Did Law Change? Unreal incident at clinic...

[Hayseed_40]

Depending on how the call came in, I think the initial act of detention (unloading gun, pockets, etc) was allowable. Once they realized you were legit their good faith reason was done and it should have all stopped immediately. If it were me, I would have given you the stuff back and walked you back to your children smiling and explain the non-issue.

Each department will have a training LT or Capt. Find that person, schedule a meeting, and explain the laws and impications when one of his officers violate federal civil rights. One of the first things taught is the Federal civil rights laws that govern LEO.

And for you out of touch with reality - there are still more good cops than bad.

 

[b0r0b]

My take on how this situation SHOULD have went:

Call: There is a man with a gun at the clinic. It is in plain sight and he's talking about the mcdonalds shooting.

Police: Sir, can I see your LTCH?
Me: Here you go officer.
Police to staff: Are weapons allowed on the premises? There are no signs posted.
Staff: We do not have a sign but weapons are not allowed.
Police to me: You'll have to leave the building.

No frisking, no telling me that my LTCH is a "PERMIT", no shouting, no dragging me away in front of my kids, no publically embarassing me, no, no, no, no.

I get it, you get a call someone has a gun..for christs sake I'm sitting there holding my son, not pacing back and forth at the back of the office. There was no request of anything, it was "YOU, PUT YOUR HANDS UP". only after I was told to remove my sunglasses and grabbed around my junk was I asked anything about a LTCH. Then I was told to put my gun in the trunk...what use is it there? I was illegally searched and detained, really not much more to it in my opinion.

I really need the mwag call to also see if I was lied to in order to be illegally searched. MWAG=not a reason for 7 cops to respond..so either it was turned into a suspicion or it was one from the jump. TWO of the seven officers know me by name and I was still treated like the scum of the community.

 

[71silverbullet]

From the Mc Donalds reference I assume this happened in the Richmond area?

 

[45calibre]

thats horrible. i would seek an attorney if you dont have anything on them file a complaint.

 

[Hayseed_40]

My take on how this situation SHOULD have went:

Call: There is a man with a gun at the clinic. It is in plain sight and he's talking about the mcdonalds shooting.

Police: Sir, can I see your LTCH?
Me: Here you go officer.
Police to staff: Are weapons allowed on the premises? There are no signs posted.
Staff: We do not have a sign but weapons are not allowed.
Police to me: You'll have to leave the building.

No frisking, no telling me that my LTCH is a "PERMIT", no shouting, no dragging me away in front of my kids, no publically embarassing me, no, no, no, no.

I get it, you get a call someone has a gun..for christs sake I'm sitting there holding my son, not pacing back and forth at the back of the office. There was no request of anything, it was "YOU, PUT YOUR HANDS UP". only after I was told to remove my sunglasses and grabbed around my junk was I asked anything about a LTCH. Then I was told to put my gun in the trunk...what use is it there? I was illegally searched and detained, really not much more to it in my opinion.

I really need the mwag call to also see if I was lied to in order to be illegally searched. MWAG=not a reason for 7 cops to respond..so either it was turned into a suspicion or it was one from the jump. TWO of the seven officers know me by name and I was still treated like the scum of the community.

I think they crossed the line in many ways and this is not to say you reacted incorrectly...

With that being said your take is not totally reality. Somethings you are looking at from your eyes and after the incident.

I don't care if you are pacing holding a child or sitting still with a child - a hostage is a hostage.

You may be correct in that 7 was not needed - it should have been 8 or 9. A public clinic with a man and his gun holding a child.

Anyway, I would focus more on the length of detainment - especially after confirming you were to legit to quit.

 

[cobber]

does anybody know where we can get wallet size portions of the IC that state that its not a concealed carry but that it is a LTCH....that way we can just whip it out and be like "read the law!" i swear its getting kinda ridiculous

Yes, but the police took this up several notches. And a card isn't authoritative where the police are concerned unless some law enforcement body/agency issues it. Or the courts mandate it (lots of officers carry Miranda advisement cards in their shirt pockets).

