Officer Doosh thinks he knows the law...

[BehindBlueI's]

I was wondering the same thing, unless I am misunderstanding the term. To me, stop and ID means an officer may stop a citizen without reason and demand to see ID ("papers please"), which is not legal in Indiana. If you are suspected of an infraction or violation (but not misdemeanor or felony) in Indiana an officer may demand that you ID yourself and he must tell you what infraction or violation you have committed.
Or am I am off base and wrong?

You're confusing when you can be arrested for failure to ID alone and when an officer can demand to see ID. The officer doesn't have to tell you what infraction or violation you committed, as recommended in the book "Verbal Judo". I did every non-felony traffic stop the same, said the same thing every time, etc. The reason you get the ID first is if they want to argue, you can just walk back to your car and leave them talking to themselves. Until I have your ID I'm stuck at your window, and I'm not arguing with you.

In literally thousands of traffic stops it was an issue exactly once, and the driver went to jail for failure to ID. The defense attorney played the "you didn't say what infraction you stopped for" card and it was shot down. They appealed, also shot down. I do *not* have to tell you why I stopped you prior to getting your ID.

Indiana allows an officer to stop you if you are spotted carrying a handgun and then verify you have a LTCH. If you don't show your license or ID yourself so that your license status can be verified, you'll be arrested. The arrest will be for carrying without a license. You WON'T be charged with failure to ID, though, as it doesn't pertain to misdemeanors. The burden is SPECIFICALLY on you to show you can legally carry.

IC 35-47-2-24 states: ...the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter....

The whole reason for the "Failure to ID" law is to prevent stalemates for non-arrestable offenses. Without it, say I pull you over for speeding and you refuse to give me your license. I can't arrest you for speeding and have no way to identify you, so we are at a stalemate. I can hold you roadside as long as you don't ID for me to write the ticket, but can't arrest you. It just becomes a waiting game, are you willing to sit there longer than me? With Failure to ID I can break the waiting game by simply arresting you.

 

[Rookie]

I'll be happy to show my LTCH, but I will not give my drivers license. As far as you are concerned, I don't have it on me. My LTCH has more than enough information to determine if I'm a properly licensed person. My LTCH satisfies burden of proof.

 

[stephen87]

You're confusing when you can be arrested for failure to ID alone and when an officer can demand to see ID. The officer doesn't have to tell you what infraction or violation you committed, as recommended in the book "Verbal Judo". I did every non-felony traffic stop the same, said the same thing every time, etc. The reason you get the ID first is if they want to argue, you can just walk back to your car and leave them talking to themselves. Until I have your ID I'm stuck at your window, and I'm not arguing with you.

In literally thousands of traffic stops it was an issue exactly once, and the driver went to jail for failure to ID. The defense attorney played the "you didn't say what infraction you stopped for" card and it was shot down. They appealed, also shot down. I do *not* have to tell you why I stopped you prior to getting your ID.

Indiana allows an officer to stop you if you are spotted carrying a handgun and then verify you have a LTCH. If you don't show your license or ID yourself so that your license status can be verified, you'll be arrested. The arrest will be for carrying without a license. You WON'T be charged with failure to ID, though, as it doesn't pertain to misdemeanors. The burden is SPECIFICALLY on you to show you can legally carry.

IC 35-47-2-24 states: ...the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter....

The whole reason for the "Failure to ID" law is to prevent stalemates for non-arrestable offenses. Without it, say I pull you over for speeding and you refuse to give me your license. I can't arrest you for speeding and have no way to identify you, so we are at a stalemate. I can hold you roadside as long as you don't ID for me to write the ticket, but can't arrest you. It just becomes a waiting game, are you willing to sit there longer than me? With Failure to ID I can break the waiting game by simply arresting you.

I believe Bill is referring to the fact that if I'm walking down the street without a handgun and without committing any offense, an officer cannot walk up to me and say "Do you have state issued ID?" and when I say yes they cannot demand it or lock me up. That is different than a non-felony stop for rolling a stop sign, doing 55 in a 54, failure to signal, etc. He's speaking in terms of, there is no reason to stop you for any type of ID.

