
02-05-2011, 10:18 AM
If the cop was working at the range as an employee of the range, he should be fired for violating a customer's privacy. If he was a cop on duty and was taking required range time, the range should have required a warrant to see their logs (unless their is some law requiring the owner show the sign in log without one like an FFL being inspected). I don't know about disclosure rules for ranges but this guy might have a civil case against the range.

Warhawk014
02-05-2011, 10:22 AM
Once again, you're missing the point. Jailhouse tatoos are not PC, nor are gold teeth.

Sagging pants on the other hand are not just PC, but clear grounds for the immediate use of deadly force.....

Okay, sorry.... I just don't like saggy pants. Its a personal thing.... Is that SO wrong?!?!?!?!? :cool:

Just kidding... Makes for great fun, though..

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll294/warhawk014/blackhand.jpg

this is a real jailhouse tattoo, you dont get a tattoo like this for being a nice person.

snobord99
02-05-2011, 10:39 AM
this is correct. anyone on parole or probation is subject to search and seizure at anytime by any leo. as far as probable cause, you dont get a prison/jail house tattoo unless you have been inside. although the atricle didnt specifically mention them being exactly that. but its the media, and they will spout what they want.

Not true (at least not in CA). Even if you're on probation/parole, you are only subject to searches and seizures at any time if you have a 4th waiver as a condition of probation/parole.

That said, if someone has a 4th waiver, if the cop didn't know they had a 4th waiver prior to the search, I don't believe the search would be legal. For it to be legal, I think the cop had to know the guy was subject to a 4th waiver before he conducts the search. I don't know case law off the top of my head that specifically says this, but the 4A knowledge I do have off the top of my head says that the courts wouldn't let such a search stand.

sandman21
02-05-2011, 10:41 AM
http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll294/warhawk014/blackhand.jpg

this is a real jailhouse tattoo, you dont get a tattoo like this for being a nice person.

So you know that this person is prohibited from possessing a firearm? Based on specific and articulable facts.

bigmike82
02-05-2011, 10:46 AM
Come on people.

10 years in prison for going to a shooting range?

10 years for a crime that did not harm anyone?

The sheer lunacy of this is mind-boggling.

ElCUBANO
02-05-2011, 10:48 AM
Home sick for Florida 10-20-life you just got to love it. got to wonder what the crime rate would be here if we had that an it was actually imposed.

PBRStreetgang
02-05-2011, 10:49 AM
Come on people.

10 years in prison for going to a shooting range?

10 years for a crime that did not harm anyone?

The sheer lunacy of this is mind-boggling.

He pled out, wasn't even a trial, guess he just felt guilty :)

Once again, you're missing the point. Jailhouse tatoos are not PC, nor are gold teeth.

Sagging pants on the other hand are not just PC, but clear grounds for the immediate use of deadly force.....

Okay, sorry.... I just don't like saggy pants. Its a personal thing.... Is that SO wrong?!?!?!?!? :cool:

Just kidding... Makes for great fun, though..

Hahah, so 2 days ago I am in Lemon Grove just up from the trolley station on Broadway. Watch two patrol cars go screaming by then a few moments later an individual comes running out from between two buildings....I use the term running very loosely, it was more of a shuttle as he was trying with great difficulty to keep his pants up high enough so as he didn't trip. The first of the officers saw this turned around and just parked and waited. In took what was a good several seconds for the individual to get across the street. When the individual looked up from watching the ground or his pants and noticed the first patrol car, he attempted to return the way he came and tripped. By the time he got a good grip on his pants and pulled them up enough to start moving again, the second patrol car was on scene. At least you had to feel the officers were fairly safe, the suspects hands were occupied the entire time. :)

snobord99
02-05-2011, 10:53 AM
So you know that this person is prohibited from possessing a firearm? Based on specific and articulable facts.

Actually, "1) he has a tattoo that generally only people who have been in prison get and 2) he was shooting a firearm" are both specific and articulable facts.

scarville
02-05-2011, 10:54 AM
THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS!
I think that only applies to the little people.

Dutch3
02-05-2011, 11:13 AM
I have no problem with the felon in possession going to jail.

What I am am wondering, is a LEO ever considered to be "off duty"?

If the officer was working as a range employee and not a LEO on that day, does that mean that he can still legally use LE resources (such as requesting a background check) that are normally reserved for when he is "on duty"?

Or is he considered to be "on duty" at all times by virtue of his occupation?

beauregard
02-05-2011, 11:16 AM
Funny, so many of you here saying it's okay that the cop busted this dude are also the guys who clamor about "how the libs are killing the constitution."

Oh the irony.

SarcoBlaster
02-05-2011, 11:21 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/SarcoBlaster/Hatersgonnahate.gif

oaklander
02-05-2011, 11:25 AM
You have two examples below.

In the first - citizens can walk through Wal*Mart and "run" license plates. The only issue is that citizens don't have access to police databases, and citizens can't generally make arrests unless certain crimes are committed right in front of them. We are talking about limits on government, not limits on citizens.

In the second, if the officer had some reasonable suspicion beyond the person simply "looking" suspicious, then it would be OK, I guess. I look suspicious, actually - I get followed around stores all the time by private security officers. It's because I am big, and I have a shaved head and tats. Does my appearance alone mean that I have less rights than someone who looks like Micheal J. Fox as Alex Keaton in Family Ties?

When I sign in at the local gun range I can clearly see in plain view all of the other people who have signed in. Sometimes I take a minute and read through the list. That is completly legal. I can then go home and run their names through public online databases that will show if someone if a convicted felon.
How could what the cop did in any way shape or form be considered unlawful ? What code prevents it ?

Lets use a different scenario.....a cop is with his son at their local elementary school for a drama play. All parents and adults sign in before they can enter the school and watch the play. A local cop see's a man that raises his suspicion but cant point a specific thing. The cop checks the registration and runs the mans ID. He comes back as a registered sex offender. How do you feel about that ?

10TH AMENDMENT
02-05-2011, 11:44 AM
I am probably one of the younger CalGunners. For work, I wear a business suit every single day. I work anywhere from 6 am, til midnight. I drive a ton for work. I have been pulled over 2 times while working in the last few years, 1 talking on the phone, 1 cracked windshield. No questions asked, straight forward, and went on with my day.

Now...Outside of work, I drive much less. I always have my Blue Dodgers hat on, blue Levi's, short hair, a plain or gun tshirt, and my clean Nike Cortez', oh and I have tattoo's (daughters names). I drive the same car, in the same area, and I have been pulled over at least 20 times.
Out of those 20 times, I have been asked to step out of the car and patted down at least 15 times.
Out of those same 20 times, I have been asked at least 12 times to take a look around the car.
7 out of those 20 times, I have been given a field sobriety test.
3 out of 20 of those times, I have been put into the back of a cop car while they illegally searched my car because they smelled drugs (none were found).
14 of those 20 times I had at least one of my daughters in the car with me.
16 of those 20 times, I filled formal complaints against the officer.
3 of the 20 times, it was the same officer.
0 of those 20 times, I received a ticket.

With that being said, No, the cop didn't have PC to run the guys info. What was a cop doing at a range working? A cop has no right nor business running random people's information based solely on looks, bottom line. To say that guy (or myself above) was not illegally profiled is a joke. Its not good police work, its over stepping boundaries. Anyone thinking a cop running your info is a good idea, might as well ship themselves to China, as you would fit right in with their thinking.

:cheers2::iagree::clap:

bigmike82
02-05-2011, 11:54 AM
"I have no problem with the felon in possession going to jail."

You're okay with someone going to prison for 10 years despite the fact that they hurt NOONE? This was a truly victimless crime with utterly no harm coming to anyone or anything. Yet you're okay with a 10 year prison term? Are you kidding me?

Trojan Bayonet
02-05-2011, 11:55 AM
http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll294/warhawk014/blackhand.jpg

this is a real jailhouse tattoo, you dont get a tattoo like this for being a nice person.

So you know that this person is prohibited from possessing a firearm? Based on specific and articulable facts.

Hand with "EME" = Mexican Mafia

Anyone sporting tattoos with the Roman numerals XIII, XIV, XVIII, or combinations such as X3, XV3 is exposing themselves as a gang member and can be targeted for extra attention by LEO.

XIII, X3 = 13. Thirteenth letter of the alphabet = M. Usually denotes a "Sureno", a person associated with a gang affiliated with the Mexican Mafia.

XIV = 14. 14 = N. "Norteno", associated with a gang in Northern California. Rivals to Mexican Mafia associated gangs.

XV3, 18 = 18th Street gang member.

88 or HH = White supremacist. 8 = 8th letter of the alphabet, H. HH = Heil Hitler.

