Out Rage at sbpd!

[DadOfFour]

Gentlemen, I understand the questioning about the gun needs to stop but this was not the main issue as I saw it. Would you not, if it was your job to enter a potentially deadly situation and figure out what if ANY crime is being committed control the obvious means to your injury or death? (take control of the "suspect's" firearm) until you know what is going on? Once you have found out that no crime has been committed then return the gun to the owner. Being a prick about it "well you don't know me but I'm angry and you can't take my gun" is not going to help the overall situation. They are not trying to take you gun and say your a bad person but control the situation and find out if there is a bad guy you just don't know from there position right away. Did the officers handle the situation poorly? Don't know I wasn't there.

No, there were multiple units on scene, there's no reason that one officer couldn't investigate (talk to the wife) while another officer (or multiple officers) keeps an eye on the subject.

 

[Denny347]

As other have said, the Dissent has no legal baring, it carries no weight.

In that statue you quoted you failed to highlight the most important parts,

AND


Note that the word at the end of subsection B is AND, not OR, therefore in order to confiscate the firearm there must be PROBABLE CAUSE (reference subsection 1) that the weapon was involved in the commission of a crime of DV, AND observe the weapon at the scene.

The emergency aid doctrine doesn't apply to this situation in any way shape or form, so I'm not sure why you included it in your post?

I never said entry was made into the house, however entry WAS made onto private property, without warrant or cause.

Well, I said what I can say, my search fu is weak today and I really do not feel like doing all the research tonight. I will tell you, that in 15yrs of DV runs, I can and WILL investigate each and every one. I hope you do not believe I cannot even walk onto their property to investigate a DV call? Without cause is YOUR assumption. Without knowing what was given in the 911 call, cause cannot be determined either way. So are you telling me that you have received calls to 911 of DV but you would not even approach the house to investigate because you did not feel that you had RS?

 

[Sureshot129]

No, there were multiple units on scene, there's no reason that one officer couldn't investigate (talk to the wife) while another officer (or multiple officers) keeps an eye on the subject.

So I'm clear you would let a person you don't know keep a deadly weapon on there person in a situation where they may have committed a violent crime and might be agitated and faced with there freedom taken away. (if there was in fact a crime was committed) You would rather have a OK corral type shootout where more than one person could be killed by stray gun fire? It seem far more reasonable to make sure nobody get shot then to have multiple police officers shooting at a suspect who decides to go for his gun.

 

[serpicostraight]

So I'm clear you would let a person you don't know keep a deadly weapon on there person in a situation where they may have committed a violent crime and might be agitated and faced with there freedom taken away. (if there was in fact a crime was committed) You would rather have a OK corral type shootout where more than one person could be killed by stray gun fire? It seem far more reasonable to make sure nobody get shot then to have multiple police officers shooting at a suspect who decides to go for his gun.

cops have deadly weapons on them all the time and we dont know them. or which one might be the next harless.

 

[DadOfFour]

Well, I said what I can say, my search fu is weak today and I really do not feel like doing all the research tonight. I will tell you, that in 15yrs of DV runs, I can and WILL investigate each and every one. I hope you do not believe I cannot even walk onto their property to investigate a DV call? Without cause is YOUR assumption. Without knowing what was given in the 911 call, cause cannot be determined either way. So are you telling me that you have received calls to 911 of DV but you would not even approach the house to investigate because you did not feel that you had RS?

I actually have no problem with their entry onto the property (was kinda playing devil's advocate) however I do have a problem with their forced detention and disarming of somebody based on nothing more than a 911 call. A 911 call regardless of what is said on the call is HARDLY evidence of a crime, look at the "swatting" of the various political commentators lately, or ask yourself how many unfounded runs you've been sent on based on 911 calls?

So I'm clear you would let a person you don't know keep a deadly weapon on there person in a situation where they may have committed a violent crime and might be agitated and faced with there freedom taken away. (if there was in fact a crime was committed) You would rather have a OK corral type shootout where more than one person could be killed by stray gun fire? It seem far more reasonable to make sure nobody get shot then to have multiple police officers shooting at a suspect who decides to go for his gun.

Like I said, it depends on the totality of the circumstances, if it went down like the OP said, ie the subject was compliant and non-aggressive then yes, I'd leave them armed since I don't want a weapon out of the holster, especially if it's one I may not be familiar with.

