Crossing guard relieved of duty, guns seized

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I guess this guy is a threat to society?  Laugh.

 

https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/10/11/crossing-guard-relieved-duty-guns-seized/

 

(Oh, and NO ONE wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens.  You heard it here first!)

[laylalex 7,300]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

I guess this guy is a threat to society?  Laugh.

 

https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/10/11/crossing-guard-relieved-duty-guns-seized/

 

(Oh, and NO ONE wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens.  You heard it here first!)

Sounds like the school resource officer got a bug in his butt and wanted to throw his weight around. 

 

Look, if even *I* think this guy should have kept his guns AND his job, you know know this was bogus!

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

13 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Sounds like the school resource officer got a bug in his butt and wanted to throw his weight around. 

 

Look, if even *I* think this guy should have kept his guns AND his job, you know know this was bogus!

I think the nosy waitress is to blame, mostly.  Probably misunderstood what she overheard.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I’d also like to point out that salads killed more people this month than AR-15s did.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

"He came up and told me what I said was a felony but he wasn’t going to charge me"

Asked if he was given a letter or any paperwork for the seizure of his license, Nichols said,

“No he just told me to hand it over so I took it out of my wallet and handed it to him.”

Nichols said he has been licensed for firearms since 1958.

He said he didn’t receive any paperwork or receipts for the seizure of his guns, either.

 

Don't ever hand over your guns or license, at bare minimum, nor any other property of yours at all, without a warrant demonstrating probable cause/due process for an actual crime. They (police) can say anything they want, there's no reason to voluntarily give up freedoms just because someone says so. Remember, cops can lie to you and nothing happens, whereas if you do it to them, you've committed a crime. Different rules, protect your rights. If you voluntarily give access, or hand over property, or volunteer information, these things can be used against you, and regardless of how comfortable you are with your innocence, don't do it. If they want to commence violating your rights without your consent, they lose a big defense without your compliance, and are far more liable for violating your rights. But if you volunteer to give them up, that absolves them of most liability. 

 

This isn't implied to mean cops are terrible, it's that this way of going about it separates the bad cops from the good ones, and more importantly, reaffirms standing up for your rights. They don't protect themselves. 

[laylalex 7,300]

1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

I think the nosy waitress is to blame, mostly.  Probably misunderstood what she overheard.

Hard to say, but I think on second pass reading you're right. Oak Bluffs and West Tisbury are tiny places -- I used to visit the Vineyard as a kid. My mom's parents had a summer house on Cape Cod where my sister and I would get shipped off to for a couple of weeks most years, and we'd take the ferry over to the Vineyard for the day with various cousins (big Irish-Catholic family, always plenty of cousins). The winter populations are really small and I expect everybody knows who this guy is. Somebody totally overreacted here.  Poor guy.

[Dashinka 24,746]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

 

 

 

 

Don't ever hand over your guns or license, at bare minimum, nor any other property of yours at all, without a warrant demonstrating probable cause/due process for an actual crime. They (police) can say anything they want, there's no reason to voluntarily give up freedoms just because someone says so. Remember, cops can lie to you and nothing happens, whereas if you do it to them, you've committed a crime. Different rules, protect your rights. If you voluntarily give access, or hand over property, or volunteer information, these things can be used against you, and regardless of how comfortable you are with your innocence, don't do it. If they want to commence violating your rights without your consent, they lose a big defense without your compliance, and are far more liable for violating your rights. But if you volunteer to give them up, that absolves them of most liability. 

 

This isn't implied to mean cops are terrible, it's that this way of going about it separates the bad cops from the good ones, and more importantly, reaffirms standing up for your rights. They don't protect themselves. 

This is the same advice given to an LPR that is asked to hand over their GC by CBP.  Never ever do that, only an IJ can take a GC away from an LPR.

 

As to the OP story, this really sounds like a joke.  So an SRO isn’t doing their job, and the crossing guard has to pay when he points it out.  Where else did an SRO behave badly?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

I guess this guy is a threat to society?  Laugh.

