INGO member in handcuffs

[Frank_N_Stein]

I didn't mean to imply cowardice in a particular officer, though I see why my statement could have been interpreted that way. I understand that the cop was following the procedure he had been trained under.
The policy behind the procedure, IMO, was based on officer safety being placed at a higher priority than it should have been.

I started in LE in 1993. From then until Columbine happened, the average street officer was trained to hold the perimeter and wait for SWAT/Negotiators on any active shooter or barricaded person incident. Only after Columbine did most departments start the active shooter training that involved teaching the first responding officers (didn't matter who or from what department) form up small teams and go into the building/area/etc to attempt to find and neutralize the threat.

I can't speak for other departments, but at least at IMPD on active shooter incidents the priority is going in and getting the job done, not waiting 30-40 minutes for the hut-hut boys to arrive and gear up.

 

[down3green]

" the hut-hut boys "

...made me laugh.


.

 

[Love the 1911]

And please don't lump the good people you meet every day with the few scum you meet.

That's why I offer the ride along to anyone who is interested. The vast majority of people I come in contact with are either having one of the worst days of their lives or they broke a traffic rule that we have all broken at some point. I believe that talking (aka respecting) to someone for 15 minutes is easier than fighting them for 2 and I will always take that time to make things go smoothly, if given the option to do that.

 

[Indy317]

The cops were trained to hang out outside, and do just that... leave kids to die so the cops wouldn't be in danger.

Talk about horsecrap. I guess taking fire, and returning fire, isn't dangerous in your opinion?

I do believe they mentioned to me that getting killed protecting others was a risk of the job...

It is something that might happen, but doing something where death is known isn't part of the job. It isn't a suicide position, despite what a few politicians, civilians, and police admin might think. It isn't my duty to run into bombs going off, getting myself killed, just so it looks like the government "tried."

Everyone believes the government spoon fed BS about the cops at Columbine, not doing anything, just hiding somewhere far far away. This wasn't the case. Here are the facts:

1115: Killers are seen planting their two large propane bombs. The bombs were later determined to have been set to explode at 1117.

1117 or thereabouts after: The two large bombs fail to go off, at least one shooter starts firing at students outside. One is killed, one wounded.

1117-? (Before1125): During this time, the shooters return indoors. One goes to the cafeteria and shoots five students, killing one of them.

1121: Using school radio system, someone tells the SRO that he is needed at the front of the school. He starts to respond.

1123: First 911 call is placed

1124: Video shows teacher Sanders running into cafeteria

1125: Teacher Sanders is shot

1123-1127: SRO and an unarmed security guard arrive at front of school. Gun battle with one shooter who is inside the entryway begins. Two other officers arrive shortly after, one of whom also engages the shooter. Shooter eventually flees into school.

1129: Another officer arrives

1130: Prior to this time, six officers had arrived. Three officers had exchanged gunfire with one, or both, of the shooters (Two in the entry way, one when one of the shooters engaged an officer from a window).

1130: Killers enter library

1138: Killers have just killed nine more students and shot many more.

After 1138, there are no more innocent people shot or killed. All the people who were shot and died were shot between 1117-1138 hours. In other words, despite folks thinking the killers went around for 45 mins. shooting people, they killed all those that ended up dying within 21 minutes of the first shot. Police were only on-scene anywhere from 11 to 15 mins. Note: The report uses times from many sources, thus there are some times that don't always make sense, as all these sources likely weren't synced to the exact same time.

Also after 1138, the shooters engaged the cops outside. While the cops were firing back, injured students were being evacuated by paramedics. The killers the go around and throw bombs all over the school. They finally kill themselves at 1208.

Say what you want about the cops at Columbine, but don't call them cowards. How would one feel if it was their daughter that had a gun shot wound in her? The shooters are shooting at fleeing students from inside the school, and not together. One engages officers, and shortly thereafter, another one engages another officer. Would you want your wounded kid abandoned by the officer who is providing what is likely nothing more than suppressive fire? Would you want it so those initial six cops ran into the school, leaving your wounded kid, who can't move, between cars? It is very hard to leave someone who is begging you for help, even harder to leave someone when they are in serious need of help due to an injury.