You don't get tattoos with those insignias by just screwing around in a tattoo shop. You get those by doing time in the joint.

If you see anyone sporting those tattoos at a range, those people are gang members and should be apprehended by LEOs immediately.

beauregard
02-05-2011, 12:03 PM
If you see anyone sporting those tattoos at a range, those people are gang members and should be apprehended by LEOs immediately.

FIRST AMENDMENT FAIL
(I think you watch too much true-crime TV dude).

odysseus
02-05-2011, 12:03 PM
I am going to try to reduce the issue a little I see here.

First the felon in probation had no right to not be interrogated and searched. He also of course was in violation in possessing the firearm at the range, and the LE officer did what he was trained to do and caught a bad guy on probation doing something that was illegal for him to be doing.

However the criticism in the thread as the story goes, is that the LE agent did not go directly to the felon and query for ID on his hunch. That could have then led him back to the range admin to get ID and then run a check. It seems he went directly to the range admin first only on a suspicion (which turned out to be right) to ask for the persons ID and the range admin gave it to him just only on him asking to see it. I see issues for the range admin there, and I can understand why that upsets people.

oaklander
02-05-2011, 12:04 PM
Being a gang member alone is not a crime. There's a right to associate with anyone you want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

The "associating" alone, assuming no other laws are broken, is entirely and absolutely protected by OUR Constitution. That is why gangs simply can't be outlawed in this country. I know it's a PITA - but it protects you and me as well, since it's a slippery slope when the government starts deciding which groups can exist and which can't.

Even past jail time is not a prohibition to owning firearms - unless the jail time was a sentence for a prohibiting misdemeanor or felony.

When you start saying things like this, you become an absolutist, which is very close to being a fascist.

Fascism is the idea that the government has absolute power over the people, and the modern liberal movement in the United States is based somewhat on Fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

Please do the research before you post on this topic.

If you see anyone sporting those tattoos at a range, those people are gang members and should be apprehended by LEOs immediately.

Nodda Duma
02-05-2011, 12:18 PM
Oaklander, you're a lawyer right? What do you think of Samson v. California? Does that case apply to FL since it was decided by SCOTUS?

sandman21
02-05-2011, 12:24 PM
Hand with "EME" = Mexican Mafia

Anyone sporting tattoos with the Roman numerals XIII, XIV, XVIII, or combinations such as X3, XV3 is exposing themselves as a gang member and can be targeted for extra attention by LEO.

XIII, X3 = 13. Thirteenth letter of the alphabet = M. Usually denotes a "Sureno", a person associated with a gang affiliated with the Mexican Mafia.

XIV = 14. 14 = N. "Norteno", associated with a gang in Northern California. Rivals to Mexican Mafia associated gangs.

XV3, 18 = 18th Street gang member.

88 or HH = White supremacist. 8 = 8th letter of the alphabet, H. HH = Heil Hitler.

You don't get tattoos with those insignias by just screwing around in a tattoo shop. You get those by doing time in the joint.

If you see anyone sporting those tattoos at a range, those people are gang members and should be apprehended by LEOs immediately.
I know what it is, however "So you know that this person is prohibited from possessing a firearm? Based on specific and articulable facts."

Trojan Bayonet
02-05-2011, 12:31 PM
FIRST AMENDMENT FAIL
(I think you watch too much true-crime TV dude).


Not quite. I work "behind the fences". If you knew what I know about these people, you would be extremely alarmed if you saw any of these bastards at a gun range.

snobord99
02-05-2011, 12:34 PM
I know what it is, however "So you know that this person is prohibited from possessing a firearm? Based on specific and articulable facts."

I'll say it again: "1) he has a tattoo that generally only people who have been in prison get and 2) he was shooting a firearm" are both specific and articulable facts.

snobord99
02-05-2011, 12:41 PM
Oaklander, you're a lawyer right? What do you think of Samson v. California? Does that case apply to FL since it was decided by SCOTUS?

I'm not Oaklander, but I'll answer the question. If FL had a similar 4th waiver statute as CA, then yes, it would be applicable to FL. In fact, it has been cited by every Circuit and by courts in AK, AZ, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA...I stopped checking...I think you get the idea.

Trojan Bayonet
02-05-2011, 12:44 PM
I know what it is, however "So you know that this person is prohibited from possessing a firearm? Based on specific and articulable facts."

The exhibition of gang tattoos constitutes probable cause for search, especially ones that are known by law enforcement that are commonly done in prisons. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out someone sporting gang tattoos has done time behind bars. Frequently, one of the conditions of their release is not to be in possession of a firearm. Most felons that have done state or federal time have that as a condition of release. Based upon that, the LEO in the news report cited in the original post had probable cause to search, detain, and arrest the gangbangers.

sandman21
02-05-2011, 12:50 PM
I'll say it again: "1) he has a tattoo that generally only people who have been in prison get and 2) he was shooting a firearm" are both specific and articulable facts.
Based on specific and articulable facts, generally is not specific. Generally people holding a handgun sideways are gang bangers, doesn't mean I get to be detained at the range because I do it.

todd2968
02-05-2011, 12:57 PM
I haven't read all post yet so I'm sure I'm not the first to say this.
IMAGINE same scenario, but instead of felon the guy was a card carrying nut job, I believe it is the job of the range to keep everyone safe.
Should convicted felons be allowed to get better at target practice?

I see the problem with running a possible law abiding citizen credentials, and violating his 4th amendment rights, but a condition of the range is to present your ID, and I assume in the paperwork there is a clause about a check.

The Director
02-05-2011, 12:58 PM
Being a gang member alone is not a crime. There's a right to associate with anyone you want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

The "associating" alone, assuming no other laws are broken, is entirely and absolutely protected by OUR Constitution. That is why gangs simply can't be outlawed in this country. I know it's a PITA - but it protects you and me as well, since it's a slippery slope when the government starts deciding which groups can exist and which can't.

Even past jail time is not a prohibition to owning firearms - unless the jail time was a sentence for a prohibiting misdemeanor or felony.

When you start saying things like this, you become an absolutist, which is very close to being a fascist.

Fascism is the idea that the government has absolute power over the people, and the modern liberal movement in the United States is based somewhat on Fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

Please do the research before you post on this topic.

No one is saying that the crime was being a gang member, or even going to jail. The presence of jailhouse tats may give the officer reasonable suspicion.

As an attorney you should know that PC DOES NOT equal guilt. That can only be determined by a court.

That PC granted the officer the right to search, and he found out the man was a felon - period, end.

What's one of the first questions a patrol officer asks someone he stops PC reasons....."Are you currently on parole or probation". The guy was. GAME OVER. Good search.

snobord99
02-05-2011, 12:58 PM
The exhibition of gang tattoos constitutes probable cause for search

No, it doesn't. By itself, it's not even enough to establish the person is a gang member. There's a reason gang experts have to testify to several factors that would classify a defendant as a gang member, not just say "he has a tattoo."

especially ones that are known by law enforcement that are commonly done in prisons.

This may be enough for reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain but not enough for probable cause to arrest.

It doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out someone sporting gang tattoos has done time behind bars

Plenty of gang bangers have not done any time. In fact, A LOT haven't done any time (they could be new, they could have never been caught, etc, etc).

sandman21
02-05-2011, 1:02 PM
The exhibition of gang tattoos constitutes probable cause for search, especially ones that are known by law enforcement that are commonly done in prisons. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out someone sporting gang tattoos has done time behind bars. Frequently, one of the conditions of their release is not to be in possession of a firearm. Most felons that have done state or federal time have that as a condition of release. Based upon that, the LEO in the news report cited in the original post had probable cause to search, detain, and arrest the gangbangers.

So anyone who has gang colors, gang tats, can be stopped outside of Terry?

snobord99
02-05-2011, 1:10 PM
Based on specific and articulable facts, generally is not specific. Generally people holding a handgun sideways are gang bangers, doesn't mean I get to be detained at the range because I do it.

I knew you would say this. You're misunderstanding which sense of the word "specific" the courts are alluding to. The specific fact is: generally only people that have been in prison are sporting prison tattoos. Is this fact specific to the defendant? No, but it is a specific fact. It doesn't have to be a fact that is specific to this defendant. The specific fact as to this defendant is that he has such a tattoo and he is in possession of a firearm.

It's not too different from saying "often, people swerving on the freeway at 2:30am on a Saturday are drunk." Is this specific to any particular defendant? No. Is it a fact that would lead an officer who saw a person swerving on the freeway at 2:30am on a Saturday to think that this particular person might be drunk? Absolutely. Are all people swerving at 2:30am on a Saturday drunk? Absolutely not, is it enough of a "specific and articulable fact" that an officer could make the traffic stop? Yes.

