Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Met some folks from the Dept of Fisheries and Wildlife


skinslammer

Recommended Posts

I was in a hotel bar in Savannah last night, and there were some folks from the Dept of Fisheries and Wildlife there, in town for some training. I brought up the recent raid on Gibson and regarding the drawn weapons, they defended their agent's actions on the premise that they have had raids that have gone wrong in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not condoning the raid at Gibson, how it was handled, or the fact that a guitar factory does not pose much of a threat for armed resistance, the fact of the matter is that being a field officer in the Dept of Fisheries and Wildlife is the most dangerous job in U.S. law enforcement.

 

Most of their investigations and raids are conducted in the middle of nowhere, where if a tree falls in the woods (or gunfire breaks out), no one would hear it. I'm sure they have a standard set of policies and procedures to follow for any raid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in a hotel bar in Savannah last night, and there were some folks from the Dept of Fisheries and Wildlife there, in town for some training. I brought up the recent raid on Gibson and regarding the drawn weapons, they defended their agent's actions on the premise that they have had raids that have gone wrong in the past.

 

Did they name a single instance where a raid on a factory went violent?

 

Over reaction is becoming the norm these days. Here's a raid from just a few months ago. Was it a fencing operation? No.... it was an organic food store. Were they laundering drug money through the store? No.... they were selling Goats Milk...

 

 

I'm sure the hippies running the place were very dangerous types.

 

When F&W raided Gibson the first thing they did was take out the camera system. That's because in Tennessee it's still legal to take pictures of a law enforcement officer and they don't want videos like this up on YouTube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1...although we here in the south still refer to them as "game wardens".why would you send in those guys? i guess the gov. felt sorry for them and said "we'll send all ya'll in together because ya'll always by yer selfs. this time you don't have to ax fer thier fishn' licenses. just ax to see thier wood." some how that is so sarcastic it almost sounds correct. i have a good story about a game warden, a ghillie suit and a drunk guy fishing, funniest story ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not condoning the raid at Gibson, how it was handled, or the fact that a guitar factory does not pose much of a threat for armed resistance, the fact of the matter is that being a field officer in the Dept of Fisheries and Wildlife is the most dangerous job in U.S. law enforcement.

 

Most of their investigations and raids are conducted in the middle of nowhere, where if a tree falls in the woods (or gunfire breaks out), no one would hear it. I'm sure they have a standard set of policies and procedures to follow for any raid.

I can see that. I think that we should expect that anyone conducting a raid would have a set of procedures and policies they would follow regardless of the situation needing the full extent of the "precautions".

 

BUT...it raises some very important questions.

 

One question is WHY is the F&W involved in WOOD in the first place? Is that the agency that should be involved in these types of issues? Meanwhile, who is doing the job that the agency is actually created for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they name a single instance where a raid on a factory went violent?

 

Over reaction is becoming the norm these days. Here's a raid from just a few months ago. Was it a fencing operation? No.... it was an organic food store. Were they laundering drug money through the store? No.... they were selling Goats Milk...

 

 

I'm sure the hippies running the place were very dangerous types.

 

When F&W raided Gibson the first thing they did was take out the camera system. That's because in Tennessee it's still legal to take pictures of a law enforcement officer and they don't want videos like this up on YouTube.

I think this is a good point here that as Americans we should be asking about.

 

Beyond the argument of guns or no guns, safety, etc., sinse WHEN does the govt. have the right to disconnect cameras and personal surveillance equipment? I see two civil rights issues with that.

 

For one, the equipment is there by the owner for a reason. It is to watch over the property for protection and to keep a record, mainly for any wrongdoing. Why should a police agency or ANY govt. agency be able to be exempt from that or remove the right of the owner to protect his property?

 

Also, when a SEARCH WARRANT is granted, where in any of these warrants did a judge also give the right to disconnect cameras? It is still private property, and search warrants are only granted to include specifics of what can be searched for and seized. Where is blocking video or altering/damaging surveillance equipment related to the warrant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they name a single instance where a raid on a factory went violent?

 

Over reaction is becoming the norm these days. Here's a raid from just a few months ago. Was it a fencing operation? No.... it was an organic food store. Were they laundering drug money through the store? No.... they were selling Goats Milk...

 

 

I'm sure the hippies running the place were very dangerous types.

 

When F&W raided Gibson the first thing they did was take out the camera system. That's because in Tennessee it's still legal to take pictures of a law enforcement officer and they don't want videos like this up on YouTube.

