Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Cyrus Cassidy #45437

Members
  • Content Count

    1,978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,362 Excellent

About Cyrus Cassidy #45437

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1976

Previous Fields

  • SASS #
    45437
  • SASS Affiliated Club
    Colorado Cowboys

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    SASS, IPSC, IDPA, hunting, coin collecting, baseball.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,132 profile views
  1. We just got back from the vet. He was a good boy.
  2. Odin, retired U.S. Army, 2008-2020.
  3. Hey pard, there are four upgrades you can buy from Dillon that change a 450 into a 550. I did it, and I strongly suggest you do. You won't need any of these 450 parts, and you'll have a much better machine.
  4. Note the red sash around my waist. This is me impersonating my 6th-great grandfather, who served as a Lieutenant in the Continental Army. Officers wore the sash for two reasons: 1) It identified them as officers from a distance, and 2) It unfolded and could be used with two sticks or two rifles to create a stretcher for said officer (rank does have its privileges). The one I'm wearing is of authentic material, which was a silk blend, and would definitely be strong enough to bear me. That said, I'm just wondering aloud if this tradition carried on into the Old West. I know the officers in the Union and Confederate armies in the later Civil War both worse similar sashes. The weave pattern was different, but the purposes were the same.
  5. There is a lot if BS legal advice in here. I’m not even going to bother.
  6. This is perhaps the biggest error police make in consent searches across the country. The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree with them) that any time a police officer stops a citizen, there is an inherent coercion taking place -- the public knows the cop has a gun and the authority to use it. The badge, uniform, etc. are symbols of legal authority. But consent must be given freely, WITHOUT coercion. So the officer is required to return the documents and explain the person is free to leave. Regardless of how many times cops lose evidence gained from consent searches, they keep doing this one. I've seen it in my own former department hundreds of times. And unfortunately, "that's the way we've always done it" rules the roost in law enforcement. So they keep doing it, and they keep getting evidence thrown out. But the real question is, why are you arguing with me over it? I wasn't there.
  7. Barracks lawyer question. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you do not trust someone's legal advice who has no training. A cop does NOT need probable cause to conduct a field sobriety test. That's what they need to arrest the driver AFTER doing the sobriety tests. A cop needs "reasonable articulable suspicion" to do those tests.
  8. No way. You just gave permission to search, and the OP wants to find a polite way to decline -- you accomplished the opposite of what the OP wanted. Asking permission to search is an officer's job; there is absolutely nothing intimidating about asking for his/her supervisor to be there. There are several levels of intrusion the police can make into someone's private lives. Each level of intrusion requires a different level of proof. The lowest level is called "consent" and carries NO BURDEN OF PROOF WHATSOEVER. It means the person being addressed is free to leave at any time and is present of their own volition. The same holds true for a consensual search -- the person is free to leave and does not have to allow the search to take place; they are doing it of their own volition. The second level of intrusion is "investigatory detention," and the corresponding burden of proof is "reasonable articulable suspicion." At this point, a suspect is NOT under arrest, but there is enough proof that they are NOT free to leave, either. There are thousands of court rulings on the exact definitions. The third level is arrest, and the corresponding burden of proof is "probable cause." A search of a home requires this level of proof, and almost always (very few exceptions) requires a warrant signed by a judge. However, many searches of a vehicle can be conducted without a warrant, but require this level of proof as well. If this level has been reached, you cannot deny the officer the search -- he/she is going to search whether you like it or not, and interfering with them will land you in jail. I have had more than one driver (or even passenger) loudly scream about how they did not consent to me searching their vehicle, to which my response was, "I've noted your objection. Now please get out of the way before I arrest you." The fourth level is conviction, and the corresponding burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." But this question really rooted in the first level of intrusion -- consent. In these cases, the driver DOES NOT have to allow the search. The Supreme Court has multiple rulings on this one. For example, the driver MUST BE FREE TO LEAVE before the officer asks for consent. In other words, if the officer is holding the driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance, they are not free to leave. If they are detained in the back of a patrol cruiser, they are not free to leave. You get the point. The average reader is asking why on earth someone carrying an illegal item would give consent, and I'm here to tell you, they absolutely do. I don't know why, but I know they do. And I followed ALL the rules -- driver free to leave, use the word "search" instead of a euphemism like "look around," etc. I got more dope off consent searches than I can even recall. So back to the original question: How to decline. I'd advise you just to do it politely, such as, "Officer, I'd rather you didn't." He/she may ask a few follow up questions -- let's face it, any good cop is suspicious and may assume you are hiding something by declining, but we all know that isn't true. Some people just don't want another person nosing around in their stuff, whether they have something to hide or not. The rookies may even ask, "Are you hiding something?" I would simply respond, "No, I just don't want to take the time out of my day to have another person snooping around in my stuff." If the officer demands the search, or informs you they are searching your vehicle with or without your consent, one of two things is happening: 1) They have a legal reason to, which you can fight about in court later. As I said before, engaging with them on this is a good way to get arrested. Voice your objection but do not interfere, and then file a complaint with Internal Affairs and / or consult an attorney about suing them. 2) The cop is a dumba$$ and doesn't know how to play the gam,e correctly. Unfortunately, I worked with several of these guys; they do exist. So in the case of either #1 or #2, my advice from #1 applies.
  9. I think his best work was probably "Mere Christianity."
  10. Hahaha....I'm a retired cop. I've caught a lot of thieves! One funny one was when I was in a two-officer car (a rarity in my city due to short staffing). We rolled through a neighborhood that was, shall we say, in dire need of having cops assigned to it. Sure enough, we rolled up on two guys in the process of stealing a car. Keep in mind we were in a fully marked patrol cruiser with a light bar on the top. The stickers were reflective and you could see us coming from miles away. But they were so focused on what they were doing they let us drive right up on them. Two easy felony arrests.
  11. That's what "the kids" are in to these days. Yes, I know I'm the youngest guy on this forum, but I'm also middle aged. I prefer guns with wooden stocks. Scopes go on bolt actions, not lever guns, and my favorite gun to shoot is a Sharps 1874 with black powder cartridges. People see the bullets I've cast myself and think I'm some kind of arcane wizard. I hunt deer with muzzleloaders. I guess I just like guns the way they used to be.
  12. Wow, I live in Colorado and I've never seen a bear that big.
  13. They are great guns; I have one. If you're going to put a scope on it, DO NOT use the Springfield scope mount. Sadlak comes highly recommended, as do others. I've decided on buying the Sadlak for mine but haven't dropped the cash yet.
  14. But I refuse to watch anything from the child porn service known as Netflix.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.