INGO member in handcuffs

[Brandon]

nevermind, im staying out of this although im with the leos in the above few posts*

 

[finity]

Wow.

I'm going to quote this below because that is very powerful stuff & I don't want it to get lost in the rest of your post.

He should be fired at the least. Handcuffing someone is A VERY BIG DEAL. It's not just a momentary inconvenience it is literally PUTTING SOMEONE IN CHAINS and you ought to have a damned good LEGAL reason for it.

Well said.

I'd rep you but I need to spread it around first.

 

[Expat]

Not to thread jack but I filed a complaint on myself once. I even threatened to appeal it to the board of public safety when they wouldn't punish me. How hardcore is that?

You must be one of the really PITA golfers

 

[Expat]

nevermind, im staying out of this although im with the leos in the above few posts*

Probably a good idea. I have heard the LEOs get everyone's real names and addresses so they know who the troublemakers are.

 

[03mustgt]

Umm no.

He is saying you shouldn't pull them over at all if you're not going to write a ticket in the first place. That would be even better PR for the dept than what you currently do. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't waste their time or yours on a non-issue.



Well, from reading the rest of your post below, I'd say yeah, that's pretty much what it means. Here let me highlight the important part.



Those are your words ya' know.



I would be way more comfortable with the drunk driver (who obviously is driving well enough that he have you no other PC to his drunkeness) going on down the road than having cops going on fishing expeditions looking for something to bust someone for something, anything. I do remember we were told on here recently that "title 9 is a big section of IN law". Meaning that there's ALWAYS something to cite you for if they want to & the criminal code isn't any better.



True, but YOU have to remember that the 4A IS A RIGHT, NOT JUST A PRIVILEDGE! Fishing & trying to manufacture PC where none existed before is against the law! Thats the biggest picture I can see from where I'm standing.

It is my job to fish, sorry I cant just assume that every person I stop is a law abiding citizen.

I have not, and will never manufacture PC. It's either there or it's not.

I know that the 4A is a right, but stopping a car for a valid violation, and asking questions on that stop, is not harassment and does not violate that right.

 

[03mustgt]

Remember, guys, they get to ask, but we don't have to answer.

What kind of parrot should you be?

 

[SavageEagle]

This thread has some hardcore threadjacks.

What did you expect in a thread that has over 900 posts?

I'm amazed that it's stayed on track as well as it has. Or that it hasn't been closed yet due to the subject matter.

 

[dross]

It is my job to fish, sorry I cant just assume that every person I stop is a law abiding citizen.
.

Scary.

 

[03mustgt]

Scary.

Do you assume everyone you interact with is not a threat?

 

[hornadylnl]

So you are saying that I should write a ticket for every license plate light that I see out? Thats great PR for a dept.

Just because I dont write someone a citation means I am fishing?

License Plate lights, speeding, tail lights out, etc, it is my job to ask questions and look at the BIGGER PICTURE. Every stop I make I am fishing. Would you rather me let the drunk driver go down the road where they could potentially kill someone or take him off the road when I stop him for a license plate light out and smell the alcohol?

Remember driving is a PRIVELEDGE, not a right.

Again, I'm not arguing against the stop. Dross summed up your post perfectly but I'll clarify my position. Pull the person over. Fine. Give him a ticket for the light. Fine. Ascertain the driver for intoxication through the normal conversation. Fine. Where are you going, where are you coming from, can I search your vehicle, etc have nothing to do with the cause for the stop. Yes, I'm free to tell you to get bent but how many people feel intimidated to answer your questions? If I refuse to answer your questions, my liberty is then determined by the fragility of the officers' ego.

 

[finity]

It is my job to fish, sorry I cant just assume that every person I stop is a law abiding citizen.

& we can't assume that every cop we meet is not going to do their best to try to get us on SOMETHING.

The difference is if you make a mistake & inadvertantly let a BG go then nothing much will happen aside from you may be a liitle embasrrassed. If I make a mistake & trust a cop who is "fishing" for something, the rest of my life could change.

I have not, and will never manufacture PC. It's either there or it's not.

You know full well that if you ask enough questions (that the person is ignorant enough of their rights to answer) you can get PC to pretty much charge almost anybody with SOME KIND of crime. It may not be technically "manufacturing" but it isn't far from it. Remember I'm not specifically talking about you when I say "you".

I know that the 4A is a right, but stopping a car for a valid violation, and asking questions on that stop, is not harassment and does not violate that right.

So says the courts. I fully disagree. I think that EVERY interaction that we have in an official capacity you should be required to inform us of our Miranda rights. There are many people who have no idea what their rights are & are intimidated enough by the police that they will answer any question asked. Also if you are doing everything on the up & up then why would you be against the requirement to tell every person you meet what their rights are? Unless of course you rely on (& take advantage of) the ignorance of the people to enable you to get information that you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to under the Constitution.

