Saint John Indiana, NOT gun friendly

[clgustaveson]

The purple is a sign they're being sarcastic. I doubt they're serious about what they're saying.

Although... it does have some merits. I'm in.

I am too lazy to do purple... I am dead serious all the time.

 

[jedi]

I am too lazy to do purple... I am dead serious all the time.

So r u a zombie? Since you are dead all the time.

 

[clgustaveson]

So r u a zombie? Since you are dead all the time.

You ask too many questions.

 

[INGunGuy]

So you would want the police departments to be more like the military? After boot camp, the military changes to punishing the offender, not everyone. Besides, you want a small town footing the bill to pay for their officers to enroll in college classes, pay for books, and pay overtime for them to attend class during their time off? Good luck with that.

Nope, I want the offending OFFICERS to have to foot the bill, they would PERSONALLY be held liable. Why is it perfectly ok for a LEO to screw up and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist? How about they start being personally liable for what the screw up?

INGunGuy

 

[clgustaveson]

Nope, I want the offending OFFICERS to have to foot the bill, they would PERSONALLY be held liable. Why is it perfectly ok for a LEO to screw up and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist? How about they start being personally liable for what the screw up?

INGunGuy

They are acting as agents of the city, it is ultimately the responsibility of the city to do make sure it's officers are informed. I would not BLAME the officer unless the dep't did the proper training, as not all of them do.

 

[gunbunnies]

Clgustaveson, I think that's where the fact that the Officers are required to take this training from a central location, the State Academy with a set line of training that doesn't different from city to city in anyway makes them more responsible for their actions on the street. After making sure this is in place and knowing that the Officers know the law on this subject, they still decide to neglect the citizens right to carry and infringe on a persons right, they got no defense from the city or state, they new they were wrong... Their city and the state should also hold their feet to the fire... We put the education in their toolbox at the beginning and we can certify that they did know the law on the subject, they were willfully just doing whatever they wanted then like some people will do in society, then they are responsible for their actions, no the tax payer... us... ultimately then...

Or am I thinking clearly here... again you guy's decide because I isn't a force to be reckoned with but all of us is...

Notice no purple in this post...

 

[clgustaveson]

Clgustaveson, I think that's where the fact that the Officers are required to take this training from a central location, the State Academy with a set line of training that doesn't different from city to city in anyway makes them more responsible for their actions on the street. After making sure this is in place and knowing that the Officers know the law on this subject, they still decide to neglect the citizens right to carry and infringe on a persons right, they got no defense from the city or state, they new they were wrong... Their city and the state should also hold their feet to the fire... We put the education in their toolbox at the beginning and we can certify that they did know the law on the subject, they were willfully just doing whatever they wanted then like some people will do in society, then they are responsible for their actions, no the tax payer... us... ultimately then...

Or am I thinking clearly here... again you guy's decide because I isn't a force to be reckoned with but all of us is...

Notice no purple in this post...

IMHO lack of training is never the officer's fault.

 

[gunbunnies]

No it shouldn't be their fault, if we make it required and available to the Officers through the State and in doing so the Officer has the training and understanding of the laws that he is suppose to be enforcing and we as tax payers aren't paying for infringements of our own rights... I think we agree on this, let me know if we don't... I support the LEO's in doing the job we the tax payers have assigned too them, but I can see from Bill's and others posts and incidents that there is a lack of training in our rank and file Officers.. This isn't a attack on LEO's, this is too educate and support them in their duties, and too put a end too un-needed or un-wanted infringements of the OC/CC fellow civilians within our fine state...

Every Officer in the state has to go to the Academy within a certain amount of months after being employed by a town/city/county department or they can't be an Officer, it only makes since to end this problem at the training level where they are already required to go and take their training... They got a wonderful facility down there with plenty of housing and class rooms etc... why shouldn't we put a end to the problem of unnecessary entanglements between our Officers and the gun carrying public by making sure they are educated on the matter... ?

 

[mainjet]

This is an excellent example to those who want to carry a gun. When my son is old enough to carry and if he wants to carry I am going to ask him some questions -
1. Do you know where and when you can legally carry?
2. Do you know when it is legal and appropriate to draw that weapon.
3. If you do everything correctly are you willing to go to court to defend yourself and do you have the money and intestinal fortitude to do so?

I think that the officers where trying to do what officers commonly do and that is look past what someone says is going on and try to figure out what is really going on. This is where I believe it got sticky.