 

Makes you assume they have no intention of upholding the law their own selves when they are conducting these raids, otherwise there would be no reason whatsoever to disable any form of a recording device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let the current admin. fade into the history books and all this stupidity will LIKELY dissapear. if we as americans don't start standing up to crap such as this we are all going to be under some form of socialist control. forget about a foreign power comming in, we will just be led like lambs to the slaughter. and then we'll cry about it later and play the "remember when" game. this is how we fall boys and girls. sheep... that's what we are, or maybe sheep puppets. do you like being told what guitars you will play? personally i like what i choose to like not what my democrat mom and daddy tell me i can like. to hell with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes you assume they have no intention of upholding the law their own selves when they are conducting these raids, otherwise there would be no reason whatsoever to disable any form of a recording device.

 

In Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland it's now illegal to record or take pictures of an on duty cop. So if the Gibson plant had been in Maryland they could have left the cameras on and then arrested Henry for breaking that law too I guess. I mean... it is a law after all. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Automatic weapons, and guns drawn, was unfortunate, and (seemingly) totally unnecessary!

BUT, we don't know, anything about it, really...except Henry's side of the story. The Government

isn't talking. No charges have been filed (yet/again), have they? So we're back in "speculation" mode,

and that's not always a good thing. But, I do agree, there are a LOT of things, about this current

administration, that are highly suspect. However, since this is not a "political forum," and such

discussions are frowned upon, and often deleted, I'll save my views, on that, for some other time/place. [tongue]

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland it's now illegal to record or take pictures of an on duty cop. So I guess if the Gibson plant had been in Maryland the could have left the cameras on and then arrested Henry for breaking that law too I guess. I mean... it is a law after all. :rolleyes:

See, I don't understand HOW that can come into being.

 

For one, when a COP is on duty, they are working for the public, the taxpayer. They are in the employ of the public.

 

I know in my job, (not for the govt.) when I punch the clock, my services belong to my employer, not me. It seems wrong, as in a conflict of the law, that a citizen could NOT be able to scrutinize, or record, or observe, the workers under their employ.

 

But totally aside from that, we are talking about private property. The public employee is granted access to the property only in execution of what is on the warrant, not access or rights to be on the property for any other reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't understand HOW that can come into being.

 

For one, when a COP is on duty, they are working for the public, the taxpayer. They are in the employ of the public.

 

I know in my job, (not for the govt.) when I punch the clock, my services belong to my employer, not me. It seems wrong, as in a conflict of the law, that a citizen could NOT be able to scrutinize, or record, or observe, the workers under their employ.

 

But totally aside from that, we are talking about private property. The public employee is granted access to the property only in execution of what is on the warrant, not access or rights to be on the property for any other reason.

 

The credit for passing those laws goes to police unions and their lobbyists. This is why civil servants being paid by the tax payer should not be allowed to form unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland it's now illegal to record or take pictures of an on duty cop. So if the Gibson plant had been in Maryland they could have left the cameras on and then arrested Henry for breaking that law too I guess. I mean... it is a law after all. :rolleyes:

 

 

Fortunatly, those laws have not yet made it to the supreme court, where there is a likelyhood they'll be declared unconstitutional as far as uniformed officers on offical business in public places go. ( undercover is a different matter because of the obvious concerns for the safety of undercover officers if they are identifed) In December, a Maryland district judge ruled that , while on duty and in a public place, "police officers enjoy little expectation of privacy as they perform their duties" and were not within the scope of the wiretap laws. Further these "wiretap" laws that are misued in this way typically only apply in what are know as "two party" states, e.g states that require the permission of all participants to record a phone conversations. Such states are in a minority. Many states are "one party" states, and you can record any conversation that you are a part of, including those with police officers.

 

I do find some hypocracy in the idea that you can't record the police, but they can record you (when they want to) In my town we had a case several yeas ago in wich a trooper was shot dead during a roadside stop, no witnesses. The defendant claimed self-defense because there was a history of antagonism between him and the officer. He got away with life with the possibility of parole. There was an outcry that "if all our police cruiseres had cameras" he wouldn't have gotten off . Many citizens. myself included, contributed to a fund that put a video camera in each cruiser. However, after a few months a camera recorded some police invoved in misconduct during a stop, and a couple of officers got fired. Then, suddenly, there was a "problem": with the camera mounts. However many times maintenance stuck them back on they kept falling down, Soon 80% of the cameras were inactive..... the mount manufacturer was mysitifed, and reported that "someone must be pulling them off"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...