 

[Denny347]

I actually have no problem with their entry onto the property (was kinda playing devil's advocate) however I do have a problem with their forced detention and disarming of somebody based on nothing more than a 911 call. A 911 call regardless of what is said on the call is HARDLY evidence of a crime, look at the "swatting" of the various political commentators lately, or ask yourself how many unfounded runs you've been sent on based on 911 calls?



Like I said, it depends on the totality of the circumstances, if it went down like the OP said, ie the subject was compliant and non-aggressive then yes, I'd leave them armed since I don't want a weapon out of the holster, especially if it's one I may not be familiar with.

We will agree to disagree. If we were speaking about traffic stops, we would be in agreement. I do not know how you were taught to deal with DV calls, but I was taught that neither party leaves your sight until the investigation is over. We do this for safety reasons. We do not want either party involved in a DV (vic or suspect) run to do something stupid and make a rash decision. Separate both parties from potential weapons just long enough to deal with the situation. As a department we take probably 20k DV runs a year. I take about 3-4 a day on average. You can only imagine what stupid things suspects and victims have done while officers are there. Been there...done that.

 

[Sureshot129]

cops have deadly weapons on them all the time and we dont know them. or which one might be the next harless.

True, but the job requires a little more than being a "proper person" do they crack? yes, but so do doctors. Do they lie? Everybody lies, I would like to think that if three or more responded at least one would tell the truth. I know I would tell the truth but I cannot speak for anybody else. Bottom line most officers want to find the truth, not get hurt, and not hurt anyone else but everybody makes their own decisions and that forces others to react and not always in the best way but you only have a second to make that decision and if you make the wrong one you have to face the music that goes for both sides fence. It is far easier to sit back and armchair quarterback somebody else's split second decisions then do it yourself the smart ones sit back watch and learn. Sooner or later you have to react based on training and experience.

 

[DadOfFour]

We will agree to disagree. If we were speaking about traffic stops, we would be in agreement. I do not know how you were taught to deal with DV calls, but I was taught that neither party leaves your sight until the investigation is over. We do this for safety reasons. We do not want either party involved in a DV (vic or suspect) run to do something stupid and make a rash decision. Separate both parties from potential weapons just long enough to deal with the situation. As a department we take probably 20k DV runs a year. I take about 3-4 a day on average. You can only imagine what stupid things suspects and victims have done while officers are there. Been there...done that.

The subjects were separated, OP was at the vehicle, near the road, wife was at the house. However the "investigation" should have taken all of 30 seconds:
Officer: M'am are you ok?
Wife: Yes, what's going on?
Officer: We had a report your husband was assaulting you.
Wife: What, no, what are you talking about?
Officer (Who's observed no physical indications of DV): I'm sorry m'am must have been a misunderstanding, have a good night.
All units 10-8 no report.

 

[drillsgt]

True, but the job requires a little more than being a "proper person" do they crack? yes, but so do doctors. Do they lie? Everybody lies, I would like to think that if three or more responded at least one would tell the truth. I know I would tell the truth but I cannot speak for anybody else. Bottom line most officers want to find the truth, not get hurt, and not hurt anyone else but everybody makes their own decisions and that forces others to react and not always in the best way but you only have a second to make that decision and if you make the wrong one you have to face the music that goes for both sides fence. It is far easier to sit back and armchair quarterback somebody else's split second decisions then do it yourself the smart ones sit back watch and learn. Sooner or later you have to react based on training and experience.

True, but I don't see anything in the OP's post that required any type of split second decision making. The procedures they followed were probably what many cops would do as evidenced by some of the posts, what the problem is if the OP's account is accurate is the unprofessional douchebaggery displayed by the officers involved.

 

[PA2Ind]

...

 

[buckstopshere]

Seek retribution? I think you mean "redress". You seeking retribution would only turn VERY BADLY for you. "Being mistreated" is a very broad phrase. Mistreated how? For example, if I arrest you (with PC) and you feel that I have no PC, that you are innocent, you want to legally resist me? Ain't gonna happen. You will lose and the magnitude of your loss will be based on your level of resistance. When it comes to resistors, I WIN!!! Every time. See the meaning of "probable cause" means that you "probably" did it. Does not mean you 100% did it. I does not mean you are guilty. You could be 100% innocent but PC can still exist. Your remedy to this is through the courts, not on the street.

