Johnson County Sherrif Deputy encounter

[the1kidd03]

As for the thread title, why do all the officers of the Johnson County Sheriff's Department now suck? Because of this one officer's ignorance? Certainly they don't ALL suck, right?

Thread titles like these are why INGOers who are also police officers feel outcast. It just perpetuates the 'us vs. them' perception that we don't need here. We're all gun owners on INGO.

I understand your concern regarding this site, however I contest that the "us vs. them" attitude is instituted by LEOs who act as though they are "above the law" (as demonstrated in this thread:https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ay_bullets_dont_only_come_from_cops_guns.html) by expecting preferential treatment, holding double standards for themselves vs their communities, and being disrespectful to citizens in everyday interactions such as this. Being presented with this type of conduct by those who are supposed to set proper examples is only going to lead to a retaliatory perpetuation of the same behavior by those who have been at the receiving end of it. Hence, it has a root cause that I fail to see starting with most citizens, or the OP for that matter.

As far as your next few postings in this thread regarding stereotyping. You're not going to be able to abolish this. Humans are naturally stereotyping, generalizing, judgemental creatures. It's a defense mechanism by which people try to learn from mistakes to not repeat instances where they have been harmed previously (whether it be emotionally or physically). LE do the same. Hence, one stereotyped the OP in this instance for OC'ing with that of a criminal. I agree that it is wrong, but everyone is guilty of it. Even I do it, although I try to make an effort not to. It's simply unavoidable. Thus, making it hardly something to "argue" about or a reason to pass judgment or pass off other, more important issues.

 

[the1kidd03]

and as for the title.. i came to this as it has happened not once, not twice, but now three times that i was told by Johnson County deputies that i cannot open carry while in the county. never have i once been stopped and asked if i had a licensed and then let go on my way like with the IMPD officers that i have encountered. I dont know if it is a lapse in the corse of training that many of the officers i encounter in Johnson county dont know the law or if in fact they are just trying to make me follow their demands.

had this been a first or even second time with this particular LE agency, i would have had a different title. BUT 3 times with one particular LE agency has led me to the conclusion that their officers are poorly educated on the laws of Indianas LTCH..

I wish my encounters with IMPD had gone that well. I also wish I had known Guy Relford about 7-8 years ago.

 

[the1kidd03]

This.



And this.




...and this! As soon as Deputy Dog said, "IF you have a permit, you would know that in Indiana you have to conceal your weapon when carrying... Take it out and read it," I would have been all over that like Mayor Bloomberg tap dancing in the pooling blood of the latest shooting victim!!!

I'd say, "Challenge accepted!!

to find the word 'concealed' on my LTCH! If you find it, I'll pay for your kid's college education, if you don't, you pay for my kid's college education...deal?" If he refuses the triple dog dare , you and all the witnesses will know that this Johnson County Deputy is just acting like a johnson and trying to show everyone who's johnson is bigger and failing at it...

You should definitely bring his ignorance and lack of professionalism to the attention of his boss.

AND everyone that was witnessing the exchange. This post had me

 

[ATM]

This works both ways because not one LEO can cite anywhere in IC either when they make the claim that you cannot OC.

That's why when you produce an LTCH and ask him if he can point out anywhere that specifies mode of carry it will serve a purpose by putting the ball back in his court.

Since he is the one trying to enforce his position it is up to him to back it up.

Yep. It's not our responsibility to try to prove a negative against an absurd claim which we know doesn't exist.

 

[the1kidd03]

I know what the last acronym in your post means, as do lots of other folks. You know that such language will earn you a ban on here. One more slip up like that and you will not be welcome on INGO anymore. I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but come on.....

This one in particular concerns me. I mean no offense here, and I understand and totally agree with the acronym that was selected should not be used. However, I have numerous times seen blatant swears pass by on threads without any in thread reprimand such as this. Thus violating the very generalized forum rule, "2) Language that would be inappropriate in the polite company of strangers is unwelcome here."?? While this sentence is largley open to individual interpretation, I simply find it odd that you chose to handle this circumstance in this fashion being that it is of a controversial "LEO bashing" nature??

I know, I know...the typical scapegoat for responsibility, "if you have a problem with a post you should report it" however my name block doesn't read "moderator" and I'm personally not offended by others exercising their 1st amendment rights. I'm merely "calling it as I see it," no offense intended. So go ahead and away if need be.

 

[donnie1581]

This one in particular concerns me. I mean no offense here, and I understand and totally agree with the acronym that was selected should not be used. However, I have numerous times seen blatant swears pass by on threads without any in thread reprimand such as this. Thus violating the very generalized forum rule, "2) Language that would be inappropriate in the polite company of strangers is unwelcome here."?? While this sentence is largley open to individual interpretation, I simply find it odd that you chose to handle this circumstance in this fashion being that it is of a controversial "LEO bashing" nature??