And this whole discussion forgets that this probably doesn't even qualify as a 4th Amendment search.

Carnivore
02-05-2011, 2:41 PM
YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT!!

The cop GAVE him the gun before running his back ground and seeing if he was prohibited in the first place. I think the cop should be arrested and from now on every one going into a range should have a back ground check. Not all felons have tats and "look like" bad guys.

Amazing.





You don't get tattoos with those insignias by just screwing around in a tattoo shop. You get those by doing time in the joint.

If you see anyone sporting those tattoos at a range, those people are gang members and should be apprehended by LEOs immediately.

This is by far the scariest post on this thread. Just arrest them before they do any known crime and you can single handedly end all gang violence. Absolutely astounding.

I own a Glock I must be going to shoot a Senator. I must be arrested.

SteveH
02-05-2011, 3:53 PM
I don't know about it being legal. Seems the same going up to him and reaching in to his pocket and grabbing his ID and running it without he knowing.

His pocket is his pocket.

But a police database is a police database.

My gut felling is a CII search may not have been justified but lessor query of local arrest records or superior court records was justified.

For example police do not need RS or PC to run license plates either by computer or radio. But to run the RO's CII number they need both right to know and need to know. however they can determine if a person is a convicted felon without accessing CII searches.

Hell he may have discovered the info on his local superior courts public website that everyone has access to. Without even using any police database.

BigDogatPlay
02-05-2011, 3:54 PM
I know what it is, however "So you know that this person is prohibited from possessing a firearm? Based on specific and articulable facts."

You're jumping ahead. There is a process that needs to take place.

I see specific tats that my training and experience lead me to believe that the person wearing them may be a previously convicted felon. I personally see him renting, handling and perhaps even firing a gun. Knowing that a felon in possession of a firearm is a felony, I can make the nexus to reasonable suspicion that a felony may be taking place which justifies further investigation on my part.

I can ask the range employ for the DL info, the subject gave it voluntarily as a condition of service, and I can lawfully request it since I am now conducting a criminal investigation. I can contact my dispatch for a records check within the course and scope of my employment as a peace officer even though I am off duty. If my agency's RMS flags for probation or parole as part of the individual's contact record, I can confirm his status without a full on criminal history. If his status as a felon is confirmed, I now have probable cause to arrest as I've on viewed him committing a felony (PC 836). Once I arrest him, I can run a full criminal history to confirm / verify what I've already discovered.

I know that it rankles some here that an off duty peace officer seemed to go a little out of his way to make a collar. Again, there is a huge difference between jailhouse tats and the nice sleeve work that a young, successful businessman has done professionally. Some seem to see the end of sweet America as we know it. However, the felon knew good and well he wasn't supposed to possess firearms. It's made real clear to them when they release.

Too bad for him that he was brassy enough to actually go into a range and rent a gun.... knowing he was committing a felony by doing so.

SteveH
02-05-2011, 3:55 PM
The issue here is whether or not police officers can check your offender status, based merely on thinking you are an offender.

I do not know the answer.

It seems to me that running a database query is akin to a search, and should only be done when there is probable cause to believe that you committed a crime.

If the answer were anything else, police would be allowed to walk through Wal*Mart parking lots and run the plates on every single car, just looking for one that was driven by a known felon.

They can and do. Looking for stolen cars.

SteveH
02-05-2011, 3:58 PM
We are speculating on the limits of PC. That is different than armchairing. Your quote assumes that there *was* PC. It is possible that there was not.

You are both wrong. Your error is believing the cops need PC to access the cops records.

This is the modern equvilent of a cop keeping a stack of poloroids in his car of know gang bangers and leafing through them when he sees a suspicious person. The records are maintained and owned by the poice agency, not the suspicious person.

That of course is assuming he even accessed police records and didnt just do a public records search online.

scarville
02-05-2011, 4:29 PM
That of course is assuming he even accessed police records and didnt just do a public records search online.
Do convictions of "youthful offenders" show up in public records?

snobord99
02-05-2011, 4:49 PM
YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT!!

The cop GAVE him the gun before running his back ground and seeing if he was prohibited in the first place. I think the cop should be arrested and from now on every one going into a range should have a back ground check. Not all felons have tats and "look like" bad guys.

Amazing.

You must know something no one else here does because nowhere in that article does it say the cop GAVE him the gun.

snobord99
02-05-2011, 4:54 PM
Do convictions of "youthful offenders" show up in public records?

I'm not sure, but the record's not very hard to find in this case.

Collier County Clerk. (http://apps.collierclerk.com/public_inquiry/Case.aspx?UCN=112003CF002067AXXXXX&CT=OB)

Plus, he was probably tried as an adult.

beauregard
02-05-2011, 4:58 PM
I guess everyone at my range must be okay with my 1%er tattoo.

snobord99
02-05-2011, 5:03 PM
I guess everyone at my range must be okay with my 1%er tattoo.

From my understanding, a 1%er tattoo is neither considered a prison tattoo nor indicative of any time served (please correct me if I'm wrong).

beauregard
02-05-2011, 5:08 PM
From my understanding, a 1%er tattoo is neither considered a prison tattoo nor indicative of any time served (please correct me if I'm wrong).

True.

tyrist
02-05-2011, 7:25 PM
As soon as somebody can explain how a LEO accessing a LEO database is a 4th violation I might have something to say about this.

nation
02-05-2011, 7:33 PM
Tattoos are PC for search? The story doesn't say gang related tattoos, just tattoos.
Maybe they are, but we don't know. I hope an Eagle Globe and Anchor would be treated differently than if he had ms13 on his arm.

yes,tattoos/branding is more than enough PC in most cases. having spent my fair share of time on the line you are trained to pick out a run of the mill "wannabe" tat and jail house ink that means something. granted,theres prob alot more to the story than any news will report. he was prob a CI or has been arrested enough times for the officer to have known he shouldnt be there.
2 seconds to make a choice yet brass,news and people who have no clue about the law have all the time needed to deface you.

Don29palms
02-05-2011, 7:49 PM
From my understanding, a 1%er tattoo is neither considered a prison tattoo nor indicative of any time served (please correct me if I'm wrong).

1%er is an outlaw tattoo.

snobord99
02-05-2011, 7:58 PM
1%er is an outlaw tattoo.

I know. Were you just trying to educate me or was there a point to pointing this out?

Don29palms
02-05-2011, 8:11 PM
I know. Were you just trying to educate me or was there a point to pointing this out?

No point. Some people don't have a clue what that tat means.

Fjold
02-05-2011, 8:52 PM
As soon as somebody can explain how a LEO accessing a LEO database is a 4th violation I might have something to say about this.

+1, if a cop wants to run a name "just to check" he can. There is no 4th amendment question about it. He doesn't need probable cause to run any name.

BigDogatPlay
02-05-2011, 8:59 PM
No point. Some people don't have a clue what that tat means.

I'm pretty clear on what it means.... and by itself, it's not indicative of any greater level of suspicion unless there are some other factors.

Unlike this guy..... to use a somewhat extreme example.

http://www.tao-of-tattoos.com/images/gang-prison-tattoos.jpg

todd2968
02-05-2011, 9:05 PM
I'm pretty clear on what it means.... and by itself, it's not indicative of any greater level of suspicion unless there are some other factors.

Unlike this guy..... to use a somewhat extreme example.

http://www.tao-of-tattoos.com/images/gang-prison-tattoos.jpg





For all we know is this could have been what the guy looked like ,and ask your self does this gang banger NEED TO BE MORE SKILLED FIRING A PISTOL?

BigFatGuy
02-05-2011, 9:54 PM
So we're all in agreement that a cop has no right to search something that "looks like" a locking pistol box, but we have no problem with them checking up on people who "look like" criminals?

Bull.

dantodd
02-05-2011, 10:03 PM
I guess everyone at my range must be okay with my 1%er tattoo.

How would you know? If an off duty cop ran you and came up dry you'd never know it. I suspect, based on this case that it may well have happened and you just don't know.

dantodd
02-05-2011, 10:08 PM
So we're all in agreement that a cop has no right to search something that "looks like" a locking pistol box, but we have no problem with them checking up on people who "look like" criminals?

Bull.

No, I think that "look like criminals" is the issue. If, as some have suggested, he had tattoos that clearly indicated time in state prison (i.e. felony) there is no problem. If, on the other hand his tats were simply "anti-social" I have an issue.

However; a few LEOs have posted saying that it is not a 4a violation if a cop runs anyone who he is able to ID without RAS or PC then I cannot argue the legality.

pyro3k2
02-05-2011, 10:38 PM
Some of you people confuse the **** out of me. A common theme here on calguns is to repeal the stupid gun control laws and make effective ones aimed at disarming the real threat here...the criminals/gang bangers. But when a police officer actually flexes the arm of the law and sends a convicted felon (A ****ING CONVICTED FELON) back to jail for pistol training you cry foul play???? Just think of what this guy was training for, or why he would need to get better with a pistol. This officer took a gang member off the street for looking like a gang member...are you mall ninja's worried your going to get check by the police for looking like a contract killer at the range?

