Stopped by Terre Haute PD for OC'ing -- On a Date!

[downzero]

SIGH...

It was not that long ago a Man's word was his bond...
I think that is the largest rub for me. My Honor and Integrity being treated like it is non-existent. Respect is a 2 way street. When I am treated like an Adult, I tend to treat the others I am engaged with in a similar fashion.

I find it amazing that people, expect so much from Service Members in the way we treat everyone to include Non-Uniformed Combatants. But, yet LEOs tend to have a lot more leeway in how they are allowed to interact with the very Citizens they are paid to oversee (SCOTUS, says it is no longer Serve and Protect so I feel oversee is appropriate).

Absolutely. The question really, is whether we can trust our fellow man with liberty or not.

 

[jbombelli]

Absolutely. The question really, is whether we can trust our fellow man with liberty or not.

But only on a personal level.

The government should not be in the business of deciding whether the people can be trusted with liberty. Ever. That path ultimately leads to tyranny.

 

[MTC]

This is the same kind of nanny state reasoning that our enemies use to say that we shouldn't be able to own guns, or carry guns, or that government must regulate (insert word here). This type of thought is antithetical to a free society. If you have a disagreement with your neighbor, talk to him like a decent human being. If it's so bad that you can't work it out, there's a civil process for that. There is no reason to involve any executive office in a dispute between two individuals unless it also constitutes a crime...

...I don't want violations of my freedom to merely be "reasonable." The Fourth Amendment, unfortunately, uses the word reasonable. But other parts of the Constitution don't use language so flexible. Think of the strong language (how strong?) in the First, Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. "Congress shall make no law..." and "...shall not be infringed" and "No person shall be deprived..." etc. The kind of society I want to live in takes these statements seriously. And for the most part, our society does take these phrases seriously. You're right in pointing out that the Fourth Amendment isn't broad enough--especially in a world of electronic surveillance, GPS, and, perhaps the place where no privacy exists--the Internet.

Ausgezeichnet, junger Kerl! You're onto something. Next thing you know, you'll be accused of being a constitutional absolutist.

"...and others retained by the People."

 

[mrjarrell]

Absolutely. The question really, is whether we can trust our fellow man with liberty or not.

I have to trust them, if I am to live in liberty. Even the stupid ones.

 

[Bapak2ja]

You have not misread me. The attitude you perceive is that of a free citizen.

Freedom frightens many people.

The attitude I perceive is not that of a free citizen. I admire and endorse the free citizen. But note, the "citizen" accepts limits on his/her freedom so as to provide for the common welfare. The attitude that worries me is the one that seems to think anytime they are not allowed to do exactly as they want the LEO is an evil infringement of personal freedom.

Unlimited freedom in my hands does not frighten me. I know what I would do with it. Unlimited freedom in another's hands frightens me because I have seen in the history of western civilization, Islamic civilization, and Asian civilization what others will do with that freedom. This is the key point I have tried to make in my earlier post. Unless there is an appointed official to adjudicate disagreements between you and I, for example, you and I will ultimately fight for supremacy. It is inevitable. Thus, I accept some limitations on freedom in order to live in a larger society. Whenever two people live in close proximity, someone's liberty, or freedom, is restricted.

This thread started with the OP describing how he was detained for a few minutes while an official checked to see if he was a threat to the society. I assert that this was a reasonable restriction on freedom and liberty. Others on this thread have contended that it was an unwarranted restriction. In the absence of agreed upon limitations of liberty, even such simple disagreements can lead to violence.

Again, I do not fear unlimited freedom in my hands. I am terrified of unlimited freedom in the hands of another. I prefer to have a LEO and the appropriate officials in place to maintain wise limits of freedom so we all can live together in peace and continue to build the greatest nation ever seen in the history of humanity. Without those limitations, without those officials, human beings cannot live together in peace. It is those who do not seem to recognize the need for some limits on their freedom that I had in mind when I spoke of an attitude on some INGO posts that concerns me.