Denny I appreciate your response to my inquiries. It's nice to know what I would be up against in the unlikely scenario it gets played out.

As for retribution, that is the word I wanted to use. The context was referring to being mistreated by someone not an LEO. If I or my wife are talked down to by say a cashier, I want immediate retribution and normally this would happen on the spot.

I believe your comments to be very honest. PC meaning that you "probably" did it is in my mind exactly why there's a rub between LEOs and the citizenry. In my case, since I'm a law abiding person, I probably didn't do it but your assumption would be I probably did. That sucks. Even though you're saying I'm not guilty, your presumption is I am based on a complaint from a third party who may or may not know the situation because I probably did it.

Your comment of when people resist, I WIN!!! to me is another example. It's easy to be cocky when the weight of law and the state are behind you. I'm sure you don't take that to the JBT extreme, you seem a decent fellow on INGO, but others in your line abuse that power and that comment just confirms my instincts.

It's sad really. Cops see everybody as a criminal first, although I'm confident that's not the spirit of the job, and citizens see LEOs as egomaniacal JBTs who abuse their powers.

 

[45calibre]

whats a jbt?

 

[LanceRobbins24]

whats a jbt?

JackBootedThug

 

[IndyDave1776]

PC? We are dealing with reasonable suspicion. PC is what is needed for arrest, not to detain someone for a criminal investigation. RS is a MUCH lower standard.

That is just the problem, low standards--both in terms of those properly recognized and failure to operate according to standards which themselves would not pass muster if anyone actually went by the Constitution any more.

 

[buckstopshere]

Look at it this way on arrival police have to in seconds determine who is who what is going on and make sure that 1) They go home in one piece and 2) nobody gets hurt.

My issue with being disarmed was centered more along the lines of the OPs scenario where he didn't know what was going on. If LEOs show up and I have no idea why they're there and they want me to surrender my firearm, I'm not gonna do it until someone explains to me why.

My attitude is diplomacy, I show respect and expect that respect to be returned. If an officer came to me as said we have a report of DV and we need to investigate so I'll need your firearm, that's a scenario by which I'll comply.

I hear ya on the officer safety thing to a degree. However, I do feel that it's grossly exaggerated. Fact is, in 2011, there were 2 officer fatalities in the line of duty in Indiana and 173 nation wide. My job, while I wouldn't consider it dangerous, probably would have a higher likelihood of causing death as I drive several thousands of miles and climb up on large cooling towers. Also, I didn't sign up for the job. When you decide to become an LEO, you go in knowing the risk. I respect them for taking the challenge but I'm not one to glorify their risk. Flame away.

 

[Denny347]

Denny I appreciate your response to my inquiries. It's nice to know what I would be up against in the unlikely scenario it gets played out.

As for retribution, that is the word I wanted to use. The context was referring to being mistreated by someone not an LEO. If I or my wife are talked down to by say a cashier, I want immediate retribution and normally this would happen on the spot.

I believe your comments to be very honest. PC meaning that you "probably" did it is in my mind exactly why there's a rub between LEOs and the citizenry. In my case, since I'm a law abiding person, I probably didn't do it but your assumption would be I probably did. That sucks. Even though you're saying I'm not guilty, your presumption is I am based on a complaint from a third party who may or may not know the situation because I probably did it.

Your comment of when people resist, I WIN!!! to me is another example. It's easy to be cocky when the weight of law and the state are behind you. I'm sure you don't take that to the JBT extreme, you seem a decent fellow on INGO, but others in your line abuse that power and that comment just confirms my instincts.

It's sad really. Cops see everybody as a criminal first, although I'm confident that's not the spirit of the job, and citizens see LEOs as egomaniacal JBTs who abuse their powers.