SVT-40
02-05-2011, 10:44 PM
In fact there was no "search" of the felon. The suspect freely gave his information and had it written in the range book. The officer used the information and was successful in identifying him as a felon.

Very similar to every time you check into ANY hotel, motel or resort. If an officer walks up to the desk clerk and asks "Who is staying in room 101" the clerk will give them the info. The LEO is then free to do as he wishes regarding checking warrants ect with the info obtained.

You cannot claim your information is "private" when you freely give it away in the first place.

And yes LEO's can run ANY and ALL license plate they want to when in the performance of their duties and use any information they discover as PC or RS for further action.

Trojan Bayonet
02-05-2011, 10:46 PM
How would you know?

Cops running your name through a law enforcement database happens more frequently than people realize, and you would never know it.

Ever been tailed by a cop for a few minutes while driving, without doing anything wrong? There is a good likelihood he's running your car's plates through a database.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then you know very well that it is a duck. The same line of thinking goes with gangbangers. I've seen enough of their tattoos and mannerisms through my work to figure out who they are. If they are at a range, law enforcement should detain them and run their names. Some of you may consider that to be "fascist". I consider it to be a matter of public safety when people who have obvious prison tattoos are at a gun range. Would you be comfortable shooting at a range where people with obvious prison gang tattoos are shooting? Keep in mind that the conditions of supervised release for many felons who have done state, federal, or prison time in both systems frequently state that they are not to associate with other gang members, that they are not to handle firearms in any manner, and that they are subject to search at any given time.

masameet
02-05-2011, 11:22 PM
Did anybody read that last paragraph in the 2008 news story? The one in which the prosecutor said Doland asked the off-duty cop if he had any guns for sale?

Maybe that was the kicker that got D'Allesandro to run the kid's DL.

What gets me is Doland went through the rental process using his DL, knowing he was a felon on probation, with video surveillance cameras pointed at him at the rental counter and at the shooting bench/stall.

snobord99
02-06-2011, 8:03 AM
In fact there was no "search" of the felon. The suspect freely gave his information and had it written in the range book. The officer used the information and was successful in identifying him as a felon.

Very similar to every time you check into ANY hotel, motel or resort. If an officer walks up to the desk clerk and asks "Who is staying in room 101" the clerk will give them the info. The LEO is then free to do as he wishes regarding checking warrants ect with the info obtained.

You cannot claim your information is "private" when you freely give it away in the first place.

And yes LEO's can run ANY and ALL license plate they want to when in the performance of their duties and use any information they discover as PC or RS for further action.

The only person here that's been able to recognize the real ssue. It really doesn't matter what tattoos he had; there was no search.

bigmike82
02-06-2011, 9:42 AM
"But when a police officer actually flexes the arm of the law and sends a convicted felon (A ****ING CONVICTED FELON) back to jail for pistol training you cry foul play????"

I think the range should be sued for violation of privacy in letting any Tom, Dick and Harry poke around their records, but that's just me. I don't think the cop necessarily acted badly.

I do think the fact that the guy got ten years is total bull. Anyone who thinks that's appropriate scares me. The very notion that a crime which involves no harm and no victim results in PRISON time is freakin' insane.

rromeo
02-06-2011, 10:29 AM
yes,tattoos/branding is more than enough PC in most cases. having spent my fair share of time on the line you are trained to pick out a run of the mill "wannabe" tat and jail house ink that means something. granted,theres prob alot more to the story than any news will report. he was prob a CI or has been arrested enough times for the officer to have known he shouldnt be there.
2 seconds to make a choice yet brass,news and people who have no clue about the law have all the time needed to deface you.

Thank you. I couldn't tell a jailhouse tattoo from a county fair henna tattoo.

Don29palms
02-06-2011, 11:14 AM
I do think the fact that the guy got ten years is total bull. Anyone who thinks that's appropriate scares me. The very notion that a crime which involves no harm and no victim results in PRISON time is freakin' insane.

There was a crime he committed to get him put in prison in the first place. He was out on parole/probation which means he should have still been in prison to begin with. As soon as he took posession of the gun there was a crime committed and he knew it. He got caught and now he's paying for it.

CHS
02-06-2011, 11:24 AM
The cop was being a busybody. NO ONE likes a busybody.

snobord99
02-06-2011, 11:53 AM
I do think the fact that the guy got ten years is total bull. Anyone who thinks that's appropriate scares me. The very notion that a crime which involves no harm and no victim results in PRISON time is freakin' insane.

I have no problem with 10 years. Yes, no harm and no victim here, but I have no problem telling someone who previously committed armed robbery that they cannot touch a firearm again. At least not when you've yet to show that you could be trusted with one (the guy was still on probation).

SVT-40
02-06-2011, 11:59 AM
"But when a police officer actually flexes the arm of the law and sends a convicted felon (A ****ING CONVICTED FELON) back to jail for pistol training you cry foul play????"

I think the range should be sued for violation of privacy in letting any Tom, Dick and Harry poke around their records, but that's just me. I don't think the cop necessarily acted badly.

I do think the fact that the guy got ten years is total bull. Anyone who thinks that's appropriate scares me. The very notion that a crime which involves no harm and no victim results in PRISON time is freakin' insane.

Sued for what? Far too many here believe you can just "sue" someone because they have a difference of opinion.

Besides as I said above the felon FREELY gave his info to the range staff, and as such he gave away any expectation of privacy. If he did not want his information available he should never have given it away.

SVT-40
02-06-2011, 12:05 PM
The cop was being a busybody. NO ONE likes a busybody.

Being a "busybody" as you say is just one of a LEO's many jobs. More correctly it's called "investigating".;)

LEO's do realize that crooks really hate it when LEO's do their jobs well. But it's one of the many rewards which comes with the job!!

QQQ
02-06-2011, 12:09 PM
I think it's a shame a free man can go to prison for a range trip (not all ex-felons are violent, and men who are not to be trusted with a firearm shouldn't be in the streets at all) but... The officer didn't do any sort of search. He looked at the sign-in sheet, which is open for anyone to see at most ranges, then ran the names.
So I don't see any misconduct here. But then again, I'm no lawyer.

PandaLuv
02-06-2011, 12:19 PM
well to be honest, it sounds legit to me. It was not a racial profiling, and tattoos are there more than just to look nice. He was just observant. I support legal ownership of handguns, but not so much when a felon with a record of violence that processes or shoots guns.

PandaLuv
02-06-2011, 12:22 PM
Sued for what? Far too many here believe you can just "sue" someone because they have a difference of opinion.

Besides as I said above the felon FREELY gave his info to the range staff, and as such he gave away any expectation of privacy. If he did not want his information available he should never have given it away.

I agree,matter of fact he shouldn't have been shooting at all

Coded-Dude
02-06-2011, 12:26 PM
maybe they were clearly prison tats. thats about the only reason that I could think of to raise concern prompting probable cause.....

Fjold
02-06-2011, 12:55 PM
I think it's a shame a free man can go to prison for a range trip (not all ex-felons are violent, and men who are not to be trusted with a firearm shouldn't be in the streets at all) but... The officer didn't do any sort of search. He looked at the sign-in sheet, which is open for anyone to see at most ranges, then ran the names.
So I don't see any misconduct here. But then again, I'm no lawyer.


I would agree with the above if you agree that every violent felon gets either life in prison with no parole or the death penalty.

QQQ
02-06-2011, 1:43 PM
I would agree with the above if you agree that every violent felon gets either life in prison with no parole or the death penalty.

Well if they're not on the streets they have to be somewhere, whether that means six feet under or behind six feet of concrete.

I reiterate my argument that any free man has a right to bear arms.

packnrat
02-06-2011, 2:32 PM
i can not tell by the news story if any wrong was done, but he is a felon and had a gun in his hands, nuff said.

as for the leo doing a background search on someone were no crime is visible sounds fishy to me.
if any leo can get your id/name/numbers/etc and run it for info in his system at will. i see a problem there.
can anyone site the code giving the leo the right to do this?
the story does not say if the cop was working the range as a second job, or if he was there acting as leo?
and i see NO problem in profiling..with cause.

you look like a duck, quack like a duck, waddle like a duck...just maybe you are a chicken?

.

Gryff
02-06-2011, 2:34 PM
But the convict was young, ignorant and poor and very stupid.

Fixed it for you.

