INGO member in handcuffs

[samot]

I agree with you ATFC
However You aint seen nothin yet !!!
That pales in comparison to some of the **** ive seen.

Ive been in a similar position where i kept refusing to do the " do as i tell u ****" & eventually they get REAL unruly.
Break out the tazer & or beat the **** out of you then arrest you for disturbing the peace, only to get beat 8 hrs later after they drag you out of a jail cell.
My point is, this may have been a big violation of rights to you.....
Just think what happens to some people when thier not around a crowd of witnesses.
It can get alot worse once your behind closed doors at the cop shop also!

Right...and the thing that is really boiling my blood just below the skin is this...
If I were to resist the ILLEGAL detainment, what would have happened?
Would I have been charged with resisting ARREST? If so, how can that be if the detainment in itself was illegal?

As it currently stands we do not get to exercise all of our rights and LEO's get to abuse whatever they choose.

I am not going to let this violation of our rights go by the way side...I am prepared to push this issue until we get some resolve.
It was really frustrating to have Officer Highsmith violate my rights, right in front of at least 4 other LEOs that obviously didn't care about our constitutional rights in the least. They need to be punished for complacency and allowing a crime to be committed right in front of their faces.

 

[Cru]

This makes no sense though. It appears you want the cops stopping people with guns, yet you don't want them to be able to secure the scene as they investigate. I see this opinion a lot around here. I can only assume it is because people think about 'What if...' cases: What if two guys were going to shoot up my relatives college they attend? I would want the cops to stop and "investigate" if someone were to call in about a MWAG (the shooter) prior to the incident.

.

I did not say I WANT the police stopping people, I said I am okay with it. I am in the minority on this probably. What I DO have a problem with is them HANDCUFFING someone because he refused to disarm when he did not have to. If the police wants to run your ID, sure. But why not leave the guns in the HOLSTER where they are safe? Why risk unloading and reloading and etc? Why handcuff someone because they are exercising their right to remain armed?


Sorry this quote is from a lot of pages back... I am just now getting caught up from school.

 

[machete]

Damn. That's a helluva good point. I hope you weren't being sarcastic....

No. I was just being honest. Imagine the Goodyear blimp up there looking down at a bunch of folks with AR's. Woo-hoo! The powers that be in Indy don't want that kinda heat. If a 1911 scares these pantywaistes wait until they see a bunch of AR's with 30round mags walking up and down South St., while the carmelites are arriving at the Colts game.

They have this organization called Indianapolis Downtown Inc. If a gun group was serious about this and sent the plan to IDI, the ICVA, the Chamber of Commerce and the Mayor's Office, you'd see some quick changes being made.

A 1911 is kinda scary. A AK47 is really scary and you cant miss it. I think most gun owners have sort of long gun they could bring to the walk around. A Nagant from Bradis is certainly nothing to sneeze at. All those gun owners all that firepower and the cops couldn't ask a single question ask for anyones ID or be entitled to a single answer.

Plus,,,Ballard wants re election. There's no way he'd make a move on gun owners.

Official Tourism Site of Indianapolis | Visit Indy <--- ICVA's website

Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. <--- IDI

Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce <--- Indy Chamber of Commerce

Of course this being Indiana there might just be a huge reaction of people who like kooky rightwingers walking around downtown with AR's. I dont think the pickpockets will try to hit those carmelites while on our side of the street if you know what I mean.

Someone else on here said something about the civil rights protesters from the 60's like "how did that turn out?" You get the point.

 

[Joe Williams]

You are dense...and your comments are going to end up getting someone arrested, likely for fleeing police. snip

Fleeing police? Nowhere have I remotely suggested fleeing the police, or refusing to comply with even illegal orders they issue. You are making garbage up to support your specious arguments. Your claims that merely carrying a gun makes a person a suspected criminal are just as baseless.

 

[Jack Ryan]

So are you guys going to complain at the station?

OC the MP5 in to the station to file the complaint?

