Approached by officer while open carry (NE Ft Wayne)

[henktermaat]

The LEO should have kept his opinions to himself. It's not his job to go around spouting off his opinion of how people should carry. +1 to the OP for handling the opinionated jackwagon very well

 

[Sarge470]

The LEO should have kept his opinions to himself. It's not his job to go around spouting off his opinion of how people should carry. +1 to the OP for handling the opinionated jackwagon very well

Ya just can't have a civil conversation with some folks...

 

[henktermaat]

Ya just can't have a civil conversation with some folks...

It sounds like it was civil, but still. I would have thanked him for his opinion and went my way.

 

[youngda9]

IF Indiana state law allowed anyone and everyone to carry firearms, you may have a point. However, since the current laws only allow specific individuals to carry, and prohibit certain other individuals, the dispatcher and officer handled this one spot on.

Agree, but if the cop isn't going to ask to see license, then there is no reason for approacing the MWAG in the first place. The rest was "small talk". The officer gave his opinion and the OP ignored it.

Had the CP (calling party - complainant) approached the OP and asked for an LTCH

I would have laughed at the person if they did that to me.

Dispatcher could have sent several officers who then approached the OP like storm troopers.

That would have been a fun thread...appraching guy with guns drawn while he is going about his bizness, legally.

Assumption is the caller indicated the OP wasn't causing trouble.

Too bad the dispacher couldn't have told the caller it's legal to carry in Indiana, this line is to be used for emergency purposes only...good day.

Consequently an individual officer (backup no doubt enroute) had a business conversation with the OP and determined all was well. Dispatcher and officer served the public. CP was taken seriously. OP wasn't hassled.

Agreed.

Crap people, what else do you expect in these situations?

To be left alone and not have to deal with cops for being a good citizen.

Overall the situation went quite well. I wonder what would have happened if the OP hadn't decided to walk away.

Good work OP.

 

[Hotdoger]

Btw.
Coerce - to persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by use of force or threats.

Feel free to show any statement that remotely meets the definition of coerce.

Force is not the deciding factor in coercion:


verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition:

 

[Hotdoger]

Ya just can't have a civil conversation with some folks...

Can you answer the question I asked on post 39?

 

[Indy317]

I think it's probably safe to say that most problems with open-carry response from police officers is a lack of familiarity with the statutes that govern the carry of handguns in Indiana. When an officer appears unfriendly toward open carry, it's probably because his/her department has failed to expend the effort to train him/her in proper handling of the call, including protection of the citizen's rights under Indiana statutes.

This is a huge problem. I think LE admins need to get away from the view that the street officer is like a programmable robot. Too many incidents where negatives are blamed on "training." It is high time LE departments demand more individuality when it comes to officers and their knowledge of laws. I can understand that in some departments, pay is horrible, and therefore you are going to get your share of low IQ, minimal logic skills applicants. However, most of the decent sized cities in Indiana pay a decent enough wage, especially when one factors in the take home car, OT pay, and maybe the ability to work off-duty (usually $20+/hour).

Officers should take it upon themselves to:
#1: Read various criminal statues from time to time.
#2: Keep up on the Indiana bill watch sight to see what laws may be changing.
#3: Know the misdemeanor exceptions to arrest.
#4: Know the specific language and definitions according to the Indiana Code for some of the more common crimes, and especially the misdemeanor exceptions.
#5: Check recent Indiana appeals court rulings to see if there are any rulings that may cause some questions in relation to your duties.

There is absolutely no reason to not to have a firm grasp and understanding of the Indiana Code. To me, any non-rookie officer who illegally detains someone should know better. To blame it on "training" is taking the easy way out. All the above information is easily found on internet.

I'm glad Ft. Wayne at least is doing what they can in terms of helping officers, especially those who refuse to take it upon themselves, to learn something that is at the foundation of the very job they choose to do. I don't think officers should know the Indiana Code 100%, but any officer that is going to be big into traffic should better well know the traffic code to almost 100%. Same goes for officers who want to bust folks for dope: Know your dope laws, know your search and seizure limits. If you are a DUI go getter, you should be able to recite the definition of intoxication as defined by the Indiana code.

 

[Indy317]

Seems to me he is trying to coerce him to not OC.

