Told by FWPD illegal to OC in Indiana

[Kirk Freeman]

Just because they threaten to arrest you doesn't mean they are actually foolish enough to do it.

This is the essence of the Heckler's Veto.

 

[CathyInBlue]

IMO as soon as the officer was "acting in accordance with his duties" such as enforcing a law, rule, policy etc of a political subdivision he is violating the intent of the preemption act.

IC 35-47-11.1-3 Any provision of an ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy or exercise of proprietary authority of a political subdivision or of an employee or agent of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity [...] is void.

He doesn't have to be threatening to arrest you for a non-crime. All he has to be doing is "exercising proprietary authority". If he's using the authority of his position to brow beat you into submitting to his extra-legal will, he's run afoul of 11.1. But I agree, unless you can get him to "cop" to it on the stand, a recording device is your best bet, unless you actually get him to arrest you.

 

[KG1]

I was referring more about the initial encounter in my post. IMO as soon as the officer was "acting in accordance with his duties" such as enforcing a law, rule, policy etc of a political subdivision he is violating the intent of the preemption act.

However... Since the OP went along with all aspects of the cop's orders I do not see how he could prove he objected to the orders unless the cops is dumb enough to admit that under oath since there was unlikely to be a police report on this interaction. As far as a jury would be concerned this was just a discussion between buddies unless the OP could PROVE he was ordered against his will to follow the cop's instructions.

Hopefully he had some sort of recording device going at the time.

Well then the officer and the Sargent would both have to perjure themselves under oath in this instance and if that's the case the FWPD has a more serious systemic problem than just being perpetrators of the heckler's veto.

But I agree that whatever course of action you choose to partake when confronted in the manner the OP was is to have a recording device running at all times or calmly force the officer's hand by making an arrest under his assertion that he made concerning the illegality of OC'ng.

Even though I have no specific evidence to support my assertion I do believe personally the officer will back down and an arrest will not be made because he would have to cite specific IC in his arrest report. Either way you have proof of the officers intentions.

The point I was trying to make though is unfortunately submitting letters of complaint alone just doesn't seem to be cutting it anymore and in this case it did'nt just involve the one officer on scene.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Well then the officer and the Sargent would both have to perjure themselves under oath in this instance and if that's the case the FWPD has a more serious systemic problem than just being perpetrators of the heckler's veto.

But I agree that whatever course of action you choose to partake when confronted in the manner the OP was is to have a recording device running at all times or calmly force the officer's hand by making an arrest under his assertion that he made concerning the illegality of OC'ng.

Even though I have no specific evidence to support my assertion I do believe personally the officer will back down and an arrest will not be made because he would have to cite specific IC in his arrest report. Either way you have proof of the officers intentions.

The point I was trying to make though is unfortunately submitting letters of complaint alone just doesn't seem to be cutting it anymore and in this case it did'nt just involve the one officer on scene.

Agreed but in the absence of actual evidence or testimony from witnesses a FORMAL complaint would be the best and only logical alternative. Perhaps looking into paying a lawyer for a formally drafted letter outlining the legality of the issue at hand if you want even more of an impact.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

He doesn't have to be threatening to arrest you for a non-crime. All he has to be doing is "exercising proprietary authority". If he's using the authority of his position to brow beat you into submitting to his extra-legal will, he's run afoul of 11.1. But I agree, unless you can get him to "cop" to it on the stand, a recording device is your best bet, unless you actually get him to arrest you.

That's pretty much exactly what I said except I did not qualify it with "threatening to arrest" so I'm not sure where you got that from.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Point being that arrest authority is not the be all, end all of a LEO "exercising proprietary authority". Just by sternly telling you, while he's on-duty and in uniform, his opinion on OC/CC in a manner to get you to agree with him, is exercising proprietary authority because he's relying on his authority as a LEO to intimidate you.

 

[KG1]

Point being that arrest authority is not the be all, end all of a LEO "exercising proprietary authority". Just by sternly telling you, while he's on-duty and in uniform, his opinion on OC/CC in a manner to get you to agree with him, is exercising proprietary authority because he's relying on his authority as a LEO to intimidate you.

