I Had a Discussion With a Friend...

[Chefcook]

This is a nice conversation, but if you really read the OP I don't necessarily think his mind is really on carry issues. I can not blame his thought however, I have been noticing lately how there are more and more female IMPD officers that are way hot LOL. Just sayin...

 

[Somemedic]

This is a nice conversation, but if you really read the OP I don't necessarily think his mind is really on carry issues. I can not blame his thought however, I have been noticing lately how there are more and more female IMPD officers that are way hot LOL. Just sayin...

YES OBVIOUSLY YOU DONT KNOW.
She is quite married and I was more involved with her sister, but she is a very unique individual with some great insight that we all can learn from but her moreover if approached properly could learn from us and in turn pass that on to her coworkers. THAT remains the whole reason for me to contact her in the first place. Please dont question my motives when you dont know the details. I dont see this ff going out with LEO anytime soon.

The point was to open a dialogue between her and myself to pass on some wisdom gained here. Shes in the position to pass that on to people who you may run into during a stop... and since I have a new police academy in my town I would be able to speak to instructors who would also pass information on to new recruits some of our concerns. I am looking for insights from ISP though since it seems they are the benchmark for training in Indiana.

She did state LTCH owners were usually very cool to her during stops and actually equated to a lower percentage of people she stopped. Most declared their weapons right off as well. When she didnt feel comfortable she held onto the gun and she ran the numbers. However it wasnt always the case. I would have to call her into question for that since I dont believe the 35-47-14 allows for it...

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
etc etc

Wow. Let me weigh in here as 11 years road patrol as a police officer. If someone gives me a reason to hold onto a weapon during a stop, then I do it. I would say that 90% of the time, if not more, the weapon stays with the owner.
I can honestly say that the majority of the LTCH people I meet are good to deal with and no problems occur. I want these people carrying and appreciate they do, especially the one day I may be needing that help and my nearest uniform is 5-10 minutes away.
That being said, LTCH holders aren't always the finest upstanding individuals. There is a minority, just as in any group of people (police, doctors, preachers... you get my point) that I have seen demonstrate the need to be disarmed.

I would say a large portion of the folks on here wouldnt have a problem with this IF you and your brethren asked for the weapon and gave the driver the option to refuse and not reasonably think there would be dire repercussions to follow (arrest or imprisonment). I could see a whole other attitude going on here but I believe we both know the perception about refusing and it is not the case though. Failure to comply with the officer is unwise in most cases. Its unfortunate too. Where Kutnupe14 stated he would call for an additional officer to babysit a traffic stop it would seem justifiable to put more police officers in a budget and on the road, creating more OT and/or more jobs. All in the name of public AND officer safety. I think his scenario would work for us as gun owners who wish to maintain possession of our weapons during a stop and you as LEOs who should expect a safe and trouble free interaction with the public who carries a weapon.

 

[pig957]

I guess I see no real reason to run the numbers. Yes lawful gunowners may have inadvertently bought a stolen gun, but lets be practical. I am sure that running those numbers took resources away from other law enforcement activities. I have a friend that used to always run numbers. Heck used to even run them for me if I bought a used gun. His chief told told the department to stop doing this unless there was a valid reason.

In the 1990's, I stopped a vehicle for a headlight out. She had a valid DL, LTC and a .38 spl. Upon running the #s, the gun came back stolen. She won a free trip to the Marion Hilton.

 

[Mr. Habib]

In the 1990's, I stopped a vehicle for a headlight out. She had a valid DL, LTC and a .38 spl. Upon running the #s, the gun came back stolen. She won a free trip to the Marion Hilton.

What was the PC for searching her property and running the SN? Did you also run the VIN from her vehicle to see if it was stolen? What about any other possessions, were any other SNs checked? If so, what was the PC for that? If not, why not?

 

[VERT]

In the 1990's, I stopped a vehicle for a headlight out. She had a valid DL, LTC and a .38 spl. Upon running the #s, the gun came back stolen. She won a free trip to the Marion Hilton.

Why did she get arrested? Did she actually steal the gun or was it innocently purchased from a gun shop, show or from a private individual? I suspect there is more to this story.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What was the PC for searching her property and running the SN? Did you also run the VIN from her vehicle to see if it was stolen? What about any other possessions, were any other SNs checked? If so, what was the PC for that? If not, why not?

PC is only needed if the weapon is seized. He makes no reference to if she vouluntarily passed along the firearm of not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why did she get arrested? Did she actually steal the gun or was it innocently purchased from a gun shop, show or from a private individual? I suspect there is more to this story.

She may very well have been innocent, but she is still in possession of stolen property. It is on that person to make sure it's NOT.

 

[eldirector]

She may very well have been innocent, but she is still in possession of stolen property. It is on that person to make sure it's NOT.

Uh, no? Just because you have something that was once stolen, does not mean you are guilty of anything.

Indiana Code 35-43-4

IC 35-43-4-2
Theft; receiving stolen property
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.

