Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[thebishopp]

Ummm... People, read. The "time-bomb" was in an email to fellow officers. It is not in a report.

That is good to know. I would be disappointed if that kind of report writing was acceptable at this agency. The odds are then that statement may not even be admissible.

The thing still remains that a lot of the smear campaign doesn't matter. It all boils down to "was he removed from the zoo for carrying a handgun". This is why they are trying to say that he wasn't removed for that but instead for being a "disturbance".

The act of performing a lawful activity can not be made illegal by the "stretching" of another law. Oh you carry a gun openly but if you do you can be arrested for "disturbing" others who don't like to see it. Guess how many things that can be applied to.

If they aren't alleging he was yelling and screaming and waving his gun around (and then they would need witnesses other than just the officers who have a vested interest in CYA - essentially the officers have become "suspects" in an alleged civil violation of law) then the question is can the act of disagreeing with the officers' "opinion" on how he should carry his gun be considered a "disturbance". That should be interesting if the court rules in this manner. Can you imagine a ruling (even civil) that requires you to comply with all law enforcement "orders" whether lawful or otherwise?

It may prompt a statewide outrage like the recent case out of Vanderburgh that made it unlawful to resist illegal home entry by law enforcement (although the actual case itself wasn't about that).

 

[KG1]

There you go giving them ideas!


Next thing you know, "Even other members of INgunowners.com feel that it may be necessary to remove his children from the home."

You're probably right. Maybe I should edit that part out. Some people have a way of taking things to far.

My only point was that some people seem to be going to great lengths to portray him as something he's not by attempting to trash his character and call into question his mental well being for punitive measures.

Whether it be the City, The PD, Local Media or knee jerk anti-2A members of the general public.

 

[thebishopp]

What is interesting is that the majority of the City supporters seem to be real childish/immature. Without actually knowing Ben they call him unemployed, crazy, and even start accusing him of having a small penis.

Even if I haven't met Ben and was just basing my choice of who I would "back" based upon what seems to be the character of the individuals on each side, I would have to side with Ben.

 

[Hammerhead]

First off, those of us that know Ben know what kind of person he is. We know what kind of "activist" he is. A hit piece in the local biased media rag won't change that opinion.

We also know that Lonnie confronted Ben at the hospital before they got to know each other. From what I understand now, Lonnie and Ben are on friendly terms. If Lonnie wrote that Ben was a "ticking time bomb" immediately after their initial encounter, he probably had that opinion until time, interaction, and circumstances changed that. Lonnie is a big boy and can (and probably will) make himself and his feelings clear if he's put on the stand.

Thirdly, it's been stated repeatedly in the news reports of the zoo incident that Ben was disorderly. This is the CITY'S position because they're trying to save not only face, but monies. Of course they're not going to say that he was removed because of his firearm.

I'm not going to speak of the incident as I wasn't there but in my time knowing Ben and interacting with him, he's a lot cooler cat than the CITY wants him portrayed as.

People also keep putting up their opinions that Ben is somehow mentally deficient. IANAPsychologist, but I have some experience in the area (not going into that, don't ask and don't make assumptions) and my belief is that these people are either slandering him on purpose, projecting, or simply parroting something they've read in the hit pieces that the news media have put out. Of course the media accounts are going to portray Ben as "not normal" because they don't want legal activities seen as normal.

It doesn't matter if you, me, the newspaper, or the idiots commenting on the articles would carry into a zoo, carry an AK on our back on a bicycle, carry into a hospital or anywhere else. The TRUTH is that Ben was WELL WITHIN his legal rights every time.

Someone also made a point (I believe it was one of us in the comments of that last article) that BEN ISN'T THE DEFENDANT in the lawsuit. It's not a criminal proceeding against Ben.

Whomever wrote that ignorant hit piece posted above (in red) about how E'ville is going after Ben and his LTCH has no fracking clue what they're talking about. The city, the police, whomever can't just go to the ISP and say "This guy is acting legally and hurting our feelings, revoke his LTCH." Ben has NEVER been charged with ANYTHING criminally. (Note the period.) If you (the author of that stupid FB hit piece again posted above in red) were actually there, you would NOT have locked him up for anything, just as the responding officers didn't BECAUSE there wasn't anything to lock him up for, and that would only bolster his suit against the city. (Also, you need to be informed that it was NEVER the public that complained about him carrying at the zoo, it was the zoo employees. This is in the filed court complaint so I'm not revealing anything not public record.)

 

[KG1]

That is good to know. I would be disappointed if that kind of report writing was acceptable at this agency. The odds are then that statement may not even be admissible.

