MBPD Officers Draw Down on Legal Open Carry Fishermen

[Unregistered]

https://www.thegunwriter.com/24301/m...ent-weeks-ago/

and here is the Entire Email Letter sent to Dan that he claims he never received..

Cant just delete the email Dan.... there is a way to track that government/dept email ... LOL..

Lets see how Dan tries to bury this incident like all the others he sweeps under the rugs of his office.

Hope these guys get their payday !

[Unregistered]

Dan is trying to do a Hillary Clinton and delete emails. LOL. Ernie will be busy for the next few days with some scrutiny.

[Unregistered]

check this audio of the guy calling the police dispatcher to inform MBPD of what they plan on doing

https://youtu.be/cd0TpqZ8Njo

Just an FYI, that's not the Miami Beach dispatch that he called. He called City of Miami. Two completely different agencies. Maybe that's where the confusion occurred.

[Unregistered]

Just an FYI, that's not the Miami Beach dispatch that he called. He called City of Miami. Two completely different agencies. Maybe that's where the confusion occurred.

The call does not matter. No citizen is required to report they are engaged in legal behavior to avoid being stopped and detained by law enforcement. While we dont need PC to stop and temporarily detain someone, we do need reasonable suspicion that a crime has take place. We don't have that in this case. The most they could do was check to ensure they were fishing legally so it does entail them lawfully openly carrying a firearm

[Unregistered]

The call does not matter. No citizen is required to report they are engaged in legal behavior to avoid being stopped and detained by law enforcement. While we dont need PC to stop and temporarily detain someone, we do need reasonable suspicion that a crime has take place. We don't have that in this case. The most they could do was check to ensure they were fishing legally so it does entail them lawfully openly carrying a firearm

The group called as a courtesy, it didn't matter that they called the City of Miami or whoever they called.. maybe the City of Miami if that is who they called should have after listening to this guy forward some 13 to MBPD also ? .. No Call or Heads up was even remotely needed to be given by this group .. Nobody at MBPD knew the Florida State Statutes 790.25 that we are paid to enforce & uphold .. guess here at MBPD we have a "special" lets do what we want Statute and then Figure it out 2 hours later and uncuff and release with a "SORRY WE DID NOT KNOW...." these guy's lawyers are eating this incident up.

[Unregistered]

Pipe it down a couple of notches.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability." (Like visibly armed men in a busy city.) (Brinegar v. U.S.)

And in another case, the court said, "The penalties visited upon the government, and in turn upon the public, because its officers have violated the law must bear some relation to the purposes which the law is to serve." (U.S. v. Ceccolini)

The "Good Faith" Doctrine

In a number of situations, the court has acknowledged that not all errors committed by police officers justify invoking the exclusionary rule, because the actions taken by officers were reasonable under the circumstances, and so there was no misconduct to deter. This is the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which rests on the reasoning that "Where official action was pursued in complete good faith, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force." (Michigan v. Tucker)

The officers were reasonable in their actions. BTW are you aware of the world we’re living in? Mass shootings are happening all over this country. I hear the guy that shoot up the News Room in Annapolis was on his way to fish too.

[Unregistered]

What did tricky Ricky say?

[Unregistered]

Pipe it down a couple of notches.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability." (Like visibly armed men in a busy city.) (Brinegar v. U.S.)

And in another case, the court said, "The penalties visited upon the government, and in turn upon the public, because its officers have violated the law must bear some relation to the purposes which the law is to serve." (U.S. v. Ceccolini)

The "Good Faith" Doctrine

In a number of situations, the court has acknowledged that not all errors committed by police officers justify invoking the exclusionary rule, because the actions taken by officers were reasonable under the circumstances, and so there was no misconduct to deter. This is the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which rests on the reasoning that "Where official action was pursued in complete good faith, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force." (Michigan v. Tucker)

The officers were reasonable in their actions. BTW are you aware of the world we’re living in? Mass shootings are happening all over this country. I hear the guy that shoot up the News Room in Annapolis was on his way to fish too.

You are correct and bring up an excellent point. I did not, however, say the officers themselves would be personally liable. I spent a good portion of my 25+ year career in supervisory ranks. I can tell you the agency itself (the City) will be liable and will pay. The agency has a duty to ensure officers know the law, apply the law, etc. It should not take 2 hours to figure that part out. It makes it even worse when a citizen breaking no laws sustains an injury. Trust me, the city pays on this.

[Unregistered]

You are correct and bring up an excellent point. I did not, however, say the officers themselves would be personally liable. I spent a good portion of my 25+ year career in supervisory ranks. I can tell you the agency itself (the City) will be liable and will pay. The agency has a duty to ensure officers know the law, apply the law, etc. It should not take 2 hours to figure that part out. It makes it even worse when a citizen breaking no laws sustains an injury. Trust me, the city pays on this.

I agree the city will pay how long does it take you to walk to your vehicle look for the law book and read the law it sure doesn't take two hours. remember we have the right to detain people with reasonable time, like a traffic stop shouldn't take you two hours. These officers were looking for a state statute to arrest these people. after two hours they realized they had nothing. sorry these officers need to learn the law.

[Unregistered]

I agree the city will pay how long does it take you to walk to your vehicle look for the law book and read the law it sure doesn't take two hours. remember we have the right to detain people with reasonable time, like a traffic stop shouldn't take you two hours. These officers were looking for a state statute to arrest these people. after two hours they realized they had nothing. sorry these officers need to learn the law.

Well nobody needed to walk anywhere .. the State Statutes for 790.25 was sitting next to one of the guys detained bag who told Responding units that they can read the law right there..