If you KNOW it is stolen, then it is a felony. If you had no idea it was stolen, then it is not. Especially if you want to give it back after learning it was stolen:

(d) A person who receives, retains, or disposes of personal property that has been the subject of theft with the purpose of restoring it to the owner, does not commit a crime under this chapter.

I can only assume pig957 had probable cause to conduct the search, and he did indeed find out the driver KNEW it was stolen. There is more to this story, right?

 

[thebishopp]

In the 1990's, I stopped a vehicle for a headlight out. She had a valid DL, LTC and a .38 spl. Upon running the #s, the gun came back stolen. She won a free trip to the Marion Hilton.

Based on this rather limited statement it would appear you made the assumption that because she was in possession of stolen property you arrested and took her to jail.

Based on what was posted regarding the applicable Indiana statute regarding that charge:

Indiana Code 35-43-4
Quote:
IC 35-43-4-2
Theft; receiving stolen property
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.
If you KNOW it is stolen, then it is a felony. If you had no idea it was stolen, then it is not. Especially if you want to give it back after learning it was stolen:

Quote:
(d) A person who receives, retains, or disposes of personal property that has been the subject of theft with the purpose of restoring it to the owner, does not commit a crime under this chapter.

------------------------

I am hoping there is much more to your story and that there was some type of actual "investigation" which lead you to conclude that she knowingly had possession of stolen property.

If not then I would say that was a pretty good example of shoddy police work you just gave us. I have to say I was never found of the old "hook and book" whether someone was innocent or not attitude some of my fellow officers had.

 

[VERT]

She may very well have been innocent, but she is still in possession of stolen property. It is on that person to make sure it's NOT.

Not being smart with this question. How? Not like I can just walk into the police station and ask them to run a gun for me. I used to have a couple very close friends who are LEO run numbers on used guns for me. Like I have mentioned before their departments no longer allow this. Officer must have probable cause to request.

 

[TMU317]

There are enough videos of some pretty crazy things out there that contradicts your stance. Fortunately in those cases some one was "wasting their time" and got it on tape.

This goes for both civilian as well as law enforcement encounters.

It's much like insurance. Waste of money till you need it. Come to think of it, it's like owning firearms as well. You don't really need a gun until you NEED a gun.

I understand your point. However, in my opinion, it would be a waste of time for me to record an encounter which I am not part of and have no interest in. Insurance is a waste of money until I need it. I don't really need a gun until I need it. I was not saying that you might not end up recording something interesting, rather I do not think the chances are great enough to make it worth MY time.

 

[Chefcook]

YES OBVIOUSLY YOU DONT KNOW.
She is quite married and I was more involved with her sister, but she is a very unique individual with some great insight that we all can learn from but her moreover if approached properly could learn from us and in turn pass that on to her coworkers. THAT remains the whole reason for me to contact her in the first place. Please dont question my motives when you dont know the details. I dont see this ff going out with LEO anytime soon.

The point was to open a dialogue between her and myself to pass on some wisdom gained here. Shes in the position to pass that on to people who you may run into during a stop... and since I have a new police academy in my town I would be able to speak to instructors who would also pass information on to new recruits some of our concerns. I am looking for insights from ISP though since it seems they are the benchmark for training in Indiana.

She did state LTCH owners were usually very cool to her during stops and actually equated to a lower percentage of people she stopped. Most declared their weapons right off as well. When she didnt feel comfortable she held onto the gun and she ran the numbers. However it wasnt always the case. I would have to call her into question for that since I dont believe the 35-47-14 allows for it...

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
etc etc



I would say a large portion of the folks on here wouldnt have a problem with this IF you and your brethren asked for the weapon and gave the driver the option to refuse and not reasonably think there would be dire repercussions to follow (arrest or imprisonment). I could see a whole other attitude going on here but I believe we both know the perception about refusing and it is not the case though. Failure to comply with the officer is unwise in most cases. Its unfortunate too. Where Kutnupe14 stated he would call for an additional officer to babysit a traffic stop it would seem justifiable to put more police officers in a budget and on the road, creating more OT and/or more jobs. All in the name of public AND officer safety. I think his scenario would work for us as gun owners who wish to maintain possession of our weapons during a stop and you as LEOs who should expect a safe and trouble free interaction with the public who carries a weapon.

Awww come on dude I was just pokin fun no reason to get all hissy fitted...

 

[thebishopp]

I understand your point. However, in my opinion, it would be a waste of time for me to record an encounter which I am not part of and have no interest in. Insurance is a waste of money until I need it. I don't really need a gun until I need it. I was not saying that you might not end up recording something interesting, rather I do not think the chances are great enough to make it worth MY time.

I see your point now and agree. Unless I had reason to think something interesting was going to happen I would not stop to film either. I was originally referring to another poster commenting about having a friend stop and video.

 

[cobber]

She may very well have been innocent, but she is still in possession of stolen property. It is on that person to make sure it's NOT.