Let's tick off the various points of this teaching moment:
1) You're a convicted felon
2) You're tatted up so that you look like a convicted felon
3) You're committing a brand-new felony.
4) You're committing a brand-new felony in public.
5) You're committing a brand-new felony in public where they keep a record of you committing the felony.

This is like the dirtbag trifecta (quintfecta?).

As for the illegal search I don't see how it is if the gun range agreed to let the LEO see the sign in sheet. Doofus didn't have to go shooting, he didn't have to show ID (he could have left), and I doubt the gun range has agreed that his info was to remain confidential.

It would have been one thing if the LEO had walked up to Doofus and demanded ID, but he didn't. He was smart enough to use a publicly accessible source and look up the identifying information. An extremely liberal court might say that it was an illegal search, but I can see a moderate court saying, "Doofus wrote the info down for anyone to see."

turbosbox
02-06-2011, 3:26 PM
Only after 4 pages does someone mention he asked to buy a gun. I didn't see anyone point out that his prior crime was armed robbery with a pistol (albeit a pellet gun).
Did the range person suspect he might try to steal the pistol? Did he talk and act like a felon? How was he dressed? Like a gang affiliate?

Doland will now join one of his accomplices in the 2003 jewelry store heist, Jean Vitiello Pierre, 19, who was sentenced in February to 30 years in a state prison for armed robbery for holding up a check cashing business on May 26, 2006

And now he is training on using a pistol and actively trying to buy one. What is wrong with this picture? Waiting for someone to say '...just because his accomplice held up another business doesn't mean....' He is in jail now where he belongs, where they will plan their next big adventure.

It was good police work. The only mistake was they let him out way too early after the first crime. He clearly didn't get it yet.

bcj128
02-06-2011, 4:01 PM
OK...so what I'm getting here is that a lot of you are OK with a felon possessing a gun.

The reality is that "tattoos" can mean prison tattoos, gang tattoos, who knows. I don't hear anyone saying, "Boy am I glad they kept a felon from having a gun."

We are sometimes our own worst enemy. Any anti-gunner is going to come away from some of these arguments saying calgun gun owners want felons to have guns.

Sorry guys, I have to respectfully disagree.

QQQ
02-06-2011, 4:33 PM
OK...so what I'm getting here is that a lot of you are OK with a felon possessing a gun.

The reality is that "tattoos" can mean prison tattoos, gang tattoos, who knows. I don't hear anyone saying, "Boy am I glad they kept a felon from having a gun."

We are sometimes our own worst enemy. Any anti-gunner is going to come away from some of these arguments saying calgun gun owners want felons to have guns.

Sorry guys, I have to respectfully disagree.

So you think that even a nonviolent felonious offender should be barred for life from ever handling a firearm, even fifty years after his release and with no further crimes committed?
Sorry buddy, I have to respectfully disagree.
I, for one, will proudly stand up and say that I believe that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Civilitant
02-06-2011, 5:29 PM
Fixed it for you.

Let's tick off the various points of this teaching moment:
1) You're a convicted felon
2) You're tatted up so that you look like a convicted felon
3) You're committing a brand-new felony.
4) You're committing a brand-new felony in public.
5) You're committing a brand-new felony in public where they keep a record of you committing the felony.

This is like the dirtbag trifecta (quintfecta?).

As for the illegal search I don't see how it is if the gun range agreed to let the LEO see the sign in sheet. Doofus didn't have to go shooting, he didn't have to show ID (he could have left), and I doubt the gun range has agreed that his info was to remain confidential.

It would have been one thing if the LEO had walked up to Doofus and demanded ID, but he didn't. He was smart enough to use a publicly accessible source and look up the identifying information. An extremely liberal court might say that it was an illegal search, but I can see a moderate court saying, "Doofus wrote the info down for anyone to see."



DIRTBAG QUINTFECTA!

I am all for people holding cops to the fire for breaking the law or violating civil rights but I have no problems with this one..

I support cops being pro active when suspicious... just as long as they follow the rules.

scarville
02-06-2011, 6:11 PM
What a relief. I'm middle aged, overweight, no tattoos and white so I guess I'm safe. At least until long hair becomes PC for an arse-kicking again.

Dutch3
02-06-2011, 6:12 PM
As soon as somebody can explain how a LEO accessing a LEO database is a 4th violation I might have something to say about this.

My question about this (and it may be a minor point), is it legal for the LEO to access that LEO database while he is not on duty as a LEO?

Or does the fact that he is a sworn peace officer essentially require him to be "on duty" at all times and investigate any suspicions?

bcj128
02-06-2011, 6:25 PM
So you think that even a nonviolent felonious offender should be barred for life from ever handling a firearm, even fifty years after his release and with no further crimes committed?
Sorry buddy, I have to respectfully disagree.
I, for one, will proudly stand up and say that I believe that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Actually, if committing an armed robbery is a "nonviolent offender" then we have bigger problems. I take issue with your argument on two fronts:

1. The description you gave is not what occurred, or even remotely close to it.
2. A person who commits a non-violent felony can have such records removed and lose his felon status as I recall. It's hard, and rare since many re-offend, but it can be done. I'll have to recheck the statute.
3. Even if I remember incorrectly about #2 above, I understand we make certain crimes so seriously, we make them felonies. That is why they are so extensive in the penalties. If we want to stop taking felonies seriously, then let's let every offender who commits an armed robbery with a bb gun have a second crack at it. So, we'll let you buy a gun so next time, you can use a real one. The person has already shown a propensity for crime, let's not let him try again.

As for the officer, he used good street sense. He saw something that didn't make sense, and checked into it. Let's remember, if the person had not been a felon, nothing would have happened. He is a FELON...

tyrist
02-06-2011, 6:50 PM
My question about this (and it may be a minor point), is it legal for the LEO to access that LEO database while he is not on duty as a LEO?

Or does the fact that he is a sworn peace officer essentially require him to be "on duty" at all times and investigate any suspicions?

He is a full time sworn LEO which means he has status 24/7. There is never anytime where he is not legally allowed to conduct investigations or detentions. It might be extremely ill advised and tactically unsafe but not illegal as far as the law goes.

Chances are he called on duty personnel to check for him since most of the databases are only accessible by department computers.

AJAX22
02-06-2011, 8:19 PM
I've never understood exactly why a felon can't rent a firearm for use at a range.

The same logic would seem to apply which allows most of hollywood to use firearms which are rented from armory's.

There is no transfer of ownership, no transfer of control, no 4473...

The transfer/purchase off ammunition could be an issue, but I don't get why the firearm rental is a big deal..

If this were a firearm transfer from an 01/07 under the 68 gca it would require a 4473 and be subject to a number of provisions.

but a firearm rental is not a a transfer of ownership or possession... which is why they could rent off roster pistols if they wanted to.... and is why you can rent machine guns in vegas (if it was a transfer under the 34 NFA, you better believe you'd have to fill out some paperwork)

QQQ
02-06-2011, 8:39 PM
2. A person who commits a non-violent felony can have such records removed and lose his felon status as I recall. It's hard, and rare since many re-offend, but it can be done. I'll have to recheck the statute.


While you're rechecking, please let me know if you find anyone whose ex-felon status and gun rights revocation has been completely removed after having committed a nonviolent felony in California.

tyrist
02-06-2011, 9:07 PM
I've never understood exactly why a felon can't rent a firearm for use at a range.

The same logic would seem to apply which allows most of hollywood to use firearms which are rented from armory's.

There is no transfer of ownership, no transfer of control, no 4473...

The transfer/purchase off ammunition could be an issue, but I don't get why the firearm rental is a big deal..

If this were a firearm transfer from an 01/07 under the 68 gca it would require a 4473 and be subject to a number of provisions.

but a firearm rental is not a a transfer of ownership or possession... which is why they could rent off roster pistols if they wanted to.... and is why you can rent machine guns in vegas (if it was a transfer under the 34 NFA, you better believe you'd have to fill out some paperwork)

Possession means physical possession. If the felon is holding it he is in possession even if it doesn't belong to him.

masameet
02-06-2011, 9:14 PM
While you're rechecking, please let me know if you find anyone whose ex-felon status and gun rights revocation has been completely removed after having committed a nonviolent felony.

I just did a cursory search online. And it appears that nonviolent felons can have their firearms rights restored through Presidential pardons. Anybody remember Scooter Libby?

What's a nonviolent felony?

Tax evasion (Al Capone, John Gotti, Wesley Snipes), securities fraud (Bernie Madoff), filing false income tax records (anybody), embezzlement (anybody), lying to the FBI (Martha Stewart), perjury (Caspar Weinberger), obstruction of justice (George Steinbrenner), burglary on/in an Indian reservation/casino, and a bunch of others.

