-1 IMPD (OC Incident) 86th and Ditch Speedway

[Dirtebiker]

To the best of my ability I try to extend the same courtesies to everyone I meet. My basic worldview presupposition holds that we are created in the image of God, so I try to see the image in everyone with whom I interact.

Great outlook Bapak! I'll try to look for that image more! Thank you!

 

[Dirtebiker]

I don't know of any fatalities, but I do know of 3 incidents on the north side where someone was targeted for their OC handgun, as well as a 4th that is arguable. In all 4 instances the person was approached by multiple suspects and had their firearm stolen.

#1: Victim walking down street. One male approaches from the front. Second male approaches from behind, sticks what victim believes to be a gun barrel (but admitted it could have just been a pipe) against his spine, takes his firearm, and flees.

#2: Victim is working on a car in his driveway. 3 males approach him, all armed, steal his gun and other items.

#3: Victim is working on exterior of house. 2 males approach him, both armed, and from opposite corners of the house. Steal his gun and other items.

#4 (the arguable one): Victim is at home and routinely OC's on his own property. Apparently someone noticed, grabbed a family member as they exited the house, then multiple suspects enter and demand the combination to the gun safe (so they also had good intel there was a safe in the house, that guy would probably have been targeted regardless of OC or not, but his firearms did make him a target as nothing else was taken.)

I've also had a "sloppy CC'er" robbed with his own gun. He met with a friend of a friend to sell a rifle. The friend of a friend quickly reached under the victim's open shirt and snatched his handgun, then used that to rob him of the long gun he was there to sell.

So, does it happen a lot? I don't know. You'd need more data, such as how many man hours of OC there are vs how many people are targeted to make that sort of determination. However it does happen. If it prevents more crime than it causes, again, I don't know, and I don't know how you'd measure that. You'd also have to consider what criminal you deter vs which you attract, which is more serious and likely to result in a deadly encounter, that sort of thing. Again, I don't have the data to make that call. What I do see is that when OC folks are robbed, its with a great disparity of force and appears to have some rudimentary tactics applied, which would lead me to believe they are more serious criminals.

Thanks for the examples BBI! Seems that all those victims could have had better outcomes with better S.A.!?
With those examples and your personal experience, do you advocate c.c. over o.c.?

 

[T755]

Well BBI beat me to it. Your gun is exposed and the problems are illustrated in his accounting. How many of you practice retention training, fighting for your gun or given consideration of the type of holster you have it exposed in. Is it a situation that you are legally justified to use deadly force? Remember if not you've still brought a gun into the fight and need to retain it. Is it a open top holster, retention mechanism or other such factor. Playing call of duty all day and being a elite team fighter does not make you ready for a fight, it takes practice and round count involving repetition. Some of you will argue that point. But as you, I have my opinion. A opinion based on 20 yrs of experience and training people to survive a gunfight. If we disagree so be it. You want to draw attention to yourself with your gun on your hip for the world to see understand there is a tradeoff for that. People see it. Hopefully you won't be the guy in the gas station with a mope behind you getting ready to rob the place. We used to say "yeah right" but skim the news on good guys with guns stopping robbers. I for one never ever carried a gun in street clothes not concealed. I don't want the attention or issues it brings. But that too is my opinion and my right. Open carry just isn't a mode I can justify as a normal day to day mode.

 

[Trigger Time]

With your background , you telling me you've never experienced this kind of mentor like talk from someone who has "authority " over you ?

You know I have but I signed up for it. When a cop says something he's saying it as the government not an individual. That's my issue. If the cop doesn't agree with the law and wants to preach he can do what other cops have directed ingo members to do .... Petition your law makers and change the law.

 

[Vigilant]

This.


The part I find repulsive is a grown man who can't wait to tattle on another grown man for saying a "bad word"

I believe it was all said here!?! Harden the "f()&" up! If you got your feelings hurt, don't cry on the web, take it to the department heads! If you want to OC, do so, but don't get bent when you are questioned, legally or not. You are within your rights, if you feel that it was an unwarranted intrusion, and he used bad language, by all means do something besides post about it! Why must there be an endless stream of butt hurt over someone who questions OC? If you want to OC, then do it, QUIT EFFIN posting when it doesn't go your way unless you have done your due diligence.

