# Maryland "storm-troopers" harass innocent gun owner



## KenpoTex (Aug 24, 2008)

Damn...Oklahoma "requesting" that people bring their guns in for testing, the ATF meddling [yet] again...now this.

This crap is getting out of hand...The NRA has confirmed this story by the way.



> Last night at 12:30 pm a MD State Police "Armed Response Team" showed up at our door. I was dead asleep, my Wife was laying some ceramic tile on our basement floor when our driveway alert went off several times. She looked at the camera monitor and screamed that Police in Assault gear were running up to our front door. That made me sit straight up from a dead sleep.
> We thought they were there for my Brother in Law who had just been mailed Bench Warrants to our home, but he doesn't live here and he is already incarcerated, so my Wife opened the door for them.
> 
> Then I heard one of them say he had some papers for me or needed to speak with me,so I got up to speak with them *6 or 7 officers in full assault vests, etc. and NO ONE in uniform*. Four heavily armed police came into the house while at least two others walked around outside of our home. One, began to talk to me asking me about the types of weapons I own. Remember now, I was just startled from a dead sleep and I kept asking why are you here, why do you want to know about my guns? Every gun I bought in Maryland I bought from a MD Dealer. *Well this Trooper said that I had purchased a "large amount" of ammunition recently and wanted to know why*. When I questioned why he was asking, then he changed his tune to what type of Handguns I had. I told him I just purchased my first handgun in Maryland last week, but had not even picked it up from the Store . He questioned me about other handguns I might own and I realized that he was "fishing" to match his list of my ammunition purchases with handguns that I owned. Then I told him about my C&R license that I had purchased 2 with that but was not required to register them with ST. Police. Moreover, I told him it was the MD. ST. Police who approved me as a "designated collector" so why are they here in storm trooper fashion at 12:30 pm maybe to kill me because I legally bought some handgun ammo? *He told me that most of the ammo I purchased was for weapons that they had no record of me having registered so the "SYSTEM" Flagged me.* Flagged me for what? Death, Harassment at midnight by 7 Storm Troopers?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2059939/posts


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2008)

I wonder when people are going to realize that "just doin' their job" just do happens to violate our Constitutional Rights?  This is bad...and I can see it getting worse.  What would it be like to be one of those jackboots barging into a private citizen's door?  I seriously wonder what they are thinking and whether or not they even understand the Constitution?


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 24, 2008)

This IS really bad.  And I have to wonder about the ability to monitor all the other transactions that occur and the lackadaisical response to them?

This is frightening.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 24, 2008)

Some things I would like cleared up before I swallow the story hook, line and sinker.

Typically a SWAT team doesnt raid a home without a warrant unless there is an exigent circumstance involved. I can think of no police administrator who would authorize an operation like that unless someone was going to be arrested or a search warrant served. If they did have a search warrant for "illegal ammo" they would have taken the guys ammo...something just doesnt add up.

Not that MD doesnt have some of the stupidest gun laws out there however. If something like this is true, its the state I would expect it to happen in.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 24, 2008)

I read the whole story..this is what I THINK happened. The guy had a brother who used to live at his house, the brother has an open warrant (for what??) and was using this address. The SP got some sort of flag based on the warrant, the ammo purchase etc and decided to go to the house to investigate. While described as a "heavily armed" SWAT team, what I think they were was a plainclothes unit who put on some external armor due to the warrant issue. The writer states his wife "let them in" so apparently they didnt ram the door, but knocked and asked to be let in. The went in, asked a few questions and left. While the whole issue of government tracked ammo purchases stinks IMHO, it doesnt appear that the cops did anything illegal here. If refused entry and they forced their way in..thats a different story, I dont see anything illegal "on its face" regarding the police coming to your door.

My .02 on what Ive found on the net. I may be entirely wrong. Its an interesting story and ill be keeping track of it.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 24, 2008)

Fascism at its finest. 

Where's the ACLU when stuff like this happens?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 24, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Fascism at its finest.
> 
> Where's the ACLU when stuff like this happens?