As I said, I may have misread you, but you indicate I have not mis-read you. I hope you have mis-read me. I hope you have sufficient wisdom to understand that there must be some limitations on human freedom if human beings hope to live together without one person, or group of persons, oppressing others. A free citizen is a great neighbor. A person with unlimited freedom is a terrible neighbor. Just ask the neighbors of Saddam Hussein and his "wonderful" sons.

 

[downzero]

But only on a personal level.

The government should not be in the business of deciding whether the people can be trusted with liberty. Ever. That path ultimately leads to tyranny.

In that case, there was no liberty when the US was founded, and we're certainly well beyond that, today.

Judges have been deciding who gets to go free for centuries. I think you're mischaracterizing the process.

The key to our constitutional genius is separating these powers and limiting certain powers such that no government official can interfere with certain liberties. In the process, we've created a hierarchy of rights between those that can be regulated by mere "reason" and those that can never be infringed, regardless of circumstances (aka, violations of substantive due process).

Government is the process by which we, as a society, arbitrate those disputes. Government does take liberty for the good of society--when those social criteria are met. There'd be little purpose for government at all if it couldn't create tribunals and decide whose crimes are serious enough to warrant some constraint of liberty.

The key is due process, not some absolutist vision that liberty should go forever and always unconstrained, because it'd be too scary to give the government that job.

I have to trust them, if I am to live in liberty. Even the stupid ones.

That's the point. https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/bapak2ja.htmlBapak2ja doesnt get it.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/bapak2ja.html
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/bapak2ja.htmlBapak2ja,

If you want to be a slave to the state, go ahead. Just don't expect me to join you. My ancestors and my fellow brothers in arms have fought too hard and paid way too high a price for me to live in such tyranny.

 

[wag1911]

....I was approached from behind by a cop who tapped my sidearm with his flashlight and said, "Go put that in your car."

I think that this was not a good idea for that policeman to do. If someone touched my firearm I would be immediately going for retention and then the draw by pure instinct. It would have been better if had he just addressed you without the theatrics. I will say that it sounds as if they were otherwise professional, and that's a good thing.

And on a personal level? I wonder why a gal would want to go out on a date/dates with someone who openly carries a handgun and who seems to enjoy and, indeed, invite his confrontations with law officers?

Probably the kind of level-headed girl who understands what the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE.

If exercising a civil right is inviting confrontation, then so be it. Inviting confrontation would have been to call the officer an SOB for tapping the firearm.

mk2ja, you'll have to bring her to the PW Shoot to see the fun side of firearms.

My bottom line was, and IS, about officer safety. And the safety of the populace we are sworn to protect.

This is the mentality that is all too prevalent. See https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...367-philly_cops_and_out-of-state_permits.html
The 'Special Advisor to the Commissioner' exclaims something on the order that the officers' safety is more important than violating people's rights.

Your bottom-line should be protecting the rights of the people you are sworn to protect-and-defend....then worrying about your safety. If you are more worried about yourself than your job, then you are in the wrong profession. It also reflects poorly on the officers who do their jobs right - including some of my friends and family.

"First, Indiana doesn't have a CCW, it has an LTCH. "

I have already addressed this, It is a matter of semantics. Most of the folks who come to our Dept to apply for a permit refer to this as wanting a CCW Permit.
We don't nitpick.

It's not nitpicking - it's a important distinction which our state happens to recognize.

Open carry seems to attract trouble..... rather keep the element of suprise on my side.

Have you seen this? Opposing Views: Open Carry Guns Deter Crime Deterrence is more acceptable than having to use your firearm.

 

[SavageEagle]

As long as there are thugs illegally carrying firearms around in their wastebands I don't mind the police checking my ltch. I'm not talking about people on this site, I'm referring to criminals or gangbangers who illegally carry a gun. I usually don't want the questions/stares/mwag calls that occur where I live therefore I usually CC. If I do choose to OC, I don't cry bloody murder when a cop wants to check to see if I have any warrants. I understand that everyone has the right to OC and I fully support that right but crying like a baby when you are asked to show your ltch and MAYBE your driver's license is getting old. Props to the OP on handling the situation well.