For the "Who's Who" of Presidential pardons, Wikipedia has several lists, with the biggest one possibly being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_American_presidential_pardo ns

AJAX22
02-06-2011, 9:20 PM
Possession means physical possession. If the felon is holding it he is in possession even if it doesn't belong to him.

Where is that codified?

Does that mean that I have to wait 10 days before physically holding the gun that I buy from the FFL? (i.e. taking possession of it?)

383green
02-06-2011, 9:28 PM
There is no transfer of ownership, no transfer of control, no 4473...
[...]but a firearm rental is not a a transfer of ownership or possession...


Ownership, possession and control are three different things (though possession and control commonly go together). When you rent a firearm at a shooting range, there's no transfer of ownership. However, you possess the firearm as long as you're holding on to it (and probably at other times while you're in control of it), and you control it when you're the one who's determining where it goes and what it does (i.e., when you're carrying it to and from the line, loading it, shooting it, etc.). Both possession and control are transferred when the range employee hands you the firearm.

A felon can't legally possess a firearm except in certain uncommon situations. It doesn't matter whether they own the firearm or not. On a similar note, I'd always chuckle when I'd see somebody on COPS caught with illegal drugs in their possession say something like "It's not mine! I'm just holding it for a guy!". That might matter if they were being charged with ownership of the drug, but they're being charged with possession; the ownership isn't relevant.

383green
02-06-2011, 9:29 PM
Does that mean that I have to wait 10 days before physically holding the gun that I buy from the FFL? (i.e. taking possession of it?)

The 10 day wait is required before taking possession when ownership is transferred. Ownership isn't transferred when borrowing a gun at the range.

SVT-40
02-06-2011, 9:44 PM
i can not tell by the news story if any wrong was done, but he is a felon and had a gun in his hands, nuff said.

as for the leo doing a background search on someone were no crime is visible sounds fishy to me.
if any leo can get your id/name/numbers/etc and run it for info in his system at will. i see a problem there.
can anyone site the code giving the leo the right to do this?
the story does not say if the cop was working the range as a second job, or if he was there acting as leo?
and i see NO problem in profiling..with cause.

you look like a duck, quack like a duck, waddle like a duck...just maybe you are a chicken?

.

Yup a LEO can during the course and scope of his duties run checks on ANYONE.

Let say he sees someone driving a vehicle. No PC or RS exists to make a traffic stop.

So the LEO runs the plate and it comes back registered to John Doe. He runs John Doe and inserts a approximate age which matches the driver.

If a warrant comes up or John Doe's license is suspended the LEO can them make a legal stop on the vehicle to determine if the driver is the same John Doe.

The LEO can then arrest or cite as needed.


There is no "code" which allows this, just as there is no code which allows OLL possession.

Codes are written to allow criminal consequences for illegal activity. There are generally not codes which are written to make activities lawful.

In other words if there is no "code" preventing a particular activity it's legal.

Just like there is no PC or RS needed for law enforcement to preform surveillance on anyone.

QQQ
02-06-2011, 9:51 PM
I just did a cursory search online. And it appears that nonviolent felons can have their firearms rights restored through Presidential pardons. Anybody remember Scooter Libby?

What's a nonviolent felony?

Tax evasion (Al Capone, John Gotti, Wesley Snipes), securities fraud (Bernie Madoff), filing false income tax records (anybody), embezzlement (anybody), lying to the FBI (Martha Stewart), perjury (Caspar Weinberger), obstruction of justice (George Steinbrenner), burglary on/in an Indian reservation/casino, and a bunch of others.

For the "Who's Who" of Presidential pardons, Wikipedia has several lists, with the biggest one possibly being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_American_presidential_pardo ns

So out of all of the nonviolent ex-felons in American history, the list of those who received Presidential pardons fits on one small web page, and includes mostly celebrities?

That hardly seems fair.

snobord99
02-06-2011, 10:56 PM
So out of all of the nonviolent ex-felons in American history, the list of those who received Presidential pardons fits on one small web page, and includes mostly celebrities?

That hardly seems fair.

That's FAR from a complete list. It's just a sampling of the people that have been pardoned. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the _President_of_the_United_States) is a better link. It tells you the number of people each president has pardoned, not just the few notables. I don't know how many of these people are non-violent offenders, but I reckon there are more non-violent than violent offenders. I just think it's easier to be pardoned for, say, embezzling money than, say, robbing a bank for it.

Safety1st
02-06-2011, 11:46 PM
Ironic that this guy's probably gonna get far better training in prison for committing violent acts that he ever could on the street. And all at taxpayer expense.

QQQ
02-07-2011, 12:42 AM
That's FAR from a complete list. It's just a sampling of the people that have been pardoned. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the _President_of_the_United_States) is a better link. It tells you the number of people each president has pardoned, not just the few notables. I don't know how many of these people are non-violent offenders, but I reckon there are more non-violent than violent offenders. I just think it's easier to be pardoned for, say, embezzling money than, say, robbing a bank for it.

Ah, okay. I'm still not convinced that an automatic lifetime blanket ban for even nonviolent felonies and misdemeanor DV charges or involuntary admission to a mental health facility is a good idea.

It's just the thought of the government deciding which people can and can't exercise their rights that I don't like.

xenophobe
02-07-2011, 2:11 AM
I was about to write a long rant. It's too late for that.

Funny, so many of you here saying it's okay that the cop busted this dude are also the guys who clamor about "how the libs are killing the constitution."

Oh the irony.

^ this.

With that being said, No, the cop didn't have PC to run the guys info. What was a cop doing at a range working? A cop has no right nor business running random people's information based solely on looks, bottom line. To say that guy (or myself above) was not illegally profiled is a joke. Its not good police work, its over stepping boundaries. Anyone thinking a cop running your info is a good idea, might as well ship themselves to China, as you would fit right in with their thinking.

^ and this.

And a few other posts that I didn't feel like quoting... I also highly agree with Oaklander. He is spot on.

The officer clearly overstepped his boundaries.

Dutch3
02-07-2011, 3:20 AM
On a similar note, I'd always chuckle when I'd see somebody on COPS caught with illegal drugs in their possession say something like "It's not mine! I'm just holding it for a guy!". That might matter if they were being charged with ownership of the drug, but they're being charged with possession; the ownership isn't relevant.

And the statement "It's not mine" can turn simple "possession" into "possession for sale". Not a smart move, considering the difference in penalties.

highpowermatch
02-07-2011, 4:34 AM
HE WAS A FELON BREAKING THE LAW AND GOT CAUGHT! TOO EFFIN BAD! HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Dude, if the point they are making goes any further over your head its going into orbit! No one disagrees with you about him breaking the law.

This is a probable cause discussion, not a discussion regarding whether or not a felon should go to jail if the law is broken.

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure the LEO did not need probable cause to check the ID, just reasonable suspicion. The 4th amendment only covers your person or personal property being searched without probable cause. Not saying I like it but if its the law, it will take more than just being upset about it to have it changed.

We need a lawyer to chime in on this. Chances are with all the pages of posts that I have not yet read, it has already been done by now ;)

highpowermatch
02-07-2011, 5:47 AM
Lot of fail in this thread. Easy to armchair general the situation...

If the reporters for the story did their job properly and actually investigated the case (answering the question why was PC justified), then there wouldn't be any debate.

Too bad journalism studies don't offer a "fact-finding" course any more to teach today's reporters how to do their job properly.

This

bcj128
02-07-2011, 6:13 AM
"Probable Cause" is what the officer needs to arrest. "Reasonable Suspicion" is what he needs to detain. You do not need either of those to simply run a person through the local database for wants/warrants. If he ran a full criminal history, that may be another matter, however I have seen some jurisdictions bee pretty wide with the discretion they give their people.

I would even argue, that it is possible from the officer's training and experience that he may have has Reasonable Suspicion based upon the tattoos, based upon what they actually are. Then again, he may have looked up, said, "Hmmm, the shooter on lane #2 looks like a gang member," called the on-duty officers who arrived and handled the situation from there.

bcj128
02-07-2011, 7:02 AM
I would also argue that no 4th amendment violation occurred, as it appears there was no seizure of the suspect or his property until he the officer had PC to arrest after finding that he was a felon. The subject was arguably free to leave, was likely unaware that his name was being run through the system.

I would also argue he likely gave up any expectation of privacy when he gave his personal information to check into the range. (Many even take your Driver's License when you are there.

Just my 2 cents... respectfully.

scarville
02-07-2011, 7:44 AM
It's just the thought of the government deciding which people can and can't exercise their rights that I don't like.
In a sane world any ban on exercising a right would be part of the courts finding during the penalty phase. The prosecution would have to show a good reason the person's rights should be be restricted after completion of his sentence. As it stands now the politicians could decide that more than three moving violations in a ten year period make you a prohibited person. The the really scary part is there are people here on Calgun who would insist it be enforced.

snobord99
02-07-2011, 8:02 AM
Ah, okay. I'm still not convinced that an automatic lifetime blanket ban for even nonviolent felonies and misdemeanor DV charges or involuntary admission to a mental health facility is a good idea.

