| Author | Post |
|---|
MousePrifeII
Banned
| Joined: | Sat Apr 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 56 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 05:56 pm |
|
NOT ALLOWED HERE
Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 01:21 pm by jpierce
|
tman
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 06:00 pm |
|
Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 07:04 pm by tman
|
MousePrifeII
Banned
| Joined: | Sat Apr 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 56 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 06:16 pm |
|
yea that must be it, worked up.
|
old dog
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 281 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 09:50 am |
|
| Beau's warning should be taken to heart. This site is valuable and we are all grateful for it -- but the administrators are very prissy about robust characterizations so let's be careful. It IS their site after all.
|
tman
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 02:23 pm |
|
| I deleted my posts my self. Replies to my post from one individual where inappropriate. I didnt want to fan the flames.
|
Unoid
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Hobart, Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 70 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 04:40 pm |
|
Beau wrote: PIG223 wrote:
Now moving to the original post. According to state law the officer was well within his rights to do what he did. For verification of this you need to see IC 35-47-2-24. See below
IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter. emphasis added.
The courts have long ruled an officer has a right to protect themselves from people with weapons. This includes seizing a persons weapon until after the incident is complete. Further there is an important US Supreme Court case which relates to this. It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress. Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.
I've read this too.
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
Could the key word here be defendant?
de⋅fend⋅ant
[di-fen-duh nt or, especially in court for 1, -dant]
1.
Law. a person, company, etc., against whom a claim or charge is brought in a court
By definition you are misusing this code. A defendant is a person who has been charged with a criminal offense.
It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress.
How is peaceably carrying a firearm RAS that a crime is being committed?
I'll answer for you. It's not.
Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation. Since the law you quoted is irrelevant the gun owner does not have to prove anything to you.
Ouch, Pig just got told. I surely hope other officers would not misconstrue laws to fit their deluded urges to assert dominance over those they're only duty is to protect.
|
Fallschirmjäger
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 07:52 pm |
|
Amazing.... I didn't read all 32-someodd posts in the link cited, but in the pages I Did read, not once did anyone bother to actually cite the Indiana code re: any requirement to identify oneself.
A much better response here as I have seen several citations although I don't think I've seen IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24. (emphasis mine)
Everyone, I am sure, will note the phrase '...believes in good faith that an infraction or violation has been commited'. That is the Reasonable Articulable Suspicion part, an officer must first have RAS before detaning a citizen.
Ask the officer 'Am I Free To Go',
..... If he answers 'yes' then it's a voluntary encounter (tier 1) and you may or may not answer any questions at your lesiure.
..... If he answers 'no' , then it becomes Tier 2 in the opinion of the Court and he must have RAS. At that point I would advise anyone to refuse to answer any further questions without a lawyer present. As everyone has seen the "Do Not Talk To The Police" videos is aware, Officer Friendly is no longer your friend at this point.
Edited to Add...(because citing a Complete code can be rather revealing)
IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
Someone kinda forgot to add the rest of the code, I'm sure it was merely overlooked
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.
It would appear that the officer could charge you, and then when it's time to appear in court weeks later, one merely has to produce one's license and the charges will be dropped and the record wiped clean. Nice way to spend an afternoon and perhaps spend a little of the State's money if one cared to do so. If enough citizens stood for their rights then might such wasting of the State's money might be curtailed?
IC 35-47-2-1 states that said license must be in one's possession, it does not state it must be carried on one's person. (Try getting out of being charged with drug possession because the drugs are in your house and you're outside in the yard, as an example.)
IC 35-47-2-24 is the only instance where it must be produced, and only then are any and all charges dropped and the record wiped clean.
Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 08:11 pm by Fallschirmjäger
|
Anderson, IN
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 08:43 pm |
|
Fallschirmjäger wrote: Amazing.... I didn't read all 32-someodd posts in the link cited, but in the pages I Did read, not once did anyone bother to actually cite the Indiana code re: any requirement to identify oneself.
A much better response here as I have seen several citations although I don't think I've seen IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24. (emphasis mine)
Everyone, I am sure, will note the phrase '...believes in good faith that an infraction or violation has been commited'. That is the Reasonable Articulable Suspicion part, an officer must first have RAS before detaning a citizen.
Ask the officer 'Am I Free To Go',
..... If he answers 'yes' then it's a voluntary encounter (tier 1) and you may or may not answer any questions at your lesiure.
..... If he answers 'no' , then it becomes Tier 2 in the opinion of the Court and he must have RAS. At that point I would advise anyone to refuse to answer any further questions without a lawyer present. As everyone has seen the "Do Not Talk To The Police" videos is aware, Officer Friendly is no longer your friend at this point.