 
What would the ACLU do?

What was the "illegal activity" by LE in this story? While (if in fact true and as written) it is upsetting that the police are going to the doors of people who legally purchased ammo to question them, its not a rights violation as long as you cant refuse to answer without facing legal action. The number of officers and how they are armed can enter into the equation regarding a 4th Amendment violation, unless they can reasonably explain the necessity for showing up in that manner. But again the officers were allowed in in this case.

Bear in mind im NOT supporting the states "ammo tracking" program. Or at least the way they are implimenting and using it. They should be able to subpoena purchase records, but wholesale record access is over the top IMO.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 24, 2008)

Archangel M said:
			
		

> I dont see anything illegal "on its face" regarding the police coming to your door.


 


			
				Archangel M said:
			
		

> What was the "illegal activity" by LE in this story?



Do the actions of the police/government have to be _illegal_ for them to be wrong?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 24, 2008)

Now that's an interesting question, *Tex*.  

I do think that given *Archangel*'s professional experience we can accept his assertion that the actions were done within the letter of extant legislation.

It is important tho' that we weigh-up whether the actions of an arm of government are 'moral' or 'right' as well as legal.


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 24, 2008)

If it were just for routine questioning and/or follow-up on some paperwork, why was it done at 12:30 a.m.?

That fact alone makes the entire incident 'questionable' at best.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 24, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> If it were just for routine questioning and/or follow-up on some paperwork, why was it done at 12:30 a.m.?
> 
> That fact alone makes the entire incident 'questionable' at best.


 
Hey. I agree. Im just saying that I think there is more to this story. Enough to make it "right"? I dont know. But we are just getting a one sided account here.

Im still of the belief that the "warrant issue" that was quickly glossed over by the OP played a role. Just a gut feeling.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 24, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> Do the actions of the police/government have to be _illegal_ for them to be wrong?


 
While Im not arguing the point, how then do you initiate a legal action against them?


----------



## chinto (Aug 24, 2008)

in my state I would have asked to see their warrant. when none was produced I would have told them to please leave, and if they said why, informed them they were now looking at charges under "title 18 US Code. felony abuse of authority"  and that I had not consented to any search and they better stand at the door as a group when one started to 'wonder around looking' ... I don't know what the laws are in MD but in my state they would be in violation of my rights under the US and state constitution... and I would file a complaint with the dept, the state attorney Gen, and contact an attorney and judge for a court ordered NO TRESPASSING order. ( this is one that means that no one may trespass .. and its automatically felony trespass for even police to do so with out a warrant as I understand it. )   

as to the unlawful act question.. I see such an entrance at such a time and manor, " no uniforms but raid vest armor "  as an abuse of their authority and  misappropriation of public funds and equipment with out provable cause or a warrant.  not to mention the acting like members of the GahinzStatsPolitzi... also known as the GASTOPO in Nazi Germany.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 24, 2008)

Tresspass and curtilidge are complex areas of law. There have been cases where federal agents have crossed over fences and past "no trespassing" signs and they were legal. Much depends on your states laws and the agency investigating. Under federal law, federal agents may be totally legal in crossing over your fence, while the locals would not.



> Curtildge fourth amendment protects people and not places.  There is no requirement that there be a physical trespass in order for there to be a violation of the fourth amendment.  Even if there is a trespass, it does not necessarily mean the defendants reasonable expectation of privacy is violated.





> The mere act of putting up fences or no trespassing signs on highly secluded areas of a farm will not protect open fields from a warrantless government search.  Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984).  However, in N.Y., if a fence is erected, or a no-trespassing sign is posted, then under New Yorks constitution, the landowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a search warrant is required.  People v. Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 475 (1992).





