old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Can ATF be prosecuted for covering up the ring doorbell?
ATF Raid on Airport Exec in Ark, update
- Thread starter old lady new shooter
- Start date
- Status
Jim Watson
Member
Feds probably thought him low hanging fruit. They could grab his guns and make a case against him a lot safer than the Mob. Probably as surprised as him that he would shoot at an intruder.
No. No, no, no. There was no question in that entire paragraph. It was three sentences, and I looked at each one of them again. No question mark anywhere,.
Since it isn't clear, I'll explain- my point was to acknowledge the gray areas and this stepped way over the gray area "all the way into the black".
I know you don't think there are gray areas, because you're Dogtown Tom and you're the bulldog that chewed into every word of the manual they gave you and you know the law. But there is a gray area in which there are varying degrees of the government's ability to prove intent to profit. It starts somewhere around I post my P7 for sale for $501, because I'll be damned if I'll take less than the $500 I paid for it 15 years ago. It ends somewhere around where the ATF is sending you cease and desist letters to stop selling that table full of new guns at the gun show.
That was the basic point.
Now, if you want ignore that point and take my hypothetical example of something in the middle and add specific what-ifs to it to prove me wrong, enjoy yourself. But don't stop at "what if you kept one and sold the rest today". Put them all on a table at a gun show, in front of a sign that says "no questions asked", next to a ledger marked "gun profits Wayne intends to make", and a stack of business cards for "Wayne's Undocumented Gun Shop", and have me driving erratically to evade the ATF. Make it interesting.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
I don't see how covering the doorbell camera should be protected by qualified immunity... clearly the idea was to prevent the occupants from knowing LE was at the door... making it more likely that they would be the first to fire. If you had a wood door (as opposed to a security door) and a doorbell camera, and somebody was pounding on your door before the sun came up and covered the doorbell camera, what would you do? Many people would reasonably decide that whoever was outside was clearly not there to bring them some tea and cookies, and just shoot through the door.
qualified immunity
www.law.cornell.edu
"IF" I were a lawyer, the covering of the ring doorbell would be one of my arguments.
In the end, the taxpayers will paying the family millions, for yet another ATF screw up.
$$ I would assume.
RickD427
Member
Pretty much "NO". What crime do you think may have been committed by covering up the doorbell? On civil side, I doubt that there would be basis for a lawsuit resulting from the covering of the doorbell camera. The nice agents could eaily argue a rational basis for doing so, as it would help conceal their entry, which is an objective of a "no knock" warrant.
qualified immunity
There's no application of "Qualified Immunity" to a criminal prosecution. As to the nice agents having any civil liability for covering the doorbell, there may well be an issue of Qualified Immunity, but before getting there, a plaintiff would have to show a cause of action resulting from the covering of the doorbell camera. Don't see where they can do that based on the facts of the case.
They may be able to argue an unreasonable seizure based on the manner the warrant was served, the trier of fact gets to determine if that was the case.
why not execute a home search warrant during work hours when the principal is away but a spouse is home to be served? calmer, easier and safer for all. “innocent until proven guilty.” if sales were cash transactions and guns were already sold, what was object of a home search warrant as opposed to an arrest warrant? why not flip this prominent member of society to find the ultimate end users?
RickD427
Member
^^^THIS^^^ This was the same thought I shared in our other thread on this subject. There are some cases where it is advantageous to serve a search warrant while the subject of the investigation is present, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. The objects likely listed in the search warrant would be firearms and records of firearms transactions. Those things are not going anywhere, and you don't need the subject to be present in order to find them.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Arriving while it was still dark outside and then covering the doorbell camera was BAITING the inhabitants to shoot them.
And didn't somebody post upthread that it was NOT a "no knock" warrant?
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
$0.02 fine for excessive logic.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
@dogtown tom said he didn't need to flip guns.
Going back to the case of Nagants, a C&R license would allow you to sell off the ones you didn't want to keep.
Re the case at hand, the ATF had to act. The Airport exec was flagrantly violating the law - buying and reselling without a license, that they had to do something.
Could they just have arrested him on the street and then gotten a search warrant for his house instead of a no-knock warrant? Yes.
But once again the ATF shows us they are full of gung-ho door kickers, that would love to burn a house down on someone (Waco) or shoot children with sniper rifles (Ruby Ridge). Nothing has changed.
Re the case at hand, the ATF had to act. The Airport exec was flagrantly violating the law - buying and reselling without a license, that they had to do something.
Could they just have arrested him on the street and then gotten a search warrant for his house instead of a no-knock warrant? Yes.
But once again the ATF shows us they are full of gung-ho door kickers, that would love to burn a house down on someone (Waco) or shoot children with sniper rifles (Ruby Ridge). Nothing has changed.
dogtown tom
Member
It may not have been his choice.
During the Clinton administration, ATF began enforcing it rules and regulations. Many FFL's were not abiding by those regs and either let their license lapse or just chose not to renew rather than follow the regs. Those regulations required operating legally under all federal/state/county/local laws including HOA covenants, zoning and obtaining any required sales tax permits or business licenses. (all of which they agreed to do when they applied for their FFL)
dogtown tom
Member
dogtown tom
Member
Qualified immunity has zippity do dah to do with covering or disabling a Ring doorbell or any other video or security camera.qualified immunity
dogtown tom
Member
Argument for what exactly?
"IF" I were a police officer, disabling a video camera would be done before I ever knocked on the door. The advantage it gives to the person viewing is a disadvantage to the safety of the officers.
It's not suspicious and is standard practice on police forced entry.
Unlikely.