I'm sorry, but why do I have to have an LTCH to carry a gun? I can carry a rifle around with me all I want without a license, why a handgun? I can conceal a rifle. Especially a SBR. And are you telling me that gang members have no right to self-defense with a firearm? Are you saying that some guy who caught a felony cause he bounced a $20 check has no right to self-defense?

I shouldn't have to even HAVE a LTCH to exercise my RIGHT, let alone produce it on demand. If you have no problem with having to produce an LTCH on demand, then you must have no problem producing a birth certificate, State ID card, and Social Security card, ON DEMAND. Same idea, same principle. If I have to produce an LTCH on demand for exercising my right to carry a gun, then I should have to produce proof of residency and proof of citizenship to exercise all my other rights, too, right?

Absolutely. The question really, is whether we can trust our fellow man with liberty or not.

See below.

I have to trust them, if I am to live in liberty. Even the stupid ones.

If you can't trust EVERYONE with liberty and just punish those that abuse it as it happens then we don't deserve it in the first place.

 

[downzero]

If you can't trust EVERYONE with liberty and just punish those that abuse it as it happens then we don't deserve it in the first place.

Absolutely! The default position must always be liberty, not force.

 

[SavageEagle]

Absolutely! The default position must always be liberty, not force.

Should be, but too many people are accustomed to the Nanny-Police State mentality. I was until a few years ago when I learned that questioning authority really WAS the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the system is setup to make people, especially kids, fear authority instead of questioning it.

Even on INGO I see too many people more than willing to force their ideas on others through government. It boggles my mind seeing people cheer on government growth and power. It reminds me of a certain chapter in a certain old book which I must refrain from discussing.

Alrighty. I'm going to go play outside with the kids before my blood pressure rises any higher. Maybe I'll try to work off this MRE I just ate. For the record, MRE Mashed Potatos are DISGUSTING.

 

[downzero]

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks on Freedom!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Let's put the brakes on this for a minute. In the question of law vs. freedom, trust of freedom in others' hands, Joe, DZ, mrjarrell, I'm sorry you are not fully correct. By the same token, neither is bapak2ja. All of you are expressing good thoughts and doing so well; that is not in contention. The point where we're falling down on this, and honestly, I think we're all saying the same thing even if we don't realize it, is that we want some limitations. Don't think so? OK, Joe, I'm going to pick on you for a minute here because you have a young child. Let us, just for the moment, take that you and your wife had had a daughter instead of a son. From what I've read, Sean is, what, 11? So OK. You happen to walk into your daughter's room and find her standing at her window. As you ask, "Whatcha looking at, honey?", you look out also and see your neighbor, walking behind his lawnmower or maybe just laying out tanning, naked as a jaybird. He is on his own property. He can do what he wants. Presuming we don't have laws forbidding such, your only recourse would be to go talk to him and ask that he cover up. OK, so if he complies, "Oh crap, Joe, I'm sorry, I didn't think about her looking!" then all is well. Suppose, though, his reply is, "Nope. She wants to look, that's not my problem."? Sure, you can build a fence between your property and his. When the neighbor on the other side decides to have a pool party with his gay friends, I guess you'll be building another fence. The problem is that, as the saying goes, no man is an island. We live in a society. We interact with others. From a different perspective, you go to your local grocery and buy cereal in a box. There are laws that disallow the enormous box and minimal product that some were doing, and sure, the better solution would have been people complaining/demanding money back, etc., or just stopping purchasing of that product, leading to them going out of business, but how hard is it to get people to do that? It's a worthwhile goal, to be sure, and you guys know I fall more on the side of smaller government than larger. I'm just not sure how we're going to get there without life just sucking for a long time. We do need some laws, I think. Minimal things addressing violent crime, maybe even addressing such issues as fraudulent claims. There has to be SOME order to society, but I think the proper line has to be closer to minimalist than to the burgeoning behemoth we have now.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Jack Ryan]

I'm sure you're playing devil's advocate now... One of my reasons for OC'ing was that it is legal. OC'ing in a TH park is illegal, though, so of course I won't be OC'ing there any more.

