Surrounded by cops today

[Bill B]

File a complaint with the fed here: Civil Rights Division Home Page
Although they won't deal with just a single complaint, if there are enough complaints to see a pattern they will investigate it as a federal matter.

 

[Hawkeye]

i'll have to try to find the time to read this thead later!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So let me get this straight. The police responded a reported burglery. That's a felony. Even though the officers probably didn't say so the OP was under arrest and not free to leave. It seems reasonable for an LEO to disarm a suspect during an investigation that lasted less than 30 minutes. If they pull over a reported car jacker, should they let him keep his gun too?

The OP should have told people he was working on the building. Absent that knowledge Nervous Nell (quoted from another post) was well within her right to call the police. Use this as a learning experience and don't put yourself in this situation again.

Finally, get over this need to feel like your rights were violated. They weren't. This wasn't a case of you walking down the street OCing and minding your own business when jack-booted thugs took you gun and anally probed you. You were a suspect in a reported felony. They could have put you in cuffs in the back of a squad car. The fact they didn't speaks to their integrity.

Just the way I see it.

 

[gunbunnies]

They were called on a Robbery in progress call, how does that involve a maintenance guy with a work truck, ladder, and tools plus a lighting fixture on the outside of the building in their primary search criteria ??? Oh wait a minute, there wasn't ever a guy with a gun robbing you, you just decided to call us all out here because you somehow thought in your own mind that a guy could show up with a gun and rob you... Well I call that a falsified 911 call, which they could site her on. Instead they went outside and decided to find a maintenance guy working on the side of the building to screw with... Now if they really thought this was the guy they were looking for then the disarming, and running his ID etc. was called for but not unloading all the rounds out of his magazines of his weapon, that was called harassment, and put the OP in a dangerous circumstance as they didn't wait for him to reload his magazines before they left the scene.. Other words leaving him there all primed for some real bad guy to come along and rob or kill him, I'd be looking for a personal endangerment suit against the city, and the officers personally involved... The only way to impress our govment as too the importance of their actions is to make them see it financially, then they would train the officers that if they are going to go after someone and they find that they have a good person, they need to make sure that they leave him with the same safety factor they had when they came on to him or her. I'm not bashing the Police Officers for what they did I just see a really bad situation coming from their actions and they are suppose to be there for all's safety not to make it easier for the local criminals too rob, rape and pillage the local citizens... By the way, I would also bill the department for my time at my service rate, as if I'm working for a client, I'm getting paid.... Time is money.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Update Friday:


I finally got a chance to call again today a Lt. Pridemore of the South East district. But he wasnt in. So I had the officer who asked get a hold of one of the Sargents, and call me back.
I Sgt. Moore called me back a couple hours later and I voiced my complaint to her.
I told her exactly as I told you all. And then I told her that I didn't have a problem until after I gave the officers my id and told them I had a gun, with LTCH.

Where my rights were taken away while I had done nothing wrong, and provided my info.
Her response was that the way I desribed the encounter going down, was exactly how they are trained to do things. I stated how that may be but my rights were still taken from me, even for only twenty minutes.
Sgt. Moore say "she understands where I was coming from, but that she didn't see the training to take someones weapon changing. And that it was for their safety." Which I do understand to a point. I told her that the safest place for my weapon was in its holster on my hip.
At this she said, "well if you move, not going for your gun and they think you are, then your shot."
I said, " I would rather be a dead man than not have the rights we are supposed to have in this country", and " that I didn't want to leave my kids in a country without these rights"
In a nutshell she is saying that she understands how I feel and as she put it, that I was passionate about our rights, but that she basically can't do anything because they did what they are trained to do.
I asked what was my next course of action as to the legallity of what they are trained to do, because that is my complaint, she tells me that I would need to contact a constitutional lawyer, as she wasn't one.
We agreed to disagree. She also offered to see if they still had a thing called the citizens academy I believe, where I could grill them on all this questions. Ill have to look in to it and see what it is.
So we have to as a community have this procedure looked at and addressed accordly.
The conversation lasted for 25 mins so I got everything off my chest, and I left it a less angry. Sgt. Moore showed respect and didn't assualt, or belittle my complaints. Very Professional.
I still have to send in the letter to the Sheriiffs dept. and then talk to a Det. about it but I excpect to get the same reponses.. In the end the courts is where this will be fought, for all of us.

