Beloit Police Ask Residents To Volunteer To Have Their Homes Searched For Guns

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grey Templar**

Laemos wrote:
How does law abiding people need to volunteer to be searched make us safer?

It doesn't. It just so happens that its easier to infringe on law abiding citizen's rights OR ask them to voluntarily give them up instead of actually trying to stop bad guys.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
BrotherStynier wrote:
This is one of those times where doing their voluntary service can be misused as a means to find other illegal issues that may be going on in the house and arresting people over that, with out having had a proper reason to suspect the person and then obtaining a warrant to search.

It could theoretically be used as a loop hole to get around Illegal Searches, because they were given the right to search the house.
And your logical fallacy is...

Spoiler:

Your picture isn't working for me, care to make an actual point?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

BrotherStynier wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
BrotherStynier wrote:
This is one of those times where doing their voluntary service can be misused as a means to find other illegal issues that may be going on in the house and arresting people over that, with out having had a proper reason to suspect the person and then obtaining a warrant to search.

It could theoretically be used as a loop hole to get around Illegal Searches, because they were given the right to search the house.
And your logical fallacy is...

Spoiler:

Your picture isn't working for me, care to make an actual point?

It's a person falling down a slippery slope.

**Frazzled**

BrotherStynier wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
So wait a minute, is this one of those times were the police offer to do a voluntary service to their community to help stop an actual problem it's facing while attempting to reach out to the people they are sworn to serve, so that makes them jackbooted thugs trying to take away everyone's civil rights...?

Yet at the same time, these same police could be shooting twelve-year old kids, choking people to death, and beating the gak out of people in their custody and that's okay, because those people were "breaking the law" and deserved it, and hey- one less "thug" on the streets, right?

This is one of those times where doing their voluntary service can be misused as a means to find other illegal issues that may be going on in the house and arresting people over that, with out having had a proper reason to suspect the person and then obtaining a warrant to search.

It could theoretically be used as a loop hole to get around Illegal Searches, because they were given the right to search the house.

Exactly. If you really were concerned: 1) that your children might be have something illicit; and 2) you really were concerned you wouldn't be able to find it then hire a private detective to search for you. Altnertaively if the past owners were suspicious and you want some piece of mind, do the same. They will be working for you and have no legal requirement to stop a crime or seize evidence.
frankly I'd be just fine with that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
Police are really good at getting people to voluntarily give up their rights.

What happens if you volunteer to have your house searched for guns and they find "other" stuff?

You get to hire an attorney or one will be appointed for you. Later think less Orange is the New Black and more Oz.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laemos wrote:
How does law abiding people need to volunteer to be searched make us safer?

Well if you don't have anything to hide this shouldn't be an issue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrotherStynier wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
BrotherStynier wrote:
This is one of those times where doing their voluntary service can be misused as a means to find other illegal issues that may be going on in the house and arresting people over that, with out having had a proper reason to suspect the person and then obtaining a warrant to search.

It could theoretically be used as a loop hole to get around Illegal Searches, because they were given the right to search the house.
And your logical fallacy is...

Spoiler:

Your picture isn't working for me, care to make an actual point?

I think he inadvertantly did.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
BrotherStynier wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
BrotherStynier wrote:
This is one of those times where doing their voluntary service can be misused as a means to find other illegal issues that may be going on in the house and arresting people over that, with out having had a proper reason to suspect the person and then obtaining a warrant to search.

It could theoretically be used as a loop hole to get around Illegal Searches, because they were given the right to search the house.
And your logical fallacy is...

Spoiler:

Your picture isn't working for me, care to make an actual point?
It's a person falling down a slippery slope.

No its actual case law. It was also the subject of a nice fact chain on the criminal procedure portion of my Bar exam.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Jesus Christ, some of the lines of thinking on display here are just mind boggling...

