Pulled Over

[VUPDblue]

You either don't want to be in the right under the 4th amendment or you just want to be argumentative. I'm not sure which.

Nothing about suggesting to file a complaint is throwing anyone under the bus. For someone to have been wronged and not attempt to right that wrong is absurd and cowardly. Odds are pretty good that the officers actions were because "we've always done it that way" or because he was improperly trained or never trained at all on the subject. How would you suggest getting the department to address this issue? The wrong has already occurred, so the OP has standing to complain. The officer is responsible for that wrong, even if it's due to a training issue, so how would complaining be throwing him under the bus? If anything, the department has thrown the officer under the bus by not properly training him.

And my question goes unanswered.....

 

[Bunnykid68]

And my question goes unanswered.....

Color me surprised

 

[SERparacord]

yada, yada, yada.......

 

[BE Mike]

Originally Posted by blue falcon View Post
I just don't know how much opinions on a website such as this are worth. Quote: BE Mike.

My opinion is that a cop, especially one working in a high crime area, won't last long by trusting people he doesn't know. He may even get into trouble by trusting some that he knows well. It's pretty hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, except in old western movies. Quote: BE Mike

FACT: I have a LTCH, AKA a good guy card, issued by the Indiana State Police who did a Federal background check after my local Police found no reason to deny my request. The State of Indiana considers me a proper person.

LAW: So unless an Officer has a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Reasonable Cause he breaks the law when he takes my weapon.

Sir please get your supervisor and although it is not required by IC I am informing you that my recorder has been on since before you came to the window.

BE Mike it seems you think you are right.

You seem to think that is okay For the police to break the law if they think it is necessary.

In a perfect world, a person who has had a background check, should be trusted. In a perfect world, a police officer, who has had a background check, specialized training and experience, should be trusted. In the real world, in rare instances, the trust has been broken. Any good cop doesn't trust people he encounters. If you want to be one of those people who resists every encounter with authority, knock yourself out. Frankly when you used the term JBT, you showed your true colors.

 

[2A_Tom]

What color pleases you more blue or yellow.

In my opinion every police officer should be respected every police officer should be honored. When a person breaks the law under color of law they lose all respect and become a JBT and I don't care what the circumstances are. If you are a police officer and don't like the law write to your congressman and get it changed but until then you are a citizen and a bound by the same laws that I am.

Look Mike I never started a fight but I won't turn tail and run.

Now if you have FACTS to present that is fine. I have presented FACTS and LAW. So far all you have given us is your opinion. Which is suspect because you don't believe others are worth anything.

So if you have nothing of import to contribute. Please continue to post drivel.

 

[jbombelli]

What color pleases you more blue or yellow.

In my opinion every police officer should be respected every police officer should be honored. When a person breaks the law under color of law they lose all respect and become a JBT and I don't care what the circumstances are. If you are a police officer and don't like the law write to your congressman and get it changed but until then you are a citizen and a bound by the same laws that I am.

Look Mike I never started a fight but I won't turn tail and run.

Now if you have FACTS to present that is fine. I have presented FACTS and LAW. So far all you have given us is your opinion. Which is suspect because you don't believe others are worth anything.

So if you have nothing of import to contribute. Please continue to post drivel.

I don't recall seeing any IC or specific case law references in any of your posts. What laws have you presented?

 

[SERparacord]

 

[frenchiectfd2203]

He sounds like one of the good ones to me, yeah you went over the speed limit, yeah he could have tossed the book at you but didn't. Officer sounds cool to me. Wish there were more around like that.

 

[inccwchris]

VUPDblue, I get my information from the internal affairs officer involved in the investigation and suspension of an officer for removing a firearm without warrant or RAS after being shown an LTCH and violating Indiana law via Supreme Court ruling. You also just recently held a briefing on Indiana gun law, I believe it was Frankenstein who posted about that meeting. I would recommend addressing the issues department wide with an interdepartmental memo as a reminder of citizens rights on firearms and Indiana Supreme Court rulings on such. Sure some officers may not get the memo, but at the same time its impractical to hold department wide training right now. Upon further reflection I believe i misinterpreted what you said about officer safety and would like to revise my argument. If I am sitting there, calmly speaking with you and hand over my LTCH and ID after informing you I am armed, there is no reason to believe I am a threat to you, no judge would believe that. However if you get someone who is acting belligerent then removing the weapon would be prudent and justifiable. Am i correct in revising my statement and the meaning of what you said by reasonable and articulate belief that your safety is at risk?

 

[Bunnykid68]

VUPDblue, I get my information from the internal affairs officer involved in the investigation and suspension of an officer for removing a firearm without warrant or RAS after being shown an LTCH and violating Indiana law via Supreme Court ruling. You also just recently held a briefing on Indiana gun law, I believe it was Frankenstein who posted about that meeting. I would recommend addressing the issues department wide with an interdepartmental memo as a reminder of citizens rights on firearms and Indiana Supreme Court rulings on such. Sure some officers may not get the memo, but at the same time its impractical to hold department wide training right now. Upon further reflection I believe i misinterpreted what you said about officer safety and would like to revise my argument. If I am sitting there, calmly speaking with you and hand over my LTCH and ID after informing you I am armed, there is no reason to believe I am a threat to you, no judge would believe that. However if you get someone who is acting belligerent then removing the weapon would be prudent and justifiable. Am i correct in revising my statement and the meaning of what you said by reasonable and articulate belief that your safety is at risk?