Bill was, I believe, charged with criminal tresspass and intimidation. They didn't say he couldn't carry his gun. In my humble opinion coming into a situation that is somewhat domestic in nature, at night with two people openly carrying is a little sketchy. Don't get me wrong - I believe that Bill and his wife have the right to do so but as this case shows it is not always in your best interest to do so.

Bill ultimately gets released and gets a little bit of pay but I bet he and his wife have endured a bit of stress over the last several months. Bill, I wonder if you had it to do all over again what if anything would you have changed about your actions that night?

I ask this because some of us as gun carrying citizens kind of get the idea that we have a license so nothing is going to happen to us legally. All we have to do is exactly what you did, wait for the police if they are called and then hadn them your license. then we expect that the officers are going to treat us kindly and with the respect that a law abiding citizen deserves. Bu this is not always the case.

I believe that what the officers did that was most appauling was when they lit into Bill about where he was from and saying "I am sick of you people from up there coming down here". This is where if I was the chief I would have had a talk with the officers over that little gem.

 

[clgustaveson]

This is an excellent example to those who want to carry a gun. When my son is old enough to carry and if he wants to carry I am going to ask him some questions -
1. Do you know where and when you can legally carry?
2. Do you know when it is legal and appropriate to draw that weapon.
3. If you do everything correctly are you willing to go to court to defend yourself and do you have the money and intestinal fortitude to do so?

I think that the officers where trying to do what officers commonly do and that is look past what someone says is going on and try to figure out what is really going on. This is where I believe it got sticky.

Bill was, I believe, charged with criminal tresspass and intimidation. They didn't say he couldn't carry his gun. In my humble opinion coming into a situation that is somewhat domestic in nature, at night with two people openly carrying is a little sketchy. Don't get me wrong - I believe that Bill and his wife have the right to do so but as this case shows it is not always in your best interest to do so.

Bill ultimately gets released and gets a little bit of pay but I bet he and his wife have endured a bit of stress over the last several months. Bill, I wonder if you had it to do all over again what if anything would you have changed about your actions that night?

I ask this because some of us as gun carrying citizens kind of get the idea that we have a license so nothing is going to happen to us legally. All we have to do is exactly what you did, wait for the police if they are called and then hadn them your license. then we expect that the officers are going to treat us kindly and with the respect that a law abiding citizen deserves. Bu this is not always the case.

I believe that what the officers did that was most appauling was when they lit into Bill about where he was from and saying "I am sick of you people from up there coming down here". This is where if I was the chief I would have had a talk with the officers over that little gem.

They did say he couldn't carry his gun, in fact they took his permit from him... Can you explain the difference?

When asked to leave, he left. There was no trespassing or intimidation. In fact he handed the officer his LTCH and his ID together, the officer asked wher the weapon was. I have not seen evidence that the officer knew he had a gun. The call may have been based on his entry into the home and escalated because of the weapon, nonetheless the officer wasn't looking past the weapon into intent, the officer knew his intent and stopped looking with the weapon <--- this is what is wrong.

An officer should not be looking for itent beyond what is readily aparent, that is for a jury to decide. A good officer should act on what is known and extrapelate as little as possible. When more is done, rights are violated.

 

[jedi]

I believe that what the officers did that was most appauling was when they lit into Bill about where he was from and saying "I am sick of you people from up there coming down here". This is where if I was the chief I would have had a talk with the officers over that little gem.

ahhh but you see that is the same line of thinking/culture of the Chief and the town council. St. John has been for a long time one of the "isolated" communities in Lake County. They don't like outsiders p-e-r-i-o-d. They especially dislike outisders from the northern part of Lake County. So the culture has been to harase/ticket/stop/etc outsiders so they won't come back to St. John and so that they (the outsiders) inform the rest no to go there.

As a resident in Northern Lake County I know and have grown up knowing that you don't go to St. John if you can avoid the place. It's not a freindly town to "my kind" period.

So the issue is not just one sole LEO. It's a culture that is in grained in that town. That is something much bigger to deal with than a simple letter writing campaign.

In all honestly it's not worth our time. There are many better places to shop/live/visit than St. John. It's best to just stay away and leave them alone. Some people you just can not change.

 

[mainjet]

They did say he couldn't carry his gun, in fact they took his permit from him... Can you explain the difference?

