INGO member in handcuffs

[rhino]

You guys realize the person with the long gun (even though it was a SBR) was NOT the person detained, right? While yes, having the long gun in the group may have garnered the extra attention, it was NOT the reason for the detainment.

Will you please cease and desist confusing the issue with logic and facts? It's much easier to support one's erroneous beliefs by asserting facts not in evidence!

Hush, now!

 

[ATF Consumer]

Everyone is technically correct when they make comments about rights not exercised are rights lost...to a point though. I don't want to hear anyone in that camp complain if pro-lifers pass out postcards with photos of an aborted fetus to their kids. I don't want to hear them complain when Muslims pass out anti-Christian literature to their kids. What's good for one group has to be good for all. No "Well I wouldn't support that!" or "Well that's different!" Just remember, you reap what you sow. If the thing to do now is shock value education, and OCing is shock value, don't complain when other groups who you disagree put the same tactics into play. Also don't complain when groups you might actually agree with do things that you might think are extreme, but legal. When you go to put your house on the market, don't get upset when your neighbor, next door or down the street, starts flying a flag with a swastika.

I would be in full support of any of those FREEDOMS that are protected by our constitution and BOR.

 

[rhino]

I don't think that is being fair. If it wasn't for the Open Carriers in Ohio, they would have never (or at least definately not so soon) gotten their CCW laws enacted. I'd also like to note that OC is still legal.

So not only were the bed wetters wrong that OC would lead to more gun control, they were 180 degrees off because it led to LESS gun control.

I've usually been met with silence when I raise this same point. Perhaps not enough people are aware the role that open carry played in Ohio just a few years ago.

 

[SirRealism]

Everyone is technically correct when they make comments about rights not exercised are rights lost...to a point though. I don't want to hear anyone in that camp complain if pro-lifers pass out postcards with photos of an aborted fetus to their kids. I don't want to hear them complain when Muslims pass out anti-Christian literature to their kids. What's good for one group has to be good for all. No "Well I wouldn't support that!" or "Well that's different!" Just remember, you reap what you sow. If the thing to do now is shock value education, and OCing is shock value, don't complain when other groups who you disagree put the same tactics into play. Also don't complain when groups you might actually agree with do things that you might think are extreme, but legal. When you go to put your house on the market, don't get upset when your neighbor, next door or down the street, starts flying a flag with a swastika.

Point taken, but if you're going to make comparisons in that direction, hoping to convince someone that a particular exercise of rights might be inappropriate, then you have to allow comparison in the opposite direction: where rights are being taken away from someone who is acting in a manner you consider completely legitimate and proper. If we agree, by your logic above, that we might not want to exercise our right to OC in a given manner at a given location, then we're going to tell you that just because a guy of a particular race/religion/color (or purple skin and a horn) is seen as scary to certain people, don't complain if he's illegally harassed based on appearances. I know I'm beating a dead horse with the comparison, but seeing people of color or disabled people in restaurants was once seen as extreme; it was "shock value". Some brave people worked to change that through exercising existing rights and enacting laws to delineate those rights where necessary. I'm not comparing myself to those people, but I do see a very strong correlation between the causes.

Regardless of where we come down on these comparisons, we each have our own idea of the balance of rights, safety, and civility. Nothing in this world is absolute, and we all compromise to some degree. Where we usually disagree is in what means are most effective to help retain and exercise our rights. You and I probably disagree on whether OCing in obvious places like the city market will just scare people and hurt the cause of gun owners, or whether it will eventually help by educating and acclimating more people to the sight of guns. Nothing is an absolute. There are positives and negatives to each course of action.

One thing I find dismaying in this and other situations involving LE is that we're often told that the "law is the law". (I'm not talking about discussions here on INGO with LEOs, but in interactions on the street.) So a LEO can tell us we must do this because the law is the law. We can't argue. But if we tell a LEO that we know the law and that we're acting within it, somehow we're jackwagons. That enters into the area of civility. Both sides could stand to up the ante on civility, as long as it doesn't trample rights or safety.

Even if you don't change my opinion on this topic, I do enjoy hearing your perspective.

(I need to learn how to write shorter sentences. I sound like a windbag.)

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

OK, I'll put you on the spot. I've met and respect you, so I'd like to hear your take on all this.

