Told by FWPD illegal to OC in Indiana

[KG1]

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-

This is a two way street here. They may not be able to recall all laws but how can they try to enforce a law that doesn't exist with which they are so sure that it does even when rebutted with the correct info they still are not able to provide IC to back up their assertion that the law actually does exist?

They can't just legally go around threatening an arrest and say "it's against the law because we say it is" even though I know some try to do just that.

That's why some of us advocate making a LEO back up his assertions and calmly invite him to make an arrest if he is so sure of his position when it comes to OC'ng and the law.

That is the only way to expose him if he is trying to pull a heckler's veto in which case he will not arrest you because he knows he can't, or if he is truly ignorant of the law and is willing to enforce it even though he is incorrect and if that's the case he will quickly find out before you even get booked that he made an incorrect arrest when he tries to fill out an arrest report and has to provide pursuant code for the arrest.

 

[Hawkeye]

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-

You are right, of course; however the point seems to be much more simple than "knowing all laws". I think the point is that a very basic principle is that LEO's should know certain basic laws.

For example, whether an individual can carry a firearm open or concealed is pretty basic and there is, in my mind, absolutely NO excuse for any LEO to not know that. To compound that level of incompetence (not know ing this basic rule) with intentionally misstating or misrepresenting the law, is absolutely inexcusable in any LEO.

 

[cesna250]

By and large Ft Wayne is a very liberal city. The city government is definitely that way.

Have you ever lived here before?

 

[CathyInBlue]

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.

And we would be right in demanding that the officer sent to confront us about a positted violation actually be knowledgeable about the true, current state of the law upon which the LEO's position, claiming we are in violation, is based. Consider these two scenarioes.

Scenario 1:
CENTRAL DISPATCH: Podunk Police dispatch. Officer Friendly speaking.
PANICKY HOPLOPHOBE: There's a man with a gun!
CD: Where is this man?
PH: In his own back yard!
CD: What's he doing with the gun?
PH: Nothing. It's just in a holster on his hip.
CD: Well, we can't have this, I'll send three squads out right away to put a stop to this.
PH: On thank you!

Scenario 2:
CENTRAL DISPATCH: Podunk Police dispatch. Officer Friendly speaking.
PANICKY TIGRIPHOBE: There's a man with a tiger!
CD: Where is this man?
PT: In his own back yard!
CD: What's he doing with the tiger?
PT: Nothing. It's just laying on the ground at his feet flicking its tail every now and then.
CD: Well, we can't have this, I'll send three squads K-9 officers out right away to put a stop to this.
PT: On thank you!

We would expect the police who showed up in Scenario 1 to know the gun laws.
We would expect the police who showed up in Scenario 2 to know the exotic animal keeping laws.
No different, but I would expect that, in reality, the squads sent out in Scenario 1 might very likely just be the department's marksmanship team members, as they obviously know the most about guns of any of the officers on duty, rather than the ones who had their annual firearms law refresher course most recently. Similarly, I would expect the squads sent out in Scenario 2 would just be the K-9 units, as they are obviously good with animals, rather than the specialized animal control officer who spends all his time on exotic animal law enforcement.

They can't just legally go around threatening an arrest and say "it's against the law because we say it is" even though I know some try to do just that.

Which is especially problematic in light of Gunn v State 49A02-1102-CR-82:

The State recognizes Indiana decisions determining that an officer's mistake of law can never be reasonable but nevertheless asks us to hold that there are certain situations when an officer's good faith belief, later found incorrect, may be objectively
reasonable at the time of the officer's assessment and sufficient to justify an investigatory stop. We decline this invitation. Because Officer Wendling's belief that Gunn made an improper turn was a mistake of law, he lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop.

Enforcing opinion as law (even when there is good faith that the opinion is, in fact law, when it is not) is unreasonable, even as RAS to initiate a stop.

 

[Rookie]

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.

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

Exactly. I don't expect a doctor to know about every disease known to man, but I expect him to know about the disease he is talking about before he decides treatment.

"You've got a broken arm. I'm going to amputate your leg."
"Wait. What?"
"I'M THE DOCTOR! DON'T YOU QUESTION ME!"

 

[eatsnopaste]

"You've got a broken arm. I'm going to amputate your leg."
"Wait. What?"
"I'M THE DOCTOR! DON'T YOU QUESTION ME!"

except if you do question him he won't taze you!

 

[XDLover]

All my friends that are cops say they now spend more time on the cell phone than the radio, especially when they have specific questions/comments or other communication that doesn't need to be on the air for anyone with a scanner to hear.