 

[ModernGunner]

^^ This. ^^

OC, CC. Your choice. I believe there's a time and place for each, and that each works a bit 'better' in a given scenario. JMO. Are my views on it 'right'? Perhaps not. However, in 40 years of carrying I've never once been stopped, disarmed, cajoled, questioned, 'eyed suspiciously', or even 'looked at askance'. Not by pro-gunners, not by LEO's, not by those 'neutral' on guns, not even by anti-gunners. Before, during, or after my gun-carrying career.

What's amazing is how many people complain when they're approached or commented on when they OC, and the frequency with which the 'complaints' are cited, just right here on INGO, let alone YouTube, etc.

It's your 'right', absolutely. And your choice. So, stop complaining when someone else, LEO or otherwise, comments on that choice, negatively or affirmatively.

But IF you're getting 'harassed' by 'the man', 'lectured derisively' by anti-gun loons, or 'scaring non-gunners with your display of firearms', perhaps, JUST perhaps, you're going about it 'poorly'.

A friend and I went to the 86th and Ditch Speedway to pick up a pack of black and mild smokes and a poweraide while hanging out.

I don't think anyone believes that the point of carrying a gun is to hide it. The point of carrying a gun is for self-defense.

And no one should think the point of carrying a gun is to deter the true criminal through OC, either. The point of carrying a gun is for self-defense, as aptly noted.

Walking up to the counter with "Black & Milds and a Powerade" probably constitutes 'articulable facts', too! They're horrible cigars, and are frequently used by hollowing out the tobacco and stuffing the 'shell' with pot for a 'blunt'. Add in Powerade (used to make a few illegal 'drinks') and it's JUST possible there's something 'amiss', perhaps noticed by the LEO in question.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Just an observation and opinion on the language issue.

I can, and DO, cuss and swear with extreme exercise of my 1st Amendment right.

That said, I try to NEVER swear while at work or representing any other organization. When presenting for the LPAC or LPIN I tried my darndest to avoid foul language.

To me, a person operating in a "professional" manner IS out of line by using foul language. It is NOT the language per se, but rather the demeaning nature of it.

Say I knew a plumber and he and I were just talking and were having an animated discussion as friends. If he dropped the F* bomb a dozen times it wouldn't bother me at all as our conversation was "casual" or "personal."

However, if he were unclogging my sink while I didn't know him as a friend and he dropped the F* bomb even once I think it would bother me. It takes the conversation from a professional one to a guttural one that is very unprofessional - in my opinion.

I guess I am a bit olde fashioned. There are places to wear flip-flops and church ISN'T one of them. Then there are conversations to drop crude language and professional discourse is NOT one of them.

Regards,

Doug

 

[churchmouse]

To All,

Just an observation and opinion on the language issue.

I can, and DO, cuss and swear with extreme exercise of my 1st Amendment right.

That said, I try to NEVER swear while at work or representing any other organization. When presenting for the LPAC or LPIN I tried my darndest to avoid foul language.

To me, a person operating in a "professional" manner IS out of line by using foul language. It is NOT the language per se, but rather the demeaning nature of it.

Say I knew a plumber and he and I were just talking and were having an animated discussion as friends. If he dropped the F* bomb a dozen times it wouldn't bother me at all as our conversation was "casual" or "personal."

However, if he were unclogging my sink while I didn't know him as a friend and he dropped the F* bomb even once I think it would bother me. It takes the conversation from a professional one to a guttural one that is very unprofessional - in my opinion.

I guess I am a bit olde fashioned. There are places to wear flip-flops and church ISN'T one of them. Then there are conversations to drop crude language and professional discourse is NOT one of them.

Regards,

Doug

Rep monkeys have you locked out of my stash.....+10 as that is what I have in the mag.

 

[phylodog]

You know I have but I signed up for it. When a cop says something he's saying it as the government not an individual. That's my issue. If the cop doesn't agree with the law and wants to preach he can do what other cops have directed ingo members to do .... Petition your law makers and change the law.

But if a cop does something you don't like he should be treated as an individual, not the government. His pension should be raided and he should go to jail as an individual.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't know of any fatalities, but I do know of 3 incidents on the north side where someone was targeted for their OC handgun, as well as a 4th that is arguable.

Well BBI beat me to it.

Nicely done. While this is pretty much the way I saw it to begin with, I certainly have not developed my thoughts so far as the two of you have, nor do I have the experience available to have the examples of incidents and training which you mentioned. That said, the critical element is that you have expressed an opinion based on facts followed by the conclusions you have drawn from them--you explained what you believe and why you believe it. This is entirely different from having some know-it-all wearing blue approach with the attitude that one should accept his unsupported opinion justified with a big fat 'because I said so'.

