Told by FWPD illegal to OC in Indiana

[Titanium_Frost]

TF, I don't know what event precipitated the issuance of the memo, but I do recall it and may even have a copy of it in my files somewhere (electronic or otherwise). Regardless, with the increasing volume of the OC/CC debate, I don't think it's a bad idea to revisit the topic during training and try to bring everyone up to speed so we can avoid similar situations in the future.

Agreed!

 

[sloughfoot]

TF, I don't know what event precipitated the issuance of the memo, but I do recall it and may even have a copy of it in my files somewhere (electronic or otherwise). Regardless, with the increasing volume of the OC/CC debate, I don't think it's a bad idea to revisit the topic during training and try to bring everyone up to speed so we can avoid similar situations in the future.

Sarge470, I just realized you need to update your screen name now that you have some real juice and live a life of leisure...

Back me up here, you agree that the first thing someone should do is file a complaint and after filing that, post the incident on an internet forum? Time is of the essence?

I know you will get it fixed for now until some bonehead forgets about policy. But a formal complaint would also lead to the same thing, right?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Sloughfoot, there is no reason to be critical of the OP for posting his story here. He has received some good advice from people that have been there before him and can help him out along the way. I'm sure he will handle it the best way in his opinion. For him to file a complaint first, he would have had to know his options up front, and he did not.

I don't know what your interest or personal stake is with this situation, but do us a favor and give it a rest would ya?

 

[aka-kesler]

I prefer not to O/C in alot of public venues. And your rights were violated to a point. The letter may draw attention to this issue in the F.W.P.D. and then again it may not. Good luck on the issue, and dont be intimidated by this one incident!!

 

[KG1]

Sloughfoot, there is no reason to be critical of the OP for posting his story here. He has received some good advice from people that have been there before him and can help him out along the way. I'm sure he will handle it the best way in his opinion. For him to file a complaint first, he would have had to know his options up front, and he did not.

I don't know what your interest or personal stake is with this situation, but do us a favor and give it a rest would ya?

^This^ I don't think anyone here has been advocating that he should not file a complaint ASAP.

The OP knows what his options are and it's up to him if he wants to follow through in whatever course of action.

 

[looney2ns]

I specifically recall a memorandum issued to all FWPD officers several years ago from the Assistant Chief (now retired), clarifying that Indiana is indeed an open carry state, and reminding all personnel that persons openly carrying firearms with an LTCH were not in violation of any statutes. I'll contact the Academy and see if I can't get this inserted into the curriculum for our next in-service training block. Indiana's actually been open-carry since before I got into policing back in the mid-80s, and failures such as this always drive me crazy.

But how do you know the memo actually gets read?
Most probably don't.

I send memo's out in my world too, and the only way I can make them stick is to make each person sign a copy and send it back to me.
That way I can ruin their day if they don't do what they were told in the memo.

 

[Sarge470]

But how do you know the memo actually gets read?
Most probably don't.

looney, I agree wholeheartedly; FWPD did away with daily roll call briefings several years ago, so the only opportunity for in-person, department-wide communication is during in-service training, held several times a year. The memo is only effective if the rank & file street officer reads it, and I've never been overly enthusiastic about them as a form of intra-agency communication. Overuse of the delete button when reviewing in-car messages can quickly render a policy or legal reminder useless, and I prefer to follow up my instructions with an actual conversation or send my messages with a receipt confirmation request, so the recipient knows I've placed a higher priority on the content. Under current conditions, that's about the best I can do from my position.

Sloughfoot, I probably don't have much more juice than I did last year this time, but I am in a position to send more internal e-mails to people who have enough power to determine what the curriculum will be. On your other question, I think it goes without saying that we can more effectively correct problems when we're notified formally, whether it's through a letter or a formal complaint. Since most command-level officers probably don't visit this forum, chances are slim that raising the issue here would have had much effect on its own.

 

[revance]

I have to say, I get very annoyed by these stories. LEOs should have basic knowledge of the laws they enforce.

In fact, I was just at the state fair today and overhead a woman discussing an arrest she made (not in uniform and clearly not carrying) to another woman she was with (presumably also a LEO) and was asking for clarification on very basic legal matters. Her questions were regarding her ability to search people without prob cause or warrant. Don't they cover this stuff in the academy???

While I don't normally OC (I really don't agree with doing it, but its YOUR choice), I have to say, I think my response would be simply "Please cite where in the IC it states that OC is illegal. If you are so sure that it is illegal, arrest me and my attorney will sort this out later."

Honestly, I don't think these officers are ignorant, I think they just feel like pushing people around because they know they (we) won't refuse to cover up. More people need to start telling them to either arrest them or leave them alone. I bet these occurrences become much more rare if people started doing that.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Governments that tolerate a police force that is mis-trained will just have to pony up more money than those who keep their police properly educated, at least vis-a-vis firearms law. IC 35-47-11.1 Baybay!