 

[hondatech2k2]

Depending on how the call came in, I think the initial act of detention (unloading gun, pockets, etc) was allowable. Once they realized you were legit their good faith reason was done and it should have all stopped immediately. If it were me, I would have given you the stuff back and walked you back to your children smiling and explain the non-issue.

Each department will have a training LT or Capt. Find that person, schedule a meeting, and explain the laws and impications when one of his officers violate federal civil rights. One of the first things taught is the Federal civil rights laws that govern LEO.

And for you out of touch with reality - there are still more good cops than bad.

That is good to hear, like usual you only hear the things the bad ones do...never anything the good ones do. I personally have only had limited interactions with LEO as I do not know many around here. These guys that performed the way they did could have handled the situation very differently.

 

[cobber]

The question is, can I start this civil suit alone? I was detained against my will, pockets emptied and the cop grabbed my junk. Why are you treating law abiding citizens like criminals when 3 drug dealers just drove by with 46" rims and I work for a god damn living? The worst part? My father was a police officer for 22 years..I am practically extended family to these officers and it didn't mean ****. I am going to the college in the morning to change my major to auto mechanics..I don't want to be a part of this bull****.

Find a competent attorney to represent you so you don't leave out any important steps. The only hurry is to preserve the evidence. The police will probably tell you they don't have a record (not true) or that it has been destroyed (also not true, unless they deliberately did so). You could ask 'nicely' at the clinic and see if they made the call and what they told the police. Or it might have been somebody in the waiting room...

 

[jkfletcher]

That is a bunch of

All these stories about LEOs not knowing the law on CC vs OC and they don't even have to go read the law. All they have to do is go to ISP website and look at the handgun FAQ

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

In my opinion, the call should have went more like this:

Caller: There is a man with a gun at the clinic talking about the McDonald's shooting
Dispatch: Is he acting aggressive, or recklessly endangering anyone?
Caller: ....well, no... but he has a gun...
Dispatch: Is his firearm secured?
Caller: ...he has it on his side
Dispatch: In a holster?
Caller: Yes...
Dispatch: Do you have any information that would lead to the belief that he is not lawfully permitted to carry a firearm?
Caller: ... well, I don't know... but...
Dispatch: So what is the emergency?
Caller: ......

If the caller lied, and said you were being reckless, or "waiving around" your firearm... then I think the officer had the right to detain you... Is that a Terry stop? Maybe someone that understands law more than myself can give us more information on the legalities...

After providing your LTCH and claiming the firearm did not leave the holster, I fail to see why any issue persisted...

Either the caller made a false claim, and should be held responsible... or it sounds like the police crossed the line by disarming you and ordering you home, and they should be held responsible.

At either rate, the officers messed up... either the caller lied, dispatch misinformed the officers, or the officers screwed up REAL BAD...

 

[MrsGungho]

In my opinion, the call should have went more like this:

Caller: There is a man with a gun at the clinic talking about the McDonald's shooting

Dispatch: Is he acting aggressive, or recklessly endangering anyone?

Caller: ....well, no... but he has a gun...

Dispatch: Is his firearm secured?

Caller: ...he has it on his side

Dispatch: In a holster?

Caller: Yes...

Dispatch: Do you have any information that would lead to the belief that he is not lawfully permitted to carry a firearm?

Caller: ... well, I don't know... but...

Dispatch: So what is the emergency?

Caller: ......

then we need to train our dispatchers too. I have spoke to a few officers here in the Indianapolis area that have said they would prefer that dispatch would ask more questions so their time wouldn't be wasted checking out a legally carrying gun owner.

Been a party to a MWG call myself, but I guess I was the victim and didn't even know it until the police showed up

 

[Rookie]

Depending on how the call came in, I think the initial act of detention (unloading gun, pockets, etc) was allowable. Once they realized you were legit their good faith reason was done and it should have all stopped immediately. If it were me, I would have given you the stuff back and walked you back to your children smiling and explain the non-issue.

Each department will have a training LT or Capt. Find that person, schedule a meeting, and explain the laws and impications when one of his officers violate federal civil rights. One of the first things taught is the Federal civil rights laws that govern LEO.

