Surrounded by cops today

[Joe Williams]

snip
The mere fact that he has a permit means absolutely nothing. snip.

The Indiana Supreme Court says differently.

 

[jsgolfman]

Again, I repeat my original quesiton. Did the police actually talk to the caller? Had they done so, they could readily ascertain that the call was predicated on the sound of drilling, nothing more.

 

[Gabriel]

"Hey there, we got a report of a possible robbery."

"Really? I haven't seen anyone else back here, officer."

"Thanks. You be careful fixing that light."

And there you have it, you would prefer an officer not do his job to save you delicate sensibilities.

The Indiana Supreme Court says differently.

Last time I checked, having a permit doesn't automatically make you innocent of wrong doing. Having a firearm, on the other hand, doesn't automatically make you guilty of wrong doing either.

If this were just a search of the OP with no other circumstrances involved I'd have a problem with it. As it is stated while hearing only the OP's version of the story, I see no problem with what happened (other than unloading the magazine was kind of overkill).

 

[Gabriel]

Again, I repeat my original quesiton. Did the police actually talk to the caller? Had they done so, they could readily ascertain that the call was predicated on the sound of drilling, nothing more.

That would still warrant a quick investigation of the area, which is what happened.

 

[Eddie]

That would still warrant a quick investigation of the area, which is what happened.

Going back to the OP, he says he was detained for twenty minutes while they checked his ID and ran the serial numbers on his weapon to see if it was stolen. I think that is excessive considering he was obviously performing maintenance work when they arrived.

Why not call the information in for dispatch to check and one cop stand by and let the guy finish working on the light while he waits on the results? Then if he comes back clean he could hand over the weapon and the magazines and tell him thanks for his patience.

Sure, be safe responding to a call about a robbery but use some common sense. A guy on a ladder with a drill who has a maintenance van and is obviously repairing a light doesn't deserve this kind of treatment. This sounds like something Barney Fife would do.

OK, maybe a bad guy would steal a maintainence van and go pretend to work on the lights in order to commit a crime, but at a strip mall? Be reasonable. If he is doing this outside a bank at 2am that might be one thing, but come on.

I think that unloading his magazines and putting his stuff on a dumpster speaks volumes about this call and the lack of common sense shown by the LEOs. When they couldn't find anything wrong they did something petty and mean.

 

[ATM]

And there you have it, you would prefer an officer not do his job to save you delicate sensibilities.

What job was accomplished? Depending on the details he was investigating, probably none.

Was he...

A. Trying to find where the drilling noise came from?
Found it. There's a guy out here fixing a light. I think I'll ask him some unhelpful questions and see where it leads.

B. Looking for someone who attempted to rob the place?
I'll bet it's this guy who's out back fixing the light.
Can't believe my good fortune that he stuck around the scene of the crime to perform some maintenance. I wonder if he knows what this place he tried to rob is named? That would be helpful to know, I'll start there.

C. Looking for someone preparing to rob the place?
I'll bet it's this guy who's out back fixing the light.
Can't believe my good fortune that we caught him performing some maintenance before he had a chance to actually break a law. I think I'll ask him some unhelpful questions and then run his ID in case he's already wanted for something unrelated.


Just a few likely possibilities based on the info given.

 

[Hornett]

Man I have been spreading the rep on this thread.
Here are some things that I thought of while reading.

NEW RULE:
No posting until you have read the whole thread.
Many items have been discussed over and over.
Case in point: informing the occupants that you are there.

Now lets be realistic. You, as an officer responding to a robbery call, find a guy with a jillion dollar truck, loaded with electrical equipment, holding a drill driver, with a new light laying on the ground at his feet, and the old light laying next to it, producing an ID and an LTCH and you're first thought is that he is impersonating a repair man to rob a Check Into Cash store? Really?? Serious?? Was he wearing a stocking over his head? It's glance and go time, people. Tell the repairman there was a call about a robbery and be on your way. It is very difficult to believe that his was not about him possessing a gun.

I believe that SOP for many deparmtments is to disarm and unload weapons for anyone, even LTCH holders. This is such a bad idea on many levels. It's dangerous to manipulate an unfamiliar weapon. It's illegal. And it makes for very bad realtions as can be seen from this thread. This SOP won't change until it hurts the department every time it's tried. We have to make a stink. Do not let this pass. File a complaint.

Here is what I get from reading this thread. In a similar situation, I will cooperate with an officer and even show him my ID. But when the question "do you have a weapon?" comes up, it's time to start asking if I am being detained and I will shut up and cease to cooperate. It's just not worth the grief. That is sad, but it should be seen as an obvious expeced result to the SOP of unloading weapons and violating rights.

 

[Brett]

I am stunned by this whole story. Please report this. It seems like the officers really overstepped common sense on this one.

