Did Law Change? Unreal incident at clinic...

[ATM]

This OC vs CC is like religion it always turns into name calling,it's like were back in grade school.

I think I missed the name calling.

If it should start up again, please send me a PM so I can get in on some of that action.

 

[cobber]

Academy training is Constitutional Law. Very little if any specific Indiana law. That is learned on the job.

Lots of police training is not Indiana law-based. Many of the specialty schools on search-seizure and interdiction utilize case studies from all over the US. Unfortunately, what is lawful for Ohio police may not be in Indiana. Laws, and particularly court rulings on STATE constitutional issues, vary widely from State to State, and from Federal Circuit to Federal Circuit. Officers don't always realize this, for example continuing to follow US 4th A procedure where the Indiana Supreme Court has already declined to follow leading federal cases.

So even after leaving the academy, officers seem to be getting a lot of non-Indiana law training. The trainers are doing a disservice to the officers, and probably need to refund the tuition to the respective departments.

I would guess the officers in this case (or at least Sgt. Schultz) probably got exposed to some case law from a jurisdiction where OC is restricted, and did not put 2+2 together to figure that it's not the law here in Indiana. But this 'misapprehension' seems to be widespread among officers here. Seems like the Indiana Supreme Court needs to hammer one of the offending departments, then the word might get out.

 

[Scutter01]

I would guess the officers in this case (or at least Sgt. Schultz) probably got exposed to some case law from a jurisdiction where OC is restricted, and did not put 2+2 together to figure that it's not the law here in Indiana. But this 'misapprehension' seems to be widespread among officers here. Seems like the Indiana Supreme Court needs to hammer one of the offending departments, then the word might get out.

If I didn't know how to do my job, I'd be fired. I wouldn't get an email from my boss explaining my job to me. I wouldn't be sent for remedial training. I'd be fired, and they'd hire someone who knew what the hell they were doing.

 

[finity]

This thread completely pisses me off.

First we have cops who violate a person's Rights based on no other evidence than a call by one person who they took BLINDLY at their word. If I called & said that I just saw the Mitch Daniels plant a bomb in the statehouse would they have gone in guns blazing & "detained" him on the word of one person? Or would they need at least a little more evidence?

Then we have those same cops & THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CLINIC telling the OP that he HAS TO take his gun home before he can take his family home. SCREW THAT! Those cops aren't telling me crap about what I can & can't do on public property. Once I leave the clinic property they have no control over my LEGAL actions. The only thing that the EMPLOYEES can tell me to do is leave. How DARE THEY act like they can tell me what to do!?

Then we have a cop who finds that the ONLY THING "interesting" in this whole BS situation is that the OP threw another cop under the bus for doing something illegal. What? Really? That's it? There's nothing else "interesting" AT ALL?

Then we have this little gem:

actually i did read them. and there was a mention of that this is the reason one guy carries concealed. and it was brushed off. the only other thing i saw was cop bashing and talk of lawsuits. its very clear that most leo's dont agree with open carry. so why go through the trouble? what are the advantages? i think most people do it for no other reason than to prove that they can do it. and they are the ones that get hassled by police. cops do what they want. and thats not gonna change.

You only saw "cop bashing"? Where? Would that be the posts that condemn the actions by the cops that violated AT A MINIMUM the sensibilities & dignity, if not the Rights, of a person who was doing NOTHING ILLEGAL...AT ALL!? Do I understand you correctly that voicing your opinion on the WAY over-the-top actions by police against a COMPLETELY LEGAL person is "bashing"? On second thought, if you support the 1A as fully as you support the 2A then I guess, to you, it would be. Never mind...

Who gives a crap if the cops don’t like OC? The cops don’t get to just unilaterally make up laws on their own if they don’t “agree with” something. Would you be OK with a cop “detaining” someone because they didn’t like what church they (did or didn’t) attend? Why is any other legal act any different? It’s not.

And then to complain about all of this “talk of lawsuits”. What other reasonable options do we have beside lawsuits? There are only two avenues that we, the people, have to curb governments & their agents (you know, the cops) from abusing their authority. One is through the court system, or “lawsuits”. The other is the violent uprising against that abuse. I don’t know about you but I’d much prefer the peaceful solution.

But from your post it sounds like you prefer another option…just bend over & take it.