Exactly, Even if the officer has no intention of actually arresting you he is still using his authority to coerce you into complying with what amounts to his opinion that he is trying to present as fact.

In the case of the OP even though he knew he was in the right he still complied by covering up under the threat of potential arrest to save himself from being embarrassed and having to counter the stigma that goes along with it.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Point being that arrest authority is not the be all, end all of a LEO "exercising proprietary authority". Just by sternly telling you, while he's on-duty and in uniform, his opinion on OC/CC in a manner to get you to agree with him, is exercising proprietary authority because he's relying on his authority as a LEO to intimidate you.

What does that have to do with the OP? The initial officer was not in uniform. Otherwise I completely agree, I just don't know why you chose my post to quote because this doesn't really change or disagree with anything I said.

I am not saying this isn't covered under 11.1 as I think it is, but try proving it before a court when the OP submitted to the LEO's requests and there is likely no evidence of the encounter.

 

[thebishopp]

​

Lol - I stand corrected.

 

[Ted]

Point being that arrest authority is not the be all, end all of a LEO "exercising proprietary authority". Just by sternly telling you, while he's on-duty and in uniform, his opinion on OC/CC in a manner to get you to agree with him, is exercising proprietary authority because he's relying on his authority as a LEO to intimidate you.

There is also that line where intimidation crosses over to another level.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241: Conspiracy Against Rights
​

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes/

 

[thebishopp]

After sleeping on this overnight I have concluded two things that will occur from here on out. First, there will be either a letter/formal complaint filed with the city or if money allows it legal action through an attorney to address the harassment I received. Second, I will continue to open carry in Fort Wayne because it is legal to do so.
Since reading all of the input from everyone on here and from thinking over the situation I have also decided that I will not handle it the same next time. I will take a stand. Because the bishopp is right, we should stand up for our rights. If and when I am harassed by the police, I will ask for supervisor after supervisor until someone shows up that actually knows the law, if they arrest me so be it. My wife has told me that she stands behind me 100% (she also has a lifetime LTCH) and doesn't like the idea of being harassed for exercising our rights. So yeah, next time will be different. This incident along with all of the support of my fellow INGO'ers has shed a new light on my view of our rights. Thanks to everyone for the support, and bishopp thank you, you have changed my mind sir.

lol thanks T-Dogg but I do not think it was I who changed your mind. It was obviously bothering you before I even made mention of it. If you had been 100 percent sure of how you responded then you would not have "changed your mind".

Like I said, I do not think it was because you are a coward that you complied in your situation, it was most likely due to the fact that you had not yet decided on exactly how important this right was to you. At the time you did not believe it was worth the hassle. Upon reflection it appears you have decided that it is worth the hassle and have resolved to handle the situation differently should it occur again.

Many of us talk about our "rights" but very few of us think they are worth the "hassle" of fighting for them - interestingly enough a lot easier for us to do today then it was for those who came before us.

You have decided to do next time what your nature/character has been telling you that you should have done. I commend you on that.

 

[thebishopp]

You did the right thing. Discretion is the better part of valor. You didn't back down, nor give in - you simple choose to move the fight to a venue that you have a better chance of winning in.

The bullheaded people who think ever fight must be finished when the start in the same way they start will continue to expend too much effort and receive too much collateral damage (e.g. having your kids see you in 'cuffs), and continue to mock you.

Getting your oppenent to do things your way because they understand and like you is far better than getting them to do it out of fear (e.g. lawsuits).

There was no "mocking" done. Every day you must make choices. Some of those choices are of the "should I eat at Chic-fil-a or KFC" kind and others are of a bit more "serious" nature. Such as "is standing up for a right worth the sacrifice(s) I must make to do so". If it's not then the answer is "no", if it is then the answer is "yes". Only the individual knows what his/her answer is.