 

[Joe Williams]

Then by all means, take Joe's advice. OC around the state of Indiana and when an officer tells you to stop, refuse and keep walking. snip.

Again, nowhere have I EVER suggested that a person do such a thing. And you know it.. you are merely totally unconcerned with facts.

 

[Joe Williams]

As I think about it, I am wondering if you could carry a long gun and NOT be required to give a Drivers License if requested. I hate being unarmed just as much if not more than anyone here, but I think it might be the most effective way to get the videography. Anyone else have a better idea?

If there is such a walk, unless the organizers decide otherwise I've decided I am going to carry a long gun, no handgun, no LTCH, no DL. I'm NOT saying I will refuse to identify myself. If one is going to make a point to the police and risk becoming a test case, may as well make the point.

 

[TN_Mike]

I wonder if this is newsworthy enough to make on the evening news broadcast?
Maybe those who participated could offer to be interviewed?

That would get the whole city talking and maybe change some IMPD policy.

I work at one of the local News stations. If anyone is interested in speaking to a reporter, I can check to see if there is any interest in someone doing a story on this.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think Joe's right and no need for namecalling.

You said "Since the law says no handguns on your person, then if an officer sees a person with a handgun, there is absolutely reasonable suspicion to stop that person and investigate a possible criminal violation."

That's totally wrong and Joe said so. The law also says you can't drive without a license but cops arent allowed to stop every car and check for a license. The law says you arent allowed to rob banks but cops arent allowed to barge into your house to see if you have stolen cash around.

Joe's right but you might also be right about what the cops will arrest for. As we saw in this case cops do whatever they want and the law is another matter entirely.

You think that is name calling? You obviously haven't read many posts here, or many of Joe's for that matter.

LEOs are not allowed to stop cars just to check on drivers licenses because of a US Supreme Ct. ruling. Prior to that ruling they were able to and did, hence the case that made it to SCOTUS. Joe is incorrect on case law, I agree with him on that is how it should be, but not on how it currently is.

Now you are going to get the wrath of Joe....hope you have your flame suit on. Thankfully folks like you are here to give the other side of the argument, so someone new to carrying won't end up getting arrested for something because they think they can just walk away. I have Joe on ignore, but I saw his statements in some quotes, and I can't stand by letting complete falsehoods go. So anyone reading this who isn't sure, just ask Joe if he will pay for your lawyer if you happen to take his advice and end up in some legal trouble.

That being said, all this anger is directed at LEOs, whose job it is to investigate possible violations of criminal law. The LEOs are doing just that.

I'm not too worried about flames, well at least not the internet type.
And that is part of the reason I posted what I did. I'd rather not see people getting arrested on bad advice. But if your really thankful Rep is nice

And my anger is not that the LEOs are doing their job, it is the hasseling beyond that. Putting someone in handcuffs for what IMO sounds like questioning their authority and/or reasoning is again IMO jbt behavior. If the officer in question were to ask or even demand to see a LTCH I'm sure their would still be some *****ing but not at this level.

By your reasoning anyone could be stopped at any minute to see if they are a criminal. I saw you drinking a Coke in your car. Its illegal to drink while you drive and that can could have gin in it so I get to stop you and do a full battery of tests,,,I don't think so.

Every cop could be stopped and ordered to produce identification because impersonating a police officer is a crime and someone wearing a police uniform could be breaking that law.

OCing isnt a legal permission to get shaken down by every cop who passes by.

I just cant see how anyone could justify this case. This is so clearly wrong that its sad to see what this country has fallen to when someone actually justifies what happened to ATFConsumer for doing something completely legal.

The officer would have to have at least reasonable articuable suspicion that you had gin in your pop can to stop you. Carrying a handgun in IN is unless you belong to an exempted group, one of the exemptions is a LTCH. Now if an officer repeatedly stopped the same person to check for LTCH status I'm sure it might be possible to sue for harrasment. But a one time check under current conditions....

And actually I could walk down the street in a full LEO uniform and not be breaking the law, it would depend on what I was doing while wearing the uniform. This was actually just discussed in another thread. And if an officer detains you, you do have the right to ask to see his ID.