No, thanks.

If the reason you don’t want to OC is so you don’t offend your police masters then go ahead & behave like a good like a good little serf, but don’t expect others to stand up for YOUR other Rights when they get violated.

I say CC if you want, OC if you want. What business is it of any other person, INCLUDING THE POLICE, if it's not illegal?

This OC vs CC is like religion it always turns into name calling,it's like were back in grade school.

Hey, they started it! They're just a bunch of poopy-heads & probably have cooties, too.




OP,

I hope you file a complaint & make the biggest stink you can about this. Hopefully it will get some results. But as Watkins said above "cops do what they want. and thats not gonna change." Unfortunately, that's the only part of his post that I actually agree with.

Wait... Isn't that "bashing"?

 

[cobber]

If I didn't know how to do my job, I'd be fired. I wouldn't get an email from my boss explaining my job to me. I wouldn't be sent for remedial training. I'd be fired, and they'd hire someone who knew what the hell they were doing.

Most (?) officers know 'policing' which is a start. In the case at point, had the officers been 'policing' in a reasonable manner and not acting like thugs, they might have learned something.

I would also fault the departments. They need to get more state-specific training for the officers. They can do this by foregoing fancy and $$$ LE training in Arizona and simply ask the prosecutor to provide a deputy for some in-service training. (Prosecutors are more than delighted to do this, if asked.) I would bet RPD doesn't request this assistance from the prosecutor, but I could be wrong.

That being said, a tort suit has a way of focusing the mind and can be an excellent learning experience for the tort feasors.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks, Denny. However, if it is learned on the job, how is it taught and who teaches? Also, are these classes mandatory and necessary to be allowed on the street? It appears the classes are voluntary, according to the number of errors that are posted on INGO. I'm not saying all threads are reported with 100% facts, but there are enough to give some credence to the notion that OJT about Indiana law is terribly lacking in the LE community.

I want to make clear that the example I'm about to use is not in any way intended to be insulting to anyone, especially the LE community.

I've used this example before; five monkeys are placed in a cage. Near the top of the cage, in one corner, a bunch of bananas is placed on a hook. However, whenever any of the five monkeys approaches the bananas, they all five get sprayed with a water hose. It takes little time for the five to realize that any of them approaching gets them all punished, and they take to attacking any who risk that, even when the water spraying stops. Over time, one, then another, then another of the monkeys are replaced, until none of the original five who were actually sprayed with water are left, however, as each arrived, he, too, learned, "Don't try to get the bananas or you'll get your butt kicked." None of the monkeys tries to get the bananas, but they all attack any new monkey trying to do so, not because of the real consequence, but because.... 'that's the way it's always been'.

The point, in this setting, is that whatever the original reason was for some LE to dislike non-LE carrying at all, let alone OCing, it is long forgotten. At least one reason now is, "That's the way it's always been." The chasm of difference between the monkeys and the LEOs (everywhere) is that the LEOs have the power to communicate and to read and to reason, and their agencies have policies in place that can be followed to root out and remove those who choose to ignore their oaths and duties in favor of enforcing laws that either don't exist now or never did, or exist only in other jurisdictions.

No one is going to get sprayed with water and we can all have as many bananas as we like.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[long coat]

A question for the LEOs.
If you were one of the 7 and seen what was going on, would you stop it?
If not why?

 

[cobber]

And here's another thought. If you get hassled by the police for OC, call the prosecutor's office and ask why the police are enforcing an imaginary law. It's quite possible the prosecutor has no idea this is going on, but if he becomes aware of it, he won't just sweep it under the rug.

Also might contact the city attorney.

Just complaining to the department in question may result in an internal investigation that goes... nowhere.

 

[Hayseed_40]

I never see that, though the reasons given for the preference are but they should probably get a bit more support from other carriers at the least.

Thanks for the advice. My doctor says I am a carrier and I should get support.

 

[ATM]

^ If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter.

 

[Denny347]

Thanks, Denny. However, if it is learned on the job, how is it taught and who teaches? Also, are these classes mandatory and necessary to be allowed on the street? It appears the classes are voluntary, according to the number of errors that are posted on INGO. I'm not saying all threads are reported with 100% facts, but there are enough to give some credence to the notion that OJT about Indiana law is terribly lacking in the LE community.

