Dennys Not So Great

[Scutter01]

It doesn't make it right for them to threaten to find a way to arrest you, but it perhaps tempers the argument a little...

I'm not giving a pass to someone who can't control himself. If he just can't deal with the fact that the only crime the OP was guilty of was "failure to kowtow to the unlawful demands of an officer" (also known as "contempt of cop"), then he's not qualified to be a police officer. By your own statements, there's enough ACTUAL crime in Gary without the cops inventing reasons to arrest people. Police officers have a TON of power to destroy the lives of otherwise-innocent citizens. Too many of them forget that the consequences of them abusing that power is devastation.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Trying to eat at Denny's in Gary.Officer comes up and asks for my permit.I just say, OK but you really can't do that.he informs me he is an officer and sure can.I said I had no problem showing him my liscense and I did say he was violating my rights as I got it out.I hit record on my phone.he continued to lecture me.left and came back with 6 swat guys he was ith and told me management wanted me out.so I said OK.he continued to tell me I was wrong,threatening to arrest me.calling me Perry mason.he basically said they would find a way to arrest me if I did not cove it up.at this point I was pretty beat down.covered it and left.they followed me for several miles.

I think I saw this post over on opencarry.org as well.

Welcome to INGO!

As already said, LEOs in Indiana get to ask to see your LTCH, but upon producing it you should then be left alone. It's even possible the Denny's manager did want you to leave, but was too much of a hoplaphobe to ask you politely themself. Beyond that, it SOUNDS like a little extra curricular "douchebaggery" may have ensued when you were told incorrectly that you "needed to cover it or get arrested", and if it did you ought to go ahead and file a complaint.

EDIT: Whoops! Moderator, clean-up requested in aisle 6. I thought that particularly term would hit the filter, but it apparently didn't trip the trigger. If it is a violation, please add that term to the filter!

 

[joshualee49]

I'm not giving a pass to someone who can't control himself. If he just can't deal with the fact that the only crime the OP was guilty of was "failure to kowtow to the unlawful demands of an officer" (also known as "contempt of cop"), then he's not qualified to be a police officer. By your own statements, there's enough ACTUAL crime in Gary without the cops inventing reasons to arrest people. Police officers have a TON of power to destroy the lives of otherwise-innocent citizens. Too many of them forget that the consequences of them abusing that power is devastation.

No arguments here. I find his actions to be very disturbing. I'm not condoning his behavior by any stretch. I suppose I didn't express that very well to begin with. I don't think there is any justifiable reason for an LEO to unjustly arrest someone. I am just speculating as to a possible root cause for the attitude to begin with. I think any LEO who abuses his\her power should be death with severely....

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The point is he was OCing, had an LTCH, produced it, and was questioned further, harassed further, and told to/forced to CC, when questioning and hostility should have ended the MOMENT he produced a valid LTCH - which is, yes, for all you obedient sheep out there, still an infringment, whether institutionalized or not. You guys really make me proud.

 

[Jack Burton]

and came back with 6 swat guys he was ith and told me management wanted me out.

"Really, Officer? I'll be happy to leave when the manager asks me then."

 

[Scutter01]

The point is he was OCing, had an LTCH, produced it, and was questioned further, harassed further, and told to/forced to CC, when questioning and hostility should have ended the MOMENT he produced a valid LTCH - which is, yes, for all you obedient sheep out there, still an infringment, whether institutionalized or not. You guys really make me proud.

No one is arguing that the continued harassment was perfectly OK. We're commenting on the OP's statement that being required to produce an LTCH was a violation of his rights.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

double-tap

 

[HeadlessRoland]

No one is arguing that the continued harassment was perfectly OK. We're commenting on the OP's statement that being required to produce an LTCH was a violation of his rights.

Given the lack of specificity toward the actual objection by most, it's easy to misread that, if indeed I have misread it. Yes, must produce LTCH or wear some shiny new bracelets. Unconstitutional to do so, but must comply or else. However, after having produced unconstitutionally-pink piece of paper, police should have immediately resumed chowing down on their bacon-and-rage-filled sandwiches.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not giving a pass to someone who can't control himself. If he just can't deal with the fact that the only crime the OP was guilty of was "failure to kowtow to the unlawful demands of an officer" (also known as "contempt of cop"), then he's not qualified to be a police officer. By your own statements, there's enough ACTUAL crime in Gary without the cops inventing reasons to arrest people. Police officers have a TON of power to destroy the lives of otherwise-innocent citizens. Too many of them forget that the consequences of them abusing that power is devastation.

I would have to disagree at least in nuance by saying that too many of them will not respect the devastation they impose on others until it starts to be visited upon them in return when they act unjustly. Let a few JBTs become unemployable felons unable to pay their bills and this will be at least greatly reduced.

 

[Birds Away]

I never understand why the gun they can see seems to irritate them more than the one they can't. Doesn't make much sense. I guess it is a control thing.

