Surrounded by cops today

[MinuteMan47]

One is a choice, one is part of the job.

Well, my point is they are so quick to deny you of a handshake, but when it means searching a person or disarming them then the "germ" excuse is out the window.

I understand that one may be part of the job. But, the PC MUST BE THERE.

 

[IndyMonkey]

If prevailing (with some exception) LEO attitude is that every citizen is a threat no matter the situation, is it any wonder that the growing attitude of the citizenry is that the growing LEO power is a threat to their liberties in the same way?

Im more worried about having my rights violated by other Americans than the police.

 

[dross]

Im more worried about having my rights violated by other Americans than the police.

I don't get that. If another American violates my rights, it's typically a criminal offense. If a police officer does it, it carries the weight of society and sometimes the law behind it. One is a criminal act that you can defend yourself against, the other is tyranny.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Im more worried about having my rights violated by other Americans than the police.

like congress. the possers just call themselves American.

 

[MinuteMan47]

Im more worried about having my rights violated by other Americans than the police.

I could be wrong, but our rights were created to keep us from a tyrannical government. Just off the top of my head I can't think of how another citizen would violate your RIGHTS.

Joe Blow can't tell me not to carry, or go to church, or search me...

 

[IndyMonkey]

I could be wrong, but our rights were created to keep us from a tyrannical government. Just off the top of my head I can't think of how another citizen would violate your RIGHTS.

Joe Blow can't tell me not to carry, or go to church, or search me...

Ok, I guess I should of worded that differently.

I have been wronged by more citizens than the police.

 

[Hornett]

Honestly? It's because with the majority of people we deal with, we really don't want to touch them if we don't have to. I doubt it's anyone's policy, it's simply for health reasons. Saying that it's policy is a way to not have to shake someone's hand with out just saying that the officer doesn't really want to touch you.

It isn't anything personal, it's that spreading germs and diseases (and how not to) is drilled into us during training. I still do it anyway, but I carry hand sanitizer in my car and use it immediately afterward (but I made a habit of using it everytime I get back in the car after a call whether I really need to or not).

In one shining example, this is the attitude that I resent.
I am not the majority of people you deal with every day.
The majority of people you deal with every day are the criminal MINORITY.
The majority of people in the world are good people and for the most part law abiding.
I really resent being lumped in with the criminal minority.
As officers, you HAVE to get up every day and remind yourselves that most of the people in the world are decent and law abiding.
Don't feel all alone, I think lawyers (especially prosecutors) can get a jaded view of the public that is just not accurate.

 

[samot]

Im more worried about having my rights violated by other Americans than the police.

Thats because you havnt been "violated" by a cop yet!

 

[samot]

This is good info !
If your rich, you have a chance of having your rights restored , if your poor, well, oh well, you dont have the funds to protect yourself from the law, so, since 95% of us are poor, unsanitary, people whom dont have boo koo dollars the law can treat us like ****

LTCH doesn't = law abiding citizen. It just means he can't be arrested for carrying a handgun. Plenty of license holders have went out and committed horrible, violent acts.

The unloading of the gun might also be due to the paranoia factor? I am sure there are some cops that have an "Everyone is out to kill me." line of thinking. Then again, it might be because the officer wanted to be mean.



My guess is that you haven't offered to pay his legal fees. It will take a lawsuit if folks want to even try to get a judge to say disarming a person with a license is a no-no, absent any criminal activity, or that taking time to call in a license is a no-no, or checking for felonies is a no-no. We had a similar court ruling, but that court took this into context with the stop being based on a seat-belt violation, which means you can't investigate for anything else unless the officer sees something in plain view.



It wasn't this cut and dry. Neither of those cases involved a possible burglary/robbery in progress call. In one case, the gun wasn't on the person's body, in the other, the officer didn't even see a gun, only a bulge and the stop was solely based on Indiana's seat belt laws. In the Richardson case, the court did state this: "And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood's questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning."

Remember though, Richardson has to do with enforcing a law that specifically limits police conduct. This case had to do with a possible burglary/theft/robbery. Would the courts make the same ruling? I don't know. What the OP needs to do is print out the Richardson and Washington rulings, take them to various attorneys, and ask them if he has a case based on the time line of events, the court rulings, etc.. If they don't think he has a case, they will definitely take the case if he pays them by the hour.

Here is the Washington ruling:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf

and the Richardson ruling:
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf

if the OP wants to print them off and do some lawyer shopping.