That pretty much sums it up, but I bet he might no even disarm someone for being an ******* unless his spidey senses were really going crazy.

 

[VUPDblue]

VUPDblue, I get my information from the internal affairs officer involved in the investigation and suspension of an officer for removing a firearm without warrant or RAS after being shown an LTCH and violating Indiana law via Supreme Court ruling. You also just recently held a briefing on Indiana gun law, I believe it was Frankenstein who posted about that meeting. I would recommend addressing the issues department wide with an interdepartmental memo as a reminder of citizens rights on firearms and Indiana Supreme Court rulings on such. Sure some officers may not get the memo, but at the same time its impractical to hold department wide training right now. Upon further reflection I believe i misinterpreted what you said about officer safety and would like to revise my argument. If I am sitting there, calmly speaking with you and hand over my LTCH and ID after informing you I am armed, there is no reason to believe I am a threat to you, no judge would believe that. However if you get someone who is acting belligerent then removing the weapon would be prudent and justifiable. Am i correct in revising my statement and the meaning of what you said by reasonable and articulate belief that your safety is at risk?

We are getting ongoing training about the firearms seizure issue. We have had department-wide training on again it since Denny posted about it a few months ago. I still want to know which officer on MSE was suspended because of this issue....

As I said before, unless I feel a reasonable and articulable fear of shenanigans from someone, LTCH or not, I will leave their firearm alone.

 

[usafmora]

What color pleases you more blue or yellow.

In my opinion every police officer should be respected every police officer should be honored. When a person breaks the law under color of law they lose all respect and become a JBT and I don't care what the circumstances are. If you are a police officer and don't like the law write to your congressman and get it changed but until then you are a citizen and a bound by the same laws that I am.

Look Mike I never started a fight but I won't turn tail and run.

Now if you have FACTS to present that is fine. I have presented FACTS and LAW. So far all you have given us is your opinion. Which is suspect because you don't believe others are worth anything.

So if you have nothing of import to contribute. Please continue to post drivel.

You are kidding right, All of them good or bad?

 

[inccwchris]

VUPDblue, I'm not gonna put his name on here, he's a putz but he learned his lesson. I may hate when cops break the law and I may think they deserve punishment when they do, but the man is still an officer in good standing. Out of respect for him, even though he was out of line a few years back, I don't want to tarnish his name with a coworker. I also don't wanna be that guy who ran his mouth about so and so on the public forum and causes him grief from his friends or family who may or may not be members here. I hope you understand.

Oh and sorry to Denny and Frankenstein for getting them mixed up.

 

[VUPDblue]

Ok well that's your right. That said, I don't believe your claim unless I can substantiate it. Nothing personal....

Telling me the name of the person who was suspended is not tarnishing his name, it's public record. You posting on here that "he's a putz" is more harmful than giving me info with which to substantiate your story. All I want to do is check out your claim.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I suggest PM ing the name to VUPDBlue. You dont expose the name to the public, and he can investigate your claim. Problem solved.

 

[VUPDblue]

He did say he was going to do that, then he edited his post and took that part out.

 

[Denny347]

He did say he was going to do that, then he edited his post and took that part out.

I would like to know as well.

 

[actaeon277]

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion legal definition of Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion. Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[actaeon277]

Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[88GT]

Mike,

I've admitted several times on this thread that I should not have been speeding. I didn't realize I was going as fast as I was, and have kept a clean driving record for years. You're right, don't give the cops a reason to stop you and most likely you will not be stopped. That's like saying the sky is blue, but saying the sky is blue does nothing to stop air pollution, the two are not directly related.

In my case, what started as a stop for speeding turned into something much different. The errors that were made should be addressed. In no way is it a statement that the officer is incompetent, I have even complemented his general handling of the situation. At the same time, this may be an area that he is not used to. A lot of cops know what to do with bad guys with guns, but maybe are less sure about how to handle good guys with guns.

As far as airing publicly, I haven't given the officer's name or mine for that matter, only that it involved the Hammond PD. The purpose of this discussion is to help me weigh the situation and take the most appropriate steps as you say. Maybe you would not need any help from your peers in order to do that, but I do, and if I can't ask the opinions of folks on this website, then tell me why not and if not, then who should I ask? Granted this is a public forum, and one of the purposes of this forum is to help folks understand their right to bear arms better. I respect the collective experience of my peers on this website, and don't mind tapping into their knowledge and experience to help myself and others understand better what to do. Are we as a collective community not concerned with advancing the right to bear arms, and not just being satisfied with things as they are? Some things are worth getting involved to improve.

You've also been extremely patient about saying it over and over again. I'm getting tired of the "just don't break the law" responses and I wasn't even violated.

I'd like to add that not breaking the law is no guarantee one is not going to be stopped. On the contrary, the douchebags that would cause problems don't really need a legitimate reason to stop someone. That's why they're douchebags.

And my question goes unanswered.....

I am curious what the process is for changing protocols/procedure/etc. Is it enough complaints from the public? Obviously, a large-scale SNAFU will at least trigger a review of procedures (one hopes), but what is the real impetus for change?