 

[mainjet]

Given the lack of specificity toward the actual objection by most, it's easy to misread that, if indeed I have misread it. Yes, must produce LTCH or wear some shiny new bracelets. Unconstitutional to do so, but must comply or else. However, after having produced unconstitutionally-pink piece of paper, police should have immediately resumed chowing down on their bacon-and-rage-filled sandwiches.

You can say that again

 

[IndyDave1776]

I never understand why the gun they can see seems to irritate them more than the one they can't. Doesn't make much sense. I guess it is a control thing.

It violates their perceived right to have a monopoly on arms, Constitution notwithstanding.

 

[RTroy29035]

Just as an officer does not have the authority to pull you over and ask for your license just because you are driving a car they do not have the authority to ask you for your LTCH just because you have a weapon. This has been stated in many court cases. The police must have a reason or just cause to ask for your ID or LTCH.
We do not live in the Soviet Union, (yet), where you can be approached and ordered to "show your papers".

 

[Booya]

Just as an officer does not have the authority to pull you over and ask for your license just because you are driving a car they do not have the authority to ask you for your LTCH just because you have a weapon. This has been stated in many court cases. The police must have a reason or just cause to ask for your ID or LTCH.
We do not live in the Soviet Union, (yet), where you can be approached and ordered to "show your papers".

I've always understood it another way!? Can you cite something for me that says you do not have to produce LTCH if asked? Just so I can read it for myself? Thanks!

 

[wanakanabe]

Ok so my crime was I ordered glazed instead of sugared and i looked angry about it?As i have read about everywhere,they have to have a reason to come up to a stranger and demand liscencses and ID's.What crime was being commited while I drank my coffee and ate my doughnut.
Well thx for the lesson.As stated,I did not refuse to show my liscense,the rights violation comment was made as i was handing it to him at which point he could of said he was investigating a crime.right?I did not argue with him,i voluntarily handed it over.
I didn't know we lived in a country where any authoritive figure could just just walk up to any random person and demand to see their papers.Now I know better I'll let it go,maybe the next person he harrasses won't mind spending the day in jail for eating a doughnut

 

[mainjet]

It bothers me that when the OP did not comply then all of the sudden "the manager wants you out".

It seems to me that if 4 officers come to a manager and say- "there is a guy over there with a gun, do you want him out"? The manager would certainly agree because, hey, cops just said this so it must be something important.

I say that is pushing your weight around to get your agenda served in any way you can.

Were his rights violated by the asking to see the license? No. But when they said that he has to cover it or they would find a reason to arrest him. Then, leave it uncovered and go to jail. Make the officer answer why you are being harrassed. Make him answer why he continued to question you after you produced the license and how you ultimately were arrested.

You tell a dog to "sit" but he lays down so you give him a piece of cheese. Next time you tell him to sit he will lay down and expect the cheese because that his the behaviour that worked last time. So the officer now knows that the threats will get him what he wants...

 

[Ted]

Just as an officer does not have the authority to pull you over and ask for your license just because you are driving a car they do not have the authority to ask you for your LTCH just because you have a weapon. This has been stated in many court cases. The police must have a reason or just cause to ask for your ID or LTCH.

On paper, that's fine. Though rest assured, almost every LEO will have a reason when it comes time to completing the paperwork and testifying before a judge.

We do not live in the Soviet Union, (yet), where you can be approached and ordered to "show your papers".

Apparently its more acceptable for citizens to have to present their paper, than illegal aliens.

 

[Scutter01]

Just as an officer does not have the authority to pull you over and ask for your license just because you are driving a car they do not have the authority to ask you for your LTCH just because you have a weapon. This has been stated in many court cases. The police must have a reason or just cause to ask for your ID or LTCH.
We do not live in the Soviet Union, (yet), where you can be approached and ordered to "show your papers".

I would like to see some of the court cases you cited. The law reads the exact opposite.

 

[Scutter01]

As i have read about everywhere,they have to have a reason to come up to a stranger and demand liscencses and ID's.What crime was being commited while I drank my coffee and ate my doughnut.

I cited the exact Indiana statute in the fourth post, which includes the clause about the burden of proof being on you to show that you are not committing a Class A misdemeanor (or, possibly, a Class C felony).

I'll let it go,maybe the next person he harrasses won't mind spending the day in jail for eating a doughnut

The hyperbole does not help your argument. You know perfectly well that "eating a donut" had nothing to do with the interaction, so why bring it up?

 

[Jack Burton]

Just as an officer does not have the authority to pull you over and ask for your license just because you are driving a car they do not have the authority to ask you for your LTCH just because you have a weapon. This has been stated in many court cases. The police must have a reason or just cause to ask for your ID or LTCH.
We do not live in the Soviet Union, (yet), where you can be approached and ordered to "show your papers".

This first sentence is completely not true and is a good example of why you shouldn't take legal advice over the net, especially in a forum.