Did Law Change? Unreal incident at clinic...

[jgreiner]

^^^ THIS ^^^


You need to take this to whomever is in charge. The officer's behavior was not only ridiculous, but it was also incredibly unprofessional. They need to Google the law. The officer may not agree with open carry, and that is his right to have that personal opinion. However, when he puts on a uniform and a badge, and begins asserting his opinions under the force of law, he is in gross violation of his duties as a sworn officer. I would be steamed!!!

I concur....1000%.

I was OCing lat night at Christo's...3 cops in there...I waved to one of em I know. He stopped by the table and said "I see you got your MP" (had asked him about gun choices some months back). He asked me how I liked it. That is how it should go.

 

[Hayseed_40]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. I have no chip. Sorry I misunderstood you.

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. ABSOLUTELY

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. makes sense

To clarify, I'm not saying the officers had no reason in this situation, I wasn't there. That would be my point. None of us were there and we do not know the totality of the circumstances.

Regardless of right or wrong, I wouldn't accept my firearm back. Disagree. Do not think it would be wrong to receive back your belongings. Would not want my gun to be entered into evidence - no matter how big the point I was trying to make.

 

[Rookie]

You agree we should follow the laws, the law is pretty clear on this, yet we shouldn't follow this law.

 

[deerslayer13]

i been reading htis for a while now. I have to say i have had similar happen. Only dif was the first time it was on my back porch and not only did i go to jail after showing my ltch they raided my house and seized all my firearms. Second time one of the officers that where there the first time and did not agree with it showed up.As they where ready to take me and my firearm down town he put a stop to it. I have to say that there are def way to many cops out there that do not know the law on the carring a handgun and def need a class or a mass email to them all that set them straight . just my op.

 

[Hayseed_40]

You agree we should follow the laws, the law is pretty clear on this, yet we shouldn't follow this law.

I would ask the prosecutor for the definition of seizure in that IC context.

 

[Scutter01]

I have to say that there are def way to many cops out there that do not know the law on the carring a handgun and def need a class or a mass email to them all that set them straight . just my op.

They're apparently not reading their e-mails. This sort of thing happens way too often in way too many precincts. In many cities, it's happening over and over even after we've been assured by the Chief that the problem has been rectified. The problem has nothing to do with training in the law and everything to do with displays of power and control. Ironically, they always seem to want to control others while at the same time clearly being unable to control themselves.

 

[Hayseed_40]

They're apparently not reading their e-mails. This sort of thing happens way too often in way too many precincts. In many cities, it's happening over and over even after we've been assured by the Chief that the problem has been rectified. The problem has nothing to do with training in the law and everything to do with displays of power and control. Ironically, they always seem to want to control others while at the same time clearly being unable to control themselves.

very broad statement
most depts can and do control their officers - give the guys some credit every once in a while

 

[Rookie]

If you take my firearm without my consent (which I will never give), it's either theft or seizure.

 

[GBuck]

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.

WOW... I did not expect THIS on INGO. Where did "hostage" come in to play?! Did I miss something? So according to you, anyone that sees me carrying a gun, while holding my niece assumes I have a hostage? If I am sitting in the doctor's office and police see me carrying with my niece next to me, they are going to assume I have a hostage?

 

[henktermaat]

just another isolated incident...

 

[youngda9]

WOW... I did not expect THIS on INGO. Where did "hostage" come in to play?! Did I miss something? So according to you, anyone that sees me carrying a gun, while holding my niece assumes I have a hostage? If I am sitting in the doctor's office and police see me carrying with my niece next to me, they are going to assume I have a hostage?

Is your sarcasm meter on the fritz? His last three statements were sarcasm. You may have missed the "to legit to quit" MC Hammer song reference in there as well.

 

[Hayseed_40]

WOW... I did not expect THIS on INGO. Where did "hostage" come in to play?! Did I miss something? So according to you, anyone that sees me carrying a gun, while holding my niece assumes I have a hostage? If I am sitting in the doctor's office and police see me carrying with my niece next to me, they are going to assume I have a hostage?