 

https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/10/11/crossing-guard-relieved-duty-guns-seized/

 

(Oh, and NO ONE wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens.  You heard it here first!)

 

  Well he did threaten someone (allegedly) and then explain the context behind someone. His law abiding status is not a certainty.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

 

 

 

 

Don't ever hand over your guns or license, at bare minimum, nor any other property of yours at all, without a warrant demonstrating probable cause/due process for an actual crime. They (police) can say anything they want, there's no reason to voluntarily give up freedoms just because someone says so. Remember, cops can lie to you and nothing happens, whereas if you do it to them, you've committed a crime. Different rules, protect your rights. If you voluntarily give access, or hand over property, or volunteer information, these things can be used against you, and regardless of how comfortable you are with your innocence, don't do it. If they want to commence violating your rights without your consent, they lose a big defense without your compliance, and are far more liable for violating your rights. But if you volunteer to give them up, that absolves them of most liability. 

 

This isn't implied to mean cops are terrible, it's that this way of going about it separates the bad cops from the good ones, and more importantly, reaffirms standing up for your rights. They don't protect themselves. 

 

  Well, they might kill you. Technically that counts as a reason.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

18 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Well he did threaten someone (allegedly) and then explain the context behind someone. His law abiding status is not a certainty.

Guess you didn't read the article very well.  Oh well.

 

He threatened no one.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

Guess you didn't read the article very well.  Oh well.

 

He threatened no one.

 

  The linked article says who he threatened and that he claimed the threatening remarks were taken out of context.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

19 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The linked article says who he threatened and that he claimed the threatening remarks were taken out of context.

"Nichols said he was unimpressed with the Tisbury School resource officer’s alleged trips to Xtra Mart to get coffee when children came to school in the morning. While dining at Linda Jean’s a couple of weeks ago, Nichols said he told a friend about this and suggested somebody could “shoot up the school” in that officer’s absence, which he described as “leaving his post.” "

 

 

"

Linda Jean’s owner Marc Hanover said he’s known Nichols for decades and vouched for his integrity. He described the situation as “absolutely outrageous.” He said he believes one of his servers “overreacted.” Hanover said he spoke with the restaurant patron who had conversed with Nichols at the time of the alleged threats.

“He assured me there was never a threat made,” Hanover said."

Edited December 7, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

"Nichols said he was unimpressed with the Tisbury School resource officer’s alleged trips to Xtra Mart to get coffee when children came to school in the morning. While dining at Linda Jean’s a couple of weeks ago, Nichols said he told a friend about this and suggested somebody could “shoot up the school” in that officer’s absence, which he described as “leaving his post.” "

 

 

"

Linda Jean’s owner Marc Hanover said he’s known Nichols for decades and vouched for his integrity. He described the situation as “absolutely outrageous.” He said he believes one of his servers “overreacted.” Hanover said he spoke with the restaurant patron who had conversed with Nichols at the time of the alleged threats.

“He assured me there was never a threat made,” Hanover said."

 

 

Saloio and another officer relieved Nichols of his crossing guard duties while he was in the midst of performing them and subsequently drove to his home and took away his firearms license and guns. 

“He came up and told me what I said was a felony but he wasn’t going to charge me,” Nichols said of Saloio. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

Saloio and another officer relieved Nichols of his crossing guard duties while he was in the midst of performing them and subsequently drove to his home and took away his firearms license and guns. 

“He came up and told me what I said was a felony but he wasn’t going to charge me,” Nichols said of Saloio. 

Correct.  Because you can’t charge someone on hearsay.  Police 101.

 

Read his words again and copy/paste the threat please.

[laylalex 7,300]

There wasn't any threat. But then I tend not to see threats, as established yesterday! Seriously, he pointed out a situation he felt was dangerous, and an unfortunate misunderstanding followed.