I still stick by my original statement: the police are offering a voluntary outreach to their community (one that must be requested) and it's all bogeymen, slippery slopes, and civil rights violations to some people, while at same time a lot these same people have no problems with the actual civil rights violations being perpetrated by the police (or the government) because, hey- the system works.

For the record, I would not ask or allow an officer to search my home without a warrant and I have serious concerns over how police in this country treat the civil rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect. I'm just making stray observations on what I witness, nothing more.

**Frazzled**

Again, Scooty what happens if the police actually find something?

**VictorVonTzeentch**

I haven't said they are all boogeymen only that the possibility for you to be arrested for something increases because you thought you were helping out by requesting them to search the house.

You are, as Frazz has pointed, out then waving your rights and they can and likely will arrest you if they find anything.

Also you have no idea, what my opinions are on the other 'violations' going on in this country and they in fact vary on a case to case basis. So I'd appreciate you losing the lumping everyone in the same pile you started out with.

All in all I think this is a silly thing they are proposing and that it would be silly for anyone to take them up on the offer when I could be used against them after all they were doing is just trying to help.

I do also believe that this could lead to something like I had pointed out earlier where you could be villainized in your community because you decided you did not wish to let the police freely search your house if say there had been a murder nearby.

**Peregrine**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
the police are offering a voluntary outreach to their community

And their "voluntary outreach" is something that no reasonable person should want. It's like offering the "voluntary outreach" of punching you in the face, and then complaining when you criticize my offer because it's voluntary and if you don't want a punch in the face you can just decline to have one. Except the actual case is worse, since many people aren't aware of just what saying "yes you may search my house" actually means and what the potential consequences could be.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Frazzled wrote:
Again, Scooty what happens if the police actually find something?

I'm not going to make that decision because the only information any of us have are a couple of quotes from a three paragraph article. It could be similar to the gun buybacks or drop-offs that they do in big cities where it's a "no questions asked" policy or it could not, no one here can say definitely what it is.

If you are asking that question in a non-rhetorical manner, call the Beloit, WI police chief and ask him yourself.

**Grey Templar**

Gun Buy-backs are the worst idea ever because they accomplish nothing. The people who are responsible for gun violence aren't going to turn their guns in. Only law abiding citizens will participate, thus only achieving their own disarmament.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Peregrine wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
the police are offering a voluntary outreach to their community

And their "voluntary outreach" is something that no reasonable person should want. It's like offering the "voluntary outreach" of punching you in the face, and then complaining when you criticize my offer because it's voluntary and if you don't want a punch in the face you can just decline to have one. Except the actual case is worse, since many people aren't aware of just what saying "yes you may search my house" actually means and what the potential consequences could be.

Not necessarily.

Like I mentioned, it could be a "no questions asked" situation or it could not be, we don't have that information.

If you took the time to read what I wrote, you would see that I'm not really in favor of something like this (I would never allow it personally), but I am pointing out the moral outrage people have with this because it could potentially be used to violate civil rights but at the same time having no issue with the violation of civil rights that happen every day at the hands of the police.

But hey- it's easier to make snap judgements based on little to no information instead of thinking logically and realizing that there is a lot of information left out the article that was posted.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
Gun Buy-backs are the worst idea ever because they accomplish nothing. The people who are responsible for gun violence aren't going to turn their guns in. Only law abiding citizens will participate, thus only achieving their own disarmament.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making, but thanks anyways.

**Ouze**

I don't know that I'm outraged, but this is a pretty bad idea, trollishly packaged (I'm just trying to help you, brah). Ultimately I think it's more funny than irritating because the only people who will get banged on such a scheme are the truly stupid, and their prosecution and jailing is a net public benefit.

Like so:

Spoiler:

**Frazzled**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Again, Scooty what happens if the police actually find something?
I'm not going to make that decision because the only information any of us have are a couple of quotes from a three paragraph article. It could be similar to the gun buybacks or drop-offs that they do in big cities where it's a "no questions asked" policy or it could not, no one here can say definitely what it is.