I still think it is wrong to take my rights, after handing over my permits. The only thing to do is challage if it's constitutionally right.

so basicly she doesnt care what the law says as long as what they do is within their policy. again Im not suprised. Why do we even pay a legislature?? seems like the cops have it locked up. thats what i get from this and many LEO interactions I read here. Not all cops follow "the book" but too many do. and when the good ones try and use discretion to protect a citizens rights they are "in trouble" by dumb sgts and higher ups like the lady you talked too. She also lied. the next step IS NOT a constitutional lawyer YET. The next step is her boss, or the police chief and the mayor. then after you do that and they give you the same BS answer (which im sure they will), then contact your lawyer. document your conversations with everyone "official" you speak with. you can even tell them your recording the call, or meeting.

 

[brotherbill3]

so basicly she doesnt care what the law says as long as what they do is within their policy. again Im not suprised. Why do we even pay a legislature?? seems like the cops have it locked up. thats what i get from this and many LEO interactions I read here. Not all cops follow "the book" but too many do. and when the good ones try and use discretion to protect a citizens rights they are "in trouble" by dumb sgts and higher ups like the lady you talked too. She also lied. the next step IS NOT a constitutional lawyer YET. The next step is her boss, or the police chief and the mayor. then after you do that and they give you the same BS answer (which im sure they will), then contact your lawyer. document your conversations with everyone "official" you speak with. you can even tell them your recording the call, or meeting.

This was part of my point a few pages back - I don't think this applies to ALL departments - but I.M.P.D. - from the Mayor down - have a very ANTI-2A - RIGHT's position and are ridiculous. From the post of a few of the other LEO folks I read (I think they are LEO's) ... I don't think this is the policy everywhere. I am also sure lots of officers DO NOT know the actual law on CC with an LTCH - because many probably wouldn't carry if they weren't officers.

"Brother" Bill

 

[finity]

However, if you deny having a firearm and they discover one on you, well then you at the least have a false informing charge.

Do you have the IC to back that statement up? Where is the "false informing" law found?

Your right we are all scared little puppy dogs.
What is funny is that I go into places all the time that the brave IMPD folks rarely if every visit. And if they do go, its with an overwhelming amount of firepower.

Im not sure of this, but looking at the amount of manpower they send to the calls, I would believe I have a higher chance of being killed on my job than a cop.

There are a lot of jobs that are WAY MORE dangerous than being a LEO. Heck, more people are killed in my profession every year than are cops. You wouldn't think so by the way most of the cops on here talk.

I have tons of respect for our police officers (the ones that do their jobs and aren't pricks for no reason),...

I know I'm going to be labeled as a cop-basher (again?) but I've got to say it.

I have no more respect for cops & the job they do than I do for any other person who performs a public service & performs that service well. I think a lot of the "respect" that people give cops is really "fear". I know I'm intimidated when I have any professional dealings with a LEO & I'm fairly law-abiding & generally not easily intimidated. My "respect" is "fear" that if I do something they don't like my life could become WAY harder/shorter.

Of course, cops have a rough job at times. Sometimes it's even dangerous. So are a lot of other peoples jobs. You don't have people coming on TV/internet/etc stating how they have "tons of respect" for those people.

About the police getting respect...I've got friends that I've known since oh about 26 years that are officers and some that I met in the past 5 years that are officers. These guys would still get my respect if they were cart boys at Wal-Mart. Respect isn't something you should give blindly. Respect the man and not the uniform.

Exactly.

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.

Oh come on now. Now that's just crazy talk. Stop assuming common sense here.

So let me get this straight. The police responded a reported burglery. That's a felony. Even though the officers probably didn't say so the OP was under arrest and not free to leave. It seems reasonable for an LEO to disarm a suspect during an investigation that lasted less than 30 minutes. If they pull over a reported car jacker, should they let him keep his gun too?

The OP should have told people he was working on the building. Absent that knowledge Nervous Nell (quoted from another post) was well within her right to call the police. Use this as a learning experience and don't put yourself in this situation again.

Finally, get over this need to feel like your rights were violated. They weren't. This wasn't a case of you walking down the street OCing and minding your own business when jack-booted thugs took you gun and anally probed you. You were a suspect in a reported felony. They could have put you in cuffs in the back of a squad car. The fact they didn't speaks to their integrity.

Just the way I see it.

So if I called the cops & reported that I thought that SemperFiUSMC had just committed some heinous felony you would be OK with them detaining you, taking away your property & treating you like a criminal if it was fairly obvious that you had actually not committed any such crime? Just on my word alone?

There was no other indication of a crime. Just a guy working on a light on a ladder & some IDIOT who FREAKED for NO REASON.

It always amazes me that the people who have fought to protect the rights that we have are many of the ones who would give them up so easily (or in some cases actually actively take them away - see the Katrina debacle).

Semper Fi indeed.