> There is no objective reasonable expectation of privacy in a backyard or in a semi-enclosed greenhouse from aerial observation by a police plane flying at an altitude of 400 feet in public air space.  Photographic marijuana in a fenced in back yard surrounded by a ten foot wall from a plane 1000 feet above, is not a violation of an objective expectation of privacy.  Know the difference between an objective and subjective expectation of privacy.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 24, 2008)

chinto said:


> as to the unlawful act question.. I see such an entrance at such a time and manor, " no uniforms but raid vest armor " as an abuse of their authority and misappropriation of public funds and equipment with out provable cause or a warrant. not to mention the acting like members of the GahinzStatsPolitzi... also known as the GASTOPO in Nazi Germany.


 
Thats quite an assumption without hearing the LE side of the story.

If they have no good reason then pass judgement as you will and I may very well agree with you... being Pro-2nd Amendment myself.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 25, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Now that's an interesting question, *Tex*.
> 
> I do think that given *Archangel*'s professional experience we can accept his assertion that the actions were done within the letter of extant legislation.
> 
> *It is important tho' that we weigh-up whether the actions of an arm of government are 'moral' or 'right' as well as legal*.


 
That was exactly my point...I would not be surprised, given the firearms laws and feeling toward weapons in that state, that they were probably acting within the letter of the law. Even if their actions were not legal, they were still acting under the color of authority. 

Perhaps, as Archangel has said, their real reason for being there was to look for the brother. If that was in fact the case, the incident should have ended right then...no fishing trip re. the gun issue. 
However, if they were there solely for the purpose of questioning him about his ammo purchases and the guns he owns, then in my opinion, their actions were wrong.  Personally, given the "long train of abuses and usurpations" committed by agents of our government at various levels when dealing with 2nd Amendment issues, I have a very hard time giving LEO's the benefit of the doubt in such situations.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 25, 2008)

If Im in there legally I can "fish" all I want. Its the other persons decision to "bite" or not. If the initial reason to be there was the warrant and the subject wasnt there then yes..the clock is running on how long I can remain and BS. BUT it doesnt mean I have to leave immediately. Its all a matter of reasonableness. 3-5 min to ask a question or two is different from 30-60 minutes grilling a guy simply on the rationale that "he didnt ask me to leave".

Look Im not defending the LE here either. Note I havent said they were in the "right". Theres not enough info here yet for me to land on one side or another. And to be 100% my "more to the story" sensor array is tingling on this one.

This one will bring out all the Turner Diary fans though...the black heliocopters must be spinning up.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 25, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Look Im not defending the LE here either. Note I havent said they were in the "right". *Theres not enough info here yet for me to land on one side or another. And to be 100% my "more to the story" sensor array is tingling on this one.*


 
you're right, and I probably shouldn't come down on them as hard as I have thus far (at least until more information presents itself)...this is just one topic that really gets me fired up.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 25, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> you're right, and I probably shouldn't come down on them as hard as I have thus far (at least until more information presents itself)...this is just one topic that really gets me fired up.


 
Fair enough. 

Between the MDSP spying debacle and that Mayor getting his dogs shot, I dont think Maryland LE wants to get any more unwanted attention.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 25, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Fascism at its finest.
> 
> Where's the ACLU when stuff like this happens?


 

ACLU is ironically, Anti gun.

I don't understand it either.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 25, 2008)

This is interesting and definitely a news story that we need to follow and keep an eye out for.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 25, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Fascism at its finest.
> 
> Where's the ACLU when stuff like this happens?


 
The ACLU doesn't support the Second Amendment.  They call it "being neutral."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> I wonder when people are going to realize that "just doin' their job" just do happens to violate our Constitutional Rights?  This is bad...and I can see it getting worse.  What would it be like to be one of those jackboots barging into a private citizen's door?  I seriously wonder what they are thinking and whether or not they even understand the Constitution?


 I'm a cop......and I would REFUSE that order!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> The ACLU doesn't support the Second Amendment.  They call it "being neutral."


 It's more accurately called BEING LEFTISTs!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> ACLU is ironically, Anti gun.
> 
> I don't understand it either.


 That's because the ACLU was founded as a COMMUNIST organization not a LIBERTY organization.......ACLU is a misnomer.