If you are asking that question in a non-rhetorical manner, call the Beloit, WI police chief and ask him yourself.

So again, you"re calling me out for questioning this, when you yourself don't know the impact of agreeing to it. OK....................

You've not established what the benefits are of voluntarily, but don't deny the cliffdrop potential downside, yet you're making smarky comments about me?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
I don't know that I'm outraged, but this is a pretty bad idea, trollishly packaged (I'm just trying to help you, brah). Ultimately I think it's more funny than irritating because the only people who will get banged on such a scheme are the truly stupid, and their prosecution and jailing is a net public benefit.

I haven't made the claim that is a wonderfully brilliant idea (and for at least the third time, I'll state that I wouldn't do it... ever) and I think there are most likely better ways to solve the problems in their community, I just take exception to the distrust in police over what might happen instead of the distrust in police over what does happen. Like I've said, they could be utilizing a "no questions asked" policy here, just like with gun buybacks (remember, this has nothing to do with whether of not gun buybacks are a good idea or not, just the fact that they operated in a way that did not open a citizen to a civil rights violation) but at this point, no one knows; it's silly to sit here and claim "XYZ" without any concrete evidence one way or another.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
I don't know that I'm outraged, but this is a pretty bad idea, trollishly packaged (I'm just trying to help you, brah). Ultimately I think it's more funny than irritating because the only people who will get banged on such a scheme are the truly stupid, and their prosecution and jailing is a net public benefit.

So in a really convoluted way it really is a social benefit, kind of like the lioin thinning the herd of the "here hold my beer and watch this" crowd. I like!

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Frazzled wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Again, Scooty what happens if the police actually find something?
I'm not going to make that decision because the only information any of us have are a couple of quotes from a three paragraph article. It could be similar to the gun buybacks or drop-offs that they do in big cities where it's a "no questions asked" policy or it could not, no one here can say definitely what it is.

If you are asking that question in a non-rhetorical manner, call the Beloit, WI police chief and ask him yourself.

So again, you"re calling me out for questioning this, when you yourself don't know the impact of agreeing to it. OK....................

No Frazz, I know clear well the "impact" you are saying it could cause (and I agree, it's a dumb idea and I wouldn't do it), but you are ignoring the fact that there are ways that it could be avoided while also not admitting that there isn't enough information given in the article you posted to say for sure that the sky is falling in Beloit, WI.

If you want to have your mind made up already that the police in this town in Wisconsin are morphing into jackbooted thugs out to strip everyone of their rights, go right ahead, I won't stop you. I would like to point you to this article, from the city newspaper, that offers a better look at what exactly the police are offering to do:

Spoiler:

Communities have a responsibility to curb crime, says Beloit Police Chief Norm Jacobs.

One of those responsibilities is for residents to make sure legally owned weapons are safely stored, Jacobs said.

And he adds the Beloit Police Department is offering to inspect homes for those who believe there could be illegal firearms in the residence.

Written consent would need to be given from a person who has charge of the home in order for police to search the residence, Jacobs said.

While Jacobs doesn’t believe there will be a flood of calls to the department seeking a search, he does hope it will raise awareness that a community can help prevent crime.

“It was clear to me that people in the community are looking for things that they can do to help cut violence in the community,” Jacobs said. “I think it’s appropriate that police try different things also.”

Combating gun violence involves many different tactics, and no one solution will eliminate crime in the community, Jacobs said.

“The gun issue is like a piece of pie that you can slice up,” he said. “There isn’t one answer to the issues of gun violence. While we can increase enforcement, in certain areas at certain times, that takes care of just one issue, which is guns in vehicles. We know that there are a lot more guns out there.”

Police can’t prevent all crime in a community, and the residents have to help prevent gun violence, he said.

“I’ve always said a community will have as much crime as it will allow,” Jacobs said. “This (program) is just one way to deal with some of the illegal crime guns before they are used.”