It is up to each dept. The only State law training we are required to have yearly is domestic violence. What you have is bad information passed around because there is no formal training for individual laws. It is up to each officer to study the IC code book. Some do a good job and some do not and some think they are getting good information from their training officer when in fact they are not.

 

[critter592]

Who was the patient? The op or his daughter? I doubt hippa was violated.

 

[Hammerhead]

It is up to each dept. The only State law training we are required to have yearly is domestic violence. What you have is bad information passed around because there is no formal training for individual laws. It is up to each officer to study the IC code book. Some do a good job and some do not and some think they are getting good information from their training officer when in fact they are not.

Then I think there needs to be some change in the law, or whatever rules regulate the training at ILEA, to make sure that EVERY recruit going through gets training on IN law over any other laws. They are supposed to be enforcing IN law above all else. They're not federal agents. They're not going into another state (in the normal course of their duties). Mandatory training on new or changed IN law YEARLY.

This needs to happen NOW.

I'm wondering if some lawsuit against the state would get this changed? What would it take to get IN LEOs properly trained? When are we going to stop seeing the same **** over and over and over again?

This "leave the training up to the TOs" is not cutting it anymore.

 

[Hoosierdood]

It is up to each dept. The only State law training we are required to have yearly is domestic violence. What you have is bad information passed around because there is no formal training for individual laws. It is up to each officer to study the IC code book. Some do a good job and some do not and some think they are getting good information from their training officer when in fact they are not.

This explains a lot. What is happening is that these officers are enforcing what they think is law, but they have not verified that it is in fact law. I see several problems with this.

1. It is the officer's duty to know the laws they are to enforce. As Scutter01 said, if i didn't know how to do my job, I would get fired. So rather than take the personal responsibility to educate themselves on the law, they choose to be willfully ignorant, while at the same time enforcing their own ignorance on the general public. As a gun owner, i do not get a free pass on the basis of ignorance, neither should they.

2. The department has no program to help their officers stay informed on the law. Even though it is the officer's job to know the law, it takes time to track down every law they are to enforce, while at the same time keeping up on any changes to the law. The department needs to provide assistance for the officer through training. Possibly once a month, focus on a different area of the law to become acquainted with.

3. When it does come to the attention of fellow officers as well as the department that an officer is negligent in his duties, nothing is done. There needs to be some sort of consequence to an officer who is enforcing incorrect laws.

Really, I'm not sure what can be done to change this. Possibly, an individual would need to create such a ruckus that the department cannot ignore it. Even then, the officer would be placed on paid leave at the very worst. It all boils down to the fact that the departments as well as individual officers need some form of ACCOUNTABILITY. I would say that the vast majority of good officers would not be opposed to this, but I could be incorrect. I don't think it is an easy fix. I think it will take time and more law abiding citizens getting so angry about it that it motivates us to do something about it.

 

[Scutter01]

2. The department has no program to help their officers stay informed on the law. Even though it is the officer's job to know the law, it takes time to track down every law they are to enforce, while at the same time keeping up on any changes to the law. The department needs to provide assistance for the officer through training. Possibly once a month, focus on a different area of the law to become acquainted with.

To compare this to my job again, I rarely (if ever) get sent to training for my job. However, if a salesman sells something to my customer, I'm expected to be sufficiently expert in it to not only install and maintain it, but also instruct its use to the customer. Even if I've never heard of the product before. I have to do it 100% correctly the first time or I look like an idiot, my company looks like idiots, we lose a customer and I lose my job. My job depends on my ability to stay up on current computer technology in all areas. I don't have the luxury of telling a customer that I don't know how to do my job. I would not last long there. Unlike police departments, I don't even get a handy guide to all of this year's changes in the law (or technology). I spend a very large portion of my (unpaid) spare time keeping up on advances in my field. It is EXPECTED of me. I don't get a free pass.

For a given officer to blame his department's training program (or lack thereof) for his incompetence is offensive to me. This goes for any career you can name. If you can't stay up on the thing that your job revolves around, then you're just lazy and unqualified. Maybe something involving spatulas and deep-fryers would be more your speed*.



*I worked fast food for many years. I know precisely how much skill and effort it involves, so don't bother PM'ing me to complain about my comment.

