lots of police called on me

[JetGirl]

I emailed WOWO about my story

Well, if Pat White picks it up...he'll make you sound nutters.
I don't much care for the way he double talks and makes it sound like he's on one side, but when the least "out of the norm" thing happens, he turns on people and makes them out to be crackpots.

Charlie Butcher is on in the mornings and I believe a member of these boards.

Seriously??? I had no idea he was an INGO member!
I've liked that guy since he was on WMEE with Tony Richards.

 

[silentvoice71]

does anyone happen to know charlie butcher's Handle on the ingo forums????

 

[jbombelli]

When cops say they don't know the law, they usually mean they don't know the exact wording of the law. Most will have a firm grasp, some won't until they are told, and others will never get it, but given rarely anyone wants to do the job, they were the only bodies left to give a badge too. I have never known of a situation where the suspect didn't know they were doing something wrong. There are some gray areas, but for the most part, the crimes we are talking about are your basic crimes that most folks know their actions are at a minimum questionable (ie: Going onto property that is not yours to skateboard, then claiming ignorance of trespass law...not gonna fly, as it is not _YOUR_ property, and you know that).

The problem is this is a double edge sword. I have gotten complaints for _not_ doing something. This affects my personnel file, and could affect my chances are promotion. Some departments are good about only including substantiated complaints, others throw them all in regardless of fault. Look at the other thread on here about shots fired. People complaining because the cops didn't play jackboot and 'do more'. It is a no win situation. The person complaining about their rights being violated because a cop makes a mistake in the law will turn around and demand the cops "do something!" in an incident they deem unacceptable, or when the person doesn't think the cops are doing enough.

But I'm still expected to know and abide by ALL the laws. Not just the ones I know, not just the ones that are common sense, not just the ones that I like, not just the ones that you know. All of them.


The bottom line is... if you're going to go out and enforce the law, make sure you're right. Don't make statements about what the law says if you don't know for sure that's what it says (not necessarily you, specifically...). A lot of LEOs don't seem to get that. And the saddest part is... LEOs can make a simple phone call or radio call and get clarification, but a significant number won't do that before they shoot off their mouths and get out the handcuffs.

And I think you know, and understand the frustration some of us have in this regard.

Ignorance of the law being no excuse often seems to only apply to US.

 

[rich8483]

Anyone that carry's a weapon for self defense should already have a lawyer on retainer and on their speed dial.





TK

this, didnt gunlawyer say he was going to get a list of gun savvy lawyers put together by region? did he ever do that?

has anyone seen him on the boards lately??

 

[ihateiraq]

youre not african-american by any chance are you? that would guarantee a seven figure pay day.

 

[silentvoice71]

no im not black....i told my wife if i was there would have been a tactical air strike on stand by........2000lb jdams waiting for me......

 

[Eddie]

Couple of points on things that have been brought up in this thread:

-If you find a lawyer to take this as a 1983 suit (civil rights violation) then if you win any money at all you are allowed to recover your attorney's fees from the city. This often puts a municipality between a rock and a hard place; if they vigorously defend your lawsuit but you take them to trial after years of battling and the jury feels sorry for you and awards you $100, then your attorney might have a bill for $150,000 that they have to pay. (They can have a hearing on it, but hourly rates of $200 to $250 an hour will be easily justified.) On the other hand, they can settle with you early, before you rack up a bunch of fees. Local government often finds this repugnant, but if you go away for say $40,000, that's probably their cost of litigation anyway. So, short answer is that if you can find a lawyer to pursue this as a civil rights violation then you have a decent chance of recovering your fees.

-cops only get a very basic course on criminal law and it is not all inclusive. I doubt there is even a lawyer in Indiana short of some law school professor writing a treatise on the topic that knows every single criminal law. There are statutes tucked away all over the code that for example might describe how to run a cemetary or keep records at the courthouse that end with a section that says "violation of this chapter is a C Misdemeanor".

That being said, I would think that the body of law surrounding handguns would be important enough that most LEOs would take the time to educate themselves on the topic, but, that is just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[jstwrit]

Does anyone carry a copy of the written law with them? Would it do any good? Show them the law, let them argue with black and white. Just a thought.