So far this year there have been 144 gun related incidents in Beloit including eight homicides — six of which were gun-related — according to the police department. About 51 shots-fired incidents have been reported since the beginning of the year, and 10 robberies using a firearm have occurred. Other incidents involving guns include assaults, attempted homicide, recklessly endangering safety and weapons offenses.

Those who own guns legally should protect that right, Jacobs said, by ensuring their weapons are properly secured and not accessible to children. Owners should also record serial numbers of all their weapons in the event they are stolen.

Jacobs said, like electronic devices, returning a stolen weapon to its rightful owner is much more difficult if police don’t have a serial number for the firearm.

“Guns never go away,” he said. “Electronics eventually will break, but guns will stay in circulation almost forever.”

He added firearms that are not secured properly pose a greater threat to people in the home than an outsider.

“Guns not only are used in robberies, but they are used for suicides,” Jacobs said. “Easy access to weapons, especially weapons that you don’t know about, are a threat to your family. It’s not a criminal living next door that might kill your family member. You might have a family member that is suffering from some type of mental illness and easy access to a weapon could end their life.”

While he isn’t expecting many people to take police up on the offer to search their home, Jacobs does hope it increases residents’ awareness that they can prevent violence from occurring.

“Lots of times people look to the police to take care of all their issues,” he said. “I say a community is far better equipped to deal with any type of violence than most small police departments.”

Those that do give consent will either see a member of the drug and gang unit or a detective come to the home. Jacobs said each person living in the home has some individual right to privacy. So if a room is locked the owner of the home may not have the right to open the door to police. So who is living at the residence will determine where police are allowed to search. Residents also have the right to stop the search at any time.

If a weapon is found in the home that isn’t legally owned it will be seized by police. Officers will then determine if it has been used in a crime in the city, Jacobs said.

He hopes the program will help residents take control of their community.

“We don’t want to be in people’s houses, but we have to talk about it,” Jacobs said. “We have to raise the question ‘What are you doing help the community be safer?’ A lot of folks’ expectation is way too high for police in terms of what we can do. This is something that we can do, raise awareness, and suggest that people take charge of their own home.”

Those interested in a search should call police at 608-364-6801.

source

You'll also notice that there is a number with which to reach the Beloit police. In all seriousness, if you really want to know the more about the program, call them and ask.

**daedalus**

To be fair, I think they first went wrong when they named the city something three letters away from "Detroit".

I don't want to use the "they asked for it" defense, but I can't come up with another way to finish this sentence.

**Bran Dawri**

Beloit Police Ask Residents To Volunteer To Have Their Homes Searched For Guns
Holloway said too many young men have given up on school.

“Pretty much all those kids and young men just need to be is educated,” said Holloway. “You have a lot of them that barely read at a fifth-grade level yet they're 25 year-old-men. But they know how to work a gun. There's something wrong with that picture."

Although the police plan is a complete non sequitur, I can only agree with this statement 100%.

The initiative is still completely slowed though.

**Ouze**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I don't know that I'm outraged, but this is a pretty bad idea, trollishly packaged (I'm just trying to help you, brah). Ultimately I think it's more funny than irritating because the only people who will get banged on such a scheme are the truly stupid, and their prosecution and jailing is a net public benefit.
I haven't made the claim that is a wonderfully brilliant idea (and for at least the third time, I'll state that I wouldn't do it... ever) and I think there are most likely better ways to solve the problems in their community, I just take exception to the distrust in police over what might happen instead of the distrust in police over what does happen. Like I've said, they could be utilizing a "no questions asked" policy here, just like with gun buybacks (remember, this has nothing to do with whether of not gun buybacks are a good idea or not, just the fact that they operated in a way that did not open a citizen to a civil rights violation) but at this point, no one knows; it's silly to sit here and claim "XYZ" without any concrete evidence one way or another.

I am crystal clear on your opinion of the program, and I'm not saying that you (or anyone else) claimed it was a brilliant one, just offering my own take on it.