(tag - you're it)

Opinions are like *******s. Everyone has one, and most of them stink. But since you asked so nicely, I'll play.

I am friends with IndyMonkey and he told me a few days before the event that he was going to carry his MP5 with him. I told him that was his choice as there was no law prohibiting it, but that he should expect some unwanted attention, especially seeing how the city market is right across the street from the city-county building and that there would be a lot of cops around. He knew what he was getting himself into. I didn't try to talk him out of it but wished him luck with his guaranteed police interaction.

IM called me after the event and told me what had occurred. I think "I told you so" was said at least once, but I let him know that I had no problem with the event and that I actually admired him and the other INGOers for participating.

As far as my opinion on the encounter between the LEOs and the INGOers, I think it could have been handled better.

It is my belief that had the MP5 not made an appearance there would have been no problem whatsoever with the event, and more than likely no interaction with the police. Like someone said they specifically looked for other OCers inside the city market and saw numerous people in business attire (with no badges visible) carrying handguns. All of the INGOers I saw in the pictures were dressed exactly how off-duty/undercover/detective LEOs would be dressed while in the area of the CCB and city market. The presence of the MP5 is something that is totally unexpected and uncommon in that setting and was the root of the "problem" with the event. Unnecessary attention was drawn to the INGO group. Had it been only handguns being OC'd I doubt anyone would have noticed.

As far as the officers involved, I would have handled it differently. Sure I would have had a few officers with me as backup, I'm crazy but not stupid. I would have checked everyone's LTCH, chatted with them about their handguns (mostly because I love guns and I am always interested in what other people are carrying/shooting), and called it a day. I am not going to ask anyone that presents me with what appears to be a valid LTCH to remove their handgun and give it to me, nor am I going to remove it myself, unless there is some circumstance that would require it. When I'm on duty and I encounter someone carrying a handgun I tell them "don't touch yours and I won't touch mine" and so far I have never had a problem.

I am more than willing to ask or answer any questions to educate myself or educate others to make my interactions with the "average citizen" easier. Unfortunately the officers onscene don't share my viewpoint when it comes to law-abiding gun owners. Most of them are probably set in their ways and aren't used to or aren't appreciative of non-LEOs OCing. They did what they thought was best considering the situation but don't seem to be up to speed on the law concerning CC/OC and obviously weren't aware of the caselaw that says a valid LTCH ends the interaction at the time it is presented.

If those involved in the event/detention feel that they need to make a complaint about how they were treated, by all means do it. The Chief is not going to hear anything about the interaction unless someone brings it to his attention.

I would be more than willing to assist IMPD and law-abiding gun owners/carriers with educating LEOs on current gun laws, opinions/beliefs of non-LEO gun owners, and improving the interactions between police/gun owners. I am also willing to educate non-LEO gun owners on the police culture and why we sometimes react to situations the way that we do. Maybe if there was a forum where the two groups could get together and discuss those points the on-the-street interactions would become less intense for both sides.

 

[Indy317]

Perhaps, but this same line of thinking makes no sense, when Indiana law also requires you to have a license to drive, yet the mere act of driving isn't considered a "reasonable suspicion" that would allow LEO to pull over every person they see driving.

With driving, this is only so due to a US Supreme Court decision.

To be fair. It IS possible that events like this could lead to new laws prohibiting carry that is lawful now.

I just don't think that will happen and agree more with the 'a right unexcersized is a right lost' position.

You don't think it will happen, but look at Westboro Baptist Church. How many folks on here complain about their LEGAL activities? They are just exercising their 1st Amendment RIGHTS. Now, lots of states are trying to pass laws banning their practice of protesting funerals because the majority don't like what they do.

We have seen just how fast some left leaning states will act. California had legal OC so long as the handgun was empty or not chambered. Some tried to ban that, it passed committee, but never made it for a vote. Since it was an election year, I wonder if that played a part in it. One state rep. said he would just get up and not stop talking to kill the bill. Who knows what will happen next year.

Note: I'm not saying OCers are anything like WBC members, but both groups have engaged in highly abnormal/rare/whatever you want to call it activity. Both groups claim to educate others to their respective beliefs.

 

[Jeremiah]

I got there just after the real action.

The police lied about the manager not allowing gun carry on the property, cuffed ATM, disarmed the others.

When I walked up they were asking "what group are you with," "how many more are coming," and "how did you communicate to organize this event."

