Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[phatgemi]

We mention "laws" and "lawful". My fear is that all this will get politicians involved and they just might change the playing field. This one is getting attention at the state level. We may not like the outcome!!

 

[KG1]

I read all the comments on that article. The fail, it burns.

I would go on there and comment, but I had better not. Aside from the fact that I don't want to argue with the idiots because I'll be drug down to their level and beaten with experience, I would probably be branded a "nutjob," a "whacko," or worse. Plus, logic and reason don't matter to any of those people. I don't care to p*** into the wind, I'll just get wet.

Knowing Frosty like I do, I'm sure he's laughing his tail off at the comments. I also know he's going to ignore the uneducated masses that have no frackin' clue what they're talking about.

No worries.

There does indeed seem to be a lot of ignorant slanderous type of venom being spewed in regards to T_F's character and mental well being based on the slanted hit job in the article that portrays him as a "ticking time bomb".

 

[24Carat]

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."

 

[Southwind]

I wonder why so little notice is being made of the police actions re the armed bicycle. Based on what I can glean from the published article:

The police were monitoring his postings here,

They knew he planned to take an AK-47 on his bike and they knew why, i.e., they knew he wasn't intending to shoot up E'ville.

They sent out a couple of scout cars to find him.

They then supposedly received a MWAG call. So they went out in force to investigate, even though they already knew that no crime was involved. (Monitoring someone's posts cuts both ways.)

When they found him, they probably should have noticed that there was no AK-47 "assault rifle", yet they handcuffed him and searched him.

IANAL but it sounds to me like this would make a better lawsuit than the first one.

 

[JetGirl]

They sent out a couple of scout cars to find him.

They then supposedly received a MWAG call.

Kinda makes you wonder which officer called in the MWAG sighting...eh?

 

[KG1]

Wow...I don't even know what to say about that f/b post or even where to begin. That person is calling for a psych evaluation and subsequent revocation of not only his legal right to carry but also the outright confiscation of firearms all based on his own opinions about legally excercising a right without lack of common sense? and yet he claims to be a 2A supporter?

 

[Caleb]

Kinda makes you wonder which officer called in the MWAG sighting...eh?

Or maybe there wasn't a MWAG, they use that excuse to harness him

 

[JetGirl]

Or maybe there wasn't a MWAG, they use that excuse to harness him

That's kind of the point I was getting at...in a roundabout smart alecky way...

 

[thebishopp]

I can't imagine Sgt. Rahm saying that in an email. That article seems like the poorest written piece of bs that I've ever read. After reading frosty's posts around here, he seems like someone who's no where close to a ticking time bomb. Frosty, I know you're reading this thread, and I'm pretty sure you said you don't drink, so I owe you lunch or something. Lol

I just wonder where the "ticking time bomb" came into play... when I was taught to write reports we were told to leave out "diagnosis" or "emotional" based statements and assumptions. Mainly because a good lawyer could make us look like idiots on the stand. You wrote the facts "just the facts ma'am" (as Joe Friday would say).

In the case of the "ticking time bomb" comment. That just opens up a whole word of humiliation for the officer on the stand should a good lawyer decide to go after the officer who put that down in a report.

I can imagine the "got a psychology degree" and "how many ticking time bombs have you seen" questions and what would result in pretty successful attempt to make the officer look like he is prone to emotional, uneducated, exaggerations in his reports. It would question his credibility. Especially with the current level of distrust.

 

[KG1]

I just wonder where the "ticking time bomb" came into play... when I was taught to write reports we were told to leave out "diagnosis" or "emotional" based statements and assumptions. Mainly because a good lawyer could make us look like idiots on the stand. You wrote the facts "just the facts ma'am" (as Joe Friday would say).

In the case of the "ticking time bomb" comment. That just opens up a whole word of humiliation for the officer on the stand should a good lawyer decide to go after the officer who put that down in a report.

I can imagine the "got a psychology degree" and "how many ticking time bombs have you seen" questions and what would result in pretty successful attempt to make the officer look like he is prone to emotional, uneducated, exaggerations in his reports. It would question his credibility. Especially with the current level of distrust.

^Exactly^ All an attorney would have to do is ask the officer to explain exactly what he meant when he referred to his client as a "ticking time bomb" then pick him apart with a further line of questioning based on his response. Was this just his opinion? gut feeling? or was it based on an extensive psychological professional evaluation?

 

[hopper68]

Reality check.

Most likely there will be only sheeple on the jury - INGO members will be disqualified.

The defense will use the facts and opinions already stated in the paper and every last one of his post to paint TF as an extremist nut job who is acting within the law but with no common sense.

Not every INGO member agrees with TF's actions 100%.

That means even thogh most (my opinion only) of us INGO members think TF should win does not mean a slam dunk.

The "Madison 5" settled out of court for a relatively low sum of money, so don't count on millions or even a million.