OK, be careful with retribution, that is a very dark path. I make no apologies for my fighting spirit. The thing about being a LEO is that the fight comes to me (usually). Cops are reactive 99% of the time when dealing with human aggression. Soooo, you bring the fight to me, I will take the fight out of you. All within the law of course. I am paid to win those confrontations. You are wrong, we do not see everyone as criminals. When dealing with criminal investigations, we try not to take stories told to us at face value. I get lied to so often I stopped thinking about it. Even when they are not the focus of our attention, people can't help but to tell halve truths. Not all the time of course but WAY more than you'd expect. Even if they have broken no laws, it seems to be an epidemic. But most people are good I think, they try to do the right thing as far as they know WHAT they think "the right thing is". Our grizzly outside comes from years of seeing the worse human nature has to offer. I have seen murder scenes that make horror movies look amateur. That is the job I love but is still has an affect...it cannot be helped.

 

[Denny347]

whats a jbt?

ME depending on who you ask.

 

[serpicostraight]

True, but the job requires a little more than being a "proper person" do they crack? yes, but so do doctors. Do they lie? Everybody lies, I would like to think that if three or more responded at least one would tell the truth. I know I would tell the truth but I cannot speak for anybody else. Bottom line most officers want to find the truth, not get hurt, and not hurt anyone else but everybody makes their own decisions and that forces others to react and not always in the best way but you only have a second to make that decision and if you make the wrong one you have to face the music that goes for both sides fence. It is far easier to sit back and armchair quarterback somebody else's split second decisions then do it yourself the smart ones sit back watch and learn. Sooner or later you have to react based on training and experience.

i would like to think that at least one cop in the crowd would stand up and tell the truth. but i can think of 4 in florida 3 in maryland an entire swat team in tuscon and several other incidents where every cop on the scene filed the same report and it was later proven that they all lied. when the thin blue line takes priority over the truth and whats right how do you know when or if you can trust a cop?

 

[Denny347]

I hear ya on the officer safety thing to a degree. However, I do feel that it's grossly exaggerated. Fact is, in 2011, there were 2 officer fatalities in the line of duty in Indiana and 173 nation wide. My job, while I wouldn't consider it dangerous, probably would have a higher likelihood of causing death as I drive several thousands of miles and climb up on large cooling towers. Also, I didn't sign up for the job. When you decide to become an LEO, you go in knowing the risk. I respect them for taking the challenge but I'm not one to glorify their risk. Flame away.

Hmmm, I have lost several co-workers to GSW in my 15yrs here in Indy. I have had about a dozen co-workers shot and survived. There is a co worker right now with a broken spine due to a drunk driver hit him as he was arriving to the crash scene the drunk driver was fleeing from. How about the female officer who was run over a couple of years ago. 20 surgeries later and she is still not back to full duty yet. This is all just who I work with. I have more stories but it is time for bed. Thanks to modern medicine, we are surviving more assaults than ever. Just ask Fishburn...my friend who lost the front of his brain to a GSW. A few years earlier and that was fatal. Since he survived he doesn't count. He doesn't even know why he recognizes me...don't say we exagerate. Many talk the talk on here when it comes to facing active human aggression but there are those of us who can walk the walk day after day.

 

[buckstopshere]

OK, be careful with retribution, that is a very dark path. I make no apologies for my fighting spirit. The thing about being a LEO is that the fight comes to me (usually). Cops are reactive 99% of the time when dealing with human aggression. Soooo, you bring the fight to me, I will take the fight out of you. All within the law of course. I am paid to win those confrontations. You are wrong, we do not see everyone as criminals. When dealing with criminal investigations, we try not to take stories told to us at face value. I get lied to so often I stopped thinking about it. Even when they are not the focus of our attention, people can't help but to tell halve truths. Not all the time of course but WAY more than you'd expect. Even if they have broken no laws, it seems to be an epidemic. But most people are good I think, they try to do the right thing as far as they know WHAT they think "the right thing is". Our grizzly outside comes from years of seeing the worse human nature has to offer. I have seen murder scenes that make horror movies look amateur. That is the job I love but is still has an affect...it cannot be helped.

My BIL is a retired IMPD homicide detective (yeah, my sister married a dude older than our dad, what up?) and he's shared some of the horrible things he's seen. He also told me a lot of BS that I can't believe he would do as a human being, let alone a LEO.

I understand the fighting spirit too, I have it as well. I can even be cocky and people just think I'm a jerk. Right or wrong, when you do it as an LEO, you're reinforcing the belief that your JBTs. Just sayin