As far as the OP's posted situation... he DID back down, he DID give in. It's what he said he did. He said he did so because he didn't want to deal with the hassle of what could come from him standing up for his rights (I am paraphrasing). At that moment his "right" was not more important than the "hassle". Period.

"Discretion is the better part of valor" - because we all know that gets things done. In the meantime I hope you are enjoying all the freedoms (slowly being eroded) of those who did not share your same viewpoints.

 

[Benny]

The whole permit vs LTCH debate is just an exercise in chest-thumping. It's semantics, nothing more. No one I've asked who makes a big deal out of this can tell me what the difference between a permit and a license is anyway. So much for specificity, huh?

I don't think it's an exercise in chest-thumping at all.

The piece of paper in my wallet is a LTCH, not a PTCH. It says license on it no less than 6 times. I understand they basically mean the same thing, but why not call it what it is?

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

...Hopefully he had some sort of recording device going at the time.

There's an app for that

 

[mrortega]

After sleeping on this overnight I have concluded two things that will occur from here on out. First, there will be either a letter/formal complaint filed with the city or if money allows it legal action through an attorney to address the harassment I received. Second, I will continue to open carry in Fort Wayne because it is legal to do so.
Since reading all of the input from everyone on here and from thinking over the situation I have also decided that I will not handle it the same next time. I will take a stand. Because the bishopp is right, we should stand up for our rights. If and when I am harassed by the police, I will ask for supervisor after supervisor until someone shows up that actually knows the law, if they arrest me so be it. My wife has told me that she stands behind me 100% (she also has a lifetime LTCH) and doesn't like the idea of being harassed for exercising our rights. So yeah, next time will be different. This incident along with all of the support of my fellow INGO'ers has shed a new light on my view of our rights. Thanks to everyone for the support, and bishopp thank you, you have changed my mind sir.

Good for you, Mr. Dogg. How about being fully prepared then going back to the same eatery that the incident happened in at about the same time? Maybe Barney will be there again and try the same thing all over again.

 

[Rookie]

That would be awesome.

 

[T-DOGG]

I am absolutely astounded at the level of support I have gotten from you folks! I really had no idea how strongly you all felt about this matter. I guess I didn't realize it until after this happened to me. In hind sight now, I wish he would have arrested me, I wish I would have had a recording device. But that was then and this is now. I will contact a few recommended attorneys to see legally if there is anything that can be done. If I am told that it will be a waste of time and should proceed with a simple complaint letter, than that is what I will do. I am going to do anything that will make a difference. As I have said I will continue to OC and will setup an OC event in Fort Wayne before the year is over. The more I think about the issue the more it irritates me and the more I want to do something about it. This is so not over, not in the least bit. Thanks for the continued support and please don't let this happen to anyone else in the meantime!

 

[KG1]

I am absolutely astounded at the level of support I have gotten from you folks! I really had no idea how strongly you all felt about this matter. I guess I didn't realize it until after this happened to me. In hind sight now, I wish he would have arrested me, I wish I would have had a recording device. But that was then and this is now. I will contact a few recommended attorneys to see legally if there is anything that can be done. If I am told that it will be a waste of time and should proceed with a simple complaint letter, than that is what I will do. I am going to do anything that will make a difference. As I have said I will continue to OC and will setup an OC event in Fort Wayne before the year is over. The more I think about the issue the more it irritates me and the more I want to do something about it. This is so not over, not in the least bit. Thanks for the continued support and please don't let this happen to anyone else in the meantime!

That sounds like a solid plan and hopefully you did'nt take anything to personal as far as critiquing your particular incident goes.

There have been alot of idea's and opinions bounced around this thread but if you take it all as a whole I think it could in some way be used as a learning tool for all of us. I also think we are all pretty much fundamentally on the same team here.

Good luck in whatever path you choose.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Print out a copy of IC 35-47-11.1 and be sure to point out the treble attorney's fees item. That should get the attention of any attorney you consult.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

For the record, would you folks please take it easy when you sue the city. Our taxes are already way too high and I do not want to have to pay for another city bond to raise the cash to pay you guys. Remember, it is fellow ers who will be paying the bill!!