 

[LawDog76]

Does anyone carry a copy of the written law with them? Would it do any good? Show them the law, let them argue with black and white. Just a thought.

I actually did that yesterday after reading this post. I printed it off from IN.gov: Home and not a second hand source site. I also printed off the FAQ post from the ISP where a peron asked "Does Indiana statute require me to carry the handgun on my person concealed orexposed?

And the rep for a ISP answered, "Indiana law is silent on this issue; however, carrying an exposed weapon in public may alarm some people. Also, the right to carry a firearm may be restricted on private property and businesses by the owners. Be attentive for signs warning of restricted areas when carrying firearms into public places. If approached by law enforcement for official business such as traffic stops or complaint related inquiries, it is recommended that you tell the officer in a non-threatening manner that you are carrying a weapon or have a weapon in the vehicle and that you have a valid permit. A law enforcement officer does have the right to inspect the permit.

Both are kept in the glove box next to my registration and proof of insurance. I've also consider printing off Fort Wayne Police Officer Joyner's statement he posted on Fort Wayne Police Department website and keeping that in there also "There is no requirement to keep a firearm concealed when on your person; however who would want to carry it unconcealed. We have had many past discussions concerning this question. You might enjoy going back to review them."

 

[ihateiraq]

freepost

what?

 

[techno.m3]

hope this gets resolved in a positive manner.

sad to hear that fort wayne is not very gun friendly

 

[rayf268]

I wonder if that would have happened in a better side of town SW ft wayne. granted that speedway isn't in the ghetto but not a fine upstanding neighbor hood ether

 

[Captain Bligh]

Okay, I'm no lawyer and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Will one of you scholarly types please explain to me what exactly the OP is advised to sue over? I'm missing something here. I would agree that FWPD may have over-reacted and the verbal preaching of the LEOs was over-the-top and inappropriate, but what would the legal grounds for the lawsuit be?

Don't LEOs have authority to take command of a a situation for their own and the public safety until they determine whether a crime is being committed? Threats were made (against OPs LTCH permit) but so far I read no post that says they are anything other than LEO intimidation and hot air (something I've seen FWPD officers do before, btw). I read most by not all of the posts. I didn't catch that either the LTCH or the firearm were confiscated. Did I miss something about that?

As for a "civil rights" violation, I think that's a reach. Civil rights legislation has to do with discrimination against protected groups: race, gender, age, disability. Legal rights and constitutional rights are not the same thing as civil rights. Is the OP a member of a protected group? Is the allegation that he was harrased because of race, gender, age, disability?

From where I sit, there is a lot of advice being thrown around here that is most likely to cause the OP to lose a lot of money on an attorney before it is necessary to do so (i.e., before there is action against his LTCH or other criminal charges are filed). I've sued and been sued. Neither are inexpensive propositions.

To the OP: Find out what your legal rights are from an attorney consult. Don't act from the advice of a bunch of armchair lawyers on a gun forum.

Personally, I bet you never hear again about the LTCH issue. Hot air, I'm sayin'

 

[Eddie]

Okay, I'm no lawyer and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Will one of you scholarly types please explain to me what exactly the OP is advised to sue over? I'm missing something here. I would agree that FWPD may have over-reacted and the verbal preaching of the LEOs was over-the-top and inappropriate, but what would the legal grounds for the lawsuit be?

Don't LEOs have authority to take command of a a situation for their own and the public safety until they determine whether a crime is being committed? Threats were made (against OPs LTCH permit) but so far I read no post that says they are anything other than LEO intimidation and hot air (something I've seen FWPD officers do before, btw). I read most by not all of the posts. I didn't catch that either the LTCH or the firearm were confiscated. Did I miss something about that?

As for a "civil rights" violation, I think that's a reach. Civil rights legislation has to do with discrimination against protected groups: race, gender, age, disability. Legal rights and constitutional rights are not the same thing as civil rights. Is the OP a member of a protected group? Is the allegation that he was harrased because of race, gender, age, disability?

From where I sit, there is a lot of advice being thrown around here that is most likely to cause the OP to lose a lot of money on an attorney before it is necessary to do so (i.e., before there is action against his LTCH or other criminal charges are filed). I've sued and been sued. Neither are inexpensive propositions.