Another issue I see with LE. Too much emphasis on the officers to be the parents of society. I don't mind LEOs being parents when it comes to punitive actions for law violations, but that is where things should end. If someone ask for an LEOs opinion, by all means, LEOs should be able to give it. However, why the need to give a parental lecture to a person who hasn't requested advice and has done nothing wrong. I can see giving warnings about "If you continue to do x, y,... then you will be violating such and such law." but general comments about lawful conduct...that can sometimes makes these encounters turn into a bad encounter.

This is mostly a personal view based upon my personality. I'm pretty quite unless I really get to know someone. I don't mind sharing my beliefs, but some incidents are different. I personally hold the minimalist view when it comes to policing. Officers should investigate for a criminal law violation, if no violation, part ways. Small talk so long as it doesn't appear that the state is giving an opinion on how people should act (outside of warnings for possible future law breaking). I can see how an armed agent of the state telling people how they should live their life, when their current conduct isn't illegal, would rub some people the wrong way. Of course I can see the LEO side as well: The more people that walk around with guns showing, the more MWAG calls that will come.

doesnt every leo get taught about ltch laws in indiana? are there actually leos here in indiana that dont know what an ltch is and the laws that apply to it?

No. I believe officers should be taught where to find laws, and the definitions of those laws. ILEA and employing agencies need to do more in this area. For far too long officers knowledge when it comes to specific language within the Indiana Code has been lacking. I'm OK with doing more on the training side, but we need to start holding officers personally accountable as well. Departments should even give officers an hour a week to get on-line and review the Indiana code. Start giving out tests at roll call, get everyone involved and have a group learning exercise.

When a citizen breaks a law, they can't use ignorance of the law as a justification for their behavior. Yet when officers wrongfully arrest or detain people, admin is quick to use "this is a training issue." Well, not really.

 

[jbombelli]

+1 to Indy317.

I'd rep you but I'm posting from my phone, and it doesn't like the rep function.

 

[jbombelli]

stupid blackberry double post.

 

[Hotdoger]

Another issue I see with LE. Too much emphasis on the officers to be the parents of society. I don't mind LEOs being parents when it comes to punitive actions for law violations, but that is where things should end. If someone ask for an LEOs opinion, by all means, LEOs should be able to give it. However, why the need to give a parental lecture to a person who hasn't requested advice and has done nothing wrong. I can see giving warnings about "If you continue to do x, y,... then you will be violating such and such law." but general comments about lawful conduct...that can sometimes makes these encounters turn into a bad encounter.

This is mostly a personal view based upon my personality. I'm pretty quite unless I really get to know someone. I don't mind sharing my beliefs, but some incidents are different. I personally hold the minimalist view when it comes to policing. Officers should investigate for a criminal law violation, if no violation, part ways. Small talk so long as it doesn't appear that the state is giving an opinion on how people should act (outside of warnings for possible future law breaking). I can see how an armed agent of the state telling people how they should live their life, when their current conduct isn't illegal, would rub some people the wrong way. Of course I can see the LEO side as well: The more people that walk around with guns showing, the more MWAG calls that will come.



No. I believe officers should be taught where to find laws, and the definitions of those laws. ILEA and employing agencies need to do more in this area. For far too long officers knowledge when it comes to specific language within the Indiana Code has been lacking. I'm OK with doing more on the training side, but we need to start holding officers personally accountable as well. Departments should even give officers an hour a week to get on-line and review the Indiana code. Start giving out tests at roll call, get everyone involved and have a group learning exercise.

When a citizen breaks a law, they can't use ignorance of the law as a justification for their behavior. Yet when officers wrongfully arrest or detain people, admin is quick to use "this is a training issue." Well, not really.

+1 You have posted exactly what I have been trying to get at!

 

[finity]

+1 to Indy317.

I'd rep you but I'm posting from my phone, and it doesn't like the rep function.

Got him.

 

[schafe]

The more people that walk around with guns showing, the more MWAG calls that will come.

Why do I think that had a lot to do with the LEOs point of view in the OP?

 

[mrortega]

I think if I was an LEO dispatched to a MWAG situation the dispatcher would already have ascertained that it wasn't a nasty situation and would have conveyed that to me. The operator would have already asked the caller if the MWAG was treatening anyone-"no", is he waving his gun around?-"no"; what is he doing?-"just standing there with it in a holster." Obviously it isn't a mass shooting or a hostage situation and I know that going in. Hence I'm at ease but alert.