But yes, carrying a handgun would be enough to stop you to check your credentials.

 

[sgtonory]

You're confusing when you can be arrested for failure to ID alone and when an officer can demand to see ID. The officer doesn't have to tell you what infraction or violation you committed, as recommended in the book "Verbal Judo". I did every non-felony traffic stop the same, said the same thing every time, etc. The reason you get the ID first is if they want to argue, you can just walk back to your car and leave them talking to themselves. Until I have your ID I'm stuck at your window, and I'm not arguing with you.

In literally thousands of traffic stops it was an issue exactly once, and the driver went to jail for failure to ID. The defense attorney played the "you didn't say what infraction you stopped for" card and it was shot down. They appealed, also shot down. I do *not* have to tell you why I stopped you prior to getting your ID.

Indiana allows an officer to stop you if you are spotted carrying a handgun and then verify you have a LTCH. If you don't show your license or ID yourself so that your license status can be verified, you'll be arrested. The arrest will be for carrying without a license. You WON'T be charged with failure to ID, though, as it doesn't pertain to misdemeanors. The burden is SPECIFICALLY on you to show you can legally carry.

IC 35-47-2-24 states: ...the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter....

The whole reason for the "Failure to ID" law is to prevent stalemates for non-arrestable offenses. Without it, say I pull you over for speeding and you refuse to give me your license. I can't arrest you for speeding and have no way to identify you, so we are at a stalemate. I can hold you roadside as long as you don't ID for me to write the ticket, but can't arrest you. It just becomes a waiting game, are you willing to sit there longer than me? With Failure to ID I can break the waiting game by simply arresting you.

Question. How can there be a crime if there is no victim? And how can something that is not real give you a power? How can refusing to talk or give property to someone that demands it a crime? How is anything you talked about be supporting your Oath of office?

 

[Exodus]

What about carry on your own property or friend's house? Since no ltch required.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Question. How can there be a crime if there is no victim? And how can something that is not real give you a power? How can refusing to talk or give property to someone that demands it a crime? How is anything you talked about be supporting your Oath of office?

The State is the victim of course

 

[sgtonory]

I believe Bill is referring to the fact that if I'm walking down the street without a handgun and without committing any offense, an officer cannot walk up to me and say "Do you have state issued ID?" and when I say yes they cannot demand it or lock me up. That is different than a non-felony stop for rolling a stop sign, doing 55 in a 54, failure to signal, etc. He's speaking in terms of, there is no reason to stop you for any type of ID.

But yes, carrying a handgun would be enough to stop you to check your credentials.

Who gives such credentials? Do we not have unalienable right? How can carrying your property be a reason to arrest someone?

 

[Light]

According to wikipedia, Missouri does have a stop and identify law.

Section 84-710 Police force--officers of state--powers

But it states that they can only force them to identify if they are suspected of committing a crime, so the officer was incorrect.

 

[sgtonory]

According to wikipedia, Missouri does have a stop and identify law.

Section 84-710 Police force--officers of state--powers

But it states that they can only force them to identify if they are suspected of committing a crime, so the officer was incorrect.

Statutes is not a Law.

 

[stephen87]

Who gives such credentials? Do we not have unalienable right? How can carrying your property be a reason to arrest someone?

Yes, you do have an unalienable right. However, the state has decided that you must be licensed in order to exercise that right.

