Pulled Over

[inccwchris]

PM sent, I editied the post to remove that portion because I was having an issue with the pm sending and didn't want to keep you waiting by the computer for something I couldn't send at the moment. Like I said via PM, if I'm wrong about the guy, let me know and I will stop repeating the story.

 

[Manatee]

Oh boy. Lock him up!

Sorry. Didn't realize that you are a Bieber fan boy.

 

[88GT]

So to sum up, the OP came on INGO and asked a legit question about his experience. At least one poster (including me) gave some pretty good advice and asked some pertinent questions, which the OP answered to the best of his ability. Cool. Then a few others came in here and questioned my answers, which I replied to to the best of my ability. At least two of those posters got specific, relevant questions from me and either disappeared or hid behind some guise of a reason not to answer me. Do I have that all correct?

No, no, no. You got it all wrong. You gave great advice. And others are just trying to pee in your Cheerios. But the rest is pretty spot on.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I've gotta say, this thread was entertaining. Maybe I missed it, but did you file a complaint Mike? Talk to a superior?

 

[VUPDblue]

I have spoken to several of my co-workers about this thread. All I have spoken to are in agreement that if it happened like the OP stated then a formal complaint is warranted.

 

[KG1]

I have spoken to several of my co-workers about this thread. All I have spoken to are in agreement that if it happened like the OP stated then a formal complaint is warranted.

Most of us get the advice you were giving and appreciate the input. We also realize you preceded that advice with the caveat that it was givien strictly going by if it happened the way the OP presented it. Now if the OP should take that advice and file a complaint knowing it did not happen the way they presented it then that is on them.

At this time I have no reason to doubt the OP based on past posting history but I wasn't there and it would be up to that person to do the right thing.

 

[VUPDblue]

Oh I'm very clear. Since someone on here whom I suspect to be a LEO was blatantly unhappy with my advice I decided to shop it around among my fellow officers for a second (third, fourth etc...) opinion. I was not surprised and still satisfied with my answer.

 

[ilitical]

I have spoken to several of my co-workers about this thread. All I have spoken to are in agreement that if it happened like the OP stated then a formal complaint is warranted.

Where I agree it may be warranted, I suppose I still believe in some level of professional courtesy.

**This comment is not meant to be offensive, or imply any underlying meanings, just a statement of personal opinion**

 

[KG1]

Where I agree it may be warranted, I suppose I still believe in some level of professional courtesy.

**This comment is not meant to be offensive, or imply any underlying meanings, just a statement of personal opinion**

Are you saying that because VUPD is a LEO he should not have given the advice to file a complaint against another LEO even if that complaint may be warranted?

Also, how far do you think that "professional courtesy" should be extended? Should it be at the expense of a possible rights violation?

 

[Mark 1911]

Where I agree it may be warranted, I suppose I still believe in some level of professional courtesy.

**This comment is not meant to be offensive, or imply any underlying meanings, just a statement of personal opinion**

Does this "level of professional courtesy" extend only to fellow officers or would it also imply conducting oneself in a professional manner in the actual performance of one's job?

 

[SSGSAD]

Oh I'm very clear. Since someone on here whom I suspect to be a LEO was blatantly unhappy with my advice I decided to shop it around among my fellow officers for a second (third, fourth etc...) opinion. I was not surprised and still satisfied with my answer.

You, are OK, in my book ..... never steered me wrong yet .....

 

[VUPDblue]

If I were in the OP's shoes, as a LEO, I would probably extend that courtesy and talk to the brass about it face-to-face. Absent being a fellow LEO, I encourage citizens to file written complaints on things like this. It's how to get policy shaped and have a paper-trail of said complaint. FTF meetings, between any parties, have zero accountability without documentation.

 

[Mark 1911]

If I were in the OP's shoes, as a LEO, I would probably extend that courtesy and talk to the brass about it face-to-face. Absent being a fellow LEO, I encourage citizens to file written complaints on things like this. It's how to get policy shaped and have a paper-trail of said complaint. FTF meetings, between any parties, have zero accountability without documentation.

