Disarmed by cop during stop

[rw496]

Btw, I've handed you my DL and LTCH. I can promise I haven't handed you my firearm, so you're still standing at my car door (hope it isn't raining).

Ok, I'm back..I was busy putting all your theories into practice. Anyway, 1.)You sound very firm in this forum, but I doubt when I remove your handgun that you would resist. If you would that is specifically the type of problem the Indiana courts are talking about. The presence of a gun escalates any traffic stop. You have a greater degree of certainty than the officer does in that you know this is a police officer. The officer has no idea who you are only that you have a gun and when he removed it for his safety and to validate your permit you started to fight him. Good way for someone to get hurt. I'm pretty clear that I have the authority to do this; my department is clear, the prosecutors here are clear on the law, and you don't even agree with the Indiana Supreme Court. So, you will have your priciples to keep you warm sleeping on the concrete bunks at the county. Please don't say you'll call your lawyer either. I have heard that so many times it is annoying..It is the grown up version of saying I'm going to tell my mommy.

 

[rw496]

I hope none of these sounded too mean. You guys really are a lot of fun and I appreciate you keeping me on my toes.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

In Richardson the questioning was improper because of the specific wording of the seatbelt act and the lack of any other articulated suspicion. Even if the questioning was proper...any further questions of an investigative nature into whether or not he is carrying a handgun illegally should cease..I agree..at the production of a VALID permit..only a computer check verifies a valid permit. Still, they are talking about the intentionally narrowed authority after stopping solely for a seatbelt..i.e. Baldwin. They did not specifically mention the disarming so I assume they did not have a problem with that act..only how she got to that point. I did like how you added your own opinion to the end of the quote from the case to make it sound more credible..wrong, but more credible.

I have had my LTCH verified while I was still armed. Your argument is void. I could give a crap less what your department allows if its wrong, then its wrong.

 

[rw496]

Rookie, now I got you for fleeing. Wait...STOP POLICE..ok now I got you for fleeing.

 

[femurphy77]

Ok, I'm back..I was busy putting all your theories into practice. Anyway, 1.)You sound very firm in this forum, but I doubt when I remove your handgun that you would resist. If you would that is specifically the type of problem the Indiana courts are talking about. The presence of a gun escalates any traffic stop. You have a greater degree of certainty than the officer does in that you know this is a police officer. The officer has no idea who you are only that you have a gun and when he removed it for his safety and to validate your permit you started to fight him. Good way for someone to get hurt. I'm pretty clear that I have the authority to do this; my department is clear, the prosecutors here are clear on the law, and you don't even agree with the Indiana Supreme Court. So, you will have your priciples to keep you warm sleeping on the concrete bunks at the county. Please don't say you'll call your lawyer either. I have heard that so many times it is annoying..It is the grown up version of saying I'm going to tell my mommy.

That's gotta be worth somethin'.

 

[rw496]

I have had my LTCH verified while I was still armed. Your argument is void. I could give a crap less what your department allows if its wrong, then its wrong.

Well, you are probably a nice guy who is not in the least amount threatening in nature. Nonetheless, the Indiana Supreme Court gives the police that authority if they choose to exercise it.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ok, I'm back..I was busy putting all your theories into practice. Anyway, 1.)You sound very firm in this forum, but I doubt when I remove your handgun that you would resist. If you would that is specifically the type of problem the Indiana courts are talking about. The presence of a gun escalates any traffic stop. You have a greater degree of certainty than the officer does in that you know this is a police officer. The officer has no idea who you are only that you have a gun and when he removed it for his safety and to validate your permit you started to fight him. Good way for someone to get hurt. I'm pretty clear that I have the authority to do this; my department is clear, the prosecutors here are clear on the law, and you don't even agree with the Indiana Supreme Court. So, you will have your priciples to keep you warm sleeping on the concrete bunks at the county. Please don't say you'll call your lawyer either. I have heard that so many times it is annoying..It is the grown up version of saying I'm going to tell my mommy.

He never said he would fight you, he said he didn't consent but wouldn't resist. And its "principles" to keep you warm. And they keep me warmer than bowing down to a jackboot would

 

[mrortega]

Also, if you are picking up women and have to ask them if they are cops to keep yourself out of jail I would advise trying a different method...

You guys have to try to pick up women? I thought we all had the problem of calling the law to get them away from the house. I get sick of them ringing the door bell constantly and crying out my name.

 

[rw496]

He never said he would fight you, he said he didn't consent but wouldn't resist. And its "principles" to keep you warm. And they keep me warmer than bowing down to a jackboot would

Thanks for pointing out that I missed an 'N' while typing. Name calling really is the last resort of a person with no intellectual ground to stand on. I take back the nice guy thing I said about you.

 

[billybob44]

Late Welcome to INGO..

I hope none of these sounded too mean. You guys really are a lot of fun and I appreciate you keeping me on my toes.

From your Join Date, I see you are relatively new to INGO.
"sounded too mean"?? No, I think that most of us like to see/hear the LEO's side of the story also!
I THANK YOU SIR for doing a job that most of us would not want to do.
With that said, you need to also realize that MOST of us are law abiding/God fearing Citizens that value our Freedoms+Our Rights probably more than most people.
Again-WELCOME to INGO, and I thank you for your side of this topic, and your service to Us Citizens..(Tax Payers)....HA, I KNOW you would like THAT part..Bill.