And I don't see anyone justifying this case. What happened was way over the top IMO. What some people are saying is that in IN under the current law and case law is that if an officer sees you with a handgun he can demand that you show proof of being one of the exempted classes. I don't agree with it and would love for the requirement to be removed in IN. But just saying that it isn't right doesn't change the facts.

 

[Jack Ryan]

...This is simply outrageous that law abiding citizens get harassed and rights trampled on because a LEO wants to feel 'safe'.

He should probably investigate a new line of work if his own personal safety is the motivating factor in his decision making process for the job.

 

[Cru]

I work at one of the local News stations. If anyone is interested in speaking to a reporter, I can check to see if there is any interest in someone doing a story on this.

I personally don't think we'd want coverage on THIS incident, but possible on one that happens at a later time.

 

[theweakerbrother]

What I would love to see are some LEO on their day(s) off joining the OC walks... especially if we can gather up a hundred people or so. What kind of impact would it be if 100 hungry individuals showed up to the local greasy spoon and ordered food or 100 people visiting their local store and picking up an item... a hundred times over.

What I do not expect to see is an LEO joining the fray. If someone in uniform shows up, the 'off duty' could explain that what they were doing was legal and constitutionally protected. Additionally, if and when someone is detained, the LEO could O/C to the local department to make a complaint... because he is one of the king's men and is allowed to take a firearm there.

For the record, sometimes those of you who aren't posting in this thread AND are LEO, your silence can be interpreted as a response in favor of the responding officers who threw a fit. While it may not be fair but it is real and how it is.

This is just like who members of one particular religion are pegged as being something they aren't because they aren't speaking out against whatever action occurred in that religion's name. If the topic of religion makes you uncomfortable, replace it with political party.

 

[JJGatesE30]

I personally don't think we'd want coverage on THIS incident, but possible on one that happens at a later time.

the paper cut thread is interesting

 

[Cru]

Great idea. They can either leave OC people alone or they could have downtown full of guys walking around with AR's, and they can't do a thing about it.

If we told the City that they could either leave OC people alone or face streets full of folks carrying AR15's AK47's before every Pacers and Colts game, Final Four, Big Ten tourney, convention and so forth they would quickly back down.

With the way Indy protects downtown sports events and convention business they coudn't stand this kind of pressure.

Damn. That's a helluva good point. I hope you weren't being sarcastic....

No. I was just being honest. Imagine the Goodyear blimp up there looking down at a bunch of folks with AR's. Woo-hoo! The powers that be in Indy don't want that kinda heat. If a 1911 scares these pantywaistes wait until they see a bunch of AR's with 30round mags walking up and down South St., while the carmelites are arriving at the Colts game.

They have this organization called Indianapolis Downtown Inc. If a gun group was serious about this and sent the plan to IDI, the ICVA, the Chamber of Commerce and the Mayor's Office, you'd see some quick changes being made.

A 1911 is kinda scary. A AK47 is really scary and you cant miss it. I think most gun owners have sort of long gun they could bring to the walk around. A Nagant from Bradis is certainly nothing to sneeze at. All those gun owners all that firepower and the cops couldn't ask a single question ask for anyones ID or be entitled to a single answer.

Plus,,,Ballard wants re election. There's no way he'd make a move on gun owners.

Official Tourism Site of Indianapolis | Visit Indy <--- ICVA's website

Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. <--- IDI

Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce <--- Indy Chamber of Commerce

Of course this being Indiana there might just be a huge reaction of people who like kooky rightwingers walking around downtown with AR's. I dont think the pickpockets will try to hit those carmelites while on our side of the street if you know what I mean.

Someone else on here said something about the civil rights protesters from the 60's like "how did that turn out?" You get the point.

As much fun as this sounds, I think it would have a negative effect. Because INDY prizes their sporting events so highly, I see THIS idea as a one way ticket for Indy to turn into Chicago.

