I happened to notice a state trooper had the same, somewhat uncommon pistol as I do, and that he had the 14 round mag instead of the 10 round. A quick conversation and $50 and I got me another 14 round mag.
Once in London I noticed a couple of guards had some cool looking short rifles, so I went up to them like a true autist and asked about them. Imagine their faces. My wife had to break the tension and said, âdonât worry weâre Americans and just like gunsâ. They just about bursted out laughing. The rifles in question were sig 556s
Bro, I spend a decent amount of time in Europe. I swear some tactical kitted cops in Amsterdam almost tackled me a few months ago. They were fully kitted up, silencers, weapon lights, you name it. I think I was looking for just a few seconds too long.
You mean Sig 553? I would be amazed if the UK bought the lesser quality production of a Swiss unit that was produced here. Did it have a clear polymer mag or an âARâ style STANAG magazine
My wife always tells me to not ask the police about their MP5's when we're visiting her family in Mexico. Idk why, they seem pretty chill. Hanging off the backs of trucks and shit.
Kinda surprised to see that, m24 profile is tight and a CRB comp contour hit my night vision bridge on that chassis and was too close for comfort in other areas.
So... Do the cops go *knock knock* Police, can we shoot someone from your boat?
Or did they just set up there quietly and assume that upon waking up the Florida man sleeping inside would recognize they are cops before pulling a gun and confronting what seems to be visibly armed trespassers?
From what my dad told me. They knocked told them what was happening and that they would be on property but wouldnât come inside. Stated they wouldnât be allowed to leave the house but they did have a guy grab my dad cigs on the way in so thatâs cool.
It is state dependent, but police in at least some states do have emergency powers to enter onto or intoproperty without authorization and without the need for a warrant when there is an emergent need (evidence being destroyed, a hazard or risk of injury or death presented that would require their intervention,
But when those acts are not happening on your property.. then it seems like it is outside of that. As I learn more and time goes the people have less and less freedom and privacy..
The open fields rule, which gives them the right to enter or cross the property of others in the capacity of their official duties, has been on the books since 1920. Police have almost always had the ability to temporarily seize property (occupying it is a seizure) in emergencies without a warrant. Courts are often strictest on warrants when it pertains to gathering evidence of a crime or searching the actual dwelling for a person or item, Iâm not aware of any recent case in which police were told they needed a warrant to use a persons property as cover and concealment in an emergency.
Emergent need stretches beyond "a major crime is happening on your property = cops don't need a warrant". It includes "a major crime is happening near your property = cops are allowed to take cover on your property/use your property as a sniper post".
What if I told you that word freedom doesn't mean what any of you think it means when you say it like some jingoist patriotic chest bump? We've never been free in that manner. They've always been able to do that. If the government wants your shit they will take it. It doesn't matter who's in office, what party or otherwise. People walk around saying that word freedom like it actually fucking means something here. We live in a society that allows many personal liberties but living in a society there have to be limits on those personal liberties and freedoms. Otherwise you end up with a lot of people selfishly hurting other people in different ways beyond obviously where we're at as a society now.
Actuality? There will almost never be any personal accountability from that particular officer or their direct supervisor in an instance such as this for something like occupying space on a privately owned boat during the tactical response to a hostage taking, and I agree with that.
My long winded rant about accountability we should, and could, have:
The state or municipal fund pool should be used to settle in that instance if it was truly tactically advantageous but a judge later found that it was illegal to post up there. Qualified immunity should be upheld for that sniper and the commander who put him there in that instance. If we were to abandon qualified immunity and adopt personal liability, any judicial review could dictate no personal liability, as necessary to protect the officers who actually did act in good faith to serve the public.
In other situations, such as traffic stops that involve officers with hurt feelings and a bruised ego, stacking 6-8 charges on someone speeding who chose to remain silent after handing over paperwork through a window that was rolled down halfway, and is later pulled out, searched, and arrested for DUI while 100% sober, I hate that qualified immunity is only as far away as "I was acting in good faith to ensure officer safety and to uphold the law and policies of my department as I understand them per my training."
Knowing full well they had no right to extend the stop, nor to pull the driver out, nor to request roadside sobriety, nor to pencil whip the driver into a $1500 bond and a $3k legal bill, a fuctup record that now needs expunged, a temporary suspension on their driving record and DUI charge on their insurance record, with no reasonable suspicion, much less PC, of DUI or any actual crime at all.
