LEO gone wild...... - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

LEO gone wild......


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-2013, 07:21 PM   #11
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5742 Times on 3366 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f12/sign-thief-97576/


As far as that kind of officer:

LEO gone wild...... - Legal and Activism

LEO gone wild...... - Legal and Activism

LEO gone wild...... - Legal and Activism
__________________
Dead Bears, the only good kind.
orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 11:01 PM   #12
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sniper03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,945
Liked 4603 Times on 2203 Posts
Likes Given: 2276

Default

Orangello,

No doubt from your pictures he did take the sign that was not shown in the first picture. So city ordinance I would hope! If not he should face discipline or dismissal if it was a personal issue in my oponion! I do tend to belive it was on city easment as close to the road as it was. And he may have been instructed to move all signs from city eavsment regardless of it being this sign, a for sale sign or yard sale sign. Almost gaurantee there is a utility easment that close to the street. It would be a rarity if it were not. And of course had the man called about his sings missing he may have found out why also. And this officer may not have been the only one taking his sign and enforcing an ordinance. Most cities have a code enforcement division. I do not know how big Sumers is. If he knew where the guy was that owned the sign I feel it would have been best as stated and I think most officers whould have went up to the house an advised of the situation and the possible ordinance violation. Most are understanding if it is respectfully explained. And if not OH WELL! But as many have stated this is NY!

03
__________________
The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the Government!
*Patrick Henry

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
--Abraham Lincoln
Sniper03 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 11:58 AM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1769 Times on 990 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AIKIJUTSU View Post
If the sign was on city property, the least he could have done is knock on the guy's door and ask him to move it. But then, he may have had to walk 30 feet to get to the guy's door.
From the article, the homeowner was sent a letter about the sign. The city's obligation to inform ended with that letter. For whatever reason he apparently chose not to move it to his own property. It could be an easement debate, it could be ignorance of the easement, or it could be he is seeking his 15 minutes of fame. Knowing the media we will never hear how this turns out.
Doc3402 is offline  
AIKIJUTSU Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 12:30 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Rick1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Clifton,Colorado
Posts: 4,697
Liked 2349 Times on 1281 Posts
Likes Given: 1443

Default

Years ago I put a sign up in front of my hotel. I code enforcement officer politely came into the building and asked to speak with me. He told me that the hotel across the street had complained. (I used to be the manager of that hotel. Long story, owner is a jerk) The officer told me that even though the type of sign I built was technically illegal, he knew that a lot of hotels used them. He told me that if I wanted to put it closer to my building he would be ok with it. The whole time he was polite and professional. That is the way this should have been handled. (I discarded the sign.)
__________________
Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
Rick1967 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 12:30 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
towboater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewares,Ky
Posts: 4,082
Liked 2115 Times on 1143 Posts
Likes Given: 4558

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sniper03 View Post
Before I made a final judgement regarding the picture I would want to see him actually taking it rather than a comment and this photo that can not be substantiated he took the sign.

03
I saw a series of photos, showing him taking them. I'll have to see if I can find them.
towboater is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 12:32 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
towboater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewares,Ky
Posts: 4,082
Liked 2115 Times on 1143 Posts
Likes Given: 4558

Default

Here... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/23/fed-up-ny-man-sets-up-hidden-camera-to-find-out-who-was-repeatedly-stealing-his-pro-gun-sign-what-he-discovered-blew-him-away/
towboater is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 01:02 PM   #17
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 11,356
Liked 4050 Times on 2079 Posts
Likes Given: 505

Default

And, once again the news media only tells a part of the story. The owner of the sign, "of rural Lake Lincolndale" has a sign broken and taken. The story does not say where the sign was actually posted. The area appears (on Mapquest) to be a resort/retirement area. There are many neighborhood roads that connect the area with Somers (where the cop is from). Mapquest does not delineate city limits and the story does not provide an address of the location the sign was taken from so I cannot determine whether it was in their city limits or not.