Not saying I don't think it would be great, but I think you might want to give it a little more thought before embracing it whole heartedly.

 

[Roadie]

I personally don't think we'd want coverage on THIS incident, but possible on one that happens at a later time.

Why not? If someone else rights are violated in other ways, the news is all over it. I would LOVE to see this get some publicity, personally.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

What I do not expect to see is an LEO joining the fray. If someone in uniform shows up, the 'off duty' could explain that what they were doing was legal and constitutionally protected. Additionally, if and when someone is detained, the LEO could O/C to the local department to make a complaint... because he is one of the king's men and is allowed to take a firearm there.

If I'm not the one being detained, why would I make a complaint? I can't complain for someone else. I can suggest to the higher-ups that the activity is legal and that most LEOs need an update on the laws, specifically those relating to OC.

For the record, sometimes those of you who aren't posting in this thread AND are LEO, your silence can be interpreted as a response in favor of the responding officers who threw a fit. While it may not be fair but it is real and how it is.

This is just like who members of one particular religion are pegged as being something they aren't because they aren't speaking out against whatever action occurred in that religion's name. If the topic of religion makes you uncomfortable, replace it with political party.

There you go generalizing about all the LEOs on INGO. Just because I don't give my personal opinion about what went down doesn't mean I support it. I have opinions about both the OCers and the LEOs, but that doesn't mean I have to state them publicly. If I thought my opinion meant anything to you or any of the other cop-dislikers, I might share it. Because of the tone of your post I don't think I will.

 

[Cru]

Why not? If someone else rights are violated in other ways, the news is all over it. I would LOVE to see this get some publicity, personally.

I dunno... it kind of depends on monkeys video. I can just see the media skew it pretty hard on this one.

Don't get me wrong, if the story came across the way it happened, with some objective reporting, they YES!!! I'd LOVE to see coverage on this... but I just think it would be skewed and turned into an anti 2A story.

Just my coming from my journalism classes in college.



I think a more organized event where the media is invited would play out better in the media. That's all.

 

[lovemachine]

This was just wrong in so many ways.

What I would love to see are some LEO on their day(s) off joining the OC walks... especially if we can gather up a hundred people or so. What kind of impact would it be if 100 hungry individuals showed up to the local greasy spoon and ordered food or 100 people visiting their local store and picking up an item... a hundred times over.

What I do not expect to see is an LEO joining the fray. If someone in uniform shows up, the 'off duty' could explain that what they were doing was legal and constitutionally protected. Additionally, if and when someone is detained, the LEO could O/C to the local department to make a complaint... because he is one of the king's men and is allowed to take a firearm there.

For the record, sometimes those of you who aren't posting in this thread AND are LEO, your silence can be interpreted as a response in favor of the responding officers who threw a fit. While it may not be fair but it is real and how it is.

This is just like who members of one particular religion are pegged as being something they aren't because they aren't speaking out against whatever action occurred in that religion's name. If the topic of religion makes you uncomfortable, replace it with political party.

 

[SirRealism]

For the record, sometimes those of you who aren't posting in this thread AND are LEO, your silence can be interpreted as a response in favor of the responding officers who threw a fit. While it may not be fair but it is real and how it is.

This is just like who members of one particular religion are pegged as being something they aren't because they aren't speaking out against whatever action occurred in that religion's name. If the topic of religion makes you uncomfortable, replace it with political party.

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely don't take an INGO LEO's silence in this thread as an indication of support for anyone. They're all individuals, and they decide for themselves when/where they want to get involved in any situation.

 

[SavageEagle]

As much fun as this sounds, I think it would have a negative effect. Because INDY prizes their sporting events so highly, I see THIS idea as a one way ticket for Indy to turn into Chicago.

Not saying I don't think it would be great, but I think you might want to give it a little more thought before embracing it whole heartedly.

ehhh... that's a big maybe. It could also swing the other way and if we demand they eliminate the LTCH or something else, we could certainly gain that to get us out of their hair. They can't ban us from carrying guns in the city without one helluva fight and they know it.