Neither am I but I don't think this guy should be categorized as a nonviolent felon.

bcj128
02-07-2011, 10:18 AM
Neither am I but I don't think this guy should be categorized as a nonviolent felon.

I think we can all agree that there should be a way to regain your gun rights after a period of time for non-violent offenders. Same for those with mental issues, but what politician is really going to put their neck out on this issue.

It's too bad, in spite of all my points above, I do believe there should be a way for those who commit crimes to make a way back into full citizenship. Something to strive for and prevent recidivism.

Wherryj
02-07-2011, 1:14 PM
A LEO searching someone's criminal record doesn't strike me as any sort of "search" (other than the computer term). The information is available to any LEO who is involved in an interaction with the public or has suspicion of wrongful activity.

This isn't exactly like a cop who doesn't like his neighbor and is snooping around. I'd say that if you don't want to be suspected of being a gang member, don't try to look like one. I doubt that it was ONLY the tattoos-as they are pretty commonplace now-unless they were gang related tattoos. They probably existed with guys wearing the typical urban thug-wear.

It isn't the best idea to draw attention to one's self while committing a felony.

oddjob
02-07-2011, 4:44 PM
I know this is slightly off topic, but I would guess most of us have had our cars run through a data base system (especially while parked at Wal Mart). There are private companies that drive up and down parking lots with mounted cameras. The cameras/system then run the plates (automatically) through a data base for vehicles on a "repossess" list (not stolen). Done all the time.

CHS
02-08-2011, 10:54 AM
I've never understood exactly why a felon can't rent a firearm for use at a range.

The same logic would seem to apply which allows most of hollywood to use firearms which are rented from armory's.


And it's already pretty clear that the powers-that-be find felon-in-possession of machineguns during hollywood movie-making totally acceptable.

Just look up the Mark Wahlberg thread.

So if hollywood can rent a machinegun and stick it in the hands of a felon, why can't a felon go to the range to rent and shoot a gun where it will be returned at the end of the session, just like in hollywood?

xrMike
02-08-2011, 11:28 AM
Excellent police work, officer. Thank you for taking another felonious criminal off the streets, thereby making them safer for my family.

p_shooter
02-08-2011, 12:37 PM
Some of these comments are truly absurd. No one was searched or arrested for looking like a gang banger or criminal. Talk about spin.

This was good police work, IMO. We talk about enforcing the laws we already have, not making new ones. This is one of the "good gun laws". I don't want felons owning or using guns. We can talk about non-violent felonies, that's a different story, but shows a profound lack of judgment. But violent felons should absolutely be prohibited.

4A my butt...he was in a gun range and had given over his information. He has no expectation of keeping his identity private.

Sue the gun range? Puh-leas! Did he ask what the gun ranges policy is with customer information? The gun shop can do whatever they want with information they collect. They could sell it to Nigerian scammers if they want. It's their data after it is given to them. Is that "right" or "how it should be"? Who cares, start another thread. That's why you find out what their privacy policy is before hand, especially if you're a violent felon trying to bone up on your hand gun skills.

I'm totally comfortable with a guy who has visible prison tattoos getting extra scrutiny at a gun range. If it was my range I would have never rented to someone with a gang tattoo, let alone a prison tattoo. I'm a jerk like that.

I'm fine with the prison sentence too...he's probably too dumb or brain damaged to keep up his end of the social contract anyway. Being stupid should hurt.

Really, convicted felon, on parole/probation, visible prison tatts renting a gun. We didn't exactly lose out on the cure for cancer putting this guy back in the clink.

Besides...10 years means 2 then parole. He'll be out all too soon.

Anchors
02-08-2011, 12:58 PM
So glad his tattoos made him an automatic gang-member/felon, whether it was true or not.

If you don't understand my opposition see my avatar and then realize that I am neither a felon, nor a gang-member.

bcj128
02-08-2011, 4:00 PM
And it's already pretty clear that the powers-that-be find felon-in-possession of machineguns during hollywood movie-making totally acceptable.

Just look up the Mark Wahlberg thread.

So if hollywood can rent a machinegun and stick it in the hands of a felon, why can't a felon go to the range to rent and shoot a gun where it will be returned at the end of the session, just like in hollywood?

Just FYI, there is a specific exemption for hollywood/film production. Besides, 99% of those guns used are fakes / prop guns that look like they fire.

Don't get me wrong, it would serve them right to loose that exemption. They often preach about gun control...

Also, remember when Sean Penn was seen in some area after Katrina carrying a shotgun. If I recall, he has a prohibitive conviction. (Can't recall the specifics...)

stormy_clothing
02-08-2011, 4:02 PM
after seeing the sick in humane treatment felons get after supposedly serving there time by the general public I would sand of my finger prints and move to another country.

SVT-40
02-08-2011, 4:54 PM
So glad his tattoos made him an automatic gang-member/felon, whether it was true or not.

If you don't understand my opposition see my avatar and then realize that I am neither a felon, nor a gang-member.

But it was true....


Stay in context. On THIS occasion the officer was 100% correct. He saw "prison" style tattoos and he was correct.

Not all felons have tattoos, and not all who have tattoos are felons.

QQQ
02-08-2011, 4:59 PM
I'm not an expert, but I've heard that a trained eye can tell the difference between prison ink and regular tatoos.

But that's just what I've heard.

CHS
02-08-2011, 5:00 PM
Just FYI, there is a specific exemption for hollywood/film production. Besides, 99% of those guns used are fakes / prop guns that look like they fire.


There are no legal exemptions to felon-in-possession while making a movie. If there are, you'd better start quoting some federal PC.

And 99% of those guns, especially the machineguns, are NOT fakes. They are real guns that have been converted to fire blanks only. However, that doesn't matter because they are still viewed as machineguns in the eyes of the law. Otherwise hollywood rental houses wouldn't need all the insane permits that they need and you and I could buy those guns too.

Falconis
02-08-2011, 5:02 PM
What sick inhumane treatment? Just because employers don't want to take a chance on a felon on Parole, that's inhumane? I'm sorry, employers have a right to protect their businesses and run them as smoothly as possible. There are plenty of people in society that decide to NOT commit a felony and it happens every day of the week. I'm not gonna comment on infractions, if that were the case, I'd be screwed.

It's my opinion, and probably mine alone that a felon released from prison has to prove that he isn't the menace that sent him there in the first place. His time in prison just means he served his punishment by having his freedome severly restricted. If he wants trust from people, that's just something he is going to have to earn or re-earn in this case. We all have to earn people's trusts every day as well. As far as I go, I do my damndest to not tarnish the trusts I have earned. A felon obviously hasn't and in my opinion serves him or her right to have to work that much harder. No one is required to give him that trust either no matter what he does and IMO rightfully so. To require people on how they should act towards people who have committed past violations isn't right in my opinion. We're all entitled to how we view things.

An extreme example is a child molester who is released. I don't care if his excuse is it was a stupid indiscretion or admits it's his sickness he can't be cured of. There is no way in hell I will ever invite that sort of person into my business or home.

On the other hand, a person convicted for petty theft as a kid 10 or 15 years ago, is someone I may give some sort of chance to.

On a controversial note, I probably would have drinks with Bernie Goetz.

On a personal note, a buddy from high school was convicted for embezzling the elderly. I saw him once about 10 years after graduation, and talked for about an hour. I won't invite him into my house. If you would, you're a better man than I am.

If you want to chum it up with whomever you deem necessary. Go for it. I won't stop you nor say anything to you for it.

stix213
02-08-2011, 6:00 PM
Being a gang member alone is not a crime. There's a right to associate with anyone you want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

The "associating" alone, assuming no other laws are broken, is entirely and absolutely protected by OUR Constitution. That is why gangs simply can't be outlawed in this country. I know it's a PITA - but it protects you and me as well, since it's a slippery slope when the government starts deciding which groups can exist and which can't.

Even past jail time is not a prohibition to owning firearms - unless the jail time was a sentence for a prohibiting misdemeanor or felony.

When you start saying things like this, you become an absolutist, which is very close to being a fascist.

Fascism is the idea that the government has absolute power over the people, and the modern liberal movement in the United States is based somewhat on Fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

Please do the research before you post on this topic.

I normally agree with you Oaklander... but I think even though gangs are legal being a gang member should still be reasonable suspicion to run a database query to see if they are a past felon when their ID is already available as in this situation.