If you are being detained for a criminal violation involving a violent act, license or not, the officers will still have the right to pat you down, and take your weapon, for safety while they investigate the issue at hand. Folks are making too many broad statements on this thread, but it is telling how no one has offered to start a fund to help the OP actually go to court over this. Filing complaints will do nothing, only a court or jury finding and verdict in favor of the OP will do anything. Such a ruling will cause officers to be trained. Some may still do it, but it will at least make future lawsuits that much easier for those folks to win. Here is the thing, I don't think the OP has a case, even based on Washington or Richardson. As such, I don't think any lawyer will take this for free, with a cut of any settlement. This is the kind of case that would likely go to trial. If the lawyer isn't sure of winning anything, they are going to want to be paid hourly. So who here wants to start a monetary gift fund for the OP, so that he can pay the lawyers to file a lawsuit on this?

To the OP: If you feel your rights were violated, filing a complaint won't do much. All that will result in is them maybe admitting things could have been handled differently. If you think your rights were violated, and that the law is on your side, you should start printing out those laws, court rulings, etc. and start lawyer shopping. Their response will tell you right away if you have a case or not. There have been many police shootings, and other incidents, where lawyers are named. Contact those lawyers, as they obviously have no problems in suing the cops. Good luck.

 

[bjosephback]

The police in this town are getting a horrible name. This situation only makes you wonder why some of them want to become cops in the first place.

 

[BillD]

I'm certain in my own mind that the detectives that got caught supplying intel, security and busting the competition for some drug dealers joined the force with that exact thought in mind.

 

[serpicostraight]

Im more worried about having my rights violated by other Americans than the police.

is that a primate thing?

 

[hoosierfishing]

I would of done the same thing except I would of gave you your gun back.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I would of done the same thing except I would of gave you your gun back.

are you a cop? whats wrong with you people? eventualy people will have enough and cops will be reminded who the real boss is.

 

[hoosierfishing]

1. They think its a robbery

2. When they received his DL and LTC, they went back and checked for warrants. Whats wrong with that? Until I knew the guy didn't have a warrant for a violent crime, I'm disarming him.

3. Once I verified him, I would of given the gun back.

I wouldn't of been a ******* about it, its just being safe.

No I'm not a cop, but do work for the criminal justice system.

 

[serpicostraight]

1. They think its a robbery

2. When they received his DL and LTC, they went back and checked for warrants. Whats wrong with that? Until I knew the guy didn't have a warrant for a violent crime, I'm disarming him.

3. Once I verified him, I would of given the gun back.

I wouldn't of been a ******* about it, its just being safe.

No I'm not a cop, but do work for the criminal justice system.

officer safety again. what a bunch of wimps i hope i never get the courage that these brave officers have now.

 

[jsgolfman]

All the cops had to do was talk to the caller and find out the reason for the robbery call. Once she said it was because of the drilling noise, they would know it wasn't because a robbery was in friggin progress. They could have checked out the drilling noise, called the damn owner to verify he had a guy working and avoided all the liberty encroachment.

 

[infidel]

No I'm not a cop, but do work for the criminal justice system.

May we all have mercy if you are a judge.

 

[hoosierfishing]

All the cops had to do was talk to the caller and find out the reason for the robbery call. Once she said it was because of the drilling noise, they would know it wasn't because a robbery was in friggin progress. They could have checked out the drilling noise, called the damn owner to verify he had a guy working and avoided all the liberty encroachment.

I must of missed it. Did she advise them that there was no robbery? If so, then I stand corrected. The cops were in the wrong.

 

[E5RANGER375]

1. They think its a robbery

2. When they received his DL and LTC, they went back and checked for warrants. Whats wrong with that? Until I knew the guy didn't have a warrant for a violent crime, I'm disarming him.

3. Once I verified him, I would of given the gun back.

I wouldn't of been a ******* about it, its just being safe.

No I'm not a cop, but do work for the criminal justice system.

a warrant check is a worthless excuse to violate peoples rights!! Think about it...... does running a guy for warrants tell you if he just robbed the place? just because a guy has 6 warrants or no warrants doesnt mean they are the ones who did squat. a guy with no warrants and no record can just as easily rob a place as a guy with 6.

unless a cop sees my gun, then im not giving him anything to know who i am! i dont even have to tell him my name. but if you lie and give them a false name your screwed and maybe going to jail. thats why you dont say anything to a cop whos asking questions except: am i being detained? and "im not answering any questions" AND STICK TO IT!!!! even if the guy ask you if thats your car over there, dont say yes!!! because then he can initiate a traffic stop and then you will be required to ID yourself.