 

[mrortega]

I am confused by this statement... How does having a gun make them a threat again? Are you saying they don't want to walk up on people with guns? Are you distinguishing them from actual dangerous people and I just didn't read it right?

How does a PO know a good guy from a bad as he's walking up?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Well, you are probably a nice guy who is not in the least amount threatening in nature. Nonetheless, the Indiana Supreme Court gives the police that authority if they choose to exercise it.

Two things I don't agree with:

1. We have posted IC and case law that supports our view, could you do the same?

2. Many cops I have seen don't know how to operate a Glock properly and therefore many are not capable of safely handling a weapon they are not familiar with. A gun is MUCH safer still in the holster. Cops over react to traffic stops and their perceived danger from licensed gun carriers is a result.

*the above does not include ALL cops as some I know are very capable*

 

[rw496]

With that said, you need to also realize that MOST of us are law abiding/God fearing Citizens that value our Freedoms+Our Rights probably more than most people.
Again-WELCOME to INGO, and I thank you for your side of this topic, and your service to Us Citizens..(Tax Payers)....HA, I KNOW you would like THAT part..Bill.

I do. Great site full of knowledgeable people with a lot of different points of view.

 

[Effingham]

How does the officer know that the pink piece of paper an individual has just handed him is A) valid and B) belongs to that individual?

Well, then, blame the state for just issuing a little pink piece of paper instead of asking us for a photo and getting a nice, long-lasting, laminated piece of plastic.

It's not my fault, and it's not my problem.

 

[Mrs_Frost]

Ummm, did your daddy maybe ask you how well you knew this dude before you got married? Just curious.

Haha. Well my dad and Ben certainly had their disagreements before we got married.

 

[rw496]

Two things I don't agree with:

1. We have posted IC and case law that supports our view, could you do the same?

2. Many cops I have seen don't know how to operate a Glock properly and therefore many are not capable of safely handling a weapon they are not familiar with. A gun is MUCH safer still in the holster. Cops over react to traffic stops and their perceived danger from licensed gun carriers is a result.

*the above does not include ALL cops as some I know are very capable*

1. I thought I did. As much as anyone can interpret these things.
2. You are absolutely right about that...seen it. Not all licensed carriers are the most responsible either..how do you decide? Don't know. I always urge younger officers to try and have some common sense..a tall order sometimes.

 

[mrortega]

You could never live with yourself if he froze to death. How about leaning out your window to grab the radio transmitter and ask dispatch to get their "SMAC" on....you know, Start Me Another Car. He'll need one to thaw him out.

I'm sure your concern for officer safety and comfort is earning you some unheard of golden donut award from the FOP.

 

[rugertoter]

I've read several accounts of cops disarming citizens during a traffic stop in Indiana. Can someone quote anywhere in IC or any court interpretation where this is legal? If not what consequences would I suffer if I respectfully decline to do so?

Well, I would just play along to get along. As long as I got my weapon and ammo back, thats all I would worry about. (Especially if I had been caught speeding or something)

 

[mrortega]

Ok, I'm back..I was busy putting all your theories into practice. Anyway, 1.)You sound very firm in this forum, but I doubt when I remove your handgun that you would resist. If you would that is specifically the type of problem the Indiana courts are talking about. The presence of a gun escalates any traffic stop. You have a greater degree of certainty than the officer does in that you know this is a police officer. The officer has no idea who you are only that you have a gun and when he removed it for his safety and to validate your permit you started to fight him. Good way for someone to get hurt. I'm pretty clear that I have the authority to do this; my department is clear, the prosecutors here are clear on the law, and you don't even agree with the Indiana Supreme Court. So, you will have your priciples to keep you warm sleeping on the concrete bunks at the county. Please don't say you'll call your lawyer either. I have heard that so many times it is annoying..It is the grown up version of saying I'm going to tell my mommy.

So far I've seen some state, with IC backing, that you can't ask for the weapon after you've confirmed the LTCH is valid and carried by the person whose name is on it. I've also seen just as firm opinions, with court rulings, that a PO can disarm a citizen if he is concerned for his safety, a very subjective call. So where does the 4th amendment come into play? LEOs, like anyone else, are all individuals with different levels of fear or paranoia. Does Officer Chicken Little view the stop the same way that Officer Bruce Lee does? Why does Officer Little have the right to disarm someone because of his paranoia? Also, what good does it do to take someone's pistol when they could step out of the vehicle and stick a 6" blade into his gut in just as little time as trying to shoot him? Why then can't Officer Little spread the potential perp out and pat him down for knives or search a ladies purse for the same? I'm starting to conclude that whatever I do could head to a trip to the pokey for a date with Bubba then a court date for some new case law. Hell, I think I'll spend the rest of the day in my closet where it's all safe and snuggly!

 

[Rookie]

Please don't think I would ever resist, I wouldn't. I also wouldn't give you my gun, that could easily confused with giving up my rights. You can feel free to take it, slap the cuffs on if it makes you feel safer.

So, now you have my gun, which you have seized. May I have a receipt? I'm not taking possession until a judge decides if your reasoning was lawful.

Oh, sorry about the running thing. You were frozen and I was going for help?