If OC'ing in the park is illegal and that's a reason not to do it, it's all just the same for CC'ing. If the reason is valid for one it's just as valid for the other.

 

[Jack Ryan]

As I posted earlier in the thread. Maximum penalty for breaking this statute is $300 fine. Period. I would also do as the OP has said he would do. And break the ordinance, because I think that we have a higher right and because the penalty in the rare event that I would get caught doing so, is fairly minor.

But then again, most of your posts usually fall into the Troll category anyway.

"Troll"? I thought "racist" was the buzz word of the day for hypocrits.

 

[Jack Ryan]

CC is also illegal

All in all, mk2ja does not seem to think his rights were trampled, so why are people saying they are? Are they trying to convince him that he should be upset with his encounter? He doesnt seem to be, in fact, he seems to be content with the fact that they did not write him a ticket for illegally carrying in the park. Just some basic observations.

Because they WANT something to get all up set and in a fuss about. They want some drama, they want to stir up a protest, they just don't want to put any skin in the game at risk of their own in that protest.

They could all show up at that park any time and march around with a gun on their hip if they wanted to really put up what they are running their chops about.

 

[Indy317]

Giving police officers discretion in "every case" would result in a police state--a society in which the executive branch makes the laws. This isn't one of those societies, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in one.

Police either have discretion or they don't. We can't have it both ways. Either everyone gets locked up for underage drinking, or no one gets locked up for underage drinking. Everyone speeding over 1 MPH gets a speeding ticket, or no one gets a speeding ticket. Some people constantly complain about traffic enforcement. They think most, or all, police citations are revenue generation. Then government tries to take the human element out of the equation, by putting up red light cameras, and some of those same folks get upset at that. With cameras, we have a non-human element, capturing on video, a traffic violation, but it isn't good enough for some folks. Why? Because not only is officer discretion now gone, EVERYONE gets a ticket. When cops write red light tickets, they usually only do so while sitting and watching an intersection, and usually that isn't done all that much, so a lot of folks get a pass. When we install the camera, discretion is gone, and enforcement is 24/7, every single cycle.

If folks don't want cops to have discretion, change the laws to either 100% enforcement, or legalization.

You would have a point if you expected the police to have a reason to stop someone before they engaged in this process. A cop can't pull you over to see if your driver's license is violated. Once you commit an infraction, they can stop you and gather that evidence. If the same standard were applied to the LTCH, I doubt most people would care. Then again, if I were a police officer and carrying openly, and a uniformed officer tried to stop me, I'd be willing to bet every dollar in my wallet that a flash of the badge would send me on my way.

This is what I don't get, since LTCH doesn't match that of a driver's license, running the LTCH during a short detainment is questioned, yet if the laws of LTCH were matched with that of a driver's license, some "doubt most people would care." That doesn't make any sense to me. If one is against running pieces of paper against a computer database, such a person would never change their opinion...at least that is my thought process on the issue.

Someone who is carrying a gun openly is most likely not a threat to anyone. There's not much society has to gain from having police officers stop them and "investigate" every time they observe it. It's really not that different than me, as a citizen, stopping every police officer to check their ID, call it in, and make sure they have the authority to be on the street and in that uniform, or driving the public's car, or whatever. We just have to have some confidence in our fellow man in a free society. We can't assume that everyone's a criminal or out to harm us, without further evidence.

Well, it is what it is. The entire "most likely not a threat" statement calls for speculation. Let me ask you this: Would you consider someone who OCs their weapon, by carrying their weapon in their hand, the exact same as someone who keeps it in a holster? If you think this is different, why? Both are OCing, one choose to OC by keeping their Glock in a holster, the other decides to be even better prepared by carrying their Glock in their hand (not pointing it at anyone, as that is a separate crime). When I bring this up, even some of the OCers here think that such a person warrants being checked out, or as one poster put it, watched by the cops. Why? The person isn't doing anything illegal, so why the difference? That fact is, most OCers here in this community would think it was very, very odd that someone is walking around downtown Indy with an AK-47 slung on their shoulder, or walking the canal with their pistol in their hand.