I don't belong to any group

Thousands

4chan and wikileaks

would have been my answers, had I been able to attend

 

[sj kahr k40]

Everyone is technically correct when they make comments about rights not exercised are rights lost...to a point though. I don't want to hear anyone in that camp complain if pro-lifers pass out postcards with photos of an aborted fetus to their kids. I don't want to hear them complain when Muslims pass out anti-Christian literature to their kids. What's good for one group has to be good for all. No "Well I wouldn't support that!" or "Well that's different!" Just remember, you reap what you sow. If the thing to do now is shock value education, and OCing is shock value, don't complain when other groups who you disagree put the same tactics into play. Also don't complain when groups you might actually agree with do things that you might think are extreme, but legal. When you go to put your house on the market, don't get upset when your neighbor, next door or down the street, starts flying a flag with a swastika.

While I don't agree with with postcards with an aborted fetus on them or really care about the religious aspects I do not have a problem with these groups having the same rights as gun owners, if they want to pass out their stuff then I'll let them, I might complain about it but that's my first amendment right

Once again I don't think most here have a problem with the asking for LTCH and ID, it's when they asked for those guys to unsafely unholster the handguns and detained ATFC that I have a problem with.

Can you imagine what would have been the scene if WAG1911 thumb slipped when he was decocking on a live round

JUST BECAUSE A LEO HAS HANDCUFFS DOESNT MEAN HE HAS TO USE THEM

 

[henktermaat]

Who said we wanted freedom to be neat and tidy?

It's not... but it's freedom, baby. It doesn't need to be.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Note: I'm not saying OCers are anything like WBC members, but both groups have engaged in highly abnormal/rare/whatever you want to call it activity. Both groups claim to educate others to their respective beliefs.

It was not the intent to educate on our beliefs...but our right to do so...there is a big difference.

 

[public servant]

Can I ask...because I think I've read everything and I didn't see the answer to my question.

Not that you'd be required to...but I know SE did when he put together his downtown OC event last year... Did anyone give IMPD a head's up as to the event?

Again...not that it should be necessary...just curious.

Thanks.

 

[PapaScout]

Opinions are like *******s. Everyone has one, and most of them stink. But since you asked so nicely, I'll play.

I am friends with IndyMonkey and he told me a few days before the event that he was going to carry his MP5 with him. I told him that was his choice as there was no law prohibiting it, but that he should expect some unwanted attention, especially seeing how the city market is right across the street from the city-county building and that there would be a lot of cops around. He knew what he was getting himself into. I didn't try to talk him out of it but wished him luck with his guaranteed police interaction.

IM called me after the event and told me what had occurred. I think "I told you so" was said at least once, but I let him know that I had no problem with the event and that I actually admired him and the other INGOers for participating.

As far as my opinion on the encounter between the LEOs and the INGOers, I think it could have been handled better.

It is my belief that had the MP5 not made an appearance there would have been no problem whatsoever with the event, and more than likely no interaction with the police. Like someone said they specifically looked for other OCers inside the city market and saw numerous people in business attire (with no badges visible) carrying handguns. All of the INGOers I saw in the pictures were dressed exactly how off-duty/undercover/detective LEOs would be dressed while in the area of the CCB and city market. The presence of the MP5 is something that is totally unexpected and uncommon in that setting and was the root of the "problem" with the event. Unnecessary attention was drawn to the INGO group. Had it been only handguns being OC'd I doubt anyone would have noticed.

As far as the officers involved, I would have handled it differently. Sure I would have had a few officers with me as backup, I'm crazy but not stupid. I would have checked everyone's LTCH, chatted with them about their handguns (mostly because I love guns and I am always interested in what other people are carrying/shooting), and called it a day. I am not going to ask anyone that presents me with what appears to be a valid LTCH to remove their handgun and give it to me, nor am I going to remove it myself, unless there is some circumstance that would require it. When I'm on duty and I encounter someone carrying a handgun I tell them "don't touch yours and I won't touch mine" and so far I have never had a problem.

I am more than willing to ask or answer any questions to educate myself or educate others to make my interactions with the "average citizen" easier. Unfortunately the officers onscene don't share my viewpoint when it comes to law-abiding gun owners. Most of them are probably set in their ways and aren't used to or aren't appreciative of non-LEOs OCing. They did what they thought was best considering the situation but don't seem to be up to speed on the law concerning CC/OC and obviously weren't aware of the caselaw that says a valid LTCH ends the interaction at the time it is presented.