While this is thread drift, I wanted folks to have a clear understanding of what exactly happened at Columbine, before they decide to just throw those officers under the bus.

http://www.state.co.us/columbine/Columbine_20Report_WEB.pdf

 

[Indy317]

I would like to add that Columbine may actually be relevant to this thread. We have posters on here claiming the cops did nothing, or at least didn't do enough. So we have guys walking around with handguns in public, one of which actually has what I call a tried and true battle weapon. Yet some of the same folks don't want the cops to take any action on this. Well, Columbine has trained your basic street officer to be more pro-active, to go into more dangerous situations and not wait for SWAT, but just a few other officers. Other training is basically a first on the scene grabs their rifle, and goes in to engage the shooter(s). Folks shouldn't be too surprised if some officers take things to the extreme with MWAG calls. Hopefully additional training will take care of this issue.

 

[Hammerhead]

You (plural) justify going to the extreme with MWAGs because of episodes like Columbine, thereby lumping carrying citizens in with criminals. You (plural) have to be prepared and ready to take action. So you (plural) do what you think is right, and you violate the law or our rights. And then you (plural) get mad when we get upset about it.

Yet when we lump LEOs into the jack booted thug category by being upset when things like the events at the City Market happen, and other officers like the supervisor on scene or fellow officers refuse to act against those violating rights, you (plural) get butt hurt.

A bit hypocritical, no? Stop lumping citizens with criminals, and we'll stop lumping LEOs with JBTs.

 

[down3green]

Stop lumping citizens with criminals, and we'll stop lumping LEOs with JBTs.

.


hmmmm . . . that sounds like a win/win


.

 

[Indy317]

You (plural) justify going to the extreme with MWAGs because of episodes like Columbine, thereby lumping carrying citizens in with criminals.

My comments weren't not meant to sound like any sort of justification for any particular way to deal with MWAG calls. Instead, it was to touch upon the issue that since thousands of front line officers have now been given "You must act quickly, and decisively, all out" active shooter training, it should be no surprise that we get some MWAG incidents that we are seeing.

 

[long coat]

I would like to add that Columbine may actually be relevant to this thread. We have posters on here claiming the cops did nothing, or at least didn't do enough. So we have guys walking around with handguns in public, one of which actually has what I call a tried and true battle weapon. Yet some of the same folks don't want the cops to take any action on this. Well, Columbine has trained your basic street officer to be more pro-active, to go into more dangerous situations and not wait for SWAT, but just a few other officers. Other training is basically a first on the scene grabs their rifle, and goes in to engage the shooter(s). Folks shouldn't be too surprised if some officers take things to the extreme with MWAG calls. Hopefully additional training will take care of this issue.

The one with the "tried and true battle weapon" was not the one cuffed.
Was it not AFTER the LEOs looked at the LTCH and knew they are good that the problems started, because the LEOs told them to mess with loaded guns with people around.

Real ? for the LEOs: If something would have happened and a gun went off who would be in trouble? The LEO because he told them to do it or the guy whos gun went off? Would it matter it someone was hit?

 

[Compatriot G]

I would like to add that Columbine may actually be relevant to this thread. We have posters on here claiming the cops did nothing, or at least didn't do enough. So we have guys walking around with handguns in public, one of which actually has what I call a tried and true battle weapon. Yet some of the same folks don't want the cops to take any action on this. Well, Columbine has trained your basic street officer to be more pro-active, to go into more dangerous situations and not wait for SWAT, but just a few other officers. Other training is basically a first on the scene grabs their rifle, and goes in to engage the shooter(s). Folks shouldn't be too surprised if some officers take things to the extreme with MWAG calls. Hopefully additional training will take care of this issue.