Edited to Add...(because citing a Complete code can be rather revealing)
IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.
Someone kinda forgot to add the rest of the code, I'm sure it was merely overlooked
(b) Whenever a person who has been arrested or charged with a violation of section 1 of this chapter presents a valid license to the prosecuting attorney or establishes that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, any prosecution for a violation of section 1 of this chapter shall be dismissed immediately, and all records of an arrest or proceedings following arrest shall be destroyed immediately.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.
It would appear that the officer could charge you, and then when it's time to appear in court weeks later, one merely has to produce one's license and the charges will be dropped and the record wiped clean. Nice way to spend an afternoon and perhaps spend a little of the State's money if one cared to do so. If enough citizens stood for their rights then might such wasting of the State's money might be curtailed?
IC 35-47-2-1 states that said license must be in one's possession, it does not state it must be carried on one's person. (Try getting out of being charged with drug possession because the drugs are in your house and you're outside in the yard, as an example.)
IC 35-47-2-24 is the only instance where it must be produced, and only then are any and all charges dropped and the record wiped clean.
So what you are saying is "ignorance of the law" IS a diffence for a LEO?
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 09:18 pm |
|
Fallschirmjäger wrote: SNIP Everyone, I am sure, will note the phrase '...believes in good faith that an infraction or violation has been commited'. That is the Reasonable Articulable Suspicion part, an officer must first have RAS before detaning a citizen.
I'm a bit of a novice at these things.
Would not the highlighted phrasing actually require a higher standard than RAS?
To my inexpert eye it would seem to require not just RAS, but probable cause.
As additional evidence that it is speaking about probable cause, I notice the statute goes right on to discuss issuing a summons.
Regarding IDing someone, I suspect this statute is primarily saying its OK for the police to well identify the person they are about to cite so the misdemeanant does not have the opportunity to give a false name and skip the court appearance.
To give perspective, in VA we used to have a statute that required police to issue a summons for some misdemeanors, perhaps all, as long as certain other criteria were not present, for example, the person was not unable to stop committing the offense, say a drunk driver or streaker. Another expressly written item that allowed the police to arrest instead of cite was if the officer believed the misdemeanant was likely to skip the court appearance. (This statute may still be in force in VA. I do not know for sure. I recall a legislative effort in the last few years to change it so police could arrest any or most misdemeanants, or something in that direction.)
|
Fallschirmjäger
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 07:53 am |
|
It may indeed, Citizen.
I don't have the definition of RAS at hand, but I'm sure anyone in Legal Authority would certainly appreciate a Law Enforcement officer being able to articulate his reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot.
In the matter above it would require Officer Friendly to somehow differentiate how one carrying a boombox in public (a perfectly legal action to the best of my knowlege) is not suspicious, yet someone doing another perfectly legal action (carrying a firearm somehow is suspicious in and of itself. The only way I could see being able to do it was if the inamimate object were somehow magical and gve off 'bad vibes'.
I'm sure Officer Friendly will be along shortly to explain.
|
Pagan
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 05:51 pm |
|
So an unseen/unknown person comes up from behind me and says "I'm a cop, I'm going to disarm you" or something similar, I'm supposed to just let that happen? No way dude! You come up behind me and grab me or my weapon, and you are gonna get hurt, bad!
ANYBODY can just walk up and do some dumb sh*t like that! A smart person that cares to see the next day better approach from the front,period.
|
smoking357
Banned
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 01:57 pm |
|
Pagan wrote: So an unseen/unknown person comes up from behind me and says "I'm a cop, I'm going to disarm you" or something similar, I'm supposed to just let that happen? No way dude! You come up behind me and grab me or my weapon, and you are gonna get hurt, bad!
ANYBODY can just walk up and do some dumb sh*t like that! A smart person that cares to see the next day better approach from the front,period.
Exactly.
|
ntrngr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 07:04 pm |
|
PIG223 wrote: First to the person who called the officer a PIG in this thread I want you to know what pig means to an officer Pride Integrety and Guts.
But to the general population this is an Animal Farm by George Orwell reference.
See:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/
Or look it up when wikipedia comes back online.
-NR
|
stormchaser
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 2nd, 2009 07:54 am |
|
ok i have read all the remarks on this post,and you guy's
feel free to correct me or disagree with me.so here is the way
i feel about this.
1.the cop was totally wrong.
2.the cop was off duty in plan cloth's
other wise he wouldn't have to announce he was a cop.
3.this guy was walking with his family,not creating a disturbance,
there was no disturbance around him,hence no reason for the
cop to do what he did.
4.the cop needs to be COMPLETLY retrained/ or better yet
5.get another job,because he is in no way police material.
|
Current time is 11:43 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