 

[schafe]

Something I have observed from memorable personal experience and discussions like this is that LEOs don't seem to have any training in how to handle a case of mistaken identity, when they have just shown the business end of a semi auto to an innocent citizen (In my case, I was unarmed, and at that time, had neither a LTCH nor a handgun.) They seem to be unaware of the emotional reaction that was going on while we're looking deep into the barrell of their firearm, perhaps because of an emotional reaction of their own, or their presumption of our guilt. Sure would be some good PR to teach LEOs how to wrap up these encounters with an explanation, a sincere apology, and a handshake. Or am I all wet?

 

[HICKMAN]

That store is right down the street from me.

My wife was shopping in the dollar tree next door when the cops came in a few months back because someone had climbed over the top to get in to the check cashing place.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Well how about this then. My buddy has his CCW for Kentucky and carries semi-regularly. He was pulled over and when the officer asked him for his license, he pulled out his wallet, and while getting his drivers license, the officer sees his CCW and IMMEDIATELY pulled his own gun, told my buddy to put his hands on the steering wheel and not to move or he would "shoot him in the head" the LEO then proceeded to pull my buddy out of his car using a felony stop procedures, he was handcuffed, and placed in the back of the police car. At that time his car was RANSACKED by the officer looking for a gun. He then came back and asked my buddy if there was a gun in the car to which he replied there was not. The officer then went back to searching my buddies car while as he said 3 or 4 more police cars came to the scene. My friend was made to wait handcuffed in the back seat of a police car for ALMOST and hour while he is illegally detained and his car is illegally searched. The officer then came back and read some bullcrap about officer safety, yadda, yadda, yadda. Then told my friend he was required to notify the police that he had a CCW. He had done NOTHING wrong except for speed. The officer only saw the CCW in his wallet and my freaked out causing my friend all kinds of grief. My friend was eventually released, GIVEN THE DAMN TICKET, and sent on his way. He said that they tore the entire insides of his car upside down during their illegal search. Should they have put stuff away in his car, you bet, should this have happened the way it did? Hell No, this was wrong, and all the officer involved from what I understand got verbal and written reprimands for their actions. He was going to sue the local police department, but is good friends with the Chief of the agency, and as a PERSONAL favor for the chief he did not sue, but the chief made sure the officers involved were written up. I think the one that pulled him out got a 7 day unpaid rip.

But I guess it should be ok to do these kinds of things to law abiding citizens.

INGunGuy

Your friend is a helluva nice guy. I'd be kicking back, drinking a beer inside City Hall, which I would've bought out of foreclosure with the money I received from suing the local government with authority over the LEO agency involved. If it were the State boys, I'd be next to the pool at the Governor's Mansion.

 

[88GT]

THIS

Did it not occur to you to speak to the nervous lady inside BEFORE you started drilling?

Not trying to bust your balls, but ya kinda put yourself in an easily avoidable situation, by
A. Not even knowing the business you were drilling into
and
B. Not informing the occupants of said premisses of your legitimate intentions

We are sadly living in some nervous times with nervous [strike]people[/strike] sheep. One must take extra steps, to keep one's self, out of potentially BAD situations involving nervous police officers.

It could have had a worse ending, one of those Glocks could have spontaneously involuntarily kaboomed.

Just my

What a total crock of bullcrap. Since when did the requirement of my respecting my inalienable rights come with contingencies?

I reject the notion that my safety and freedoms come with the responsibility of controlling scenarios to influence others' behaviors and mindsets. It might be a good idea (and in the interest of prudence and consideration for all involved, I probably would), but it's not a requirement, and the legitimacy of my legal and rightful acts is completely independent and unrelated to it.

If you are too busy too protect yourself from unwanted/warranted LEO scrutiny, then you should not whine on a public forum, when 5 minutes of your time would "likely" have prevented it.

No body is responsible for you, besides you!
If it takes to much time to notify somebody inside, then the consequences are all yours.

Which would have taken the most time, your method, or a quick polite, "HEY DUMBASS I'M WORKING OUT HERE DON'T CALL THE FRIGIN' COPS"

Total unmitigated garbage. I have the expectation that my rights will not be infringed regardless of my actions (illegal ones excepted) or the actions of others. THAT is the standard by which this scenario should be judged, NOT whether or not the OP might have been able to avoid the whole thing.

But let's assume there's even a smidgen of truth in your assumptions. Let's assume OP did inform someone who then failed to convey that message to the others in the store. One of the others, perhaps the dumb brat that made the call, hears a strange noise, jumps to conclusions, and LE is called. At which point EVERYTHING in the OP's post transpires exactly as he described starting with the head popping out of the door. Now where in this scenario can you hold OP responsibility for the violation of his rights by the cops?