When asked to leave, he left. There was no trespassing or intimidation. In fact he handed the officer his LTCH and his ID together, the officer asked wher the weapon was. I have not seen evidence that the officer knew he had a gun. The call may have been based on his entry into the home and escalated because of the weapon, nonetheless the officer wasn't looking past the weapon into intent, the officer knew his intent and stopped looking with the weapon <--- this is what is wrong.

An officer should not be looking for itent beyond what is readily aparent, that is for a jury to decide. A good officer should act on what is known and extrapelate as little as possible. When more is done, rights are violated.

Well Bill had the gun IWB in the small of his back so it was not appearent to the officer. His wife had it OWB in a holster. The woaman must have seen them because the call was about them having guns.

The officer did take the license and call the state police and then gave the license back.

My guess is, if your a good officer and you get a report of someone with a gun then you see a gun on someone you don;t just take that gun. You say where are the guns because there may be more than what appears to the naked eye.

I am not saying that the officer did everything correctly.

 

[mainjet]

ahhh but you see that is the same line of thinking/culture of the Chief and the town council. St. John has been for a long time one of the "isolated" communities in Lake County. They don't like outsiders p-e-r-i-o-d. They especially dislike outisders from the northern part of Lake County. So the culture has been to harase/ticket/stop/etc outsiders so they won't come back to St. John and so that they (the outsiders) inform the rest no to go there.

As a resident in Northern Lake County I know and have grown up knowing that you don't go to St. John if you can avoid the place. It's not a freindly town to "my kind" period.

So the issue is not just one sole LEO. It's a culture that is in grained in that town. That is something much bigger to deal with than a simple letter writing campaign.

In all honestly it's not worth our time. There are many better places to shop/live/visit than St. John. It's best to just stay away and leave them alone. Some people you just can not change.

I believe that you are correct. Towns like St. John do try to dicourage certain people from coming around. Try driving through Beecher some time. They are always pulling over the African American drivers.

Because the people that are harrased do not wish to push the issue the culture continues. I like Bill would take my small victory and go on my way. But again, because there was no judgement from the court there is no precedence set against this type of action by the police. There will be no real changes by the police in St. John. The next time it happens it will appear as if it were the first time something like this has happened.

But if you can show a pattern over time then you really have something that could result in a very large settlement. The insurance company knows this, the town council knows it and the police know it. So they settle (probably with no admission of gguilt or wrong doing) and they keep it away from a ruling. Round and Round it goes.

 

[williamrights]

Most cops should be retrained or at least their sops need redone. Around here if a man with gun call goes in they respond in force. They should say ok a person has a gun are they doing anything threatening or are they jsut pumping gas. It is a shame that in this day and age most people think anyone other than a cop with a gun is doing something wrong.

 

[mainjet]

They did say he couldn't carry his gun, in fact they took his permit from him... Can you explain the difference?

The officer asked "why he felt that he needed to carry it tonight in this situtation". This is him admitting that he has the right to carry it but questioning his thinking in doing so.

Bill feels, and rightly so, that he did not have to explain why he carries.

Again, they charged him not with carrying but with intimidation and criminal tresspass. Neither of these charges would ultimately survive the court challenge so they settled.

The officer did not like the fact that he was carrying but he couldn't do anything about it. The only thing he could do was try to get the other charges against him. Common police practice when someone ticks you off.

 

[jedi]

The officer asked "why he felt that he needed to carry it tonight in this situtation". This is him admitting that he has the right to carry it but questioning his thinking in doing so.

Bill feels, and rightly so, that he did not have to explain why he carries.

Again, they charged him not with carrying but with intimidation and criminal tresspass. Neither of these charges would ultimately survive the court challenge so they settled.

The officer did not like the fact that he was carrying but he couldn't do anything about it. The only thing he could do was try to get the other charges against him. Common police practice when someone ticks you off.

BINGO! & why we have no way of proving it what made it worse for Bill B was the fact that he was not from St. John. As the LEO himself stated "you people" (ie. referring to people outside of St. John).

It should be noted that Bill B is white and i think the LEO was white was well so it was not a "you people" dealing with race but "you people" dealing with the fact that he was from Hammond (ie. northern lake county).

 

[clgustaveson]

The officer asked "why he felt that he needed to carry it tonight in this situtation". This is him admitting that he has the right to carry it but questioning his thinking in doing so.

Bill feels, and rightly so, that he did not have to explain why he carries.