And for you out of touch with reality - there are still more good cops than bad.

And I would have refused to take possession of my firearm after you seized it. The law seems pretty clear on this, and, if I'm expected to follow the law, I expect you to do the same.

Indiana Code 35-47-14

 

[Hayseed_40]

And I would have refused to take possession of my firearm after you seized it. The law seems pretty clear on this, and, if I'm expected to follow the law, I expect you to do the same.

Indiana Code 35-47-14

Not knowing all the details of incident - I am still not saying, if I were an LEO, that I would have seized the gun. However, if I seize a weapon under that IC, I can guarantee that it would be because I have probable cause to believe that IC was in effect. I would also have no problem turning it as evidence and submit the needed papers to the court. The issue on this IC is did they feel he was dangerous and was the 911 caller credible.

There are also some that would not have considered that a seizure of the gun in consideration of that IC.

I am lost on your chip on your shoulder about following the law

 

[Que]

Not knowing all the details of incident - I am still not saying, if I were an LEO, that I would have seized the gun. However, if I seize a weapon under that IC, I can guarantee that it would be because I have probable cause to believe that IC was in effect. I would also have no problem turning it as evidence and submit the needed papers to the court. The issue on this IC is did they feel he was dangerous and was the 911 caller credible.

There are also some that would not have considered that a seizure of the gun in consideration of that IC.

I am lost on your chip on your shoulder about following the law

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Under which part of the code would you act?

 

[melensdad]

I'm curious to learn about the false 911 call. Are the police citing the caller who stated the firearm was drawn?

I suppose the cop might have embellished a bit, given the rest of the horse**** that dribbled from his pie hole, but can he do that? . . .

Police are NOT required to tell the truth. Thinking long and hard about that fact, I agree with it.

While I advocate getting a lawyer in this this situation, generally I will side with the police officers. This situation was just too wrong in too many ways. If 7 officers responded in the same way, then this entire department needs to be sat down for an 8 hour class on Indiana Handgun Law.

I believe officers have the right to ask for your LTCH. I believe they have the duty to check out a MWAG call. I believe they should treat MWAG calls as a possible threat but that being said they need to use their brains. If the OP was sitting in a chair holding his small child then they should have observed that before dragging him away, they should have seen that he was not a threat, they should have acted accordingly. JMO

 

[Hayseed_40]

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Under which part of the code would you act?

Again, I cannot say I would act - we do not know all the facts.

With that said, the only one they could have acted on is if he fit the definition of dangerous and they would have used a warrantless seizure.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Police are NOT required to tell the truth. Thinking long and hard about that fact, I agree with it.

But why would he lie - it could be his own peril. That call would be the start of his probable cause. I am not arguing whether he lied or not - just does not seem smart on his part.

 

[Rookie]

Not knowing all the details of incident - I am still not saying, if I were an LEO, that I would have seized the gun. However, if I seize a weapon under that IC, I can guarantee that it would be because I have probable cause to believe that IC was in effect. I would also have no problem turning it as evidence and submit the needed papers to the court. The issue on this IC is did they feel he was dangerous and was the 911 caller credible.

There are also some that would not have considered that a seizure of the gun in consideration of that IC.

I am lost on your chip on your shoulder about following the law

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. I have no chip. Personally, I think it's great that people follow the laws. All I'm saying, is I expect the enforcers of the law to do the same. The point I'm making is officers can't seize my firearm for no reason. If they do so, they had better be prepared to explain their actions to a judge. If everyone forced this issue, I'm being officers would be a little more hesitant to seize someone's weapon without reason.

To clarify, I'm not saying the officers had no reason in this situation, I wasn't there. Regardless of right or wrong, I wouldn't accept my firearm back.

 

[jgreiner]

They need a lawsuit to educate them on the law.

 

[mtgasten]

In reality, the point is this: none of those officers would have taken a paper handed to them and taken the time to read it in the hopes of learning something new or being corrected.

Probably better to leave the burden of finding the fictitious law they're attempting to enforce on them during the encounter.
The correction will come later, when you point out their misguided failings to their supervisor or chief.




good idea, i'll remember that next time