----------



## chinto (Sep 2, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Thats quite an assumption without hearing the LE side of the story.
> 
> If they have no good reason then pass judgement as you will and I may very well agree with you... being Pro-2nd Amendment myself.




i have no idea what the laws in MD are.. in my state, they would be on very very thin ice at least. but then the west and the east are very different in that respect... in my state, with out a warrant and asked to leave, they refuse, its a felony of armed trespass. hell in my case ... turn up in a suit or a uniform and ask civil questions you might get an answer..

 turn up as the GASTOPO  and all i want is you gone and my lawyer to see how much hurt can be put on you.  ( this is of course going on the information given.)  

hell I cant imagine a swat team going in and knocking on a door.. that is just not what you have paramilitary cops for.. they are for the really nasty meth lab types and such that are most likely to open fire on the cops as any thing! so they turn up its usually with a rush and a ram and screaming  "POLICE SEARCH WARRANT!!" as they punch the door off the hinges with a ram or a 12 bore shot gun ...  ... but stranger things have happened... I hate to say it but I have seen cops get very "us against the world " you are not a cop you must be a crook kind of mentality is far to common, even in rural arias ...


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 2, 2008)

Id like to read that law..most trespass charges are misdemeanors except under specific circumstances and most states have exemptions for LE in the course of their duties.

I dont think these guys were SWAT in this story. Probably just a special plainclothes unit that wore external armor for protection and to ID themselves. Again I think the warrant issue plays a larger role than the OP will admit.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 3, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Again I think the warrant issue plays a larger role than the OP will admit.


 Does your use of the term "OP" refer to the original post, or original _poster_, because I provided all the information I had.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2008)

Sorry...I mean the guy in Md.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 3, 2008)

that's what I figured...just wanted to be sure.


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

This story was vetted by a local firearms group and it was verified. 

The Maryland State Police apparently have a firearms unit that did this.

They got the purchase information from a MSP dreamed-up "voluntary" ammunition purchase logging system that they foisted upon some ammo sellers. Those sellers record the name and address of ammo purchasers and in some cases reportedly demanded to make copies of the purchasers drivers licenses. They also lied to some customers telling them that this was the law and not voluntary. 

Gun registration is not mandatory in Maryland and there is no law requiring the logging of ammunition purchases nor is there a restriction on the amount of ammo one may purchase (if you are under 21 you may not purchase "pistol" ammo [don't bother to point it out to me, I know how stupid that is]) or any law against buying ammo for firearms you do not own.  

Interestingly the MSP is currently under investigation for violating the civil rights of legal protesters by conducting surveillance on them for no know criminal conduct what so ever.   

This report of the story omits the "victims" statement that the Trooper who questioned him (none offered their names) left saying that he was sorry that he "harassed" him [the victim].


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 8, 2008)

I'm sure there were members of the Gestapo that were sorry they had to harrass a citizen or two. 

You know...they gotta family ta' feed and bills ta' pay too. :uhyeah:


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

Im shure that something did happen. What im skeptical about are the details. Like I said upthread, my "more to this story" radar is alerting. Ive seen people complain about the jackbooted, nothing better to do, my rights were violated.....etc when all that happened was that they were issued a speeding ticket and the officer dared to ask where the driver was coming from or going to. If this story is EXACTLY as described I would say that there is something to make an issue over. I just think theres more than the "ammo purchase" going on here. 

Im also wondering if this is the first and only person this happened to, and if not why we are not hearing more stories of this type.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 8, 2008)

K31, thanks for the update.


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Im also wondering if this is the first and only person this happened to, and if not why we are not hearing more stories of this type.



 I'm not. I think it's abundantly clear when you have 6-7 of your state police show up at your door at midnight in SWAT gear to ask you questions about a legal purchase that you are going to think twice about going public about it and risk more police visits.  Maryland is a liberal Democrat state and the politicians are decidedly anti-personal firearms ownership. One former state attorney general went so far as to state that no citizens "needed" firearms. With leadership like this I don't doubt this story. It was also verified to the firearms group I mentioned by a LEO who identified the MSP unit.