The thing still remains that a lot of the smear campaign doesn't matter. It all boils down to "was he removed from the zoo for carrying a handgun". This is why they are trying to say that he wasn't removed for that but instead for being a "disturbance".

The act of performing a lawful activity can not be made illegal by the "stretching" of another law. Oh you carry a gun openly but if you do you can be arrested for "disturbing" others who don't like to see it. Guess how many things that can be applied to.

If they aren't alleging he was yelling and screaming and waving his gun around (and then they would need witnesses other than just the officers who have a vested interest in CYA - essentially the officers have become "suspects" in an alleged civil violation of law) then the question is can the act of disagreeing with the officers' "opinion" on how he should carry his gun be considered a "disturbance". That should be interesting if the court rules in this manner. Can you imagine a ruling (even civil) that requires you to comply with all law enforcement "orders" whether lawful or otherwise?

It may prompt a statewide outrage like the recent case out of Vanderburgh that made it unlawful to resist illegal home entry by law enforcement (although the actual case itself wasn't about that).

I think most of us are pretty un-sure of exactly how the conversation went between EPD officers and T_F. It would all depend on how forceful the request was when they asked him to conceal.

The way it is being portrayed by them and members of the media was that it was a simple request to cover up and T_F just flipped his lid at the mere suggestion.

I would be inclined to believe that the officers were a little more insistent that he cover up than just a simple request and that's when T_F took issue with it.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Wow! Those comments are unbelievable.

 

[phatgemi]

I forsee a day when the laws will be changed and the ltch will become a ccw. OC will be done away with.....Cyrstal ball time....Indiana will no longer be silent on the method of carry! Too much publicity and too much attention.

 

[stephen87]

I can't bring myself to comment in the comment section of that article. After the first 50 posts, there was too much stupid to address.

 

[24Carat]

I forsee a day when the laws will be changed and the ltch will become a ccw. OC will be done away with.....Cyrstal ball time....Indiana will no longer be silent on the method of carry! Too much publicity and too much attention.

Too much freedom !

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I forsee a day when the laws will be changed and the ltch will become a ccw. OC will be done away with.....Cyrstal ball time....Indiana will no longer be silent on the method of carry! Too much publicity and too much attention.

Please name:

1. A proposed bill at any past year in the Indiana General Assembly that sought to do this.

2. A state similarly situated as Indiana where both open and concealed carry was restricted to only concealed carry.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Please name:

1. A proposed bill at any past year in the Indiana General Assembly that sought to do this. Cowardice Act of 2012: Truncated Rights for Those Afraid to Exercise Existing Rights and Believe No One Should

2. A state similarly situated as Indiana where both open and concealed carry was restricted to only concealed carry.

.

 

[Dead Duck]

I can't bring myself to comment in the comment section of that article. After the first 50 posts, there was too much stupid to address.

If you are referring to that Facebook article, I haven't seen it on Facebook.

Again - Who Wrote it? Where do I find it?

Link?

 

[phatgemi]

Please name:

1. A proposed bill at any past year in the Indiana General Assembly that sought to do this.

2. A state similarly situated as Indiana where both open and concealed carry was restricted to only concealed carry.

Of course I don't have a proposed bill because none has been entered. My point is that this case is garnering attention with state level lawmakers and I'm sure any others pending will only add fuel. Too much noise and I am afraid they will take action. It may not be right and it may not be proper but I fear it could come about. As more and more incidents happen, the sheeple, law enforcement, local and state governments will say enough is enough. Just outlaw oc and the problem is solved from their perspective. Will it happen? Maybe, Maybe not but people are watching. It will be quite the chess game. Just because it hasn't happened doesnt mean it wont!

 

[24Carat]

If you are referring to that Facebook article, I haven't seen it on Facebook.

Again - Who Wrote it? Where do I find it?

Link?

https://www.facebook.com/hardtargetfirearms

 

[Stschil]

Of course I don't have a proposed bill because none has been entered. My point is that this case is garnering attention with state level lawmakers and I'm sure any others pending will only add fuel. Too much noise and I am afraid they will take action. It may not be right and it may not be proper but I fear it could come about. As more and more incidents happen, the sheeple, law enforcement, local and state governments will say enough is enough. Just outlaw oc and the problem is solved from their perspective. Will it happen? Maybe, Maybe not but people are watching. It will be quite the chess game. Just because it hasn't happened doesnt mean it wont!

They've screamed "They'll Be Blood In The Streets" too many times and it's never happened. That's why the anti-gun movement has been losing. The lies they tell are constantly being proven wrong by real life.

 

[littletommy]

This was a Facebook post by a member from this board helping slander and defame TF on his Facebook Firearms Training site. It needs to be understood that he is a retired LEO that has gone to great lengths to help protect the officers that screwed up and escorted TF from the zoo.