In fact, criminal charges that only come after the driver didn't "cooperate" aka answer questions after handing over the required paperwork for a simple traffic stop should undermine the entire case in the eyes of a prosecutor, or at least cause them to pause and review the circumstances to potentially drop a bad case and order an expungement before any further prosecution.... but, no, they hardly ever do that either. If a case is dropped pre-trial, it's usually the defense attorney doing the leg work, and public defender almost never does that, as they're legitimately over worked.
A more realistic charge in that instance should be "Contempt of Cop," and qualified immunity absolutely should be stripped, but for the most part won't be, as the bar to entry for a lawsuit is ~$7500 to go to trial in a 1983 suit, and finding an attorney willing to sue the police in federal court is near impossible in most of our country for anything short of major personal injury.
The fact that a complaint with evidence of a blatant and intentional violation of civil rights doesn't immediately result in an official temporary suspension of law enforcement certification for the duration of the investigation, just the same as that driver's privilege to drive is temporarily suspended until they beat the DUI, is disappointing. The reality that qualified immunity has lead to such a rift between civilians and civilian police, and caused the militarization of police, indicates it is fundamentally flawed.
Personal liability policies could replace qualified immunity and could be used to root out bad police from everyone else without the blue-line peer pressure or fear of retaliation a good officer has to face just to uphold the law and act against corruption and tyranny. Simply offset the base cost of a policy onto the department and make any additional cost for liability insurance the officers' responsibility.
If they get sued and found liable, the cost to keep their liability insurance goes up. If there is a formal complaint and an internal investigation finds they did screw up, the cost goes up, etc, etc. Eventually they become uninsurable and can't serve as a LEO without liability insurance. It works for every other industry in the world, why not here?
We had swat in our driveway when my neighbor had a psychotic episode many years ago. They were posted up behind our cars. We didnât know about anything until our neighbor called us to tell us lol.
Best I can tell in the pic its a remington 700 SA in a masterpiece arms chassis with what looks like a Leupold MK4 HD scope. Not enough detail to tell much else.
That is the stupidest argument used to justify govât over reach. Youâre willing to give up your rights based on imagined scenarios and for a false feeling of safety.
These comments are wild in a subreddit full of gun guys who scream âno exceptionsâ regarding the 2nd amendment but âoh but there are exceptionsâ when the 3rd an 4th get brought up. Hypocrites.
In most states police can enter a property during an emergency with no warrant, especially if there is an active public safety concern in the area (hostages is high in that list). The temporary seizure of the area federally is often considered under exigencies or under the open fields rule, which, unlike its name suggests, applies to more than just open fields.
Most states also codify law enforcement powers to occupy or enter property without a warrant in the course of their official duties. For example if a traffic stop results in the person pulling over in a private business the business owner cannot obstruct the officer while he is acting specifically towards conducting that stop and investigation.
As far as property damage goes, itâs why they most often just get consent, but it doesnât really absolve the agency of liability for repairs to the damaged property. They also get consent because they donât want you to freak out when you see a balding man with a bolt gun in your boat. But courts are very lenient with police being on adjacent property in these types of emergencies; typically taking the stance of âhuman life> your boat and 4th amendment rights (temporarily, and so long as it doesnât put you in undue harms)
3rd amendment specifically mentions âduring times of peaceâ not war.
But once again, the exceptions donât make it inherently right, even if it is legally justified. The third amendment says no quartering, unfortunately weâve devolved and now has exceptions. Same with the second.
Whenever I see people with their dope card on their arm, it reminds me of the slow kid in school whose mom would pin notes for their teacher to his shirt.
"Hey buddy. What scope are you using there? Did you buy your rifle how it is, or is it custom? How far is the dude you're shooting?"
https://i.redd.it/v7xuh7vt6m9g1.gif
Your position sucks. Want me to get you a rear bag?
Want to use my tripod?
The range is only 58 yards, why are you using that rifle? I can shoot that with my clapped-out Glock 19.