But if a cop does something you don't like he should be treated as an individual, not the government. His pension should be raided and he should go to jail as an individual.

I can understand the perceived double-standard. The problem is that for the average reasonable person, being approached by a uniformed officer conveys a message of implied authority standing behind the encounter that simply does not exist if I decide to kibitz in someone else's business. Under such circumstances, I feel that it is very reasonable to expect an officer to conduct himself in a professional manner. If I drift into an officer BS session*, that is an entirely different matter. I expect them to let their hair down, so to speak. That is a lot different from being approached by an officer I don't know, and from whom I would expect professional conduct. The problem leading to the cry for settlements to be taken from pension funds and jail time handed out comes from the frustration that in most cases there is little painful discipline sufficient to mend the ways of marginal officers and deter those who might stray from doing so. Officer does something really off the reservation, takes a long paid vacation, the department loses a lawsuit, sponsoring unit of government pays the settlement with tax money, officer laughs all the way to the next incident. Having authority placed in the hands of people who are unlikely to suffer for their own misdeeds is alarming from the other side of an increasingly unequal relationship from which perspective it appears that what were public servants are morphing into public masters, which in turn creates the type of reaction inspiring this thread.


*This is reminding me of the time I lived in Plainfield. I was the only time ever that I lived in a community with a police department in which I had confidence. They were awesome. I really miss them.

 

[phylodog]

I can understand the perceived double-standard. The problem is that for the average reasonable person, being approached by a uniformed officer conveys a message of implied authority standing behind the encounter that simply does not exist if I decide to kibitz in someone else's business. Under such circumstances, I feel that it is very reasonable to expect an officer to conduct himself in a professional manner. If I drift into an officer BS session*, that is an entirely different matter. I expect them to let their hair down, so to speak. That is a lot different from being approached by an officer I don't know, and from whom I would expect professional conduct. The problem leading to the cry for settlements to be taken from pension funds and jail time handed out comes from the frustration that in most cases there is little painful discipline sufficient to mend the ways of marginal officers and deter those who might stray from doing so. Officer does something really off the reservation, takes a long paid vacation, the department loses a lawsuit, sponsoring unit of government pays the settlement with tax money, officer laughs all the way to the next incident. Having authority placed in the hands of people who are unlikely to suffer for their own misdeeds is alarming from the other side of an increasingly unequal relationship from which perspective it appears that what were public servants are morphing into public masters, which in turn creates the type of reaction inspiring this thread.

Most of what you speak of revolves around perception. I know the officer in question and I don't believe he perceived himself as speaking as an agent of the government. While his language could have been more professional I feel anyone who would file a complaint about an officer cursing during a conversation (not cursing at them) is simply looking for an excuse to get butthurt and get back at a cop. I don't go about my daily life considering myself as a representative of the government. I don't perceive myself as being responsible for the crap decisions made by our elected officials nor do I consider them to be my client(s). I'm a guy with a job. Sometimes that job involves directly helping people who need it. Sometimes that job involves indirectly helping the population at large. My perception of myself is very different than how others see me. If I were to begin considering myself as others apparently do I would be forced to operate by the book, nothing but black and white which sounds great unless you're the person I'm dealing with. Then folks want empathy, leniency and understanding. It is truly an impossible situation.

I went in to Best Buy a few years ago looking for a protective case for a newly released cell phone I had just obtained. One of the workers approached me and asked if I needed help. I pulled out my phone and told him I was in need of a case. He pulled the same phone out of his pocket and said "You've got one too...****ing awesome isn't it?". I chuckled. I wasn't offended, I didn't feel slighted or disrespected and it wouldn't have occurred to me to complain to that man's supervisor about it. I guess the difference is that I don't have a problem with Best Buy employees and I'm not looking for an opportunity to take a jab at one. The complaint about cursing in this instance just seems petty to me.

 

[Squander]

I don't know of any fatalities, but I do know of 3 incidents on the north side where someone was targeted for their OC handgun, as well as a 4th that is arguable. In all 4 instances the person was approached by multiple suspects and had their firearm stolen.

#1: Victim walking down street. One male approaches from the front. Second male approaches from behind, sticks what victim believes to be a gun barrel (but admitted it could have just been a pipe) against his spine, takes his firearm, and flees.

#2: Victim is working on a car in his driveway. 3 males approach him, all armed, steal his gun and other items.

#3: Victim is working on exterior of house. 2 males approach him, both armed, and from opposite corners of the house. Steal his gun and other items.