 

[$mooth]

I have no more respect for cops & the job they do than I do for any other person who performs a public service & performs that service well. I think a lot of the "respect" that people give cops is really "fear". I know I'm intimidated when I have any professional dealings with a LEO & I'm fairly law-abiding & generally not easily intimidated. My "respect" is "fear" that if I do something they don't like my life could become WAY harder/shorter.

I have to agree with this. Back in Canada, I used to respect LEO. They were part of the city. I trusted them. They were true public servents. If I needed directions, I could flag the neares LEO.
Since I moved to the US (VA, TX and IN, at least), I havn't been impressed. I've tried to treat them the same way and I get midly accosted for bothering them. Generally, my only interaction now with LEO is getting pulled over for speeding.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So if I called the cops & reported that I thought that SemperFiUSMC had just committed some heinous felony you would be OK with them detaining you, taking away your property & treating you like a criminal if it was fairly obvious that you had actually not committed any such crime? Just on my word alone?

There was no other indication of a crime. Just a guy working on a light on a ladder & some IDIOT who FREAKED for NO REASON.

It always amazes me that the people who have fought to protect the rights that we have are many of the ones who would give them up so easily (or in some cases actually actively take them away - see the Katrina debacle).

Semper Fi indeed.

Yeah, if you called the cops and said there was a felony in progress (let's say a baby snatching), and they come out and find me pushing a stroller down the street, I would expect them to detain me and investigate the supposed crime thoroughly before letting me go. They wouldn't know that the baby in the stroller was my grandchild, and I wouldn't expect them to take my word for it. I would want them to check out my story, because maybe it's someone else trying to steal my granddaughter.

While I was under suspicion for a felony, I would understand that I am under arrest, whether told so or not, and would expect to be disarmed and heck, even put me in handcuffs because that's what they do when you're under arrest. When it was all sorted out 20 minutes later, I would be stressed out but understand that we have a police force to investigate and stop reported crimes and apprehend suspected criminals.

The police were investigating a reported crime. They don't know that it's just a guy on a ladder and an idiot who freaked out when they arrive. They get a report of someone breaking into a business, and find somebody that fits the description. What the **** do you want them to do, just drive by and say "It can't be him. He's on a ladder and has a drill in his hand".

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback the situation. You weren't there. I wasn't there. But from the description of the events (20 minutes, disarmed, everyone talking coolly, gun was returned as soon as the crisis was declared over) it sounds like it was handled professionally. The mag dump sounds silly to me but doesn't rise to the level of criminal activity, and is not worth spending 30 seconds being pissed off about. I've had the same thing done to me. So what. I just reloaded. I guess anyone can find a reason to be a victim if they try really hard.

You want this to be about someone having their gun taken from them by the police for no reason. Well it's not. It was about a reported crime and an armed suspect. In the end everything worked out as it should have. Get over it.

Oh, and we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That means criminals in my mind. So yeah, I'm OK with stopping crime in its tracks.

 

[Compatriot G]

I believe this could have been handled much differently if the dispatcher would have just asked the caller a few more questions. I'm pretty sure it could have gone from a robbery in progress to, at most, a suspicious noise call. I would suggest that the author of the thread request copies of the 911 call. The way the call was initially handled by dispatch seems to be a problem, as well.

 

[cordex]

Do you have the IC to back that statement up? Where is the "false informing" law found?

I'm not qualified to say whether or not it would apply in this case, but ...

35-44-2-2. False informing.
Text
(a) As used in this section, “consumer product” has the meaning set forth in IC 35-45-8-1.
(b) As used in this section, “misconduct” means a violation of a departmental rule or procedure of a law enforcement agency.
(c) A person who reports, by telephone, telegraph, mail, or other written or oral communication, that:
(1) the person or another person has placed or intends to place an explosive, a destructive device, or other destructive substance in a building or transportation facility;
(2) there has been or there will be tampering with a consumer product introduced into commerce; or
(3) there has been or will be placed or introduced a weapon of mass destruction in a building or a place of assembly;
knowing the report to be false commits false reporting, a Class D felony.
(d) A person who:
(1) gives a false report of the commission of a crime or gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;
(2) gives a false alarm of fire to the fire department of a governmental entity, knowing the alarm to be false;
(3) makes a false request for ambulance service to an ambulance service provider, knowing the request to be false;
(4) gives a false report concerning a missing child (as defined in IC 10-13-5-4) or missing endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-7-2-131.3) or gives false information in the official investigation of a missing child or missing endangered adult knowing the report or information to be false;
(5) makes a complaint against a law enforcement officer to the state or municipality (as defined in IC 8-1-13-3) that employs the officer:
(A) alleging the officer engaged in misconduct while performing the officer's duties; and
(B) knowing the complaint to be false; or
(6) makes a false report of a missing person, knowing the report or information is false;
commits false informing, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it substantially hinders any law enforcement process or if it results in harm to an innocent person.