If the sign was posted in the public Right Of Way, AND this spot is in the city of Somers, exactly what is the beef here?

If the sign was posted in the public Right Of Way, AND this spot was NOT in the city of Somers, BIG problem.

If the sign was posted on private property? HUGE problem.

I, for one, would like the WHOLE story, not some possibly slanted version (whether the slant is to the right or the left)
__________________
In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball
robocop10mm is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 01:28 PM   #18
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1769 Times on 990 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
And, once again the news media only tells a part of the story. The owner of the sign, "of rural Lake Lincolndale" has a sign broken and taken. The story does not say where the sign was actually posted. The area appears (on Mapquest) to be a resort/retirement area. There are many neighborhood roads that connect the area with Somers (where the cop is from). Mapquest does not delineate city limits and the story does not provide an address of the location the sign was taken from so I cannot determine whether it was in their city limits or not.

If the sign was posted in the public Right Of Way, AND this spot is in the city of Somers, exactly what is the beef here?

If the sign was posted in the public Right Of Way, AND this spot was NOT in the city of Somers, BIG problem.

If the sign was posted on private property? HUGE problem.

I, for one, would like the WHOLE story, not some possibly slanted version (whether the slant is to the right or the left)
If you look at the picture you can see that the patrol car is parked partially on pavement and the sign is right next to the drivers door. No matter where you are, unless it is a private drive, that should be considered a right-of-way or easement. Now the only question is where the property is located and whether an incorporated entity governing that property has an ordinance concerning signs.
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 07:39 PM   #19
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5742 Times on 3366 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

I too would LOVE to hear the whole story and to understand better the location of the sign and motivations of the officer. Regardless of location, that doesn't seem to be the BEST way to handle an errant sign; a missing sign with no explanation would generate the earlier results mentioned, the homeowner replaced the earlier signs and deployed some kind of surveillance camera.

Had the first person to remove the original sign for a legitimate city code-type reason SIMPLY knocked on the door and explained to the sign owner about how the sign was in the wrong place or even left the uprooted sign with an explanatory note and contact information, whatever improprieties may have existed could have been corrected. If the sign owner then reoffended, they could very legitimately be cited and referred to a court for resolution of the situation. Instead, several signs were removed without explanation (at least not at the time of removal) leaving the sign owner thinking some kids or vandals were abusing his signs. This may have been "legal" but it wasn't right or smart, IMO.
__________________
Dead Bears, the only good kind.
orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013, 08:39 PM   #20
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,823
Liked 1769 Times on 990 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

I've been thinking about this all day, and I've come to the following conclusions based on the available information.

1. The homeowner was informed by the city via a letter that the original sign was in violation due to it's location on the right-of-way.

2. The homeowner decided that his free speech rights trumped the laws of his community and the wants of his neighbors.

3. The homeowner placed a game camera hoping to catch whoever was enforcing the laws of his community.

4. The homeowner is an a$$hat that is more concerned about his own individual rights as he sees them than he is about the rights of his neighbors and the community at large.

Now for those that haven't figured this out yet, this is the type of thing that really frosts my nuggets. Who is this guy to think that his rights are more important than the rights of the people? What right does he have to blatantly ignore the laws of his community and then cry about how he was only exercising his rights? Personally, I think he is a cop hater who knew exactly who was removing his signs, and he wanted to create an internet uproar over the big bad officer depriving him of his rights. Well, I for one am not buying the bullchit. Somebody give this guy his widdle blankie and send him to bed without his supper.
</rant>
Doc3402 is offline  
Mason609 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Man vs. Wild BigB Survival & Sustenance Living Forum 0 04-21-2012 02:31 AM
wild life acting.... wild? trip286 The Club House 9 10-11-2011 08:41 PM
ATF Gone Wild Yarddawg Legal and Activism 18 12-23-2010 02:58 AM
Wild Hog in TX lukeisme Hunting Forum 13 10-09-2010 05:05 AM
Man Vs Wild zhuk The Club House 10 03-10-2010 12:54 AM