Who is you guys?
Look, you obviously don't know the first thing about the Constitution or the law. Maybe you shouldn't try to give lessons to those who do.
So in the immortal words of Patches O'houlahan,
Bye Bye now.
Makes my blood boil
- Thread starter 12151791
- Start date
- Replies 100
- Views 5,123
Look, you obviously don't know the first thing about the Constitution or the law. Maybe you shouldn't try to give lessons to those who do.
So in the immortal words of Patches O'houlahan,
Bye Bye now.
I think you misunderstood my post. The /sarc you see below my post means it was sarcasm. Actually it was dripping with sarcasm.
What if she as I do, answered the door with a pistol in her hand? So the whole deal would have gone sideways. For nothing other than a child asking a question about how safe was.
Just answering a complaint. Good thing the dog wasn't at the door.......
Just answering a complaint. Good thing the dog wasn't at the door.......
Nobody said investigating a complaint is unconstitutional. What they're saying (and what is frickin clear as a bell in the title of the OP's post) is that the cops were attempting to seize the man's property without a warrant or due process. Fortunately for him he asserted his rights and told them "NO". You keep defending them by repeating they didn't take anything, but it wasn't because they decided not to - it was because the father told them it wasn't happening. Get it?
Ooh... score ....
We'll have to wait for JR to chime in to find out the answer to that. These constitutional issues are just way too complicated for us common folk to grasp.
I'm saying they talked their way in with no warrant and no real probable cause. At some point the officers on the pointy end of the spear should recognize a BS call. Only when this happens will this type of hand wringing hysteria stop.
They could have / should have said he was asking about his safety. But nooooooooo .......... They just had to search the home by talking their way in.
Attitudes as exhibited by Officer Green seem to be a trained, indoctrinated point of view. Only when those "sworn" officers like him refuse to go along with this type of BS will it stop. The reason I put "sworn" on quotes is they "swear" to uphold the Constitution. Only then to do whatever gets them to the end means they want..... as long as nobody complains, or heaven forbid get a competent lawyer.
And yes, I do think the lying to the public to gain access or to solicit confessions is illegal, yes. I don't care what a liberal court said. The hemp paper the true rules are written on said that was against the rules.
Quoted again for another like.
My problem with this whole situation is the blown out of proportion statements on security at the school. If a kid mentions the security would be easy to breach, is that grounds for search and seizure? Kids talk a lot of smack but when does small talk constitute a plan to be a school shooter?
The Florida shooting has brought on state laws to circumvent the rights of a nation. There was an overreaction from school personnel in this case. If I say “I can kick everyone’s azz up in hur” at school, is that grounds for dismissal and a misdemeanor charge? Does daddy lose his guns because I say the school resource officer is wuss and I could walk into anywhere I wished? Having seen the last sheriff election in this county I would not let a county officer in my house for no reason unless he had a search warrant. (See Catawba county sheriff race and indictments for reference).
The Florida shooting has brought on state laws to circumvent the rights of a nation. There was an overreaction from school personnel in this case. If I say “I can kick everyone’s azz up in hur” at school, is that grounds for dismissal and a misdemeanor charge? Does daddy lose his guns because I say the school resource officer is wuss and I could walk into anywhere I wished? Having seen the last sheriff election in this county I would not let a county officer in my house for no reason unless he had a search warrant. (See Catawba county sheriff race and indictments for reference).
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Cottrell, 40, said he was working at Wawa on June 14 when he got a call from his wife around 9:30 p.m. that two police officers from the New Jersey State Police’s Hamilton station were at the doorstep of his Millstone home.
The troopers, who patrol this sprawling Monmouth County township, were there, he said, because his 13-year-old son had made a comment at school about the Millstone Middle School’s security, and the officers wanted to confiscate Cottrell’s firearms as part of an investigation.
Cottrell said his wife allowed the officers to search their home, including his son’s room, but they did not locate any weapons. Still, Cottrell said police wanted to confiscate his firearms — a shotgun and pistol — despite not having a warrant to do so.
But Cottrell, who served three tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom, was having none of it.
“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” Cottrell told NJ.com.
Cottrell said the incident is related to a law New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed into law in March. The law allows police to seize guns from law abiding citizens who the state determines pose a threat to themselves or others — even without due process.
Cottrell says he questioned the officers who showed up to his house, asking if they were there because of the new law, but they “danced around the issue,” he said.
Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn, a spokesman for the state police, declined to say whether the Cottrell incident was related to the new law. However, he told NJ.com it was determined the Cottrells did not pose a threat.
“Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized,” Flynn said.
It's evident the two troopers went to Cottrell's residence with intent to do more than just ask questions. Based upon statements made by Cottrell's wife and Cottrell himself, it appears the troopers had every intention of not only searching the residence, but seizing firearms as well. This intention is confirmed in the statement made by SFC Flynn of the NJSP when he stated, "...it was determined that Cottrell's weapons did not need to be seized."
Now, I'm pretty certain these two troopers didn't just decide on their own to pay Cottrell a visit. Surely, the order to do so came down from their supervisor, or perhaps even higher.
With that in mind, how is it that a supervisor would send personnel out, without a warrant, to accomplish a task which requires a warrant?
Why would two troopers set out, without a warrant, to accomplish a task which requires a warrant?
At any time in the planning of this, did anyone speak up and say, "Ya know, fellas...this isn't such a good idea. We're talking about violating basic rights of a citizen, here...it is illegal for us to do that."
One of two things is true; Personnel in the NJSP either A) do not understand the bill of rights...the LAW or B) they do not care and have no regard for the LAW.
Which is it?
The troopers, who patrol this sprawling Monmouth County township, were there, he said, because his 13-year-old son had made a comment at school about the Millstone Middle School’s security, and the officers wanted to confiscate Cottrell’s firearms as part of an investigation.
Cottrell said his wife allowed the officers to search their home, including his son’s room, but they did not locate any weapons. Still, Cottrell said police wanted to confiscate his firearms — a shotgun and pistol — despite not having a warrant to do so.
But Cottrell, who served three tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom, was having none of it.
“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” Cottrell told NJ.com.
Cottrell said the incident is related to a law New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed into law in March. The law allows police to seize guns from law abiding citizens who the state determines pose a threat to themselves or others — even without due process.
Cottrell says he questioned the officers who showed up to his house, asking if they were there because of the new law, but they “danced around the issue,” he said.
Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn, a spokesman for the state police, declined to say whether the Cottrell incident was related to the new law. However, he told NJ.com it was determined the Cottrells did not pose a threat.
“Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized,” Flynn said.
It's evident the two troopers went to Cottrell's residence with intent to do more than just ask questions. Based upon statements made by Cottrell's wife and Cottrell himself, it appears the troopers had every intention of not only searching the residence, but seizing firearms as well. This intention is confirmed in the statement made by SFC Flynn of the NJSP when he stated, "...it was determined that Cottrell's weapons did not need to be seized."
Now, I'm pretty certain these two troopers didn't just decide on their own to pay Cottrell a visit. Surely, the order to do so came down from their supervisor, or perhaps even higher.
With that in mind, how is it that a supervisor would send personnel out, without a warrant, to accomplish a task which requires a warrant?
Why would two troopers set out, without a warrant, to accomplish a task which requires a warrant?
At any time in the planning of this, did anyone speak up and say, "Ya know, fellas...this isn't such a good idea. We're talking about violating basic rights of a citizen, here...it is illegal for us to do that."
One of two things is true; Personnel in the NJSP either A) do not understand the bill of rights...the LAW or B) they do not care and have no regard for the LAW.
Which is it?
Last edited:
Well, you see, they may have gone there with the intention of breaking the law, and were totally trying to break the law because they felt like it, but since they didn’t actually get away with it then there is no harm and no foul.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Could be...
All I know is I applaud the dude for throwing liberty in their face and basically telling them to go stuff a stick in their ass.
Just how did they know he had firearms?
This is evidence that gun registration leads to confiscation.
Last edited:
It's both, they KNOW what the BOR says and they understand it, BUT..... Since their the JBT's with the badge they don't care 'cause it's not being done to them.....
I repeat myself, but DON'T ANSWER THE DOOR..... There's no law that says you HAVE to answer the door.... Let them knock until their knuckles bleed and leave DNA evidence of the damage they cause....
While this story is old, a dad posted a photo of his son with the new M&P 15-22 rimfire rifle to the family FB page,
social services and police demanded the wife open the family gun safe without any warrants of any kind.
https://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2013/03/facebook_gun_photo_controversy.html
I could have sworn I've seen this particular photo several years go.