Again, they charged him not with carrying but with intimidation and criminal tresspass. Neither of these charges would ultimately survive the court challenge so they settled.

The officer did not like the fact that he was carrying but he couldn't do anything about it. The only thing he could do was try to get the other charges against him. Common police practice when someone ticks you off.

The officer was only asking why he felt the need, he does not imply that he agreed he had the right.

If I ask you why you felt the need to kill somebody does that imply you had the right? NO.

The fact that they dropped charges is an indication of the questionable nature of the charges in the first place... Bottom line the officer was making it clear he did not believe the OP had the right to do what he was doing, which is wrong.

 

[clgustaveson]

Well Bill had the gun IWB in the small of his back so it was not appearent to the officer. His wife had it OWB in a holster. The woaman must have seen them because the call was about them having guns.

The officer did take the license and call the state police and then gave the license back.

My guess is, if your a good officer and you get a report of someone with a gun then you see a gun on someone you don;t just take that gun. You say where are the guns because there may be more than what appears to the naked eye.

I am not saying that the officer did everything correctly.

How do you know the call was about guns? ARE WE MISSING SOMETHING??????

Bill, being the upstanding citizen he is, offered up that information before assertaining the nature of the officers visit. He simply heard "call the police".

You are wrong in stating "it was" about the gun. We have no way of knowing without a transcript of the call or the officer or woman telling us. The call may very well have been about him entering into her house. Those actions alone are not illegal, Bill followed the letter of the law. The officer was advised of Bills intentions and then made an ill-gotten judgment call based on the weapon.

That is ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL we know.

Unless you are telepathic then that is all you know (or you are the officer).

When an officer pulls you over speeding, you assume that is why becaue you were, but sometimes you have a busted tail light... if you tell the officer you were speeding you may never know.

 

[Bill B]

Some clarification:
1. It was indeed, a "man with a gun" call to 911. How do I know? The first words out of the little corporals mouth were "Ok, where's the gun."
2. I was charged with residential entry (aka, breaking and entering) and intimidation.
3. Although my wife was wearing hers OWB, she had a jacket on and it was't visible.
What would I have done different?
1.) I would have called the cops from the street before we ever pulled into the driveway.
2.) I would have remembered my jacket, which would have rendered my gun invisible.
3.) After the incident that night, I would have immediately contacted the baddest lawyer the ACLU could recommend in Indianapolis, and then called fox news and all the local stations.

 

[mainjet]

The officer was only asking why he felt the need, he does not imply that he agreed he had the right.

If I ask you why you felt the need to kill somebody does that imply you had the right? NO.

The fact that they dropped charges is an indication of the questionable nature of the charges in the first place... Bottom line the officer was making it clear he did not believe the OP had the right to do what he was doing, which is wrong.

He had the license in his hand. If Bill did not have that license then he would have been in the back of that car in 2 seconds. His license showed he had the right just as your drives license shows you have the "right " to drive a car. But if your speeding in that car then your going to get a ticket.

The cop may not think that you should drive a car because he just personally doesn't like you but that does not mean that he can keep you from driving.

I know what you are trying to say in regards to the "killing someone" thing but it is completely rediculous. You have to look at the context of what was going on to understand what the officer was saying. If he didn't think that Bill was allowed to carry the gun then why was he going to let Bill leave with the gun but not the license? He gave the license back, let Bill keep his gun and did not arrest him for carrying a weapon. I think that this shows that he believes that Bill has the legal right to carry a weapon due to the fact that he posses the license even if he personally does not agree with it.

The cop was trying to say that he should not have been carrying it in this situation and tried to tie that to a charge of intimidation. they further tried to place a criminal tresspass charge against him for entering the home without permission. Not because he had a gun.

It is a fact that the presence of the guns made this situation a huge deal and made this blow up into a much bigger deal. If the guns were not there then the cops would have said that you have no right to enter the premisses unless you are asked to do so. Then they probably would have let it drop right there. But they got ticked that he had the guns on him at that time. I am not suggesting that everyone put away their guns. I carry one too. But What I am saying is that everyone needs to know that this is the position that carrying a gun can put you in. So as someone that carries you need to go into this with your eyes wide open. Because your going to get resistance from the public and police and you need to be prepared for that. Sometimes that means reading the situation and deciding how best to carry in that situation. Some carry openely at all times and that is completetly fine and it's thier choice. It just may have different outcomes.