Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest

[Roadie]

"Reasonable suspicion" of being "dangerous" is the standard for the officer, not probable cause. So yes, it does apply.

"Reasonable Articulable Suspicion"

 

[Ted]

Agreed. The officer would have to be able to articulate his reasonable suspicion.

 

[Bunnykid68]

"Reasonable Assclown Suspicion"

FTFY

 

[Ted]

FTFY

So every cop who exercises legitimate authority under Terry, is an assclown?

 

[jeremy]

So every cop who exercises legitimate authority under Terry, is an assclown?

Nope, if they can Articulate the reason why...

Otherwise, yes it is Assclownery....

 

[Bunnykid68]

So every cop who exercises legitimate authority under Terry, is an assclown?

Not if it is actually reasonable, but most stories we hear are not reasonable, just for officer safety because they do not like their subjects being armed as well.

No, that is not directed at all officers, I am using my smaller brush this evening.

 

[Ted]

Not if it is actually reasonable, but most stories we hear are not reasonable, just for officer safety because they do not like their subjects being armed as well.

No, that is not directed at all officers, I am using my smaller brush this evening.

Most stories we hear are incredibly one sided as well.

I've been disarmed once in the last 10 or so years, so I agree that assclownery exists.....Though I'm not convinced that it exists to the extent that some would have us believe.

 

[KG1]

Nope, if they can Articulate the reason why...

Otherwise, yes it is Assclownery....

^This^ They have to articulate a specific reason why they have reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous and not just because they are armed. Hence the part "armed AND dangerous".

 

[JetGirl]

For those who have contacted me.....yes, we need a better way to identify those who should not be allowed access to [STRIKE]carry firearms[/STRIKE] protected rights listed in the Constitution but it needs to be done in a way that [STRIKE]does not inadvertently gather up those with the maturity to carry responsibly[/STRIKE] doesn't tip off my elitist mentality. A simple age or education limit [STRIKE]won't work[/STRIKE] isn't restrictive enough to fit my "Big Brother" ideals. It needs to be [STRIKE]some form of written and verbal test, with the maturity and development of each applicant measured and evaluated[/STRIKE] incredibly invasive and nanny-ish. Of course, that invites manipulation of the process by those on the left which, if you haven't already figured out, is perfectly acceptable to me.

[STRIKE]Not sure how we do it but[/STRIKE] many of the responses in this thread leave no doubt that [STRIKE]we need a better answer[/STRIKE] all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others and I am the most equalest of all. Far too many of those who carry guns today have no business doing so and *I* should have the end all be all say as to who they are.

True colors, indeed.

 

[iChokePeople]

"Reasonable suspicion" of being "dangerous" is the standard for the officer, not probable cause. So yes, it does apply.

Seems to me that Indiana code is pretty clear on what it takes. I added the bold.

IC 35-47-13-1 Version b
"Dangerous"
1. As used in this chapter, "dangerous" means:
*(1) a person presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the person or to another person; or
(2) a person may present a risk of personal injury to the person or to another person in the future and the person:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC*12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and the person has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the person's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give
rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
The fact that a person has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the person is dangerous.

 

[KG1]

True colors, indeed.

Nice work JG.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Most stories we hear are incredibly one sided as well.

I've been disarmed once in the last 10 or so years, so I agree that assclownery exists.....Though I'm not convinced that it exists to the extent that some would have us believe.

And was the disarming of your person warranted or assclownery?

I dare say that 99.9% of the stories we read here of people with a valid LTCH being disarmed is assclownery at its finest and it does an extreme disservice to the likes of Kutnupe, Phylodog, and Denny, sorry to those I left out.

I do not like LEO in general but most of the officers here I respect for their truthfulness and willingness to engage in these debates.

 

[Jack Burton]

"Reasonable Articulable Suspicion"

quite a bit of difference attempting to do that in front of a judge without perjuring yourself.

 

[iChokePeople]

quite a bit of difference attempting to do that in front of a judge without perjuring yourself.

Especially in the age of mr. Video recorder.

 

[KG1]

Seems to me that Indiana code is pretty clear on what it takes. I added the bold.

IC 35-47-13-1 Version b
"Dangerous"
1. As used in this chapter, "dangerous" means:
*(1) a person presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the person or to another person; or
(2) a person may present a risk of personal injury to the person or to another person in the future and the person:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC*12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and the person has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the person's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give
rise to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
The fact that a person has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the person is dangerous.

This pretty much sums it up such as in the case the OP presented and I would submit that a person legally carrying and fully co-operative showing no signs of a propensity to become violent should therefore provide no articulable reasonable suspicion for the LEO to legally disarm.

 

[Ted]

.....I do not like LEO in general.......

I believe that there are a number of people on this board who feel the same way.

Please understand that I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being prejudicial toward LE, but those who hold such feelings are very often the one's that are too ready to condemn LE for any perceived injustice.

 

[iChokePeople]

This pretty much sums it up such as in the case the OP presented and I would submit that a person legally carrying and fully co-operative showing no signs of a propensity to become violent should therefore provide no articulable reasonable suspicion for the LEO to legally disarm.

IC is also pretty clear as to the fact that the state must show clear and convincing evidence that the person is dangerous, and that it happens in the court that owns jurisdiction over the *citizen*. So if I was jerked around in Marion county, mr. Marion county LEO gets a lovely trip to Vigo County to explain to a non-Indy judge why this middle-aged, ltch-holding, two tickets in his whole life guy was judged to provide "imminent" risk, since the "documented evidence" one clearly won't fly. IANAL, but that seems like a pretty high bar.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I believe that there are a number of people on this board who feel the same way.

Please understand that I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being prejudicial toward LE, but those who hold such feelings are very often the one's that are too ready to condemn LE for any perceived injustice.

Hey,I am prejudiced against LEO, I have let the LEO here know how I feel about them in general, but I am also willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and they know it. I judge each person on their own merits, but when it comes to government and people with authority granted over me I need a whole lot of salt.

I have been guilty of condemning LEOs of perceived injustices, but do my best to make an informed opinion.

So were you legally disarmed? Or were your rights violated by someone that did not like you having one?

 

[Ted]

• Keystone and Troy
• headlight apparently blows

This pretty much sums it up such as in the case the OP presented and I would submit that a person legally carrying and fully co-operative showing no signs of a propensity to become violent should therefore provide no articulable reasonable suspicion for the LEO to legally disarm.

What and how do we know anything.?

The general location is provided, but I don't know the area's criminal activities.

We know the time is after dark, but what time? Is it 9pm, or 3am? What is the ability to view anything without the assistance of a flashlight?

Does the make, model, condition of automobile contribute to an officer's suspicion? Should it?

What is the demeanor of the driver?

I could go on, but you get the point that the totality of the circumstances equate to an officer's assessment of the situation.

 

[Ted]

So were you legally disarmed? Or were your rights violated by someone that did not like you having one?

Over 10 years ago, I honestly don't remember.

Though I do remember that the yutz didn't know how to unload a Glock.