----------



## Ninjamom (Sep 8, 2008)

Thanks, K31.  I have searched all the local news sources (I live near where this occurred), and have found no media reports of it at all.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

Sorry I dont buy that. People will *****, even if its an annonymous net story. Hell people make a big stink over even routine police contacts! But I do know about Md ******** firearms laws, I have family that lives there. Im not saying this didnt happen, but having some experience in this field i know that there is always more to a story than one persons viewpoint. And no offense to any State officers intended (its usually the fault of the upper ranks in the SP and the state politicians), but it always seems like its the SP's that are involved in crap like this.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

Im of the very strong opinion that the brothers bench warrant and his listing this guys house as his address is at the root of this whole story. Its usually the little detail that is mentioned briefly and rushed past that is the lynch pin in most statements.


----------



## Jimi (Sep 8, 2008)

If the law was concerned about the brother in a home that their research can put guns and ammo at (May be they thought the brother was a potential voilent firearms threat), they could have addressed the brother issue right away, not dance around the ammo purchase issue. If the law was there for the brother but he was already in custody some where else, you would figure with the advanced communication technologies, it would not be easy to knock on someones door near midnight without knowing the PERP was already gotten. The law making such an inquiry with so many officers they had to let someone at HQ know what they were gonna look into. There is always another side to the story, but my concern is why would the law concerned over ammo purchases come to your home that late at night like a tactical team. From the one persons point of view, the law showed up ready to take someone into custody. Didn't another poster say that Maryland had no laws against the purchase of ammo and yet the law came to this guys door for no real wrong doing. JMHO.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

The Law doent need "wrongdoing" to come to your door. Anybody and everybody can come ring your doorbell, thats why its there. They knocked and were allowed in, what seems to be the issue here is the time, number of officers and the fact that they were wearing external vests.

And do we honestly know what the sequence of the conversation here was?

Im telling you, the cops are not going to show up like that solely based on the fact that you purchased some ammo. Theres more here. Whats odd is that all I can dig up on the net is that original post. Its everywhere, but thats all thats out there. No follow up of any sort that I can find. Just another oddity.

Again. Im not saying that there hasnt been some ****ed up stuff coming out of Md lately.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

The "Assault Vest" thing...many plainclothes officers/detectives dont wear vests. So when they go to a house where say..a warrant suspect may be, they go to the trunk of their car and put on an external vest. And since wanted people are known to bail out of backdoors or windows when they see the cops coming, cops try to position themselves to see possible escape routes...

Just saying.

And in terms of vetting/verification...I have been following this one closely and all thats been verified is that this "Don Curtis" exists and this IS what he is saying. Ive seen nothing regarding an LE statement to the effect that there was really LE contact at this guys home. Let alone why the cops are saying they were there.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

Jimi said:


> There is always another side to the story, but my concern is why would the law concerned over ammo purchases come to your home that late at night like a tactical team. From the one persons point of view, the law showed up ready to take someone into custody.


 
Exactly, and since they didnt arrest anybody, THAT kind of adds a ? to the story doesnt it?


----------



## Jimi (Sep 8, 2008)

I was neither convicting the MDSP or saying they had no right to ring this guys bell at midnight. For the only info I have on this issue from the guy complaining, the law at that time did not get the guy who had a bench warrant out for him or did they really settle any ammo issue. I agree there is something else to it, maybe the brother was using that house as a base for some crime, or hide out, and I can understand why they would want to have a handle on things. It just sounds like the opinion is, I trust this guy is not telling the truth about the incident so I take the laws word for it (Insert rank, years in force, promotions etc...), and since they have said nothing means no-one was in the wrong. Just you friendly nieghborhood ammo detection squad. LOL. Things like this are probably uncommon, but I also doubt that if the law spent time and tax payer money for LEO's to come up with a near miss, they would not report it to the local media. Lots of doors get knocked on and even kicked in Maryland, DC & VA. People in that area like to gripe about LEO's if they feel they are hassled by it. I agree the Law was just doing its job, just see my point that in this case they probably were not doing a great job or it would not be an issue to one private citizen who did answer to the law's calling on his door. Not agruing with anyone, just stating my opinion


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

Same here. Im not "defending" the SP's...as Ive said Md firearms laws are going south quick...but having been involved in some situations like this Im of the opinion that this isnt the entire story here.