No. There is still a knowing or intentional requirement with respect to possession of stolen property. Mere possession is not prima facie evidence of knowledge that the property is stolen.


And the burden of proof is NEVER on the defendant in these cases.


Beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning no other possible explanation.


If you mean we should always check to see that all of our possessions are not stolen, well, do you run the serial number on every possession you buy to ensure it's not stolen? And do PDs perform this service for citizens?
You're talking responsibility, not criminal jeopardy.

The citizen waits while LEO back-up is coming. Time is noon. Citizen's friend in a pick-up sees citizen friend in a traffic stop, and pulls over and stops ahead of citizen and LEO. Potential "back-up" for citizen. Describe "rights" of citizen and friend to interact as friends.

How long is the LEO detaining citizen to await backup? How about just do the stop, don't mess with legal LTCH holders, and get on with the day? If there is no reason to believe the person is armed AND dangerous. If officers are going to routinely assume LTCH holders are dangerous, just because they might have guns in the vehicle, we're going to need a seminar on Terry v. Ohio.

My four cents' worth.

 

[STEEL CORE]

Funny, last summer I got a flat tire in my (Don't laugh its paid for) Saturn Vue, on I-70, near Emmerson, headed home to Fishers. I got out and lifted up my rear mat to get to my spare and jack, I had my Glock-22 (Trunk gun) in its factory box sitting on top of the spare inside the trunk space, and just as I removed it and turned to go around the car stood Mr. Young Professional Indiana State Trooper, yup with me standing there with a goofy grin on my face and a clearly marked black plastic case marked GLOCK in my hand.................I said "HI", he said "Flat tire eh"?!?, I sid "Yup", just throwing a few things from the trunk into the back seat before I change it. He never said a word and even helped me with tightening a few lug nuts as I lowered and removed the jack as I was finishing the not to swift Tony Stewart one man pit stop.

And I hope I never again in a case or no case stand before an ISP trooper with a Glock in my hand!

Seriously, I care for and respect every single one of them, well except for the Major that gave me the ticket on 465 WB five years ago for keeping up with rush hour traffic.....but thats another story!

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. There is still a knowing or intentional requirement with respect to possession of stolen property. Mere possession is not prima facie evidence of knowledge that the property is stolen.


And the burden of proof is NEVER on the defendant in these cases.

I am not talking about litigation. You may certainly be proven innocent in court. However, being found with stolen property is more than enough to ensure "3 hots and cot."
That whole "I don't know where it comes from" business isn't a defense.

 

[jeremy]

Funny, last summer I got a flat tire in my (Don't laugh its paid for) Saturn Vue, on I-70, near Emmerson, headed home to Fishers. I got out and lifted up my rear mat to get to my spare and jack, I had my Glock-22 (Trunk gun) in its factory box sitting on top of the spare inside the trunk space, and just as I removed it and turned to go around the car stood Mr. Young Professional Indiana State Trooper, yup with me standing there with a goofy grin on my face and a clearly marked black plastic case marked GLOCK in my hand.................I said "HI", he said "Flat tire eh"?!?, I sid "Yup", just throwing a few things from the trunk into the back seat before I change it. He never said a word and even helped me with tightening a few lug nuts as I lowered and removed the jack as I was finishing the not to swift Tony Stewart one man pit stop.

And I hope I never again in a case or no case stand before an ISP trooper with a Glock in my hand!

Seriously, I care for and respect every single one of them, well except for the Major that gave me the ticket on 465 WB five years ago for keeping up with rush hour traffic.....but thats another story!

Ah, he was not concerned about his safety. He seen it was a Glock and knew it was more likely to explode in your hand and injure you than him...

 

[blamecharles]

I am not talking about litigation. You may certainly be proven innocent in court. However, being found with stolen property is more than enough to ensure "3 hots and cot."
That whole "I don't know where it comes from" business isn't a defense.

Please for the sake of argument tell us where to go to find info on whether a gun is stolen or not. I don't want to argue tactics, sop or anything else with you but it is possible. My gf's uncle sells cars, boats, guns etc. so he how can i be sure that what he bought then resold to me( making our transaction legal he isn't a felon neither am i) is legal. This may be what happened and it makes me mad to see your response.

 

[rw496]

The prosecutors in Lake County take Conversion charges in this case. My understanding, which is some what limitied in this case, is that the prosecutor sees the possession of the stolen gun as enough probable cause enough to arrest and charge. Not sure if I agree or not, and it may differ from county to county, but that's how it is in this area.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Please for the sake of argument tell us where to go to find info on whether a gun is stolen or not. I don't want to argue tactics, sop or anything else with you but it is possible. My gf's uncle sells cars, boats, guns etc. so he how can i be sure that what he bought then resold to me( making our transaction legal he isn't a felon neither am i) is legal. This may be what happened and it makes me mad to see your response.

Not really sure if you're serious or joking. Ask your uncle what is the FIRST Thing he does when he buys a vehicle off of someone.