 

[down3green]

Remember driving is a PRIVELEDGE, not a right.

.


So is being a cop.


.

 

[CorvetteTom]

.


So is being a cop.


.

^^^THIS!^^^

 

[dross]

Do you assume everyone you interact with is not a threat?

We're talking about two things here. One is situational awareness, the other is detaining a citizen for the tiniest of legal reasons in order to find other violations to enforce.

It goes over the line when you get your feelings hurt and then abuse the discretion we the citizens provide to you to humiliate the citizen to salve your own ego as happened to the INGO members who are the subject of this thread.

 

[03mustgt]

.


So is being a cop.


.

Your point is what?

 

[Sgt Rock]

Originally Posted by 03mustgt
Remember driving is a PRIVELEDGE, not a right

I guess the diifference here is that OC/CC is NOT a priveledge, it is a RIGHT, guaranteed to us by the Constitution, That right is recognized by the state (as evidence by the granting of LTCH to all of those involved). That was determined early in the conversation but mattered little.

 

[rhino]

I guess the diifference here is that OC/CC is NOT a priveledge, it is a RIGHT, guaranteed to us by the Constitution, That right is recognized by the state (as evidence of the granting of LTCH to all of those involved). That was determined early in the conversation but mattered little.

Indeed. Check my signature lines for reference!

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
INDIANA CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - Bill of Rights - Section 32

 

[ATF Consumer]

Wow.

I'm going to quote this below because that is very powerful stuff & I don't want it to get lost in the rest of your post.



Well said.

I'd rep you but I need to spread it around first.

I'll use a version this in my complaint I file.

 

[Jeremiah]

I support the right to not have to stop for red lights, to drive whatever speed one wants, to drive on whatever side the road a person chooses, to not have to stop for stop signs, and to not have to carry insurance on my vehicle, or plate it for that matter.

I support whole heartedly the right to drive whatever speed I want. do some research. People have a tendancy to drive the speeds they feel comfortable with on the highway a great example is the autobahn. In town it varies. some place it may be marked 25 but I feel comfortable driving 40 I will drive 40. Yes kids may dart, people could back out, and the increased speed could contribute to an accident. however as far as kids go they are the responsibility of there parents until such time they become adults. they don't belong in the street, and no argument you can make will change that. Speed limits equal revenue, and nothing else.

Yes I support never stopping at red lights, only because our intersections should be roundabouts as they make traffic flow more fluidly. In cases of redlights and stopsigns when it is visible safe to cross the road by car or walking we should be able to do so, not wait till the dear nanny says so. traffic lights seem to bunch traffic up and contribute to congestion. Many cases would show very well that stoping at a red light isnt necessarily needed. most people do it out of fear of a ticket not rationality. most people won't want to get in a car accident, and will make provisions to avoid one, they happen, they will always happen, redlights don't prevent that.


As far as driving on the wrong side of the road, we already do, most vehicles are often occupied by the driver, is would be sensible to remove him from oncoming traffic as much as possible. so if we drove on the opposite side of the road, without switching the location of the steering wheel we would be more safe in a collision. Society would dictate common practice for driving etiquette, and most people would respect it, those that don't would be, as now an inconvience and little more.

Car insurance is a whole other problem, solvable by market structures, and state intervention isn't needed. Had inflation, gov, regulation, licencing, and taxation( most all caused or implemented by government) not driven cost so high, insurance would be virtually unneeded as the cost of a hospital stay wouldn't bankrupt you, the cost to fix a car my equal the cost to make a car, both of which would be far lower than today. it wouldn't be so costly and the role of insurance would be possible non existant.

And plates well they function as another tax, and allow the state to have information about people and vehicle they don't have a right to. Plates do nothing, well truly very little, but provide a chance for revenue, and a reason for this fishing trips everyone keeps mentioning. We could prove ownership of cars very easily without registrations, vehicle recovery rates are very low in the instances of theft, lowjack, onstar, and other security systems lead to more recovered vehicle than the police can account for.

You could cry officer saftey, but you never know who is driving a car, I may be a felon, you see a car swerve and you run the plates, they come up under my name and there is a warrant for my arrest so you hit the lights. you get out of the car with that " im getting a gold star grin" and placing your hand on your gun unsnapping the holster you approach the car, as felons are dangerous people you know , he might try something you best be prepared. only when you get to the car its not me, its a friend or relative, or double jackpot a car theif, so you get to arrest me latter when you reteun the car right? plates for the purpose of identification tell you nothing, are hardly and tool for recovering stolen vehicles, and are expensive and troublesome method of proving ownership

 

[SavageEagle]

Hey guys.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-speed_limits_do_they_make_you_feel_safe.html