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> The &quot;Assault Vest&quot; thing...many plainclothes officers/detectives dont wear vests. So when they go to a house where say..a warrant suspect may be, they go to the trunk of their car and put on an external vest. And since wanted people are known to bail out of backdoors or windows when they see the cops coming, cops try to position themselves to see possible escape routes...
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> And in terms of vetting/verification...I have been following this one closely and all thats been verified is that this &quot;Don Curtis&quot; exists and this IS what he is saying. Ive seen nothing regarding an LE statement to the effect that there was really LE contact at this guys home. Let alone why the cops are saying they were there.



 I've had police show up at my door looking for people wanted for bench warrants who used to live at the address. The police show up alone, and in the middle of the day, not in the middle of the night. A bench warrant is usually for failure to appear, it does not convey any meaning as far as the nature of the offensive, the risk of flight, nor nature of the person being sought.   I find it interesting that you place great credence in this one item, that the victim himself offered up, but nothing else.   The story was vetted by people who are are part of a local firearms group and the existence of the police unit and the incident were verified by a LEO known to the same group. They as a matter of fact went out of their way when the story was first printed to tell people to withhold judgment until they could further vet the story.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

Trust me..I know where of I speak. Ive served bench warrants on known violent gang members and on teenagers that didnt show for their shoplifting arrest. A bench warrant for failure to appear on a violent felony is different from failure to appear for a petit larceny and will be treated differently. A bench warrant for a petty offense on a person with a known violent past will result in a different approach. Its about the person being sought, not the piece of paper. Dont think your experience is the rule. 

Ive read the MdShooters threads too. Its far from 100% verified on the details.


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

Jimi said:


> I was neither convicting the MDSP or saying they had no right to ring this guys bell at midnight. For the only info I have on this issue from the guy complaining, the law at that time did not get the guy who had a bench warrant out for him or did they really settle any ammo issue. I agree there is something else to it, maybe the brother was using that house as a base for some crime, or hide out, and I can understand why they would want to have a handle on things. It just sounds like the opinion is, I trust this guy is not telling the truth about the incident so I take the laws word for it (Insert rank, years in force, promotions etc...), and since they have said nothing means no-one was in the wrong. Just you friendly nieghborhood ammo detection squad. LOL. Things like this are probably uncommon, but I also doubt that if the law spent time and tax payer money for LEO's to come up with a near miss, they would not report it to the local media. Lots of doors get knocked on and even kicked in Maryland, DC & VA. People in that area like to gripe about LEO's if they feel they are hassled by it. I agree the Law was just doing its job, just see my point that in this case they probably were not doing a great job or it would not be an issue to one private citizen who did answer to the law's calling on his door. Not agruing with anyone, just stating my opinion



 What it is speculated they were trying to do was see it the victim in this case had an illegal sub-machine gun because he purchased a (according to them) a lot of pistol caliber when he had no firearm (known to them) for that caliber. They tried to pressure him to allow them to inspect his firearms but he held his ground and pointed out in every case that he had done nothing wrong. They even went so far as to tell him that he should register his firearms so that they "didn't have to come out here".


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

PS: Im one of the biggest 2nd amendment guys out there. Im just saying that yall better be careful before making this Curtis guy a standard bearer. This could prove embarassing to make a big hype over nothing. The internet is notorious for that.