#4 (the arguable one): Victim is at home and routinely OC's on his own property. Apparently someone noticed, grabbed a family member as they exited the house, then multiple suspects enter and demand the combination to the gun safe (so they also had good intel there was a safe in the house, that guy would probably have been targeted regardless of OC or not, but his firearms did make him a target as nothing else was taken.)

I've also had a "sloppy CC'er" robbed with his own gun. He met with a friend of a friend to sell a rifle. The friend of a friend quickly reached under the victim's open shirt and snatched his handgun, then used that to rob him of the long gun he was there to sell.

So, does it happen a lot? I don't know. You'd need more data, such as how many man hours of OC there are vs how many people are targeted to make that sort of determination. However it does happen. If it prevents more crime than it causes, again, I don't know, and I don't know how you'd measure that. You'd also have to consider what criminal you deter vs which you attract, which is more serious and likely to result in a deadly encounter, that sort of thing. Again, I don't have the data to make that call. What I do see is that when OC folks are robbed, its with a great disparity of force and appears to have some rudimentary tactics applied, which would lead me to believe they are more serious criminals.

Thanks for injecting data into the conversation, helps to balance it. Over what period did these incidents happen?

 

[GIJEW]

No, carrying the handgun is the crime. The LTCH is an affirmative defense (your burden to prove you have the LTCH) to the crime of carrying a handgun. QUOTE]
Maybe it's because I'm not trained to read legal-tea-leaves that I don't get that. Once again, given that the IN constitution says that our right to keep and bear arms (this would include handguns) for our defense shall not be infringed, I don't see how the 'crime' is carrying a handgun per se. The LTCH is an affirmative defense to the crime of CARRYING W/O A LICENSE.
My reasoning is
1)the right to carry is part of the constitution which gives it more authority than the LTCH reg.

2)therefore the LTCH reg. can only modify, not abolish, the right to carry.

3)if some ex post facto regulation/law can trump the constitution, then our rights have been reduced to priviledges that .gov might, or might not, condescend to grant us.
Conceding our rights to the enemies of freedom rubs me the wrong way. If anything, the question ought to be how is the LTCH requirement not an infringement on the right to carry? I can live with it since it's not like NY/NJ/IL bureaucratic concertina wire designed to prevent us from being armed, and it might be useful in arresting and hassling professional thugs, but I'm not willing to concede being armed as being less than a right.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

1)the right to carry is part of the constitution which gives it more authority than the LTCH reg.

You'll have to take it up with the Indiana Supreme Court which upheld the LTCH requirement in the 1950s.

2)therefore the LTCH reg. can only modify, not abolish, the right to carry.

Ok.

3)if some ex post facto regulation/law can trump the constitution, then our rights have been reduced to priviledges that .gov might, or might not, condescend to grant us.
Conceding our rights to the enemies of freedom rubs me the wrong way.

Not saying it is right, just stating the state of the law.

I would love to see the abolition of the LTCH requirement. The last politician that was serious about the abolition of the LTCH was Rex Early and despite my efforts Rex lost in the Republican primary.

One of two things need to happen:

1. We get the General Assembly to abolish the LTCH. (Unlikely).

2. As LA and MO have done, Indiana amends the Constitution to require the Supreme Court review all gun laws with strict scrutiny and stop treating the RKBA as a second class right.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Most of what you speak of revolves around perception. I know the officer in question and I don't believe he perceived himself as speaking as an agent of the government. While his language could have been more professional I feel anyone who would file a complaint about an officer cursing during a conversation (not cursing at them) is simply looking for an excuse to get butthurt and get back at a cop. I don't go about my daily life considering myself as a representative of the government. I don't perceive myself as being responsible for the crap decisions made by our elected officials nor do I consider them to be my client(s). I'm a guy with a job. Sometimes that job involves directly helping people who need it. Sometimes that job involves indirectly helping the population at large. My perception of myself is very different than how others see me. If I were to begin considering myself as others apparently do I would be forced to operate by the book, nothing but black and white which sounds great unless you're the person I'm dealing with. Then folks want empathy, leniency and understanding. It is truly an impossible situation.

I went in to Best Buy a few years ago looking for a protective case for a newly released cell phone I had just obtained. One of the workers approached me and asked if I needed help. I pulled out my phone and told him I was in need of a case. He pulled the same phone out of his pocket and said "You've got one too...****ing awesome isn't it?". I chuckled. I wasn't offended, I didn't feel slighted or disrespected and it wouldn't have occurred to me to complain to that man's supervisor about it. I guess the difference is that I don't have a problem with Best Buy employees and I'm not looking for an opportunity to take a jab at one. The complaint about cursing in this instance just seems petty to me.