I know, I know...the typical scapegoat for responsibility, "if you have a problem with a post you should report it" however my name block doesn't read "moderator" and I'm personally not offended by others exercising their 1st amendment rights. I'm merely "calling it as I see it," no offense intended. So go ahead and away if need be.

LOL I have no clue whatsoever what that acronym means.

 

[the1kidd03]

I often see people cite common sense as a reason to see things "their way". Honest question - what is common sense? Isn't it arbitrary from one person to another. For one, jumping out of an airplane with a parachute is absolutely crazy. To another, it is just another day at work. You see how this "common sense" can be developed on an individual basis, based entirely on that person's personal experiences, religion, background, and up-bringing.

Just because your perspective of what constitutes "common sense" may be different than another person's, doesn't mean that you are a dumb a--. Nor does it mean that the other person is a dumb a-- either. It just means that you have both developed your own opinions based on your life experiences and goals.

+1 repped

 

[the1kidd03]

LOL I have no clue whatsoever what that acronym means.

It took me a minute. I think it's largely used in military/LE communities than anywhere else. H**IC is the standard. The middle figures can be replaced with any sort of preferred terms.

 

[stephen87]

LOL I have no clue whatsoever what that acronym means.

Head nutjob in charge is what I figured.

 

[the1kidd03]

agreed. according to a said family member, the chargers are for higher ranking deputies that wouldnt be working a post such as this.. my understanding is that MCS are still in charge of inmate transport and care in the jails. some one correct me and my source if we are not correct. JCS are still the in the law enforceing business right??

Indeed, but MCS still have police authority/powers within IN. Hence, they are permitted to work part time security gigs in their off duty time for additional money. A lot of which is organized through the department which gives them additional revenue. This could be an explanation for the new Dodge Chargers other posters were talking about.

 

[PriestEG]

FTR, I changed the title of this thread thereby disabling the OP's broad brush.....

if this is the case that my title has some how cause a stir with those reading it and the way that it is to be read then fine, but everything is open to interpitation by ones own preconcieved opinions and thoughts. it was a simple voicing of my opion of this one particular officer and his handling of the situation, sucky

i did not call out ALL Johnson County LEOs and report on all of them being terrible at their jobs.. just this one whom, IMO, did a poor job handling things with me on this one particular

 

[the1kidd03]

As far as the whole situation, I understand the OP's point being that it is not his DIRECT responsibility to educate LEOs on the law. That is part of their duties. On the other hand, the OP being a OC'er by choice, does bear with him a high level of "indirect responsibility" to the rest of the gun community. Priest recognized this in a couple of his posts regarding educating other citizens.

Choosing to OC puts one in the light within the community. It allows educated gun owners to educate those who are not, whether they are LEOs, gun owning citizens, or anti-gun citizens. When choosing to OC you are aware of this, or quickly made aware of it if not otherwise. The "indirect responsibility" is that his actions while OC'ing in public are a direct reflection of the gun owner community. It is likely that many of those witnessing these interactions have no knowledge of firearms or the gun owner community. Therefore it is imperative to handle such situations appropriately. I wouldn't argue that he "did NOT handle it appropriately" as it is, though. He did relatively well.

The issue then becomes the affects after the situation. In this case, the officer is going to go about his business as he was previously conducting it. So, while the OP fared well on ONE front of his "indirect responsibility" he left another side/half of it unaffected. Now, said LEO will not be made aware of the REAL law and will continue to harrass other citizens because he has not been corrected yet.

All in all, I couldn't say this was a good or bad experience necessarily but I certainly think there is an area which could be improved. As Esrice pointed out much earlier, even the slight effort in a written letter to the Sherriff would suffice as to at least make an effort to correct the problem, in order to prevent this treatment from happening to OTHER gun owners.

 

[PriestEG]

As far as the whole situation, I understand the OP's point being that it is not his DIRECT responsibility to educate LEOs on the law. That is part of their duties. On the other hand, the OP being a OC'er by choice, does bear with him a high level of "indirect responsibility" to the rest of the gun community. Priest recognized this in a couple of his posts regarding educating other citizens.

Choosing to OC puts one in the light within the community. It allows educated gun owners to educate those who are not, whether they are LEOs, gun owning citizens, or anti-gun citizens. When choosing to OC you are aware of this, or quickly made aware of it if not otherwise. The "indirect responsibility" is that his actions while OC'ing in public are a direct reflection of the gun owner community. It is likely that many of those witnessing these interactions have no knowledge of firearms or the gun owner community. Therefore it is imperative to handle such situations appropriately. I wouldn't argue that he "did NOT handle it appropriately" as it is, though. He did relatively well.