If those involved in the event/detention feel that they need to make a complaint about how they were treated, by all means do it. The Chief is not going to hear anything about the interaction unless someone brings it to his attention.

I would be more than willing to assist IMPD and law-abiding gun owners/carriers with educating LEOs on current gun laws, opinions/beliefs of non-LEO gun owners, and improving the interactions between police/gun owners. I am also willing to educate non-LEO gun owners on the police culture and why we sometimes react to situations the way that we do. Maybe if there was a forum where the two groups could get together and discuss those points the on-the-street interactions would become less intense for both sides.

 

[bigus_D]

It was not the intent to educate on our beliefs...but our right to do so...there is a big difference.

I don't understand where the difference is. I think 317's points were pretty good. If you can expand on this, it might help me understand better.

p.s. Did you file a complaint?

 

[bigus_D]

While I usually HATE the quote of a massive post, this one reminded me that I owed a rep. Thanks!

 

[dross]

For the sake of argument, suppose these concessions were made (only for the sake of argument.)

Even if:

What they did was stupid.
They should have known there would be police attention.
It was not educational.
They were seeking attention.
They are social retards.
It won't accomplish what they want it to.
In fact, it will accomplish the opposite of what they want.

and even if:

The officers legitimately feared for their safety.
The officers actually thought they were dealing with an illegal machine gun.

even if:

They should have expected everything that happened.

Even if all of those things above are absolutely true, it still doesn't justify what happened.

If it was about the rifle, why handcuff the other guy?
If it was about safety, why have several guys unholster their weapons?
If it was about checking out the situation, why continue after seeing the LTCHs?

The only conclusion is that the officers acted unreasonably, based on the reasons they gave. Assuming they are reasonable people, they must have had other reasons they didn't give, since the reasons they gave don't hold up to logic.

So, what are the other reasons? The only thing that makes any sense is demonstration of power.

 

[SavageEagle]

Can I ask...because I think I've read everything and I didn't see the answer to my question.

Not that you'd be required to...but I know SE did when he put together his downtown OC event last year... Did anyone give IMPD a head's up as to the event?

Again...not that it should be necessary...just curious.

Thanks.

I'm pretty sure they weren't. If so, this wouldn't have happened. Next time the IMPD needs a heads up. They just don't need to know specifics. That way they aren't ghosting us like the first two times.

So, what are the other reasons? The only thing that makes any sense is demonstration of power.

Or to undermine the whole point of the event.

 

[public servant]

Let me ask another question. Do you think that this event would have had a different ending had the event been held in another location?

Say...Mooresville or Cloverdale...or Spencer? Away from a large city where the downtown area is generally filled with liberals? I mean it's no surprise that Center Township is the liberal capital of Indiana (excluding Bloomington, of course).

 

[ATF Consumer]

I don't understand where the difference is. I think 317's points were pretty good. If you can expand on this, it might help me understand better.

p.s. Did you file a complaint?

Westboro Baptist Church members exercise their 1st amendment right to educate on what they believe...not everyone believes as they do, but they use a protected constitutional right to do so.

OC'ers exercise their 1st and 2nd amendment rights to educate on not only what they believe, but what is hard cold factual truths that cannot be denied (at least shouldn't be). What we are educating about is something that is well documented and protected, whether you choose to believe or not. There is proof via US Constitution and BOR. We are educating about rights, not beliefs.

 

[SavageEagle]

Let me ask another question. Do you think that this event would have had a different ending had the event been held in another location?

Say...Mooresville or Cloverdale...or Spencer? Away from a large city where the downtown area is generally filled with liberals? I mean it's no surprise that Center Township is the liberal capital of Indiana (excluding Bloomington, of course).

I believe it would have went much better yes. Especially in the listed towns.

 

[Joe Williams]

Let me ask another question. Do you think that this event would have had a different ending had the event been held in another location?

Say...Mooresville or Cloverdale...or Spencer? Away from a large city where the downtown area is generally filled with liberals? I mean it's no surprise that Center Township is the liberal capital of Indiana (excluding Bloomington, of course).

What use is there in preaching to the choir?