Citizen's home is raided because of a Facebook posting

[Quantum Windbag]

No one's home was 'raided'.

Any time the police show up without a direct invitation from the property owner it is a raid.

So, if your neighbor saw a man breaking into your house in the middle of the night, responding to that call would a "raid"?

My neighbor would shoot the guy before she called the police. Want to tell me that wouldn't end in a raid in San Francisco?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those that won't click the link because it says Blog:

New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle."Someone called family services about the photo," said*Evan Nappen,*an attorney representing Shawn Moore. "It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids."Moore was not arrested or charged.A Dept. of Children and Familiesspokesperson told Fox News they could not confirm or deny an investigation or raid had taken place due to government regulations."The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline," spokesperson Kristen Brown said. "We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry."Moore, of Carneys Point, is a certified firearms instructor for the National Rifle Association, an NRA range safety officer and a New Jersey hunter education instructor.He recently posted a photograph of his son wearing camouflage and holding his new .22 rifle. The child has a New Jersey hunting license and recently passed the state's hunter safety course."If you look at the picture, his finger isn't even on the trigger - which is proper," Nappen told Fox News.

Considering that the only people who should have been able to see his facebook page are people he knows, someone he knows dimed him out.

So they must know things we don't.

You don't know much about Facebook, do you?

Just a heads up, if you think even a private profile is private, you are dumber than dog shit.

Stalkbook: View any Facebook profile even if they're not your friend | Digital Trends

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm a little confused about this. Isn't this pretty much how the system is supposed to work?

Someone called in an anonymous compliant. They checked it out, found that nothing was wrong, and continued on their way. What's the big deal?

In a word, no. The system is not supposed to knock on people's doors demanding to see people's guns over an anonymous tip. They should have called, explained the situation, and asked if it would be possible to stop buy and verify that the child was not dead. If they were denied an opportunity to do that they should have gone to a judge, explained the problem, and asked for a warrant.

That is how the system is supposed to work, look up due process and the presumption of innocence sometime, you might learn something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm a little confused about this. Isn't this pretty much how the system is supposed to work?

Someone called in an anonymous compliant. They checked it out, found that nothing was wrong, and continued on their way. What's the big deal?

Your kidding right??

If you don't get whats wrong about everything you just posted ,you really are living within the coral.

Tell me what's wrong.

Do you think that anonymous tips should be universally ignored, or investigated?

They should be treated with the exact degree of credibility they deserve, none.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder how many second amendment liberty lovers would call the police if some dad in their neighborhood posted this picture of his son?

Or this

I wonder how many people who think it was justified to call in this instance would call people racists if they called as a result of those pictures.

 

[Mustang]

Your kidding right??

If you don't get whats wrong about everything you just posted ,you really are living within the coral.

Tell me what's wrong.

Do you think that anonymous tips should be universally ignored, or investigated?

They should be treated with the exact degree of credibility they deserve, none.

And how are they supposed to know unless they actually visit the home?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm a little confused about this. Isn't this pretty much how the system is supposed to work?

Someone called in an anonymous compliant. They checked it out, found that nothing was wrong, and continued on their way. What's the big deal?

Your kidding right??

If you don't get whats wrong about everything you just posted ,you really are living within the coral.

Let me put an alternative situation. DCFS gets tipped off about that picture, and they ignore it, realizing this is just a youngin' excercising his second Amendment rights.

Then little Billy takes that gun to school and shoots up a couple of his little classmates.

The same people who are whining about overzealous bureaucrats would be the ones asking "Why didn't you follow up on that when you got a warning!"

Wanna bet?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm a little confused about this. Isn't this pretty much how the system is supposed to work?

Someone called in an anonymous compliant. They checked it out, found that nothing was wrong, and continued on their way. What's the big deal?

Another opportunity for someone to cry "THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!"

Again, you are the only person in this entire thread that has said that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell me what's wrong.

Do you think that anonymous tips should be universally ignored, or investigated?

What was wrong were the tactics and aggression used. For example DFS threatening to take his child if he doesn't open his safe.

the only one reporting that is the drunk father.

Drunk? If he was drunk, and drove home, why wasn't he arrested?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the only one reporting that is the drunk father.

And you know that he's a drunk, how?

Negged!

the police said he appeared to be intoxicated.

gonna take the drunk guy's word on events or the sober police?

They did? When? He wasn't home when they showed up, why didn't they arrest him when he drove up and ordered them out of his house if they thought he was drunk?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the police said he appeared to be intoxicated.

gonna take the drunk guy's word on events or the sober police?

I don't automatically believe everything police say. And in this situation why wasn't he taken in for a dwi if he wss drunk? He clearly drove up while they were there no?

they may not have realized his state until later and thought better of it. And while I'd agree that it would be wise not to always believe everything the police say I have no reason to disbelieve them.

the father on the other hand seems to be an attention whore. i don't trust attention whores.

Let me get this straight, after they left, and this blew up in their face, they suddenly realized he was drunk, and you see no reason to suspect they are lying? Expect another neg in 48 hours.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the report merely stated the facts instead of calling it a raid then I would not view this situation as a sensationalized piece of nonsense. The cops showed up did not have a warrant and left never to return.