If the basis of "the raid" was lawful, then the likelihood of a civil suit or settlement is virtually zero.
dogtown tom
Member
Yes, yes, yes.........because I wasn't referring to your "?". Remember writing this? ....."wayneinFL said: You know someone who has been convicted based on something like this?"
I answered with what I know, and that was when a member of another gun forum wrote ATF to ask: "Can I buy a case of Mosins, keep one and sell the rest?"
ATF response was "No, you are acquiring with the intent to resell, requiring an 01 FFL".
ATF's vigerous enforcement isn't really a gray area. If ATF believes you are engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without an FFL they will go after you. If you are unsure if you need an FFL then read this: Do I Need a License to Buy and Sell Firearms Guide
Oh please. If you have no argument, at least attempt a better strawman argument than that. Thats weak sauce. Instead of whining about me knowing the regulations, what stops you from doing the same?
Nothing in ATF regs prohibits you from profiting off the sale of a firearm from your collection. And AGAIN, it's a pattern of behavior that ATF may determine is "engaging in the business".
Federal firearms laws and ATF regulations are in black and white. What you may think is a "gray area" may not be what ATF considers a gray area or what the courts consider a gray area. If you want to dance in that gray area, knock yourself out. But don't be surprised when ATF shoots your dog.
How do you think that plan worked out?
Argument for what exactly?
"IF" I were a police officer, disabling a video camera would be done before I ever knocked on the door. The advantage it gives to the person viewing is a disadvantage to the safety of the officers.
It's not suspicious and is standard practice on police forced entry.
Unlikely.
If the basis of "the raid" was lawful, then the likelihood of a civil suit or settlement is virtually zero.
A lawyer is going to argue that had they not disabled the ring doorbell. The homeowner would've seen that it was the police/ATF.
This could've given him a chance to come out unarmed and ask why they were breaking his door down at 6 am.
By covering up the camera, he woke up to someone breaking down his door. He also had no idea it was the ATF, so he grabbed his gun to defend himself and his family.
I understand why they think it's a good idea to break the camera. I also think it's a bad idea and has led to more than one mistake.
Cops Destroy Ring Doorbell at Wrong House
Details: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2023/03/16/cops-destroy-ring-doorbell-at-wrong-house/Video to submit? https://forms.gle/HmwnDQKvwvYPxe967For busine...
youtu.be
I can guarantee you that this will cost taxpayers millions.
dogtown tom
Member
Correct. I've posted about him before. He was a successful CPA, Realtor, owned a very successful gun accessory company and was a reserve police officer. He was a mainstay at Dallas/Ft. Worth area gun shows for thirty years. He was always horsetrading for scopes, red dots, gun parts and guns.
I think it was the thrill of flipping guns.
His undoing was one of those guns was recovered in Mexico. ATF traced it to the first 4473 buyer who told them who he sold it to. There was a back and forth between local ATF and Richard regarding many multiple sale of handgun reports and multiple sale of certain rifles reports dealers submitted on him. (I wasn't his only transfer dealer). He refused to explain his multiple purchases so ATF issued him a cease and desist letter, telling him that future dispositions or sales must be done through an FFL. At that point he had done nothing illegal to my knowledge, he told me he did what federal law required and only sold or traded to another Texas resident.
Just a few months after the cease and desist, he was arrested at a local gun show for theft of a firearm from a licensed dealer. Theft of a firearm from an FFL is a federal crime, so in addition to charges from Mesquite PD, ATF Dallas also filed federal charges. I never had contact with him later as he was on house arrest with an ankle monitor. He had to have friends and family get every gun out of his house, he wound up selling off a huge collection to pay legal bills.
Two years after his indictment, he shot himself in the head in his bed. His wife came home and found him. His case had not gone to trial.
dogtown tom
Member
Would you make that same argument on a drug raid? No.
"Could've" also started shooting through the door.
No one knows.
Even with a camera the homeowner would not know. There are numerous instances of fake police raids.
I think so too. I understand why police raids are done in the early hours of the morning, but this wasn't a raid to make an arrest, but to search.
Yet this wasn't the wrong house.
dogtown tom
Member
Understand the difference between:
Buying a firearm for your collection because it is collectible.
vs
Buying a dozen or more with the hopes that one will be collectible and selling the remainder.
Again, ATF looks at the buyers intent. If you purchase a crate of rifles, knowing that you do not intend to keep some for your collection, but sell them.....thats illegal.
RickD427
Member
Please be careful with your analysis here.A lawyer is going to argue that had they not disabled the ring doorbell. The homeowner would've seen that it was the police/ATF.
This could've given him a chance to come out unarmed and ask why they were breaking his door down at 6 am.
By covering up the camera, he woke up to someone breaking down his door. He also had no idea it was the ATF, so he grabbed his gun to defend himself and his family.
I understand why they think it's a good idea to break the camera. I also think it's a bad idea and has led to more than one mistake.
Cops Destroy Ring Doorbell at Wrong House
Details: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2023/03/16/cops-destroy-ring-doorbell-at-wrong-house/Video to submit? https://forms.gle/HmwnDQKvwvYPxe967For busine...
I can guarantee you that this will cost taxpayers millions.
In a civil lawsuit, making a well-reasoned argument that the nice LEOs should have pursued a different course of action, and one that you believe would have led to a different outcome, doesn't really win you any points, and it doesn't lead to a multi-million dollar judgement.
To really prevail, you need to show that the nice LEOs had a DUTY to follow that different course of action. That's an important distinction, and one that if often overlooked in discussions like this.
- Status
Similar threads