Otherwise we can get into the ridiculous situation where a guy can walk into a gun range with a cop standing right there next to him at the counter and say, "Sup homie, I'm a gang member and I need to practice shootin dem 9's.... You know so I can be sure to guard my turf, you know thug life..." and still the cop can't run him to see if he is trying to commit a crime of felon gun possession, cause there should still be no suspicion of a crime right?

paul0660
02-08-2011, 6:17 PM
Excellent police work, officer. Thank you for taking another felonious criminal off the streets, thereby making them safer for my family.

That's my opinion too.

oddjob
02-08-2011, 6:21 PM
I remember years ago a gang banger telling me he wasn't a member of a gang. He did say he belonged to a "club." I started to laugh, my partner, the gang banger and his homies were then laughing.

I don't know what Florida laws are regarding what the officer did.....but it was good work. My partner had a Glock 19 pointed at him by a felon (car stop), car pursuit, foot pursuit and the suspect made his escape. After he was caught he was sentenced to TWO years. Documented gang member.

Florida is obviously a tad tougher than California.

rromeo
02-08-2011, 6:52 PM
Can a range be liable for providing a gun to a felon? If so, how can they check?

AJAX22
02-08-2011, 6:55 PM
There are no legal exemptions to felon-in-possession while making a movie. If there are, you'd better start quoting some federal PC.

And 99% of those guns, especially the machineguns, are NOT fakes. They are real guns that have been converted to fire blanks only. However, that doesn't matter because they are still viewed as machineguns in the eyes of the law. Otherwise hollywood rental houses wouldn't need all the insane permits that they need and you and I could buy those guns too.

This was my understanding as well...

My reading of the law is that a rented gun is not transfered into the posession of the renter and still remains in the posession/control of the rental agent/agency.

hence why you can't 'loan' a highcap mag, but someone can use it in your presence.

and you can't 'loan' an AW but it can be used in your presence..

and why you can rent a machine gun and not have to pay a transfer fee...

I don't think the fellon ever technically possessed the firearm..

the AMMO on the other hand he probably did since he purchased that, he did not 'rent' it.

tyrist
02-08-2011, 8:33 PM
Where is that codified?

Does that mean that I have to wait 10 days before physically holding the gun that I buy from the FFL? (i.e. taking possession of it?)

Merriam-Webster's

oddjob
02-08-2011, 10:02 PM
As a retired LEO I still remember one thing about the tattoos gang bangers/prison gangs have inked on them......They want it known they are gang members or at the very least associated with them. That is the original intent. They want their friends, family, LEO's, strangers to know. It is their "badge."

Anchors
02-09-2011, 12:57 AM
As a retired LEO I still remember one thing about the tattoos gang bangers/prison gangs have inked on them......They want it known they are gang members or at the very least associated with them. That is the original intent. They want their friends, family, LEO's, strangers to know. It is their "badge."

Yes. But some tattoos seem gang affiliated, but aren't.
I have a 13 tattooed on me. It is an old tattoo tradition on Friday the 13th. Do I look like they would let me in MS-13 even if I wanted to be in that crap? haha.
That is all I'm saying here.

But it was true....

Stay in context. On THIS occasion the officer was 100% correct. He saw "prison" style tattoos and he was correct.

Not all felons have tattoos, and not all who have tattoos are felons.

It is on topic because it was in relation to someone in the story's actions.
For that matter, I have met officers with "prison" style tattoos.
I'm just saying, I have been stereotyped by officers and fellow citizens alike and while I understand that is part of my choice to wear tattoos, it doesn't give anyone PC to "check up on me".
I am fine with his gut feeling and even with him catching a felon. I just think the way in which he went about it is wrong. And illegal. (Again, my opinion. I'm not a judge).

There are no legal exemptions to felon-in-possession while making a movie. If there are, you'd better start quoting some federal PC.

And 99% of those guns, especially the machineguns, are NOT fakes. They are real guns that have been converted to fire blanks only. However, that doesn't matter because they are still viewed as machineguns in the eyes of the law. Otherwise hollywood rental houses wouldn't need all the insane permits that they need and you and I could buy those guns too.

You are correct. They are definitely still machine guns.

What sick inhumane treatment?
It's my opinion, and probably mine alone that a felon released from prison has to prove that he isn't the menace that sent him there in the first place. His time in prison just means he served his punishment by having his freedome severly restricted. If he wants trust from people, that's just something he is going to have to earn or re-earn in this case. We all have to earn people's trusts every day as well. As far as I go, I do my damndest to not tarnish the trusts I have earned.
An extreme example is a child molester who is released. I don't care if his excuse is it was a stupid indiscretion or admits it's his sickness he can't be cured of. There is no way in hell I will ever invite that sort of person into my business or home.
On the other hand, a person convicted for petty theft as a kid 10 or 15 years ago, is someone I may give some sort of chance to.
On a controversial note, I probably would have drinks with Bernie Goetz.
On a personal note, a buddy from high school was convicted for embezzling the elderly. I saw him once about 10 years after graduation, and talked for about an hour. I won't invite him into my house. If you would, you're a better man than I am.
If you want to chum it up with whomever you deem necessary. Go for it. I won't stop you nor say anything to you for it.

The point isn't you hiring or trusting them. The point is you have either paid your debt and had your freedom restricted enough or you haven't.
You still have lost all kinds of rights once you get out, including the one to defend yourself under the Second Amendment.

Also, some things that are felonies are ridiculous. You have probably committed one. Everyone here probably has. Whether intentional or not.

Some people learn from their mistakes. Making someone a second class citizen for life is only going to turn them back to crime.
If you think they need more restriction, give them a longer sentence and when they are out, be done with it.

Also. If I have a friend who is prohibited and did his time or got caught up in something he didn't do I can't even carry around him.
So MY right has been restricted even though I never committed any crimes.

Falconis
02-09-2011, 1:42 AM
ok Ryan, what inhumane treatment do you think the poster meant then?

You are right, some do learn and some don't. This is something I have thought about off and on for some time. Recently when someone else posted the question of redemption. My line of thought is that a felon, such as a bank robber, decided on his own to use a gun and commit an atrocious act. To me, said person abused his second amendment priveledge by going outside the scope of the constitutional guarantee by making a concious decision to do something illegal (while he was a free and unjudged individual). Therefore I don't think certain people deserve a second chance at firearm ownership or possesion. To me the 2A right, like all of the first 10, are a heavy responsibilty to uphold. I don't know what felonies I or you commit every day, but to me a good number of felonies require maliciousness, planning, and a concious decision that you are going to do something way way bad.

As far as your tattoo goes, good for you.

To get back on topic however, I don't see a thing wrong with what the cop did. He had RS, he had PC, and a judge, and or jury, and a lot of others that were pertinent to the case agreed.

masameet
02-09-2011, 3:48 AM
... I don't think the fellon ever technically possessed the firearm..

the AMMO on the other hand he probably did since he purchased that, he did not 'rent' it.

Possession neither requires nor denotes ownership. It is defined as having personal charge of and control, management and custody of an object. The law further makes the distinction between actual and constructive possession, the former being "physical control or custody of" and the latter being "no hands-on custody."

Florida Statute Section 790.23 says it is a crime for a felon to carry a concealed weapon or possess a firearm, ammunition, or electric weapon or device. Doland was on probation for three felony convictions (robbery with a weapon not deadly, grand theft, and aggravated assault with a weapon with no intent to kill). While at Mobile Tactics he had in his control, custody, possession and care of a firearm and ammunition. He showed intent to violate his probation with complete disregard to the prohibition of a felon possessing a firearm and ammo. He handed over his DL; signed his name and other information on the rental agreement; took possession of a handgun and ammo (like most other gun rentals, Mobile Tactics requires purchase of store ammo while renting its firearms); and fired the handgun while on surveillance video.

In short, he was caught "in a blazing offense" (i.e., the literal translation of in flagrante delicto).

And where he decided to violate his probation and the law regarding felons and firearms/ammo is interesting. Doland went to the fixed facility of Mobile Tactics. But Mobile Tactics (http://www.mobiletactics.com/training.html) also provides training specifically to area cops and brings the shooting range to them via a big rig outfitted as a shooting range. So an off-duty cop working the counter would not seem so unusual for Mobile Tactics.

The demographics of South Florida, where Marco Island is located, is about 82% white. Marco Island, where Doland was caught shooting a handgun, is about 98% white. So I'm going to guess that Doland is a white guy. White gang members in South Florida tend to belong to white supremacist groups. His gang or prison tattoos then most likely depict symbols and words like the Aryan Brotherhood, lightning bolts, Skins, swastikas, 88, and so on. I can only imagine that a local cop would have to be blind and indifferent not to notice Doland's bared gang tattoos.