C 35-47-2-1
Carrying a handgun without being licensed; exceptions; person convicted of domestic battery
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and section 2 of this chapter, a person shall not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person may carry a handgun without being licensed under this chapter to carry a handgun if:
(1) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person;
(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;
(B) is attending a firearms related event on the property, including a gun show, firearms expo, gun owner's club or convention, hunting club, shooting club, or training course; or
(C) is on the property to receive firearms related services, including the repair, maintenance, or modification of a firearm;
(3) the person carries the handgun in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case;
(4) the person carries the handgun while lawfully present in a vehicle that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the handgun is:
(A) unloaded;
(B) not readily accessible; and
(C) secured in a case; or
(5) the person carries the handgun:
(A) at a shooting range (as defined in IC 14-22-31.5-3);
(B) while attending a firearms instructional course; or
(C) while engaged in a legal hunting activity. (c) Unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 35-47-4-7, a person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 may not possess or carry a handgun.
(d) This section may be not construed:
(1) to prohibit a person who owns, leases, rents, or otherwise legally controls private property from regulating or prohibiting the possession of firearms on the private property;
(2) to allow a person to adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that:
(A) prohibits; or
(B) has the effect of prohibiting;
an employee of the person from possessing a firearm or ammunition that is locked in the trunk of the employee's vehicle, kept in the glove compartment of the employee's locked vehicle, or stored out of plain sight in the employee's locked vehicle, unless the person's adoption or enforcement of the ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule is allowed under IC 34-28-7-2(b); or
(3) to allow a person to adopt or enforce a law, statute, ordinance, resolution, policy, or rule that allows a person to possess or transport a firearm or ammunition if the person is prohibited from possessing or transporting the firearm or ammunition by state or federal law.

Since the state has ruled it this way, it is illegal to carry a handgun without being licensed or being an excepted person.

 

[sgtonory]

Yes, you do have an unalienable right. However, the state has decided that you must be licensed in order to exercise that right.



Since the state has ruled it this way, it is illegal to carry a handgun without being licensed or being an excepted person.

Who is the "state"? It cant be a yes you have unalienable right with a *. And just because there is something written down dose that make it right? I can put i own you house in a very legal fasion and say you own this but this paper say otherwise. You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

 

[stephen87]

According to the US Constitution, you have the unalienable right.

According to the Indiana Code, you must be licensed or be an excepted person to exercise this right.

You choose which one you want to follow. I will follow the state law because it is the most restrictive. If you're willing to be a test case, go for it. If you're going to follow the state and not try to change it, quit crying.

 

[sgtonory]

According to the US Constitution, you have the unalienable right.

According to the Indiana Code, you must be licensed or be an excepted person to exercise this right.

You choose which one you want to follow. I will follow the state law because it is the most restrictive. If you're willing to be a test case, go for it. If you're going to follow the state and not try to change it, quit crying.

How can you change something that dose not exist? And a piece of paper dose not give you rights and no piece of paper can take away your rights. You can choice to do what you want just don't advocate violence against others buy supporting this thing you call the "state".

 

[stephen87]

When did I ever say that I advocated violence against others? Like I said, I will choose to follow the stricter of the two, the one that can get me arrested if I choose NOT to follow it. I already gave you the IC that states the requirements for you to carry a handgun in public. How does it not exist? Either work to change it or deal with it. You can't eat your cake and have it to. I email my representatives over stuff that I believe in, you do the same.

 

[sgtonory]

When did I ever say that I advocated violence against others? Like I said, I will choose to follow the stricter of the two, the one that can get me arrested if I choose NOT to follow it. I already gave you the IC that states the requirements for you to carry a handgun in public. How does it not exist? Either work to change it or deal with it. You can't eat your cake and have it to. I email my representatives over stuff that I believe in, you do the same.

The "state" dose not exist. Again a code or what ever you want to call it dose not make it right or law. There is no such thing as the "state" just like there is no such thing as a forest. There is only individual people in a "state" just like there is only individual tree's in a "forest". Quote any code you want dose not make it right.

 

[stephen87]

Because there is a written code, absolutely makes it law.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The "state" dose not exist. Again a code or what ever you want to call it dose not make it right or law. There is no such thing as the "state" just like there is no such thing as a forest. There is only individual people in a "state" just like there is only individual tree's in a "forest". Quote any code you want dose not make it right.

Does your flag happen to have gold fringe on it?

 

[sgtonory]

Does your flag happen to have gold fringe on it?

I dont have a flag.

 

[griffin]

What are you referencing, griffin?

These posts:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...274844-sbpd_leo_encounter-26.html#post3908958

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...274844-sbpd_leo_encounter-26.html#post3909009


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
States with “stop and identify” laws
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5

 

[TheReaper]

Does your flag happen to have gold fringe on it?

LOL, he's a "Sovereign Citizen"