|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Beau Regular Member 
|
This is a recent post from ingunowners.com Couldn't believe my eyes when I read this. Me personally I have never been asked for ID or LTCH I have always had an officer come from behind me grab my gun (glock 22) remove it from my holster ( after letting me know he is a LEO) handcuff me take out my wallet remove my ID and LTCH make there calls field strip my gun and remove ammo from mag stick it all in different pockets and let me go (without saying sorry or have a nice day) last time this happened was sunday march 22 at the plainfield wal-mart with my wife and 3 children there asking "is daddy going to jail" that is the way it goes for me at least... |
|||||||||
|
Jubbie Regular Member
|
Sounds like some cop is asking for a lawsuit of some kind. No cause whatsoever. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned 
|
Beau wrote: This is a recent post from ingunowners.comThe pig committed battery, assault, violations of your civil rights, and false imprisonment. The pig really, really needs to be sued personally. Do you have dates and names? |
|||||||||
|
Beau Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: The pig committed battery, assault, violations of your civil rights, and false imprisonment. It is my experience that this site frowns upon derogatory name calling. Please refrain. I agree that this shouldn't have happened. I'm looking for useful input as to whether this person does have any options for recourse. The way his post is worded he did not consent to search or seizure of his possessions. Due to the fact that he was handcuffed he was very obviously detained. Was it unlawful detainment? |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Beau wrote: smoking357 wrote:I make a distinction between oath-abiding officers and pigs. What was described was the act of a pig, and it's certainly actionable.The pig committed battery, assault, violations of your civil rights, and false imprisonment. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
Beau wrote: This is a recent post from ingunowners.com How about a link? |
|||||||||
|
Beau Regular Member
|
This post was made in a thread about requirement to show ID when stopped by LE. I'm going to try and get a MOD to move it to its own thread. http://ingunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/27950-show_id-3.html#post308966 |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
Some of those cops over there need to have some sense slapped into them. What an anti-American bunch of thugs and goons. You are exactly correct, and your posts were properly grounded in Americanism. Driving a car, without more, does not allow a cop to pull you over to see if you're properly licensed. So also it goes for guns. Mere carrying, absent more, does not give the cops permission to demand "papers, please" from Americans. Actually, the Nazis used "please." American cops don't even extend that courtesy. Unless the cops have a reason to stop you, they are duty bound to let free Americans continue on their way without accounting to the State. Seems these cops have forgotten their place. |
|||||||||
|
Beau Regular Member
|
smoking357 wrote: Some of those cops over there need to have some sense slapped into them. What an anti-American bunch of thugs and goons. Please feel free to sign up over there and lend some help. |
|||||||||
|
PIG223 Regular Member
|
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. 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 will not say the officer did anything wrong, but I would have handled it differently. I would have still taken the gun from the person, but I probably would not have placed the person in handcuffs. I personally think, not professionally, anyone who carries their gun in the open is stupid. This comes from the following line of thinking. If I am a criminal and have a gun I am going to shoot the person who I know has a gun. If you are carrying in the open then I know you have a gun and you are threat to me. |
|||||||||
|
Skippy Regular Member
|
If I am a criminal and have a gun I am going to shoot the person who I know has a gun. I think you, as the criminal, are equally likely (in fact MORE likely) to either find a softer target or just wait until the gun leaves to commit your crime. Why would you start out by shooting? The second you (the criminal) pull the trigger, the clock starts running on your escape-o-meter. Your window to commit your "true" crime is now closed. Not only will you be unlikely to complete your robbery, you've just added murder or attempted murder to your list of charges if you get caught. I challenge you to present ANY evidence whatsoever that your statement holds any water. |
|||||||||
|
smoking357 Banned
|
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. You don't make the definitions. No, he wasn't, and your citation was ridiculously inapposite. But not to confiscate property. You don't get to take preemptive actions against citizens. I will. He did lots wrong. |
|||||||||
|
Anderson, IN Regular Member 
|
Whether the LEO was right or wrong is just a little beside the point to me. If someone comes up from behind me and doesn't identify themselves and attempts to remove my weapon I will assume that they are NOT A LEO and attempting to take my life! I will then defend my life and my loved ones with the use of deadly force.  THE LEO WAS WRONG, COULD HAVE BEEN DEAD WRONG FOR ONE OR BOTH OF US!  IT WAS STUPID AND UNREASONABLE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO HIS SUPERVISOR. |
|||||||||
|
tito887 Regular Member 
|
I guess these cops think that no body is ever going to shoot back. I'm only thinking of myself. But if someone attempted to disarm me I would push them away out of instinct. That cop is lucky that he didn't die. It just goes to show how delusional the police think they are. That they can just walk up to someone and take their firearm without fear of death. That badge is not going to stop bullets. edit: I should clarify if someone tried to disarm me from behind. Last edited on Fri Apr 17th, 2009 10:49 pm by tito887 |
|||||||||
|
PIG223 Regular Member
|
As we all know criminals don't care if they commit another crime. In fact if they cared about committing crimes in the first place they would not be a criminal, so what does it matter if they murder someone in the process. If the criminal cared about shooting someone in the first place do you think they would carry a gun to commit a crime. Second if they cared why are so many LE officer killed or wounded in the line of duty from gun carrying criminals. I will just name three officers in recent years, two of who I happened to have known, one of them I knew well. Jason Fishburn, Jake Laird and Jason Baker, all in Indianapolis. So don't try to sell the criminal might add murder to his record he doesn't care or he wouldn't be a criminal in teh first place. He would be a hard working citizen who had a license to carry the handgun in the first place. Not someone out terrorizing the citizenry of our great communities and country. Don't get me wrong I totally support citizens carrying guns, but this forum is ab out open carry. I believe the best place to carry is concealed not in the open. As someone pointed out if a criminal is in the commission of a crime with a firearm he deserves a bullet, but he can get the bullet from a citizen carry concealed as he can from a citizen carrying in the open and there is less of a chance of the citizen carrying the gun concealed to get made by the bad guy and killed. |
|||||||||
|
PIG223 Regular Member
|
If you would have read the original post you would have noticed the officer did identify himself. |
|||||||||
|
Anderson, IN Regular Member
|
( after letting me know he is a LEO) handcuff me officer come from behind me grab my gun I would say that I did read the original post......how about you????  |
|||||||||
|
Beau Regular Member
|
PIG223 wrote:
I've read this too.
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. 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. |
|||||||||
|
tman Regular Member 
|
Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 07:05 pm by tman |
|||||||||
|
Anderson, IN Regular Member
|
"I personally think, not professionally, anyone who carries their gun in the open is stupid." We personally we don't care what you think "personally" or "professionally"!  It's people such as yourself that are "afraid to offend" or "scare" someone that causes others to lose THEIR RIGHTS! If it bothers you that much either look away or leave the building!  |
|||||||||
|
MousePrifeII Banned
|
NOT ALLOWED HERE Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 01:21 pm by jpierce |
|||||||||
|
tman Regular Member
|
Last edited on Fri Apr 24th, 2009 07:04 pm by tman |
|||||||||
|
MousePrifeII Banned
|
yea that must be it, worked up. |
|||||||||
|
old dog Regular Member
|
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
|
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
|
Beau wrote: PIG223 wrote: 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
|
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
|
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. So what you are saying is "ignorance of the law" IS a diffence for a LEO? |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
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
|
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 
|
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
|
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! Exactly. |
|||||||||
|
ntrngr Regular Member
|
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 
|
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. |
|||||||||