Feel free to outline, in detail, what is necessary for something to be a raid by your definition. My guess is the problem here is not that this was not a raid, but that you haven't actually thought about the issue.

LOL

I already posted Merriam Webster's definition of a raid but that either wasn't good enough for you or it went right over your head.

As I recall, you ignored the fact that armed men on your doorstep wearing night uniforms and body armor is a de facto demonstration of hostile intent. Or did that part just go over your head when you ducked to avoid the facts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL

You tell me dumbfuck, you posted the OP.

I'm debating whether it was a raid.

They did nothing wrong jackass. Thats why I posted it. You claim police have rights with regard to suspects so what exactly are these parents suspected of doing to violate the law? Or were you just running off at the mouth like most if not all libs in this thread.

That's why the cops went to the house in the first place idiot. To see if the parents were doing anything wrong or not. Guess they weren't doing anything wrong, since the cops haven't returned with a warrant. See how that works?

That is not how it works. The way it works is, if they think he is doing something wrong, they get a warrant. If they can't prove he is doing anything wrong, they leave him the fuck alone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

everything he has said has thus far been shown to be exaggerated.

that's what an attention whore would do.

Your perception of his experience and how he describes it hardly qualify as fact.

The police ADMITTED to demanding access to his safe. That was an attenpt to violate his rights to privacy. End of story

Police do this ALL THE TIME. They count on people not knowing their rights in order to get them to cooperate. There is no law against people cooperating. Smart people know their rights. The smartest thing the Dad did in this case was call his lawyer immediately. Dad and lawyer were smart in demanding a warrant and because there was no warrant, Dad was smart in demanding the cops leave.

LOL Seriously, have you never seen an episode of Law and Order? Even Judge Judy junkies know this.

You admit that police lie and abuse their authority all the time, and you have no problem with it.

Fuck you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The same story....with no police agency name, no number of cops, no name of any social agent/agency....just one guy's word repeated from blog...to newstory...to here.

Pardon me if I remain unconvinced at this moment.

Well when the police know they were in the wrong then the police dept. is going to stall on giving out names until the situation is investigated. When they get all the facts...names will come out.

What did the police do wrong?

Other than showing up, in body armor, without a warrant, and demanding access to something they had no right to access?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We also have multiple news services who saw the blog, investigated, and reported the same story. One would think that, since most reporters would love to paint this exactly the same way you are, one of them would have delighted in coming up with a police source that flat out denied that it happened.

The police couldn't deny it. When they found out that the gentleman had his lawyer on his cell phone listening the cops ran like cowards. They knew they were in the wrong.

Carneys Point police: We did not 'unlawfully search' Shawn Moore's home after Facebook gun photo

“At no time did the police attempt to unlawfully search his residence or violate the second for fourth amendment rights of Mr. Moore,” DiGregorio said. He added that the gun was a legal .22-caliber rifle and was given from father to son as a birthday present.

Moore posted the photo of his son, Josh, holding what appears to be an assault rifle on Facebook, and DiGregorio said that both his department and DCF received anonymous phone calls about the picture.

“In light of some of the recent school shooting across our nation, the Carneys Point Police Department takes these kind of calls seriously,” he said.

Four officers and two DCF caseworkers arrived at Moore's home at about 8:15 p.m. Friday to inquire about the photo and guns in the home.

Moore was not home at the time, but his wife welcomed the officers and the child welfare agents into the home. She did not have access to the home's gun safe so she called her husband.

DiGregorio said that interaction between Moore's wife and police was extremely cordial.

Moore arrived a short time later at which point the situation began to escalate, according to DiGregorio, with Moore telling officers and the DCF agent to leave his home.

The fact that they didn't get a chance to break the law in no way mitigates the fact that they attempted to break the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did they search? Did they arrest anyone?

Nope. Only because they knew they were in the wrong.

It's wrong to check out a complaint?

If I called the police and told them you were selling drugs, and they came in and demanded to search your home, would they be right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's wrong to check out a complaint?

No its not. But they were checking out the safety of that child and when they realized he was ok they should of left. No need to demand that they check out the safe to see if the firearms were registered. If that were so important they would of gotten a warrant.

The police were perfectly within their rights to ASK.

Now I'm going to do you a favor because I see you making the same written mistake over and over again.

It's should HAVE (not OF) or could HAVE. It's not a preposition. It's a verb.

Police do not have RIGHTS when they are investigating. Why is it so hard for you to understand that rights belong only to the people being investigated by the sate, not to the state?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What did the police do wrong?

They demanded the gentleman to open his safe so they could check his firearms to see it they were registered. They should of never asked that without a warrant.

Wrong. They can ask all they want...and frequently do. Just as the guy has the right to say no.


Now...tell us again, what did the police do wrong?

They can ask, by calling his lawyer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell me what's wrong.

Do you think that anonymous tips should be universally ignored, or investigated?

They should be treated with the exact degree of credibility they deserve, none.

And how are they supposed to know unless they actually visit the home?

It is an anonymous tip. IF you actually pay attention to case law, those are deemed to flimsy to get a warrant because there is no way to verify the person's credibility. In other words, I have the full force of case law, and numerous Supreme Court rulings, backing up my position.

What do you have again?