đđđđ¤
âIs the suspect is at the McKimmonâs house?⌠here come in Iâve got a better hide for you from the master bedroom closetâ
Sir that's 121 yards to their bathroom window exactly, I paced it off last Wednesday night
I have to hold back about asking cops and soldiers and stuff about their kit to avoid getting shot and or looking like this kid
I happened to notice a state trooper had the same, somewhat uncommon pistol as I do, and that he had the 14 round mag instead of the 10 round. A quick conversation and $50 and I got me another 14 round mag.
LMFAO
Uncommon pistol, lemme guess.
Steyer C40A1?
It's a pita to even find holsters for my S9A1.
Sig P227
Once in London I noticed a couple of guards had some cool looking short rifles, so I went up to them like a true autist and asked about them. Imagine their faces. My wife had to break the tension and said, âdonât worry weâre Americans and just like gunsâ. They just about bursted out laughing. The rifles in question were sig 556s
Bro, I spend a decent amount of time in Europe. I swear some tactical kitted cops in Amsterdam almost tackled me a few months ago. They were fully kitted up, silencers, weapon lights, you name it. I think I was looking for just a few seconds too long.
You mean Sig 553? I would be amazed if the UK bought the lesser quality production of a Swiss unit that was produced here. Did it have a clear polymer mag or an âARâ style STANAG magazine
My wife always tells me to not ask the police about their MP5's when we're visiting her family in Mexico. Idk why, they seem pretty chill. Hanging off the backs of trucks and shit.
Name checks out
As big gear guy I like asking my coworkers about their kit. Itâs great when itâs another gear guy, not as fun when itâs not.
That headshot you took means literally nothing. Get back to me with a 10 shot group.
STATISTICAL IRRELEVANCE! I NEED A 50 SHOT GROUP
Does that require a fresh head for each shot?
You put the quarter over the flyer.
20 shot
Leupold Mark5HD, Rem700 action in an MPA chassis oh wait you were joking đ¤Ł
Talk about a heavy barrel. That sucker looks THICK.
Barrel almost as thick as the can
The rifle, or�
ಠâżâź
Kinda surprised to see that, m24 profile is tight and a CRB comp contour hit my night vision bridge on that chassis and was too close for comfort in other areas.
Terrorists have seized Nakatomi Harbor and are holding 30-35 people hostage on the thirtieth dock
Lol, definitely watched that classic yesterday
Yeah, this Die Hard / Speed 2 mashup looks fun!
I heard in Florida whoever owns the property is legally allowed to take the shot.
So... Do the cops go *knock knock* Police, can we shoot someone from your boat?
Or did they just set up there quietly and assume that upon waking up the Florida man sleeping inside would recognize they are cops before pulling a gun and confronting what seems to be visibly armed trespassers?
From what my dad told me. They knocked told them what was happening and that they would be on property but wouldnât come inside. Stated they wouldnât be allowed to leave the house but they did have a guy grab my dad cigs on the way in so thatâs cool.
Could he tell them no? Just because something is going on doesn't mean they have rights to your property..
I mean it happened at a house where he knows the family has kids. A scuff in a boat wasnât really much of a worry for him..
So, they were totally ready to shoot kids. Very something.
https://preview.redd.it/xkvg1pj5sp9g1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9b0f848dd467fb72e7abfbfba822c46a01fcb94
Well maybe not the kids but the dogsâŚ..thatâs another story
It is state dependent, but police in at least some states do have emergency powers to enter onto or intoproperty without authorization and without the need for a warrant when there is an emergent need (evidence being destroyed, a hazard or risk of injury or death presented that would require their intervention,
But when those acts are not happening on your property.. then it seems like it is outside of that. As I learn more and time goes the people have less and less freedom and privacy..
The open fields rule, which gives them the right to enter or cross the property of others in the capacity of their official duties, has been on the books since 1920. Police have almost always had the ability to temporarily seize property (occupying it is a seizure) in emergencies without a warrant. Courts are often strictest on warrants when it pertains to gathering evidence of a crime or searching the actual dwelling for a person or item, Iâm not aware of any recent case in which police were told they needed a warrant to use a persons property as cover and concealment in an emergency.
Emergent need stretches beyond "a major crime is happening on your property = cops don't need a warrant". It includes "a major crime is happening near your property = cops are allowed to take cover on your property/use your property as a sniper post".