"Is it legal to carry a shotgun or a rifle without a personal protection permit in the State of Indiana? The answer is yes. So, how many of you sling a double barrel shotgun over your shoulder and then go inside a bank to conduct business? Of course you don't because only some nut case would do something like that.

If you own an AR15 rifle you can walk up and down the street, carry it in your car, and you can go into any business that you would like with your AR rifle. But would you do that? Of course not! Only some crazy person would do that. Right?

Okay, that is my point. A man in Evansville decided that he wanted to make a statement about gun rights so he did everything he could to bring attention to himself concerning his carrying a pistol in the open. Again, this is legal if he has a permit, in which he does, but why would you want to carry your gun in the open? It just isn't a smart idea.

It makes people around him feel very uncomfortable and what is the point of doing that? He got kicked out of one of our parks because he was carrying in the handgun in the open and when citizens complained about his bizarre behavior the police were called and they asked him to please cover up his gun. This was a very reasonable request. Did he do that? No, because he wanted to make a statement. Well, when he got loud and angry and even assumed an aggressive posture with one of the police officers, he was asked to leave the park. Not because he was carrying his gun in the open, but for his disorderly conduct.

When I heard about this incident, I said those officers would regret not locking his butt up. But they had mercy on him and allowed him to leave only to have him go outside of the gated area and throw a fit while still carrying his gun in the open. It is damn good thing it was not me on that run because I would have locked his ass up so fast it would have made his head spin.

As I figured, this guy filed a lawsuit against the EPD and the City. I am hopeful that the City will not cave in on this and give this guy some money because what the officers did was perfectly legal and the actions of this citizen should have caused him to be arrested.

So what do you think this guy does now? He straps an AK47 onto his back and rides his bicycle around until he gets stopped by the police. The officers detained him, and handcuffed him for their protection and for the neighborhood's protection until they could sort out who this guy was and what the hell he was doing.

By the way, the police acted legally again. Our young man forced another confrontation with the police. His behavior keeps escalating and I am hear to tell you, he still not done. Here is what I am sure the EPD is working on as they should be.

They are contacting the Indiana State Police and they are working on getting this guy's permit pulled, and I think they should be taking him in for psych evaluation because this is just not normal behavior. With a little luck the psych evaluation will show that he is a half bubble off of center and then they can go to court and get all of his guns pulled, as they should.

I am sorry people, this is not about gun rights, this is about a crazy person with guns that needs to have his guns taken away from him before he hurts himself or someone else. I can guarantee he has alienated the vast majority of gun owners. These are the kind of gun "nuts" that people complained about and they should complain.

Trust me there is much more to this story than what appears in brief this post. This guy and his irrational behavior are what give the rest of us God fearing, law abiding, and rational gun owners a black eye.

If you looked out your window today and you saw a man riding a bicycle with an assault type rifle slung over his back what would you do? I will bet you would watch him like a hawk and you might even call the police. I would. I would also do one other thing. I would get my assault rifle while I watched him and waited for the police, but I would have the sense to not go outside and stand in the street while I waited for the police to arrive with my rifle in hand. That would just be plain stupid.

All it takes is a little common sense. This is a guy looking for attention and looking for his 15 minutes of fame. He better be careful because he might run into the wrong person that is just as crazy as he is and decides to take drastic actions against him.

I am all for the Second Amendment, but I am completely against people like this guy. He is trouble waiting to happen. The police have written reports and stated that he is a "ticking time bomb." I don't know about you, but that scares me. Something needs to be done and done very soon."

I like how they always say, "I'm all for the second amendment, BUT". Seems like every ill informed, anti gun cry baby has the same line. Judging by the guys user name, it would seem he's in the firearms business, which would be sorta funny, in an idiotic sorta way.

 

[stephen87]

If you are referring to that Facebook article, I haven't seen it on Facebook.

Again - Who Wrote it? Where do I find it?

Link?

Nope, the actual news article, but the Facebook link has now been opened for business.

 

[WebHobbit]

Nope, the actual news article, but the Facebook link has now been opened for business.

Only if you have an FB account. Otherwise it's closed. I HATE Facebook. So it's closed for me.

 

[Roadie]

If you looked out your window today and you saw a man riding a bicycle with an assault type rifle slung over his back what would you do?

Wave?

Sheesh, it's on his back, not being carried in "Ready" with his finger on the trigger..

 

[stephen87]

Only if you have an FB account. Otherwise it's closed. I HATE Facebook. So it's closed for me.

I'll post for yah if you want. With you being quoted of course. I use FB for friends from work and high school that I care to keep up with. It's actually how I found INGO originally.