Thankfully officers have discretion. There are plenty of officers that wouldn't stop and question an OCer who has a gun holstered. Many of those same officers would likely question an OCer who decides to carry their gun in their hand. Is this right, wrong? Should we demand that cops never interact with another person unless that person is actually violating a crime?

Everyone talks about "pure freedom" or whatever. Please, this country has never been founded upon pure individual freedom. If this was a free country, we would have no taxpayer funded armed forces, no taxpayer funded police, no taxpayer funded education system (K-12 and higher ed), no taxpayer funded roads, no taxpayer funded board of health, no taxpayer funded health inspectors, no taxpayer funded highway safety department, no laws that required the purchase of any sort of insurance, that a person drive their car in a certain way, no taxpayer funded fire service. Most folks who claim they want a totally free country, really don't. They want socialist ideals that they support (forcing everyone to pay property taxes for fire fighters, cops, EMS, roads, libraries, schools, etc.), and individual freedom and liberty for the things they don't want the government involved in.

My ancestors and my fellow brothers in arms have fought too hard and paid way too high a price for me to live in such tyranny.

Lets get rid of all fire services, all EMS services, all police, all public road building, all libraries, all public health codes, all law requiring safe cars, buildings, etc., all public education, all state parks, all national parks, etc.. Stop stealing from the people to provide these above things to others. Everyone needs to pay their own way for the above.

 

[darinb]

God to see things turned out ok and that you have a second date. If you all have a long term realtionship that is sure a good story to the beginning of your relationship.

 

[thekuhnburger]

I don't see anyone "crying like a baby". I would suggest you educate yourself on the laws regarding the carry of a firearm as well as the 4th AMENDMENT before you make posts such as this.

"OH no! The LEO asked me a question other than can I see your ltch permit." I love the 4th amendment (and the whole bill of rights) and I fully support people saying that they don't want to be unreasonably searched without cause if they so choose. Apparently, the OP didn't want to go that route so it is a waste of time for people to start posting about taking the LEO's to court. Go ahead, get a lawyer and don't incriminate yourself either. That is all well and good by me.

 

[SavageEagle]

;1282213<snipped for brevity>

We do need some laws, I think. Minimal things addressing violent crime, maybe even addressing such issues as fraudulent claims. There has to be SOME order to society, but I think the proper line has to be closer to minimalist than to the burgeoning behemoth we have now.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, you're absolutely right. No one here TRULY wants zero government. Although there are ideas that involve about 1% of what government we have today that could very well work, but we all know there's no chance of finding out. The world is too big to try it.

However, as I said, no one wants zero government. There has to be some law and order and as much as we don't want to admit it, we rely on government services such as road upkeep (Interstates/Federal, Highways/State, County roads/County, City streets/Municipal), National Guard/Regular Army for defense, State Department to handle foreign affairs, police and fire departments, Department of Public Works, all are necessary evils that we rely on every day.

There are some very good arguments about road upkeep and fire departments being privatized, but until someone can step up and do so, no one here is rich enough to pay for those roads and services.

However, I think we can all agree, as you said, that government NEEDS to shrink dramatically. Taxes are about 60% of our income and they only feed corruption. Worse, they feed the Nanny State mentality. Sure, we need laws. But we don't need revenue generating and victimless laws. Things such as drug possession and seat belt laws to name only two.

I just would be very surprised to hear anyone here really believe that no government would be a good thing. There must be a small amount of government, but not to create laws, but to keep the peace, preserve liberty, and be the Country's voice on the world stage. That should be the extent of government, IMHO of course.

 

[SavageEagle]

Crap, Bill, could you fix my post so that the quoted part is fixed? I still can't edit my posts.