 

[theweakerbrother]

The pistol was not hot. He dropped my mag and cleared the chamber and removed the bullets from my mag. Made me put my gun in my trunk and told me I had to bring it home before I could come back and get my family.

Illegal detainment of your family/false imprisonment?

I OC in Richmond and I OC'd once while visiting my father-in-law in the new heart center there and I've yet to have any choke-out sessions from cops who want to frisk me and my moobs.

For the offices who have commented about Constitutional Law and the lack of firearms training, are any of you suggesting to the higher-ups that this might be important? Firearms aren't dangerous but the human element of firearms make them so. If some Fudd with a badge who isn't a "gun guy" is gonna diddle my Glock by taking it from me and insisting its a CC only "permit", I don't want him to negligently discharge my firearm into my guts and spilling out more than my peaceful easy feelin's that the Eagles gave me. If I were a police officer (and I will never be), I might speaking up and coming up with a game plan that works across the board so that civilians rights are not violated in the name of officer safey and that we live in a "you don't draw from your holster and I won't draw from mine" mentality. It sounds like there needs to be a few among the ranks to start asking the departments for more training on citizen rights and firearms. How long could it take? 2 hours? 30 minutes?

I realize I'm not part of the culture and I "will never understand what it means to be a cop" so on and so forth but please view everything I said as the casual observer who just wants everyone to go home safely at the end of the night.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Excellent comments by Hoosierdood and Scutter! SOMEONE should teach these departments that don't know the law a lesson!

 

[b0r0b]

I am going to do what I can and go as far as I can. Both of my sons were the patients, but since they are 6 and 4 and don't have ID, the lady at the window took mine. She then, without my permission, handed it over to the police officers..Who are you to hand my **** to the police? What gives you the right to have my information and give it to someone else? In this situation I should have only provided my LTCH, afaik my ID was not relevant considering no crime had occurred but I could be wrong.

Still the point is, if I give one of my children to the doctor, and some whacko made a call that I was beating my kid in the parking lot to the brink of death, that doctor can't just hand my kid to a social worker when NOTHING has happened. This isn't really an argument over OC, it's a question to why 7 officers felt it necessary to detain me and keep me away from my family while also displaying their inability to understand the law. And yes, I was TOLD that I have to GO HOME which is 6 miles away, to secure my weapon before I could return..who the **** makes that rule?

I wasn't ASKED if I would go home, I was told to.

 

[critter592]

I am going to do what I can and go as far as I can. Both of my sons were the patients, but since they are 6 and 4 and don't have ID, the lady at the window took mine. She then, without my permission, handed it over to the police officers..Who are you to hand my **** to the police? What gives you the right to have my information and give it to someone else? In this situation I should have only provided my LTCH, afaik my ID was not relevant considering no crime had occurred but I could be wrong.

Still the point is, if I give one of my children to the doctor, and some whacko made a call that I was beating my kid in the parking lot to the brink of death, that doctor can't just hand my kid to a social worker when NOTHING has happened. This isn't really an argument over OC, it's a question to why 7 officers felt it necessary to detain me and keep me away from my family while also displaying their inability to understand the law. And yes, I was TOLD that I have to GO HOME which is 6 miles away, to secure my weapon before I could return..who the **** makes that rule?

I wasn't ASKED if I would go home, I was told to.

So you have a lawyer now?

 

[cobber]

It is up to each dept. The only State law training we are required to have yearly is domestic violence. What you have is bad information passed around because there is no formal training for individual laws. It is up to each officer to study the IC code book. Some do a good job and some do not and some think they are getting good information from their training officer when in fact they are not.

Studying the code book only teaches you the black letter. That's why departments need to work with the prosecutor.
If by the code book, you mean the little paperback, it does not have the complete Indiana criminal code. It also contains (last I bothered to look) things like the Flag Desecration Law, which was long ago made moot by a SCOTUS decision.

The bare IC is largely gibberish passed by the legislature (please explain to me what the legislature was smoking when they wrote IC 35-50-2). Without understanding case law as well, one often really does not know the law at all. ESPECIALLY where the law intersects the federal and State constitutions.

Assuming officers do learn the code from the book, where on earth are they getting this no open carry business? It's not in the book, so clearly they're making it up. Problem, only the legislature can make laws, and only the courts can interpret them. The executive, of which the police are a part, execute the laws and that's it.