That being said, "what might happen" in this case seems like a pretty reasonable outcome: that people who let police officers search their homes for contraband will face a likelihood that they can be charged with crimes if contraband is found, guns or not. That's just how policing works, I mean, if I let a cop in to search little Johnny's room for a gatt and I left some lines of coke on my desk, then I sort of expect the cop to arrest me. If they made some express waiver that it was a no questions asked, only looking for guns policy... but they haven't, and reasonably, can't: what prosecutor would allow the police to let the basement full of dead hookers go because they said they were only looking for guns?

So far as general distrust of the police, well, I think that's a pretty reasonable response to what has become an increasingly acrimonious/adversarial relationship. I think as outreach programs go this is a pretty poor one.

I don't think it makes them jackbooted thugs, quite the opposite really.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

Bran Dawri wrote:

Beloit Police Ask Residents To Volunteer To Have Their Homes Searched For Guns
Holloway said too many young men have given up on school.

“Pretty much all those kids and young men just need to be is educated,” said Holloway. “You have a lot of them that barely read at a fifth-grade level yet they're 25 year-old-men. But they know how to work a gun. There's something wrong with that picture."

Although the police plan is a complete non sequitur, I can only agree with this statement 100%.

The initiative is still completely slowed though.

To be fair though, there are alot of places in the world where more people can use a gun, than can read.

Reading and language comprehension can be quite difficult for people. A gun is rather simple.

The difficult thing with Firearms is teaching people the correct way to use them, and the proper respect for them.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

The article says they are looking for a gun that isn't "legally owned". WI has no gun registry. If a questionable gun is found, either the owner admits that it isn't his, and someone possibly faces charges. Or he lies about it, and nothing happens, Or the cops take said gun from owner anyway to run the serial, and he has to wait to get it back (and you can be waiting a loooong time for that, personal experience). Even with the last scenario being extremely unlikely, its a loosing proposition for the homeowner.

And with the "individual privacy" bit, all little Timmy has to do is shut his door and nobody will find his Uzi and plans to shoot up the school. Granted that should set off an alarm for the parent, but not all parents will get the hint that something might be up.

EDIT: Grammar

**AlexHolker**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
So wait a minute, is this one of those times were the police offer to do a voluntary service to their community to help stop an actual problem it's facing while attempting to reach out to the people they are sworn to serve, so that makes them jackbooted thugs trying to take away everyone's civil rights...?

Providing first aid training is a service. A police search of your property is not. A shotgun is not a set of car keys, and an offer by the police to search your house is for their benefit, not yours.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
I am crystal clear on your opinion of the program, and I'm not saying that you (or anyone else) claimed it was a brilliant one, just offering my own take on it.

I figured you did, but some people have a hard time realizing that there it is possible to have an opinion other than "worst idea ever!" or "this great, everyone should do it!"

That being said, "what might happen" in this case seems like a pretty reasonable outcome: that people who let police officers search their homes for contraband will face a likelihood that they can be charged with crimes if contraband is found, guns or not. That's just how policing works, I mean, if I let a cop in to search little Johnny's room for a gatt and I left some lines of coke on my desk, then I sort of expect the cop to arrest me. If they made some express waiver that it was a no questions asked, only looking for guns policy... but they haven't, and reasonably, can't: what prosecutor would allow the police to let the basement full of dead hookers go because they said they were only looking for guns?

Well, part of the issue here is everything that the original article left out. In the article I found in the local newspaper, they talk a little more in detail about what will actually happen if you invite an officer into your home. There is also a consent form that must be signed, and I would imagine it covers what the police are allowed to do and not do. You are also able to dictate what and where they look and you can end it at any time; those are facts that are known right now.

Still, I stand by the fact that until anyone has all of the information, any idea that is floated out there is conjecture at best. Personally, I have no problem admitting that there isn't enough available information to say it is one way or the other.

So far as general distrust of the police, well, I think that's a pretty reasonable response to what has become an increasingly acrimonious/adversarial relationship. I think as outreach programs go this is a pretty poor one.