I have read all 100+ pages on this thread. It seems the biggest problem was that one officer had mistaken impressions about single-action semi autos. I realize not all police officers are "gun people". In my experiences, police officers that are "into" guns seem to be in the minority. Is there a need for more or better firearms training? Should officers at the academies be exposed to the various types of firearms and their safe operation? When I was in Marine Corps boot camp, we were given a familiarization class on the AK-series of weapons. The basic operation of the weapons was shown to us. This was done so that if we were ever in a situation where we had to grab up an AK, we would at least know how to operate the weapon. I think it wouldn't hurt if police officers had a similar type of training.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I have read all 100+ pages on this thread. It seems the biggest problem was that one officer had mistaken impressions about single-action semi autos. I realize not all police officers are "gun people". In my experiences, police officers that are "into" guns seem to be in the minority. Is there a need for more or better firearms training? Should officers at the academies be exposed to the various types of firearms and their safe operation? When I was in Marine Corps boot camp, we were given a familiarization class on the AK-series of weapons. The basic operation of the weapons was shown to us. This was done so that if we were ever in a situation where we had to grab up an AK, we would at least know how to operate the weapon. I think it wouldn't hurt if police officers had a similar type of training.

Really?
To me, the biggest problem is the overstepping the officers had shown by abusing their power, violating citizen's rights.
Lack of knowledge of firearms is also a concern, but not even close in comparison to the gross negligence they have for the oath they swore to uphold.

 

[Roadie]

I still don't understand why LEOs treat licensed gun owners are criminals "until they know different". Statistically, less than 1% of convicted criminals are Licensed gun owners. For example... In Texas the stats show that only 0.26% of ALL criminals convicted in 2007 were License to carry holders. I am sure, that statistically, that would mean that FAR less than that ever threatened, or used, a gun against a Police Officer.

I think the media's portrayal of gun owners as the bad guys, is at least partly to blame. It has trickled down into even law enforcement, although the facts are, MOST licensed gun owners are overwhelmingly the good guys!

Some LEOs laugh at open carriers, but look what we are trying to accomplish. We are trying to fight against downright lies and misinformation about us, as portrayed by the media.

Some people scoff at the comparison, but I think calling it a Civil Rights issue is valid, and there are many parallels between racism, and hoplophobia. Both are based on misunderstanding, fear, and even lies about a certain group of people. Are they not?

 

[Roadie]

I have read all 100+ pages on this thread. It seems the biggest problem was that one officer had mistaken impressions about single-action semi autos. I realize not all police officers are "gun people". In my experiences, police officers that are "into" guns seem to be in the minority. Is there a need for more or better firearms training? Should officers at the academies be exposed to the various types of firearms and their safe operation? When I was in Marine Corps boot camp, we were given a familiarization class on the AK-series of weapons. The basic operation of the weapons was shown to us. This was done so that if we were ever in a situation where we had to grab up an AK, we would at least know how to operate the weapon. I think it wouldn't hurt if police officers had a similar type of training.

They didn't have mistaken impressions about JUST single action semi autos, they also had mistaken impressions about handguns PERIOD.

Somehow, they thought it safe to tell a group of armed individuals to not only HANDLE their weapons in a public place, but to unload and CLEAR them in a public place!

ZERO understanding of gun safety, if you ask me. I am a relative n00b to guns, but I learned early on that the safest gun is the one you are NOT touching!

How did these LEOs not understand that very basic concept?
They put themselves, the INGO members, AND the public at risk, all due for nothing.

...and again I ask, what if another LEO, late to the party, came along and saw a group of armed citizens, surrounded by Police Officers, and suddenly, one of the citizen grabs unholsters weapon?

 

[Compatriot G]

Really?
To me, the biggest problem is the overstepping the officers had shown by abusing their power, violating citizen's rights.
Lack of knowledge of firearms is also a concern, but not even close in comparison to the gross negligence they have for the oath they swore to uphold.

Let me clarify. I agree the biggest problem was the violation of your rights. However, it seems the lack of knowledge about your type of firearm led to the situation that occurred. The fact that the officer was also ignorant of basic gun handling safety only made it worse.

If the officer in question would have understood the mechanics of single-action autos and the basics of gun handling safety, do you think this incident would have escalated to the level that it did?

Of course, they should have just sent everybody on their way once LTCH's were produced.

I'm not condoning the actions of the officer that handcuffed you. I'm not condoning how this encounter went. I'm just thinking out loud on this one.