The issue then becomes the affects after the situation. In this case, the officer is going to go about his business as he was previously conducting it. So, while the OP fared well on ONE front of his "indirect responsibility" he left another side/half of it unaffected. Now, said LEO will not be made aware of the REAL law and will continue to harrass other citizens because he has not been corrected yet.

All in all, I couldn't say this was a good or bad experience necessarily but I certainly think there is an area which could be improved. As Esrice pointed out much earlier, even the slight effort in a written letter to the Sherriff would suffice as to at least make an effort to correct the problem, in order to prevent this treatment from happening to OTHER gun owners.

so what would you recomend that i do differently? take the time to educate an increasingly upset LEO about how he is incorrect on something and run the risk of ruining my evening out? if he had been more calm and not so ang
ry, having the "my way or the highway" attitude, i would have considered..

 

[KG1]

if this is the case that my title has some how cause a stir with those reading it and the way that it is to be read then fine, but everything is open to interpitation by ones own preconcieved opinions and thoughts. it was a simple voicing of my opion of this one particular officer and his handling of the situation, sucky

i did not call out ALL Johnson County LEOs and report on all of them being terrible at their jobs.. just this one whom, IMO, did a poor job handling things with me on this one particular

I guess it was his opinion that you were making an over generalization.

My question would be did he change the title to the thread because it was pertaining to LEOs and he is not only a LEO but also a MOD thus giving him the means to change it because he disagreed with it and would he also consider editing or deleting posts that he feels the same way about?

 

[the1kidd03]

so what would you recomend that i do differently? take the time to educate an increasingly upset LEO about how he is incorrect on something and run the risk of ruining my evening out? if he had been more calm and not so ang
ry, having the "my way or the highway" attitude, i would have considered..

Yeah, I TOTALLY understand those situations. I've fell "victim" to the "I'm a cop, can do no wrong, my way or the highway" attitude a couple times myself. I originally liked the idea of presenting him your LTCH when he stated "it says concealed," because that would not only show him the error of his ways but also show the witnesses the various "problems" involved. However, if he's already as irritated as you say he was, you probably did the best thing. From there, I would certainly go about writing that letter to his Sherriff and be sure to demonstrate the hostility of the officer, how unprofessional it is in front of those witnesses, and how it affected your evening, briefly. Concentrate on his lack of knowledge of state laws which he is expected to enforce while presenting himself in uniform. You will probably get a typical "to all" reply letter back, but at least you made the effort. Now, if you can be CERTAIN of which department he works for I may be able to help you with that letter because I know a certain Sherriff personally but not if it's not the right one.

 

[the1kidd03]

I guess it was his opinion that you were making an over generalization.

My question would be did he change the title to the thread because it was pertaining to LEOs and he is not only a LEO but also a MOD thus giving him the means to change it because he disagreed with it?

This is my thought process as well, and not the first time I've encountered such circumstances.

 

[PriestEG]

My question would be did he change the title to the thread because it was pertaining to LEOs and he is not only a LEO but also a MOD thus giving him the means to change it because he disagreed with it?

 

[mtgasten]

Those aren't rules.
They are conditions.
Conditions are different for different Automobile Operators.
But it doesn't say "Obey the Posted Speed Limit".
It doesn't say "Do not pass on a double yellow line, or where posted".
etc.

conditions-rules, you say potato i say potahto, conditions can be viewed as rules and for most of us i'd say that they act very much the same as rules

 

[VUPDblue]

This one in particular concerns me. I mean no offense here, and I understand and totally agree with the acronym that was selected should not be used. However, I have numerous times seen blatant swears pass by on threads without any in thread reprimand such as this. Thus violating the very generalized forum rule, "2) Language that would be inappropriate in the polite company of strangers is unwelcome here."?? While this sentence is largley open to individual interpretation, I simply find it odd that you chose to handle this circumstance in this fashion being that it is of a controversial "LEO bashing" nature??

I know, I know...the typical scapegoat for responsibility, "if you have a problem with a post you should report it" however my name block doesn't read "moderator" and I'm personally not offended by others exercising their 1st amendment rights. I'm merely "calling it as I see it," no offense intended. So go ahead and away if need be.

I took action on that post because it was reported more than once. It is also not about cuss words, but rather the racial insensitivity that it contains. Neither are acceptable here. If you want us to go back to zero tolerance on the language front, maybe we will do that but I encourage you to be careful what you wish for.

 

[VUPDblue]

I guess it was his opinion that you were making an over generalization.

My question would be did he change the title to the thread because it was pertaining to LEOs and he is not only a LEO but also a MOD thus giving him the means to change it because he disagreed with it and would he also consider editing or deleting posts that he feels the same way about?

I changed it because it was a broad generalization about an entire department. If the OP wants me to change it to A Johnson County Sheriff's Deputy Sucks then I would do that, but I won't put it back the way it started.