On a side note: It would be interesting if we could track how many new members we get that first heard about INGO in an article related to this case.

 

[Dead Duck]

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."

So - Who wrote this?

 

[littletommy]

I thought the article said the "ticking time bomb" comment was in an e-mail to his buddies, not a police report. I'd have to read it again to be sure.

 

[Stschil]

I just wonder where the "ticking time bomb" came into play... when I was taught to write reports we were told to leave out "diagnosis" or "emotional" based statements and assumptions. Mainly because a good lawyer could make us look like idiots on the stand. You wrote the facts "just the facts ma'am" (as Joe Friday would say).

In the case of the "ticking time bomb" comment. That just opens up a whole word of humiliation for the officer on the stand should a good lawyer decide to go after the officer who put that down in a report.

I can imagine the "got a psychology degree" and "how many ticking time bombs have you seen" questions and what would result in pretty successful attempt to make the officer look like he is prone to emotional, uneducated, exaggerations in his reports. It would question his credibility. Especially with the current level of distrust.

^Exactly^ All an attorney would have to do is ask the officer to explain exactly what he meant when he referred to his client as a "ticking time bomb" then pick him apart with a further line of questioning based on his response. Was this just his opinion? gut feeling? or was it based on an extensive psychological professional evaluation?

Agreed. In addition, at some point after the alledged e-mail, Irahm took T_F on a ride along. That too, is well documented.

I'm NOT throwing Irahm under the bus. In fact I have great respect for him and doubt his e-mail is being reported in context. Just saying that even if it was, the ride along kinda makes mentioning it a moot point.

 

[GBuck]

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

 

[cobber]

^Exactly^ All an attorney would have to do is ask the officer to explain exactly what he meant when he referred to his client as a "ticking time bomb" then pick him apart with a further line of questioning based on his response. Was this just his opinion? gut feeling? or was it based on an extensive psychological professional evaluation?

You wouldn't ask him what he meant, which would allow him to explain and justify his opinion. You would ask where he got his degree in psychiatry such that he knows this or that person is a 'ticking time bomb', and is entitled to make such diagnoses. The officer's own postings on the Internet will be open to scrutiny as well, and may yield some interesting biases.

 

[cobber]

Just posting articles at the behest of the local gubmint. The way I read it, sounds like there may have been some evidence disclosure in spite of the statement that they "aren't allowed to comment on active cases"

And what's with this motion to dismiss? I thought we were all entitled to redress? Or is that just for certain classes of people?

You're entitled to access to the courts, but if a judge decides it is frivilous, or that there is no material issue of fact such that you are entitled to relief, or indeed that there is no relief available in the case (or you're not entitled), the court may dismiss. That's what happened to that chap in Tennessee with the Draco.

Enough people here complain about frivilous tort suits that the judge should throw out, that the idea of a summary judgment should hardly seem so strange.

 

[Stschil]

Reality check.

Most likely there will be only sheeple on the jury - INGO members will be disqualified.

The defense will use the facts and opinions already stated in the paper and every last one of his post to paint TF as an extremist nut job who is acting within the law but with no common sense.

Not every INGO member agrees with TF's actions 100%.

That means even thogh most (my opinion only) of us INGO members think TF should win does not mean a slam dunk.

The "Madison 5" settled out of court for a relatively low sum of money, so don't count on millions or even a million.



On a side note: It would be interesting if we could track how many new members we get that first heard about INGO in an article related to this case.

And I expect Plantif's Counsel will argue that the opinions in the news articles and the actions of the city representatives paint a picture of a vindictive government purosely operating outside the law, specifically targeting Frosty in attempt to force him into doing something they can lay a criminal charge against him for.

 

[KG1]

Agreed. In addition, at some point after the alledged e-mail, Irahm took T_F on a ride along. That too, is well documented.

I'm NOT throwing Irahm under the bus. In fact I have great respect for him and doubt his e-mail is being reported in context. Just saying that even if it was, the ride along kinda makes mentioning it a moot point.

I tend to agree with this. If Irahm actually felt that T_F was a "Ticking time bomb" as he may have stated regarding a prior incident for whatever reason then why on earth would he agree to take him on a ride along.

My personal opinion is that it may have been an unfortunate term to use and a bit of a rush to judgement on the part of Irahm without really knowing much about him at the time.

I also think that alot (not necessarily here on Ingo) of other people are doing the same thing and trying to label T_F as an unstable person that needs to be evaluated and have his rights and property subject to revocation and confiscation.

He's got a wife and two small children now if I remember correctly and I would hate for all of the knee jerkers to try and whip this into a frenzy. What's next? Sic' DCS on him?

 

[GBuck]

He's got a wife and two small children now if I remember correctly and I would hate for all of the knee jerkers to try and whip this into a frenzy. What's next? Sic' DCS on him?

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."