To the OP: Find out what your legal rights are from an attorney consult. Don't act from the advice of a bunch of armchair lawyers on a gun forum.

Personally, I bet you never hear again about the LTCH issue. Hot air, I'm sayin'

The suggestion is that he look for someone to represent him in a 1983 suit. Here is the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC 1983):

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

I think that the gist of the suit would be that he was temporarily deprived of his right to keep and bear arms when he clearly was not breaking any laws nor was he doing anything that that would lead the police to believe that he was breaking the law. He was made to lie on the ground when the police had no legal reason to stop him.

I will be the first to admit that this area of law is a bit outside my normal area of practice, but you should watch who you call an "armchair lawyer". There are several INGOers who practice in the courtroom, not in an armchair.

 

[Joe Williams]

The suggestion is that he look for someone to represent him in a 1983 suit. Here is the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC 1983):

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
I think that the gist of the suit would be that he was temporarily deprived of his right to keep and bear arms when he clearly was not breaking any laws nor was he doing anything that that would lead the police to believe that he was breaking the law. He was made to lie on the ground when the police had no legal reason to stop him.

I will be the first to admit that this area of law is a bit outside my normal area of practice, but you should watch who you call an "armchair lawyer". There are several INGOers who practice in the courtroom, not in an armchair.

Being deprived of the right to keep and bear arms is secondary, in this matter. The main focus needs to be on the illegal detention, since the police had no reason to believe he was committing a crime, or was about to. Even though a LTCH is required to carry a handgun in Indiana, the police had no reasonable articulable suspicion that he did not have one. Merely carrying a firearm is not legal foundation sufficient to create such suspicion, according to several federal court rulings. The threat, made under color of law, to execute him for OC'ing in a bank, which is a perfectly legal activity, was a violation of his rights. His fourth and fifth amendment rights were violated, and the verbal abuse, again under color of law, were a further abuse of government authority. The firearms issue is secondary, and needs to stay that way for a complaint to be successful. A Second Amendment complaint would be very difficult to make, I'd think. Of course, IANAL, so that's just my

 

[Eddie]

Being deprived of the right to keep and bear arms is secondary, in this matter. The main focus needs to be on the illegal detention, since the police had no reason to believe he was committing a crime, or was about to. Even though a LTCH is required to carry a handgun in Indiana, the police had no reasonable articulable suspicion that he did not have one. Merely carrying a firearm is not legal foundation sufficient to create such suspicion, according to several federal court rulings. The threat, made under color of law, to execute him for OC'ing in a bank, which is a perfectly legal activity, was a violation of his rights. His fourth and fifth amendment rights were violated, and the verbal abuse, again under color of law, were a further abuse of government authority. The firearms issue is secondary, and needs to stay that way for a complaint to be successful. A Second Amendment complaint would be very difficult to make, I'd think. Of course, IANAL, so that's just my

All very good points Joe. As I posted above, he just needs to get a toe hold somewhere; to show that his rights were violated.

 

[Captain Bligh]

...

I will be the first to admit that this area of law is a bit outside my normal area of practice, but you should watch who you call an "armchair lawyer". There are several INGOers who practice in the courtroom, not in an armchair.

Eddie, my apologies if you are a member of the bar. My point was there is lot of advice here from folks like me and others who I presume aren't a member of the bar. I think the OP should act upon legal advice. When I want legal advice I'm going to pay a lawyer. Just trying to keep ya'll fed, Eddie.

 

[groovatron]

To the OP: Find out what your legal rights are from an attorney consult. Don't act from the advice of a bunch of armchair lawyers on a gun forum.

Ironic.....when you finally gave your advice for the situation, it ended up being awkwardly similar to those you were criticizing.

 

[Roadie]

IANAL, but this case seems to apply, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), held that law enforcement cannot stop and frisk a citizen based solely on an anonymous tip describing only innocent behavior and which also does not sufficiently predict the future actions of its subject.

The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.
The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun . . .
(more at link)

 

[Captain Bligh]

Ironic.....when you finally gave your advice for the situation, it ended up being awkwardly similar to those you were criticizing.

The forum seems to be shouting "sue." I'm saying the OP should consult with a lawyer to see if he has a case with enough legs to give him a reasonable chance of winning before risking his savings account.