To be fair, the officer sees the glint of a lens in a window.
Is it a camera, granny’s eyeglasses, or a rifle scope?
It is prudent for him to get a good look through his own scope and rule out or respond to the threat.
Is it a camera, granny’s eyeglasses, or a rifle scope?
It is prudent for him to get a good look through his own scope and rule out or respond to the threat.
Please cite the law which allows the police to go down a street and 'check' every person and house.
Something bloused booted, 'roided skinheads might consider the next time they go out on a traffic stop with a SWAT tag on their body armor...
Sure, if they were soldiers in Iraq, not cops in the USA, for iPete’s sake
Yet, to be circumspect, why is a military-styled vehicle in use for a simple “Business License and Certificate” investigation?
And, why would the local constabulary involve a *member of the military* using a military-style rifle in an oversight role for an investigation that is described as a check for operational licensure?
* Note that the “officer” is in military garb in a military vehicle. The photographer in the window (sun-glint, not withstanding as it appears to be an overcast day) is in no way given any indication of the “official status” of the man in the HMMV.
” To be fair, the officer sees the glint of a
lens in a window.
Is it a camera, granny’s eyeglasses, or a
rifle scope?
It is prudent for him to get a good look
through his own scope and rule out or
respond to the threat.”
No, it is prudent to not take actions that can lead to an accidental discharge of a gun. And flat out, we don’t enjoy having guns pointed at us any more than cops do. It is a degrading practice cops have gotten into, where they think nothing of threatening death over nothing.
And a glint of light is NOT reasonable cause to aim a gun. This isn’t Iraq. Quit trying to pretend it is, to get a thrill.