----------



## Jimi (Sep 8, 2008)

I agree 100%. There must be something more to it. On a side note, about a year ago at 3:00am in the morning I was awoke by pounding on the front door of the rental home my wife and I live in. When I answered the door there were 3 men in BDU's vests & well armed. The small one with the clip board demanded where is Chris. I said no-one named Chris lives here. He responded angrily, then why did he put this down as his address?! I said I don't know. I asked what is the issue? He said we are serving a warrant for Chris (BLANK). Again I said there is no Chris here. that is when I noticed a Badge hanging around his neck. It said Fugitive Retrieval Squad. Again he asked why did he put this address? Again I said I don't know. One of the other larger guys standing behind him said, Is there anyone else in the house? Another said may we search? I said my wife was alseep upstairs, and yes you can search if you show me the warrant for my address. The guy handed it to me and I read the address as 3022 not 3020. I said this is not for my house. They seemed to brace themselves to rush the door until I said this is for 3022 which is the other zero lot kinda townhouse unit attached to our left. I pointed to the other adrress and entry. They did apologize for the bother and even thanked me for the correction. Though I realize people make mistakes, it does not take away how wrong these guys were at first even if they are just doing their jobs. This was near Nashville TN by the way. But that is just my side of it, and if no-one can find the Fugitive Retrieval Squads statement on this means there must be more to the story. Just playing devils advocate.


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

I kinda think it's not standard procedure to mail bench warrants to the address were you expect to find a fugitive you want for a violent felony before you show up in the middle of the night. If it is well, I don't have you experience but it would seem to be kind of tipping your hand...


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

K31 said:


> What it is speculated they were trying to do was see it the victim in this case had an illegal sub-machine gun because he purchased a (according to them) a lot of pistol caliber when he had no firearm (known to them) for that caliber. They tried to pressure him to allow them to inspect his firearms but he held his ground and pointed out in every case that he had done nothing wrong. They even went so far as to tell him that he should register his firearms so that they "didn't have to come out here".


 

And for that they show up in the AM and surround the house? Thats a routine investigation...there is something more to this story Im telling ya.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

K31 said:


> I kinda think it's not standard procedure to mail bench warrants to the address were you expect to find a fugitive you want for a violent felony before you show up in the middle of the night. If it is well, I don't have you experience but it would seem to be kind of tipping your hand...


 
Depends on how many various warrants from various agencies are out for a guy. Its not unheard of for one person to have multiple warrants and agencies looking for him. And its also not unherad of for one agency to be looking for someone who was already locked up by another agency. It depends on a depts warrant admin system..sometimes you wind up wasting a lot of time looking for a guy who is already in the poeky.


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> PS: Im one of the biggest 2nd amendment guys out there. Im just saying that yall better be careful before making this Curtis guy a standard bearer. This could prove embarassing to make a big hype over nothing. The internet is notorious for that.



 I don't see this as just a 2nd amendment issue.   An ex-Governor of Maryland used to button-hole people who wrote things critical of him at their homes with his state police escort and I didn't think that was right either.


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Depends on how many various warrants from various agencies are out for a guy. Its not unheard of for one person to have multiple warrants and agencies looking for him. And its also not unherad of for one agency to be looking for someone who was already locked up by another agency. It depends on a depts warrant admin system..sometimes you wind up wasting a lot of time looking for a guy who is already in the poeky.



 You sure are reaching really far to make this into about the brother-in-law for a guy who says he has an open mind.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

K31 said:


> I don't see this as just a 2nd amendment issue. An ex-Governor of Maryland used to button-hole people who wrote things critical of him at their homes with his state police escort and I didn't think that was right either.


 
And the "Spy" thing inst helping matters either. Im not saying the SP's can do no wrong by no means, just to be careful before jumping on Curtis' bandwagon here.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

K31 said:


> You sure are reaching really far to make this into about the brother-in-law for a guy who says he has an open mind.


 
From the guys first description it sounded like a classic warrant service VS. some investigation into ammo purchases. You seem pretty set on the SS/Stormtrooper, this is all about ammo story yourself. And Ive stated before (a few times), I think this brother/warant issue is a FACTOR here. Not that that is what the visit was ALL about. Just a factor.