What if I told you that word freedom doesn't mean what any of you think it means when you say it like some jingoist patriotic chest bump? We've never been free in that manner. They've always been able to do that. If the government wants your shit they will take it. It doesn't matter who's in office, what party or otherwise. People walk around saying that word freedom like it actually fucking means something here. We live in a society that allows many personal liberties but living in a society there have to be limits on those personal liberties and freedoms. Otherwise you end up with a lot of people selfishly hurting other people in different ways beyond obviously where we're at as a society now.
Thatâs not how being the governments bitch works in most places
Something something third amendment.
If your cold, theyâre cold! Repeal the 3rd! BRING THEM IN!
If no one claims them within 48 hours, do you get to keep them?
Legally? Yes.
Actually? Lots of examples lately of the cops ignoring people's constitutional rights.
Legally? Yes.
Actuality? There will almost never be any personal accountability from that particular officer or their direct supervisor in an instance such as this for something like occupying space on a privately owned boat during the tactical response to a hostage taking, and I agree with that.
My long winded rant about accountability we should, and could, have:
The state or municipal fund pool should be used to settle in that instance if it was truly tactically advantageous but a judge later found that it was illegal to post up there. Qualified immunity should be upheld for that sniper and the commander who put him there in that instance. If we were to abandon qualified immunity and adopt personal liability, any judicial review could dictate no personal liability, as necessary to protect the officers who actually did act in good faith to serve the public.
In other situations, such as traffic stops that involve officers with hurt feelings and a bruised ego, stacking 6-8 charges on someone speeding who chose to remain silent after handing over paperwork through a window that was rolled down halfway, and is later pulled out, searched, and arrested for DUI while 100% sober, I hate that qualified immunity is only as far away as "I was acting in good faith to ensure officer safety and to uphold the law and policies of my department as I understand them per my training."
Knowing full well they had no right to extend the stop, nor to pull the driver out, nor to request roadside sobriety, nor to pencil whip the driver into a $1500 bond and a $3k legal bill, a fuctup record that now needs expunged, a temporary suspension on their driving record and DUI charge on their insurance record, with no reasonable suspicion, much less PC, of DUI or any actual crime at all.
In fact, criminal charges that only come after the driver didn't "cooperate" aka answer questions after handing over the required paperwork for a simple traffic stop should undermine the entire case in the eyes of a prosecutor, or at least cause them to pause and review the circumstances to potentially drop a bad case and order an expungement before any further prosecution.... but, no, they hardly ever do that either. If a case is dropped pre-trial, it's usually the defense attorney doing the leg work, and public defender almost never does that, as they're legitimately over worked.
A more realistic charge in that instance should be "Contempt of Cop," and qualified immunity absolutely should be stripped, but for the most part won't be, as the bar to entry for a lawsuit is ~$7500 to go to trial in a 1983 suit, and finding an attorney willing to sue the police in federal court is near impossible in most of our country for anything short of major personal injury.
The fact that a complaint with evidence of a blatant and intentional violation of civil rights doesn't immediately result in an official temporary suspension of law enforcement certification for the duration of the investigation, just the same as that driver's privilege to drive is temporarily suspended until they beat the DUI, is disappointing. The reality that qualified immunity has lead to such a rift between civilians and civilian police, and caused the militarization of police, indicates it is fundamentally flawed.
Personal liability policies could replace qualified immunity and could be used to root out bad police from everyone else without the blue-line peer pressure or fear of retaliation a good officer has to face just to uphold the law and act against corruption and tyranny. Simply offset the base cost of a policy onto the department and make any additional cost for liability insurance the officers' responsibility.
If they get sued and found liable, the cost to keep their liability insurance goes up. If there is a formal complaint and an internal investigation finds they did screw up, the cost goes up, etc, etc. Eventually they become uninsurable and can't serve as a LEO without liability insurance. It works for every other industry in the world, why not here?
We had swat in our driveway when my neighbor had a psychotic episode many years ago. They were posted up behind our cars. We didnât know about anything until our neighbor called us to tell us lol.
Is that a leupold scope ? So I could be a sniper too ?
You ARE a sniper. I am according to my name, a half retarded sniper.Â
I used to be retarded, I still am. Though I used to be too
https://i.redd.it/hx14hln9ny9g1.gif
Iâm just an old guy with no soul if we are going by names.
Sure you are a pies niper !