I really wouldn't mind writing a letter to the Chief. My only problem is that even if I did write to him, it's most likely going to be opened first by someone else like a secretary or a clerk, and maybe it wouldn't even make it to his desk. The department website doesn't give an email address for the chief, only a general email for the department. The only option on the department website besides the general department email is a link for filing a formal complaint. I suppose I could try writing a letter to the chief and seeing where it goes, but I don't have much confidence that it will go anywhere. You have given some good reasons for going through the formal process. Those are my two options at this point, a letter to the chief and the formal complaint. From a practical consideration, I know the chief is a busy guy. So am I. Time is an important factor in everyone's lives these days, so there is a practical aspect to filing the formal complaint as well. This happened over a week ago already and I have still haven't followed up one way or the other. I wanted to do it today since I had a day off of work, but didn't. I will be making up my mind and doing something here in the next couple of days. Regardless of how I bring it to the attention of the department, I just want to say again that it will be worded in a way as to address the policy and procedure, and not the conduct of the officer.

I do appreciate all the thought and effort that VUPDblue put into helping me make a decision. That is exactly what I had hoped someone would do when I posted my OP. Thanks very much to VUPDblue, and thanks again to everyone for taking the time to provide your insight.

 

[ilitical]

Are you saying that because VUPD is a LEO he should not have given the advice to file a complaint against another LEO even if that complaint may be warranted?

Also, how far do you think that "professional courtesy" should be extended? Should it be at the expense of a possible rights violation?

It's my opinion that the LEO who pulled over OP was acting within his means. He can very easily site "officer safety" and run the S/N for "lost/stolen" He CAN do that. If you tell a LEO, "No, you can not run my gun for lost/stolen" you are violating your LTCH. We all signed the same paper.

If you think the LEO was outside his rights, then fine. But make sure you have his side and how he recalls it before you try and pass judgement on him. All we have is OP's recollection. That's it, and by the way the OP is worded, the LEO WAS within his rights.

As I said, If you disagree, great! If you agree, GREAT! But none of us have all the facts. This is all keyboard wrestling. I'm not trying to defend anyone.

 

[Indynic]

Great discussion here. I have learned a lot. Mark1911, please let us know what you decide and the outcome.

 

[public servant]

...if I'm wrong about the guy, let me know and I will stop repeating the story.

Unless I knew it to be fact, I wouldn't be repeating any story.

 

[VUPDblue]

It's my opinion that the LEO who pulled over OP was acting within his means. He can very easily site "officer safety" and run the S/N for "lost/stolen" He CAN do that. If you tell a LEO, "No, you can not run my gun for lost/stolen" you are violating your LTCH. We all signed the same paper.

If you think the LEO was outside his rights, then fine. But make sure you have his side and how he recalls it before you try and pass judgement on him. All we have is OP's recollection. That's it, and by the way the OP is worded, the LEO WAS within his rights.

As I said, If you disagree, great! If you agree, GREAT! But none of us have all the facts. This is all keyboard wrestling. I'm not trying to defend anyone.

Oh my Heavens sir, you couldn't BE more wrong.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It's my opinion that the LEO who pulled over OP was acting within his means. He can very easily site "officer safety" and run the S/N for "lost/stolen" He CAN do that. If you tell a LEO, "No, you can not run my gun for lost/stolen" you are violating your LTCH. We all signed the same paper.

If you think the LEO was outside his rights, then fine. But make sure you have his side and how he recalls it before you try and pass judgement on him. All we have is OP's recollection. That's it, and by the way the OP is worded, the LEO WAS within his rights.

As I said, If you disagree, great! If you agree, GREAT! But none of us have all the facts. This is all keyboard wrestling. I'm not trying to defend anyone.

No he cannot. Have you not read what the officer has stated? If there is no RAS the firearm is to be left alone

 

[lonehoosier]

I can see that this thread will be staying at the top because of ilitical

 

[KG1]

It's my opinion that the LEO who pulled over OP was acting within his means. He can very easily site "officer safety" and run the S/N for "lost/stolen" He CAN do that. If you tell a LEO, "No, you can not run my gun for lost/stolen" you are violating your LTCH. We all signed the same paper.

If you think the LEO was outside his rights, then fine. But make sure you have his side and how he recalls it before you try and pass judgement on him. All we have is OP's recollection. That's it, and by the way the OP is worded, the LEO WAS within his rights.

As I said, If you disagree, great! If you agree, GREAT! But none of us have all the facts. This is all keyboard wrestling. I'm not trying to defend anyone.

Are you suggesting that because you have signed an LTCH and it states that "This licensee is hereby licensed by The Indiana State Police to carry on their person or in a vehicle, any handgun lawfully possessed by Licensee" that "lawfully possessed" is the phrase that mandates an officer can take possession of your firearm and run the numbers to see if it is indeed "lawfully possessed"?

If so, that is a new twist that i've never heard brought up before.