I am typing slow so try to comprehend.

His point was that he was not pacing (implying that sitting still made it safe and a dangerous person would not be sitting still with a child on his lap). To the police who ALLEDGEDLY had a 911 call about a MWG and they walk into that situation - a hostage is a hostage whether pacing or sitting. My point was to look at it from the LEO point. Not saying it is right. Just saying.

 

[Que]

very broad statement
most depts can and do control their officers - give the guys some credit every once in a while

This has been a very good thread. Maybe the first that didn't go down the toilet in a very short time.

I would ask that same level of "credit" you are asking for the "guys" be afforded to the citizens who choose to OC. In this case, if all the known details are factual, there was absolutely no reason to treat the OP in the fashion described. The "credit" is definitely a two-way street.

 

[Hayseed_40]

just another isolated incident...

Nothing to see here - just keep moving

 

[Hayseed_40]

This has been a very good thread. Maybe the first that didn't go down the toilet in a very short time.

I would ask that same level of "credit" you are asking for the "guys" be afforded to the citizens who choose to OC. In this case, if all the known details are factual, there was absolutely no reason to treat the OP in the fashion described. The "credit" is definitely a two-way street.

Is this towards me? Where have I not given due credit?

 

[GBuck]

I am typing slow so try to comprehend.

His point was that he was not pacing (implying that sitting still made it safe and a dangerous person would not be sitting still with a child on his lap). To the police who ALLEDGEDLY had a 911 call about a MWG and they walk into that situation - a hostage is a hostage whether pacing or sitting. My point was to look at it from the LEO point. Not saying it is right. Just saying.

And my point is, why would a LEO ASSUME that a mwg is holding a child he is sitting with hostage? That's not even a logical conclusion to make, unless there are other things added to the call. I have several LEO friends and I'd bet you all my money that NONE of them would walk in, see a man sitting with a child, and assume a hostage situation. What LEO point of view are you looking at it from? Chicago PD?

 

[Scutter01]

very broad statement
most depts can and do control their officers - give the guys some credit every once in a while

I do give credit to LEOs. Frequently and publicly, in fact. I get very little in return.

Which specific statement do you consider overly broad? The fact that it happens too often? Or that it happens multiple times in the same city? Or that it's about power and control and not law enforcement? Each of those statements is 100% true and factual and I can back them up with specifics if you require. You could probably argue the last one, but I submit that if it were about law enforcement, the OP would have been arrested instead of just yelled at.

 

[Rookie]

I am typing slow so try to comprehend.

His point was that he was not pacing (implying that sitting still made it safe and a dangerous person would not be sitting still with a child on his lap). To the police who ALLEDGEDLY had a 911 call about a MWG and they walk into that situation - a hostage is a hostage whether pacing or sitting. My point was to look at it from the LEO point. Not saying it is right. Just saying.

The 911 call would be very telling. If the caller made the complaint and made no attempt to stay on the line, what would that say?

 

[GBuck]

I am typing slow so try to comprehend.

His point was that he was not pacing (implying that sitting still made it safe and a dangerous person would not be sitting still with a child on his lap). To the police who ALLEDGEDLY had a 911 call about a MWG and they walk into that situation - a hostage is a hostage whether pacing or sitting. My point was to look at it from the LEO point. Not saying it is right. Just saying.

This still bugs me. A) I am not sure why you think you need to type slowly for me. B) Your theory is wack.

If your first assumption is that a MWG is not a law abiding citizen that has his daughter at a Dr. appointment, and rather the guy sitting there calmly is a guy taking hostages, perhaps YOU should not be allowed to carry a gun. Clearly, your judgement is flawed.

People on here think you were being sarcastic. On some posts, yes, I think you were. On the post I directly responded to, based on my initial reading and the reading of the above post, you were not being sarcastic.

 

[yotewacker]

I would have questioned the lady you talked to. She apparently lied when she told them you pull your weapon. I would have got her to admit it her mistake.