You can't. The point being that his rights were violated on the actions of the LEOs. They made the choice to do so without justification. How you want to hold him responsible for that baffles me.

A) It was the owner's responsibility to let tenants/renters know about any maintenance being done.

B) What's wrong with a healthy little dose of "Anti-authority"?

C) what would be a good reason to unload mags if they're being handed right back anyhow?

Tried to rep you again. On the owner's responsibility to inform. None of my service people are burdened with notifying the tenants of work to be done.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

So this story goes hand and hand with the "pulled over" thread.

...Twenty minutes more of criminal confinment, and they finally get the ok they take my clips and unload them both...

What were you carrying...a rifle with clips? I would be pointing at ya too...unless you had a pistol and spare magazines...

 

[Bendrx]

As the story was laid out by the OP, there was no reason to do anything whatsoever by the Policia. If somebody calls a report that a place is being robbed, the police showed up how many minutes later? And there still wasn't a robbery. Without probable cause you can't detain. OH But somebody called and said they were being robbed!! Oh no save the cute kittens!! Bull ****, Hearsay. Nothing more it doesn't hold up legally. And considering that there wasn't a robbery at all, you really can't logically blame it on the OP. Also...who was actually inside the store? They would seem like more probably robbers then the guy up on a ladder fixing a sign.

I fully agree that there are 2 sides to every story, but in order for the police to be justified some major details would have had to been left out. EDIT: And justification for thier actions wouldn't result in an arrest how?

 

[BillD]

Did they run the numbers on the work van to see if it was stolen? If not, why not?

Or did they only suspect you of stealing guns and not work vans?

Being a LEO is being part of an exclusive club. Membership has it's privileges.

 

[Gabriel]

Being a LEO is being part of an exclusive club. Membership has it's privileges.

You've got that part right.

 

[Panama]

What a total crock of bullcrap. Since when did the requirement of my respecting my inalienable rights come with contingencies?

I reject the notion that my safety and freedoms come with the responsibility of controlling scenarios to influence others' behaviors and mindsets. It might be a good idea (and in the interest of prudence and consideration for all involved, I probably would), but it's not a requirement, and the legitimacy of my legal and rightful acts is completely independent and unrelated to it.




Total unmitigated garbage. I have the expectation that my rights will not be infringed regardless of my actions (illegal ones excepted) or the actions of others. THAT is the standard by which this scenario should be judged, NOT whether or not the OP might have been able to avoid the whole thing.

But let's assume there's even a smidgen of truth in your assumptions. Let's assume OP did inform someone who then failed to convey that message to the others in the store. One of the others, perhaps the dumb brat that made the call, hears a strange noise, jumps to conclusions, and LE is called. At which point EVERYTHING in the OP's post transpires exactly as he described starting with the head popping out of the door. Now where in this scenario can you hold OP responsibility for the violation of his rights by the cops?

You can't. The point being that his rights were violated on the actions of the LEOs. They made the choice to do so without justification. How you want to hold him responsible for that baffles me.



Tried to rep you again. On the owner's responsibility to inform. None of my service people are burdened with notifying the tenants of work to be done.

You and I are both entitled to our own opinions, I gave mine and you gave yours.
Yours is just as important to me, as mine obviously is to you.
Doesn't bother me in the least, doesn't change my opinion.
GFY

 

[public servant]

GFY??

greetings from....?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
Last time I checked, having a permit doesn't automatically make you innocent of wrong doing. Having a firearm, on the other hand, doesn't automatically make you guilty of wrong doing either.
snip

Nor does having a firearm with LTCH constitute probable cause to detain the citizen, run a check to see if if the LTCH is valid, or check for a stolen gun. The circumstances of the call simply do not support PC to do any of the above. Having the LTCH may nor may not make you innocent of wrongdoing, but it DOES remove PC to conduct any further questioning or investigation regarding the gun, absent other circumstances. And a repairman on a ladder simply won't fly as PC.

 

[finity]

not all of us are ready to surrender our rights that our ancestors fought and died for. if you chose to be a subject and roll over thats fine but dont expect everybody to be as subserviant as you are.

If I'm not mistaken he's not a "subject", he's an "enforcer" (i.e. LEO). He doesn't have to be subservient. He just expects everyone else to be.

The Indiana Supreme Court says differently.

But everyone knows that the cops don't have to follow the decisions of the SCOTUS/SCOIN. Those are just suggestions, right?

You've got that part right.

... ....

That would possibly be funny if it wasn't SO FREAKIN' TRUE.

Some things are just so irresponsible to joke around about (I assume you are trying to joke aren't you? ). Like the president joking that he would like to be dictator, or a priest joking around about molesting chior boys or cops joking around on a public forum that they have "priveleges" because they're cops. Some "jokes" are just innapropriate.