I agree, but like I said there are large segments of people who turn a blind of to a lot of what the police get away with because to them, everything is working as intended.

**Overread**

People don't like other people to go nosing through their stuff - even friends and family. Heck in most houses where there is an upstairs area the upstairs is "invitation" based - you don't just run in and go up someones stairs - up there are the personal rooms (eg bedrooms etc...) to which you are invited to.

And there in is the problem. If people wouldn't let normal every day friends and family go nosing through all their stuff they are unlikely to want the police (total strangers) to do the same. Even if they are trusting of the police and have honestly nothing to hide at all they still wouldn't be happy with the idea.

So as an out-reach concept it fails because the only ones who will accept are the very few who are totally and utterly trusting of the police already,

Alongside that I also wonder if the scheme isn't critically open to abuse, A person concerned that the police are already looking for their illegal activities/evidence might strip their home of any incriminating evidence and then invite the police in. Unless its linked to drugs (harder to shift the scent - but then again if they don't bring a dog with them and if the house doesn't reek of it it shouldn't e noticed), chances are they could have the police go through and find nothing. Now they've "proven" innocence in a form to the police.

I wonder if that isn't the overall intent - to present that kind of opportunity which some criminals might take and then to hope that their strip clean of their property isn't good enough and catch them.

That said if that is part their intent I don't think many would jump on the idea - its too open to risks and problems and chances are any smart enough to do an effective strip would likely suspect the police of then being highly likely to plant evidence.

So its a no-go idea. A neat concept, but one I think made without considering the human element enough

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Overread wrote:
I wonder if that isn't the overall intent - to present that kind of opportunity which some criminals might take and then to hope that their strip clean of their property isn't good enough and catch them.

That said if that is part their intent I don't think many would jump on the idea - its too open to risks and problems and chances are any smart enough to do an effective strip would likely suspect the police of then being highly likely to plant evidence.

For what it's worth, this what the police said is their intent with the program:

While he isn’t expecting many people to take police up on the offer to search their home, Jacobs does hope it increases residents’ awareness that they can prevent violence from occurring. “Lots of times people look to the police to take care of all their issues,” he said. “I say a community is far better equipped to deal with any type of violence than most small police departments.”

To me, he is saying that he isn't expecting anyone to really take them up on the offer nor is he expecting to go out there and seize property and lock people up, but more of, "Hey, this a problem around here so we can help you take care of it (which you probably won't want) or you can fix it yourself (which you probably should do)."

**VictorVonTzeentch**

I'm sure the Chief of Police has nothing but good intentions regarding this. But you know what they say about good intentions.

**whembly**

I find this hilariously ridiculous.

But, hey... as long as it's voluntary, have at it.

**Peregrine**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I am pointing out the moral outrage people have with this because it could potentially be used to violate civil rights but at the same time having no issue with the violation of civil rights that happen every day at the hands of the police.

So, who exactly are these people who are outraged about this but approve of other civil rights violations by the police? Do you have specific people in mind, or are you just creating a straw man to argue against?

**Jihadin**

Peregrine wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I am pointing out the moral outrage people have with this because it could potentially be used to violate civil rights but at the same time having no issue with the violation of civil rights that happen every day at the hands of the police.

So, who exactly are these people who are outraged about this but approve of other civil rights violations by the police? Do you have specific people in mind, or are you just creating a straw man to argue against?

Because this mystical critter hopped out

**MrMoustaffa**

" we'll find a toy gun that's been altered by a youngster in the house — and we know the tragedies that can occur there on occasion.”

I... What? Where is he trying to go with that? You can't alter a cap gun, a bb gun, or any other toy gun into a firearm to my knowledge.

I can kind of get this if they were stating that they wanted to raise awareness about how people store firearms and how to keep them away from people who shouldn't have access to them, but this and the Ebola comment make me wonder what exactly this guy is smoking