The examples that LexisNexis gives as sufficient to prove false informing indicate that the lies told to police investigators be intended to conceal a criminal offense or offender. Given that the gun was legally possessed and carrying a firearm when properly licensed in and of itself is no crime, I'd say there is at least an argument that the false informing law would not apply in the stated scenario, but that is something a court would have to decide at great cost to the defendant.

 

[MinuteMan47]

I'm not able to say whether or not it would apply in this case, but ...

Did you read it? NO it doesn't apply here.

In Indiana you are NOT REQUIRED TO INFORM.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/indiana.pdf

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I believe this could have been handled much differently if the dispatcher would have just asked the caller a few more questions. I'm pretty sure it could have gone from a robbery in progress to, at most, a suspicious noise call. I would suggest that the author of the thread request copies of the 911 call. The way the call was initially handled by dispatch seems to be a problem, as well.

Except that dispatchers are telephone operators. We pay them to take calls and dispatch the appropriate resource based upon the call. We pay police to investigate proported crimes, expecially those in progress.

The last thing we should want is for a felon to get away because the call is being screened by the dispatcher.

 

[cordex]

Did you read it? NO it doesn't apply here.

In Indiana you are NOT REQUIRED TO INFORM.

MinuteMan47,
Pardon? The issue I was addressing was not in any way about proactively informing a police officer about carrying, but whether or not a false informing charge could be brought if you lie to an officer about carrying when asked directly assuming that carrying a firearm is irrelevant to the crime that the officer is investigating. 23mar03 felt a false informing charge would stick, and finity doubted that such a charge even existed. That's what I was responding to.

To give you some context:

Once contact is made, identifying you/associates is priority. While they are running your name, they need to make sure that they are safe from you/associates. In that situation, nothing is gained by not admitting your LTCH status. However, if you deny having a firearm and they discover one on you, well then you at the least have a false informing charge. While your identity is in question, then disarming you is a wise choice.

Do you have the IC to back that statement up? Where is the "false informing" law found?

 

[BillD]

You don't have to inform but if they ask, you have to tell the truth or be subject to arrest.

 

[MinuteMan47]

MinuteMan47,
Pardon? The issue I was addressing was not in any way about proactively informing a police officer about carrying, but whether or not a false informing charge could be brought if you lie to an officer about carrying when asked directly assuming that carrying a firearm is irrelevant to the crime that the officer is investigating. 23mar03 felt a false informing charge would stick, and finity doubted that such a charge even existed. That's what I was responding to.

To give you some context:

You don't have to inform but if they ask, you have to tell the truth or be subject to arrest.

Pardon? If YOU feel it is neccessary to waive your rights then that is YOUR CHOICE. I however, will REFUSE to provide any information that "MAY BE USED AGAINST ME IN A COURT OF LAW" Therefore, I will exercise my right to remain silent.

 

[BillD]

Pardon? If YOU feel it is neccessary to waive your rights then that is YOUR CHOICE. I however, will REFUSE to provide any information that "MAY BE USED AGAINST ME IN A COURT OF LAW" Therefore, I will exercise my right to remain silent.

Well don't get your panties twisted.

Let's just say you can't lie. You can keep your mouth shut.

 

[cordex]

Pardon? If YOU feel it is neccessary to waive your rights then that is YOUR CHOICE. I however, will REFUSE to provide any information that "MAY BE USED AGAINST ME IN A COURT OF LAW" Therefore, I will exercise my right to remain silent.

That's great, but not what was being discussed at the time.

 

[MinuteMan47]

That's great, but not what was being discussed at the time.

Enlighten me. I believe what was being discussed was whether or not you are going to inform a LAW ENFORCEMENT officer that you are carrying if directly asked.

23mar stated that you may have a "false informing" charge if you DENIED you had a firearm and then one was found.

How are we not discussing the same issue. If you didn't answer the question to begin with (LIKE I STATED) then there is no reason to worry about "false informing" charges....

 

[thompal]

The Sheriff that walked out with me said that the policy was to keep someone from thinking I was bribing him ... I was wondering for what I'd be bribing him for?

Wonder if that came about after Lugar was mayor. (grin)

(how many here remember IPD when Lugar was mayor???)
People claim that this variation of IPD is corrupt, but it pales in comparison to the Lugar-era department. I was a kid when all of that went down and didn't really follow it, but I remember my dad being P*SSED about what was being allowed to go on.