 

[24Carat]

This whole concept that Ace #1 JBT may be, as an employee of a political sub division, violating Indiana Code is quite intriguing. I wonder what G.R.'s take would be on this??

 

[Apistoman]

Nailed it - I completely agree. I am required to know my job and do it well. Granted my life is not on the line but can we not expect LEOs to not confuse political agendas with codified law?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

A LEO cannot know 100% of the law. Period. (Why we need so many laws is another thread)

We, as "gun people" know the portions of the law that deal with our hobbies and lifestyle.

I can also guarantee that none of us know the Motor Vehicle code forwards & backwards - or very very few of us do.

We, as "gun people" get up in arms (see what I did there?) when a LEO doesn't know the laws that we do because it's OUR hobby - if you will.

If this were a forum about raising / keeping exotic animals - you'd better believe that many would know the ins and outs of THAT part of the code - and also get right rankled when some kind of LEO / civil code enforcer doesn't know the code.

It's all a matter of perspective, folks.

There are simply too many laws.

(note, please don't think I'm defending anyone - merely trying to provide a little perspective)

-J-

 

[SirRealism]

There are simply too many laws.

Amen.

 

[ATM]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

A LEO cannot know 100% of the law. Period.

They don't have to and they shouldn't pretend to.

However, I would certainly expect them to know the law they currently claim to be enforcing.

...We, as "gun people" get up in arms (see what I did there?) when a LEO doesn't know the laws that we do because it's OUR hobby - if you will...

Not really. We get up in arms when one attempts to enforce misinformation or myths as if they did know the law.

 

[doctrpt]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

A LEO cannot know 100% of the law. Period. (Why we need so many laws is another thread)

Then he/she should not be spouting untruths and enforcing his/her idea of what the law 'might' say. If you as a LEO are going to stop me, inform me I am breaking a law, and then charge me with the violation of that law, then you are opening yourself up to whatever laws you have broken by falsely accusing me. If a LEO can't know all the laws, then they shouldn't be charged with enforcing them. That's the bottom line.

In reality, I grant that they may not know every law, but they darn well better know the law they are saying I violated.

 

[Ted]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

A LEO cannot know 100% of the law. Period. (Why we need so many laws is another thread)

We, as "gun people" know the portions of the law that deal with our hobbies and lifestyle.

I can also guarantee that none of us know the Motor Vehicle code forwards & backwards - or very very few of us do.

We, as "gun people" get up in arms (see what I did there?) when a LEO doesn't know the laws that we do because it's OUR hobby - if you will.

If this were a forum about raising / keeping exotic animals - you'd better believe that many would know the ins and outs of THAT part of the code - and also get right rankled when some kind of LEO / civil code enforcer doesn't know the code.

It's all a matter of perspective, folks.

There are simply too many laws.

(note, please don't think I'm defending anyone - merely trying to provide a little perspective)

-J-

While I agree with you on some level in the case of individuals involved in such components as Reserve and Special personnel; career LE is not a hobby, but rather a LEO's profession. It is incumbent upon him or her to know their duties....at least as far as the criminal code in which they are charged in enforcing.

Supervisory LE has a greater duty in this respect.

As a LEO recently informed me, there is no excuse for ignorance of the law.

 

[IndyBeerman]

They don't have to and they shouldn't pretend to.

However, I would certainly expect them to know the law they currently claim to be enforcing.

How true, but the problem is when they try to enforce the myth instead of the law, and then the re-enforce their ignorance by conferring with a superior who is just as "knowledgeable" of the law as they are.

They both just assume that they are correct, when they should be correctly identifying and applying.

I call this the Badge Effect, I am the law, therefore what I say is right.

 

[Ted]

......I call this the Badge Effect, I am the law, therefore what I say is right.

Well, certainly a God complex on some level.......Another word is arrogance. And usually applies to a certain people that face few and/or meaningless repercussions for their actions......or lack of same.

While I don't wish to stereotype and there are certainly exceptions to this statement, such people are often in positions of power over others in their world........and their behaviors appear more related to sociopathy unto those in which they have little connection.

 

[thompal]

Then he/she should not be spouting untruths and enforcing his/her idea of what the law 'might' say. If you as a LEO are going to stop me, inform me I am breaking a law, and then charge me with the violation of that law, then you are opening yourself up to whatever laws you have broken by falsely accusing me. If a LEO can't know all the laws, then they shouldn't be charged with enforcing them. That's the bottom line.

In reality, I grant that they may not know every law, but they darn well better know the law they are saying I violated.

The entire situation is what results from police that attempt to enforce "crimes against the State," instead of crimes against persons.

Murder? Rape? Robbery? Battery? Theft? All are clear-cut violations of the law.

Exercising a right in a manner not approved by the State?? Why are the police enforcing State-created laws which define "crimes" against the State, and where there is no victim (other than the State's sense of authority)?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

He is the best Attorney that ...

YOU will ever be able to afford! USE your tax-money wisely.

I gotta ask, why?