I'm on your side.

 

[wag1911]

Let me clarify. I agree the biggest problem was the violation of your rights. However, it seems the lack of knowledge about your type of firearm led to the situation that occurred. The fact that the officer was also ignorant of basic gun handling safety only made it worse.

If the officer in question would have understood the mechanics of single-action autos and the basics of gun handling safety, do you think this incident would have escalated to the level that it did?

Of course, they should have just sent everybody on their way once LTCH's were produced.

I'm not condoning the actions of the officer that handcuffed you. I'm not condoning how this encounter went. I'm just thinking out loud on this one.

I'm on your side.

If it was ignorance of the firearm's function, then the fact that ATF explained to him why it was a bad idea should have sufficed.

In fact, I was asked to do the same thing not knowing what ATF had gone through and I explained it to an officer as well.

The response: Just do it. <I don't remember the exact words but that was the gist>

This wasn't just a case of ignorance and that is why this is such a bad reflection on the department.

See post: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...6-ingo_member_in_handcuffs-4.html#post1417234

 

[CorvetteTom]

I vote ATFC for sure

I'm sure it was too.

He got the cuffs about the time he mentioned Officer HighandMighty's childlike genitalia.

Here's the next OC event if Officer HighLife shows up again :
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUVGf8B2yc]YouTube - Retarded Policeman #8: Tazer[/ame]

 

[.40caltrucker]

Hey guys why don't we all come together on this? We all agree the LEO's overreacted and violated his rights correct?

With 40,000 views we should get a well spoken INGO member to state the facts of this case, the fact a law abiding citizen was detained, and what IMPD needs to do to correct the action and ensure this doesn't happen again. Write a letter addressed to whom it may concern and post it on here. with just $5 each we could all send one of these letters to all the public offices of INDY. Simply commenting here isn't enough to change anything. However if we inundate their offices with thousands of letter per week eventually they night come around.

I wish we could get enough people to do this then start doing this to all the anti gun organizations there are. Just absolutely overwhelm their mail offices.

 

[Compatriot G]

If it was ignorance of the firearm's function, then the fact that ATF explained to him why it was a bad idea should have sufficed.

In fact, I was asked to do the same thing not knowing what ATF had gone through and I explained it to an officer as well.

The response: Just do it. <I don't remember the exact words but that was the gist>

This wasn't just a case of ignorance and that is why this is such a bad reflection on the department.

See post: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...6-ingo_member_in_handcuffs-4.html#post1417234

Here is something I have learned over the years in dealing with law enforcement. Unless they know you, they generally don't believe anything you say that may contradict them. As an example, I got into an argument with a local officer about a parking situation. We ended up arguing about whether a parking lot across from my house was city owned or privately owned. The lot is city owned. However, the officer thought it was owned by a corporation in town. He actually told me that even if he is completely wrong, he is still right because he is the one wearing the badge.

I believe this is the situation you ran into. It didn't matter that you were correct. The officer was not going to believe you.

This is where training comes into play. If the officer had been to a weapons familiarization class taught by a certified instructor, he would know you all were carrying safely and may not have said anything. Or, if he was a "gun person", he probably would have know your method of carry was safe.

Not to change the subject, but I believe this also goes along with what I'm trying to state. I am a ham radio operator. If you think being stopped with a gun on you can be a hassle, try having a gun and radio equipment on you or in your vehicle. I keep a copy of the section of the Indiana Code that deals with "police radios". This way, I can show the officer that it is legal for me to have the radios. Even if the officer doesn't believe me, he still has the IC code to look up and verify for himself.

 

[ATM]

...If the officer had been to a weapons familiarization class taught by a certified instructor, he would know you all were carrying safely and may not have said anything. Or, if he was a "gun person", he probably would have know your method of carry was safe.

Regardless, it is not his job to enforce "safe" methods of carry.

There's legal and illegal.

Not in a prohibited place? Not pointing it at anyone?

Good to go.

 

[Hammerhead]

ATM, that's too KISS simple and common sense-like. It must be wrong. Nothing like that should ever happen.