All true! The issue as I see it is that dealing with an officer I don't know personally is like dealing with a pit bull I don't know. In most cases I have experienced the pit bull is deadly in the sense that it could well slobber you to death, but I am not going to gamble my arm with one I don't know. The uniform has a purpose, which is to declare authority, and one has no idea how the wearer of that uniform will apply his position. You could have anything from Andy Griffith to Reinhard Heydrich with no way of knowing until it is in the former case a non-issue or the latter case too late. To a young and relatively uninitiated person, that uniform can be intimidating. I don't feel that taking this into consideration is asking anything difficult or unreasonable.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Thanks for the examples BBI! Seems that all those victims could have had better outcomes with better S.A.!?
With those examples and your personal experience, do you advocate c.c. over o.c.?

SA will only take you so far, especially if three guys approach you with weapons drawn, each from a different angle. The guy with the pipe or barrel in his back could have probably benefited, but honestly who among us couldn't be taken by surprise while engaged in some task that takes our attention (like the guy working on his car) or by multiple people breaking concealment at the same time (like the guy working on the house).

I don't advocate either, I just put the information I have available out to those who want it and then they can make their own decision.

I personally CC off duty and most of the time while on duty and outside of the office. One, cops die in ambushes as I pointed out earlier in the thread. I'd rather people didn't know I was a cop unless I wanted them to, because I don't want to be targeted either for my gun (like the MIT officer the Boston bombers killed) or for my occupation (like the officers in Nevada and Washington). I believe the element of surprise and the ability to decide when you act, putting your opponent in the OODA loop instead of yourself, is more beneficial than any deterrent effect of OC.

I had a guy who was surprised in the parking lot at gun point and the assailant already had his gun out and on the guy. Suspect tells him to get in his car, which he does. Suspect then tells him to give him his wallet and car keys. Guy says his pants are too tight to get his keys out while sitting. Suspect allows him to get out of the car. Guy then pulls a .38 out of his front pocket and ends the robbery attempt. The OC advocates will likely say that the person may not have been targeted at all if he'd been OC. They may be right. However if the assailant decided to go ahead with the attack anyway, the potential victim's ruse would not have worked, and the suspect would have maintained the drop on him. I don't know how you measure crimes deterred, but I do know how you measure who won a gun fight.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Thanks for injecting data into the conversation, helps to balance it. Over what period did these incidents happen?

With the exception of #1, within the past year. The last two within the past few months.

 

[XMil]

All of you who think that walking up to a complete stranger (especially as a authority figure) and swearing like a pirate is no big deal, are either being disingenuous, or possibly you are just gutter trash. It shows contempt for your audience. I strongly doubt most of you act that way on a daily basis and you are certainly harming your credibility if you do.

Do you go to parent teacher conferences and ask "how the @#%& is Timmy doing in math?"

Do you go to dinner and ask for your steak medium $^#^ing well?

Do you see you neighbor's wife in the yard and say "this great @#%&ing weather!"?

When was the last time you had a court apperance and said to the judge "well homie, this mother @#%&er was beating the @#%& out of his @#%&ing neighbor, so I @#%&ing tased that piece of @#%&".

Why do think it's not okay drop f-bombs on this forum?

It is another way police officers are making themselves look bad. Also, I don't care if you don't see yourselves as representatives of the government, you ARE representatives of the government. It would be nice if you could at least pretend to be civilized human beings.

 

[chezuki]

Do you go to dinner and ask for your steak medium $^#^ing well?

**** no! Anything over meduim-****ing-rare and it's going back to the kitchen!!

 

[KG1]

All true! The issue as I see it is that dealing with an officer I don't know personally is like dealing with a pit bull I don't know. In most cases I have experienced the pit bull is deadly in the sense that it could well slobber you to death, but I am not going to gamble my arm with one I don't know. The uniform has a purpose, which is to declare authority, and one has no idea how the wearer of that uniform will apply his position. You could have anything from Andy Griffith to Reinhard Heydrich with no way of knowing until it is in the former case a non-issue or the latter case too late. To a young and relatively uninitiated person, that uniform can be intimidating. I don't feel that taking this into consideration is asking anything difficult or unreasonable.

You mean an "associate" working at Best Buy is not intimidating?