 

[jsharmon7]

I think if I was an LEO dispatched to a MWAG situation the dispatcher would already have ascertained that it wasn't a nasty situation and would have conveyed that to me. The operator would have already asked the caller if the MWAG was treatening anyone-"no", is he waving his gun around?-"no"; what is he doing?-"just standing there with it in a holster." Obviously it isn't a mass shooting or a hostage situation and I know that going in. Hence I'm at ease but alert.

You make a great point, but your example is the "perfect storm" so to speak. The assumption is being made that the caller stays on the line and continues to answer those questions. Sometimes callers give good information, sometimes they don't.

 

[sloughfoot]

You guys make me laugh with your innocent, idealistic, solutions to a possible life or death situation.

Until you have answered a priority call alone, with backup some minutes away, your responses on what the LEO should or should not do in this situation carry absolutely zero credibility with me.

And your comments about what the dispatcher can do regarding how "nasty" a situation is, and then presuming to pass on this unsubstantiated info to the responding Officers is ludicrous.

The FIRST thing taught in the Academy is that things are NEVER as they seem.

You just don't know....

 

[Rookie]

So you think this was a priority call?

 

[sloughfoot]

Of course it was a priority call.

Now the responding Officer downgraded it after chatting with the individual, but up to that point where the Officer concluded that the person was not a threat, it was a priority call. He gave a "disregard" to his backup when he realized what was going on. It was absolutely dispatched above other, less important calls.

Nobody knows what the investigating Officer is truly facing until the investigating Officer INVESTIGATES.

See, what many of you are unaware of is that 98% of all folks will try to ignore dangerous situations even if it is happening right now, to them. People don't want to believe or think about bad things that might happen to them personally.

So if a citizen has the gumption to pick up the phone and call 911 and get INVOLVED, it is treated by the calltaker and responding Officers as something out of the ordinary. Something that is so outrageous to prompt a citizen to make that call.

And even then, the original CP rarely sticks around to witness the results of that phone call. People don't want to be involved too much. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure nobody was standing there saying, "HEY why didn't you ARREST him? The CP was probably either long gone or trying to not call attention to him/her.

I have responded to Armed Robberies, just occured. I have entered with my shotgun at low ready and witnessed the clerk who just had a pistol in her face, checking out customers who were annoyed that they were delayed from paying for their Snickers bar during the armed robbery.

To an Officer responding to any kind of a call, nothing is EVER as it may seem.

I know lots of you don't understand. God Bless you and keep you and all the Police Officers who face danger every day and then come back for more. You and your friends know that you are a decent, upright, model citizen.

But that responding Officer sure doesn't know that until he/she gets to know you a little better.

 

[Pocketman]

Of course it was a priority call.

Now the responding Officer downgraded it after chatting with the individual, but up to that point where the Officer concluded that the person was not a threat, it was a priority call. He gave a "disregard" to his backup when he realized what was going on. It was absolutely dispatched above other, less important calls.

I can tell you with a high degree of certainly that this is exactly how it occurred. I can also tell you that given what's in the OP, this thread has made way too much of this entire incident. What other LEOs have tried to convey here is, people who submit MWAG reports (or any 911 call for that matter) are often involved in a situation that is potentially traumatic for the caller. Sure, the honest God fearing individual carrying the gun is at ease and confident that all is well. Unless we have a lot of mind readers running around in society, no one else knows that Mr. OC is not up to mischief.

Regarding the officers opinions on OC, some agencies have policies prohibiting their officers from OCing when off duty. That's perhaps how the officer in this situation was trained, so that's going to effect his opinion. Keep in mind to, that the officer's conversation and "advice" was just that. LEOs are people too.

In a perfect world, people would accept the fact that gun toting is not uncommon and not necessarily bad. Until we get there, (or back there?) we'll all have to realize that these kinds of situations will occur. The better handled by both sides, the more positive the effect will be on society. The caller in this incident was educated, and has already shared this with several friends.

 

[Rookie]

The sad thing is, the responding officer has had every opportunity to give his side of the story. Since he he refuses, we are left to form opinions with the information we have.