-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Stopped and detained by Beech Groves Finest
- Thread starter SaintsNSinners
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
You must have me confused with another poster. I never said that.
And that really is the best Ted can do, eh. When he has a weak argument he just slips back into fantasy land and starts in lashing out with ridiculous assertions.
Ted, no one here has denied, or attempted to deny, any question that an officer with reasonable articulable suspicion can do legally do things that one without cannot.
That fact alone makes your posts funny as can be because you're just arguing with yourself... not any real live INGO poster.
Our point is, and always has been, that the suspicion needs to be real and grounded in fact, not something imaginary cooked up in his head, or not made up after the fact when he is in front of a judge. And certainly not over something as nebulous as "officer safety."
You keep attempting to make the same point over and over again that if the cop doesn't like the way you look or the way you dress, that is sufficient enough reason. You don't have the law on your side... and you don't have the courts on your side. All you have is your emotional rants.
But it's fun poking you, kind of like the fun in poking a person who is still a flat earther in spite of all the evidence against him. It's always entertaining to see what new justification you come up with for your fantasies.
I must say your "what if...." factor has reached about an 8.7 on the Richter scale. You have to add about a dozen to each post to get you where you want to be.
That is about far as I got. TLDR. Whatever, it makes little sense to attempt to argue rationally with you, because your mind is rusted shut.
Likely from you living too close to Chicago. Your mouth breathing avatar is incredibly fitting.
Titanium_Frost
Grandmaster
What planet do you live on, legally that is? How on earth is SPEEDING related to criminal activity? It is an infraction, nothing more. There must be additional factors unrelated to the original infraction or cause to be pulled over to provide RAS for additional detainment and searches.
This quote taken by itself? Several. All of those that stuck in court were searches authorized by the operator of the vehicle by giving up his 4th Amendment Rights or there was RAS or PC to prolong the detainment or search without a warrant. The other side of the coin is wanted felons who have a warrant for their arrest show up during the "normal traffic stop" which would obviously take it beyond a "normal traffic stop."
If there is no Reasonable Articulable Suspicion for the comminsion of a crime, no warrants issued and the operator of the vehicle does not aquiesce to a search then there is no basis for a search nor for the detainment to be prolonged. Thousands of tons of illegal drugs and probably several dead bodies are on the road in America right this minute, does that give LEOs the authority to search all of our cars to prevent these crimes from continuing?
Yes it does. The LTCH ONLY applies to handguns. Once it is validated no other RAS exists in reference to handguns and by extension any firearm legally possessed in Indiana.
That is a different case altogether! Why is that so difficult to understand??? You want to group several circumstances all at once just to prove your point and in reality they all need to be looked at seperately!
Say a guy who is legally armed with a handgun and possesses a valid LTCH in Indiana also happens to be a serial killer, lets call him Dexter. Lets say Dexter is driving around with a body in his truck that is a little past its expiration date and is decomposing. Lets say Dexter was pulled over for a headlight out. The LEO asks Dexter if he is armed, Dexter replies to the affirmative and hands the LEO his LTCH. All further inquiry into Dexter's legally possessed firearms must cease.
On the way back to his patrol car to write the ticket/warning the LEO notices the distinct smell of a decomposing body: He now possesses the necessary RAS to search the vehicle and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all to do with Dexter being armed.
Do you have any idea how retarded that sounds? Do you also realize that when a LEO in Indiana calls in your information the fact that whether you do in fact possess a valid LTCH is immediately apparent? Do you also know that there are more than one way to validate them?
I suggest you read the appeals case of Richardson and then the ISC version. It will give you much insight into the validation of a LTCH in Indiana and how the law and more importantly the courts view it.
[/THREAD]
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
The Indiana Supreme Court version of Richardson v State?
Titanium_Frost
Grandmaster
Yes. I believe you need to read both that AND the Appeals version to get the whole story on how the LEO tried (and failed) to validate/invalidate Mr. Richardson's LTCH.
The court took her through the ringer.
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05220909pdm.pdf
They seem to have reversed the appellate court ruling that threw out the evidence seized in Richardson's truck. Doesn't seem like much of a ringer to me.
They seem to have reversed the appellate court ruling that threw out the evidence seized in Richardson's truck. Doesn't seem like much of a ringer to me.
Indiana Supreme court ruled in favor of the defendant
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf
1.) No, a traffic stop can't lead to suspicion of an additional crime beyond what has been observed or known prior to, (and)or during, the stop. Possession of a firearm is not an additional crime, nor it is grounds for anyones' paranoia. A firearm is not a dead body in someone's back seat, it's a legal right given to all United states citizens.
2.) You are implying that presentation of a LTC is not a action of demonstrating compliance, but an act of intimidation. It is not. Showing an LTC does not indicate showing a faulty or fraudulent license, it indicates showing of a license. (Unless there is evidence that the license is to be suspected as fraudulent, to any reasonable persons' senses, it is to be considered legitimate.)
This is a legal issue, not a talking point.
Having worked a number of years with mentally handicapped children I believe that even Ted can eventually learn to deal with reality. Of course, then again he just may be that horse that refuses to drink the water in front of him.
Ya never know until you try.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Which point, you seem to keep adding points.
Yes, I believe he does. As someone mentioned a while back, Ted has got himself so deep into a hole that he seems to believe the only way out is to keep digging. Sooner or later he's going to hit China.
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
D'oh! I don't know how I missed the "Court of Appeals" on the first page of the document I linked. I even have the document Denny linked in hard copy on my desk here, and have read it.
Chalk it up to a blonde moment.
Chalk it up to a blonde moment.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Ok, we shall let this one slide due to a blonde moment, this is the only one you get though
Site Supporter
Members online
- jbm1521
- mike4sigs
- DoggyDaddy
- michael711
- NHT3
- jamil
- 10mm
- baldmax
- COOPADUP
- keger
- drgnrobo
- Butch627
- cmamath13
- papa6x
- Cavman
- Benjamin
- Glock22
- slims2002
- bgarman47
- WhitleyStu
- ComeJesuscome
- Revolvers&w1966
- EODFXSTI
- BR8818
- Creedmoor
- snorko
- wtfd661
- gassprint1
- Wanderer
- 1775usmarine
- Steve
- Steel and wood
- SEIndSAM
- morve80
- FNparabellum
- mcapo
- Hillbilly
- dboz
- RapidRounds
- JimH
- INPatriot
- HoosierHunter07