Hey brother I got my kestrel, range finder, and binos. Let me know what you need
Best I can tell in the pic its a remington 700 SA in a masterpiece arms chassis with what looks like a Leupold MK4 HD scope. Not enough detail to tell much else.
It is an Impact 737r.
https://preview.redd.it/dk2rj46lam9g1.jpeg?width=2560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0d90ca1c9c34970690b0c6819408b6daca6f867d
They damn near copied my build from 5 years ago.
Yup, bolt release and the shroud give it away.
Short barrel on that MPA. Looks like a fun rifle.
But... That big boy better have a very good reason to be on my boat.
Every time that I see an MPA it makes me regret selling mine
I don't miss spending money on .264 bullets though
What did you switch to?
An original western shipped sharps model 1874 chambered in 40-70 sharps bottleneck
I'm not joking
Hi drag low speed is a vibe.
So do you do precision shooting with it or just fun?
I'm trying to really get into long range BPCR matches like the Quigley match
.264? So like 6.5 CM?
Yes and 6.5 grendel
6.5 is just too danm expensive
Completely forgot about Grendel tbh. Was curious why you said 264, so that makes sense now.
Their armorer gots good taste! Hope your dad stays safe man and has no property damage from the shenanigans.
I would have thought there might be a more stable base to choose than a boat
Got a link to a news article about the hostage situation?
Someday your little girl could be a hostage with a gun to her head. What do you want the boat owner to say to the swat sniper then?
Damn right he's welcome aboard.
I'd be mad I couldn't take the shot instead đ
That is the stupidest argument used to justify govât over reach. Youâre willing to give up your rights based on imagined scenarios and for a false feeling of safety.
If you feel so strongly about it, when it's your life on the line, I'll tell the officer that his services are not desired and he can go home.
I run that exact little wrist thing for matches lol
Bunch of cop haters in here
What is written on the paper on the arm?
Groceries he needs for new years eve
Dope
Hey man, that's not cool - they were only asking a question. /s
DOPE sheet
Thank you
These comments are wild in a subreddit full of gun guys who scream âno exceptionsâ regarding the 2nd amendment but âoh but there are exceptionsâ when the 3rd an 4th get brought up. Hypocrites.
Get outta mah boat!
I wonder what they'd do if your dad just untied the mooring lines and sailed off with them.
Leupold Mk5HD
MPA rifle with looks like a curtis action?
I immediately thought of the video where the guy was shooting off his hood or bed & blasted a few holes in it. Yikes.
Probably a good vantage though.
Look at that bald spot, you know heâs been doing this for YEARS.
Naw man get a warrant or get off my property
In most states police can enter a property during an emergency with no warrant, especially if there is an active public safety concern in the area (hostages is high in that list). The temporary seizure of the area federally is often considered under exigencies or under the open fields rule, which, unlike its name suggests, applies to more than just open fields.
Most states also codify law enforcement powers to occupy or enter property without a warrant in the course of their official duties. For example if a traffic stop results in the person pulling over in a private business the business owner cannot obstruct the officer while he is acting specifically towards conducting that stop and investigation.
As far as property damage goes, itâs why they most often just get consent, but it doesnât really absolve the agency of liability for repairs to the damaged property. They also get consent because they donât want you to freak out when you see a balding man with a bolt gun in your boat. But courts are very lenient with police being on adjacent property in these types of emergencies; typically taking the stance of âhuman life> your boat and 4th amendment rights (temporarily, and so long as it doesnât put you in undue harms)
I imagine their response in this instance would be âNoâ
[deleted]
This seems more along the lines of the 3rd amendment, either way the exceptions donât make it inherently right, even if theyâre legally justified.
[deleted]
3rd amendment specifically mentions âduring times of peaceâ not war.
But once again, the exceptions donât make it inherently right, even if it is legally justified. The third amendment says no quartering, unfortunately weâve devolved and now has exceptions. Same with the second.
People downvoting this are forgetting the third amendment. Ask my permission or fuck off.
Iâd be telling them to get the fuck off of my boat
They would probably just laugh at you and tell you to put your pants back on.
Did you dad told him that he doesnt need a magnum?
Hahahaha
He should also tell him to get a ZCO as Leupold is no good in this sub.Â
Whenever I see people with their dope card on their arm, it reminds me of the slow kid in school whose mom would pin notes for their teacher to his shirt.
Good enough for a PRS Champ