----------



## Jimi (Sep 8, 2008)

Who is on Curtis's Bandwagon. I am flying no banners here. Putting that much weight on my opinion or others is a little overstating that you think there is something more to this. Even if someone's opinion is not that of someone who has served bench warrants


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

Jimi said:


> Who is on Curtis's Bandwagon. I am flying no banners here. Putting that much weight on my opinion or others is a little overstating that you think there is something more to this. Even if someone's opinion is not that of someone who has served bench warrants


 
Wasnt talking to you in particular sir. Just trying to explain my stance on this story. There are plenty of possibilities here and without more Im not going to jump...


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> And the &quot;Spy&quot; thing inst helping matters either. Im not saying the SP's can do no wrong by no means, just to be careful before jumping on Curtis' bandwagon here.



 I'm not on anyone's bandwagon. He doesn't even seem to be very interested himself in the lime light or there are other avenues he could have used. I believe the guy has a lot more to lose than to gain by going public. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it, here.


----------



## K31 (Sep 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> From the guys first description it sounded like a classic warrant service VS. some investigation into ammo purchases. You seem pretty set on the SS/Stormtrooper, this is all about ammo story yourself.



 For the record, I never called anyone an SS/Stormtrooper.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

I dont mean to be argumentative, just saying that I think there is plenty of "wobble room" in this story until its firmed up. On a different topic, Ive been in contact with the Md branch of the family and my father-in-law is a big firearms guy. He hasnt seen zip beyond the net on this story. Id be tearing up the lines to the media if I was this guy. He obviously isnt afraid to have it up all around the net. I hoping that more detail shows up because I am very interested in this story.


----------



## Jimi (Sep 8, 2008)

I would like more details too, but without a real story, it is just hear say, even our opinions.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2008)

Jimi said:


> I would like more details too, but without a real story, it is just hear say, even our opinions.


 
Absolutely. Im states away from this, I dont "know" anything about what really happened here. Im just postin...:asian:


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 8, 2008)

Deja view, don'tcha know!


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 8, 2008)

Folks, 
I think we can all agree that there are at least two sides to this story, and we only have heard (second hand) one of them.

As a LEO myself, who, because of my current assignment, often shows up for warrant services and other such activities in an external "tac" vest, often with several other guys similarly attired... I can respect that there are probably some reasons for this that may not have been mentioned.  I don't recall, for example, any mention as to the underlying charge for the bench warrant.  

But it's also possibly that a specialized unit may have been hunting stats to justify their existence... or keep some politician off there back.

Let's just try to keep the discussion reasonably civil.  Name calling and sniping won't further the discussion...


----------



## Ahriman (Sep 9, 2008)

1, The storm troopers were the SA, not the SS  ///sorry I couldn't resist the urge to be a smartass///
2, Actually I agree with wearing protective equipment as often as one can, just in the past few months we had two murders_ (keep in mind that Hungary has a lower population than some of your cities :wink: )_ which would've been avoided if the victims wore bulletproof vests as in both cases the weapon was a pistol and in both cases the bullet hit the chest area. One guy was a police officer the other a money escort guy, so both COULD'VE BEEN wearing vests legally_ (as they are illegal for most folks here)_ but they didn't think things would go wrong. They were very, very, very wrong in this assumption. Even as bulletproof vests are seen as threatening stuff here, I seriously think that cops should wear them as much as they can. Their life is more important than the mental peace of civilians and I say this even as I don't really trust the Hungarian cops.
The same goes for all other parts of equipment - it's better to have them on needlessly for 500 occasions than NOT having them on that one occasion when they'd REALLY need them.
...
That's enough about the equipment, the behaviour... well, I don't know what's legal there and what's not, and I understand that we've only heard half of the story but... but the fact that we didn't hear the other half means that the police doesn't care about it. If this doesn't change we won't know better and this story _(and others)_ will spread and undermine the trust in police officers around there which will sooner or later result in the same as in Hungary - when you see a police officer, you get to the other side of the road, or turn around, start behaving VERY low profile, if they ask you about something you only tell them as much as you REALLY must, when you witness crime you won't call the cops, and so on. This is not a good thing. It has nothing to do with the original story, it's the result of the police not clearing up the events as soon as possible *no matter if the original story was real or not.*


----------