 

[Dirtebiker]

And we would be right in demanding that the officer sent to confront us about a positted violation actually be knowledgeable about the true, current state of the law upon which the LEO's position, claiming we are in violation, is based. Consider these two scenarioes.

Scenario 1:
CENTRAL DISPATCH: Podunk Police dispatch. Officer Friendly speaking.
PANICKY HOPLOPHOBE: There's a man with a gun!
CD: Where is this man?
PH: In his own back yard!
CD: What's he doing with the gun?
PH: Nothing. It's just in a holster on his hip.
CD: Well, we can't have this, I'll send three squads out right away to put a stop to this.
PH: On thank you!

Scenario 2:
CENTRAL DISPATCH: Podunk Police dispatch. Officer Friendly speaking.
PANICKY TIGRIPHOBE: There's a man with a tiger!
CD: Where is this man?
PT: In his own back yard!
CD: What's he doing with the tiger?
PT: Nothing. It's just laying on the ground at his feet flicking its tail every now and then.
CD: Well, we can't have this, I'll send three squads K-9 officers out right away to put a stop to this.
PT: On thank you!

We would expect the police who showed up in Scenario 1 to know the gun laws.
We would expect the police who showed up in Scenario 2 to know the exotic animal keeping laws.
No different, but I would expect that, in reality, the squads sent out in Scenario 1 might very likely just be the department's marksmanship team members, as they obviously know the most about guns of any of the officers on duty, rather than the ones who had their annual firearms law refresher course most recently. Similarly, I would expect the squads sent out in Scenario 2 would just be the K-9 units, as they are obviously good with animals, rather than the specialized animal control officer who spends all his time on exotic animal law enforcement.

Which is especially problematic in light of Gunn v State 49A02-1102-CR-82:
Enforcing opinion as law (even when there is good faith that the opinion is, in fact law, when it is not) is unreasonable, even as RAS to initiate a stop.

I believe it's spelled "posited".
You use a lot of unusual words in your posts, do you speak the same way? I've never heard anyone use the word "posited" in everyday conversation!

 

[CathyInBlue]

I want my dream home to be sited well, not sitted well. The past tense of posit (+ed), demands a doubled final consonant to avoid the same pronunciation problem. And yes, when not suttering, I do speak this way. I have an expansive vocabulary and I'm not afraid to use it.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Exactly. I don't expect a doctor to know about every disease known to man, but I expect him to know about the disease he is talking about before he decides treatment.

"You've got a broken arm. I'm going to amputate your leg."
"Wait. What?"
"I'M THE DOCTOR! DON'T YOU QUESTION ME!"

Dr's unlike LEO's have years of schooling / training BEFORE they are turned loose on the general public and then have ongoing training for the rest of their careers .

A Dr. , unlike LEO's will look at your history , signs and symptoms you present with and if they're still unsure they'll consult reference material and specialists BEFORE they make a diagnosis .

LEO's unlike Dr's get away with this harassment because they aren't directly liable for their idiocy .

 

[Ted]

"You've got a broken arm. I'm going to amputate your leg."
"Wait. What?"
"I'M THE DOCTOR! DON'T YOU QUESTION ME!"

except if you do question him he won't taze you!

Though he or she may sedate you.

 

[james.bryant88]

FWPD have been known in the past to disregard the law as it stands in regards to OC, I choose not to open carry merely for the fact I dont want the head ache of dealing with misinformed LEOs.

 

[T-DOGG]

FWPD have been known in the past to disregard the law as it stands in regards to OC, I choose not to open carry merely for the fact I dont want the head ache of dealing with misinformed LEOs.

That's pretty bad that you can't do something legally for fear of harassment. Hopefully that changes someday. I am taking the necessary steps to help change this.

 

[vsinic]

I was open carrying the other day and today pasted few cops at wal mart and down town FW not one said anything to me.

 

[T-DOGG]

I was open carrying the other day and today pasted few cops at wal mart and down town FW not one said anything to me.

This is the way it should be!

 

[rugertoter]

Well, that's why they say that if you need to know the laws, ask a lawyer and not a cop. There may be some cops out there who know quite a bit about the law, but they don't have to know it as deeply as a lawyer does.

 

[james.bryant88]

That's pretty bad that you can't do something legally for fear of harassment. Hopefully that changes someday. I am taking the necessary steps to help change this.

That is great, hope we can educate the LEO in the area of the actual law as it reads.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I was open carrying the other day and today pasted few cops at wal mart and down town FW not one said anything to me.

Took me a second to realize you meant "passed".

If you pasted a few cops, I would not expect that you'd be bragging about it, Eric Clapton and Sheriff John Brown notwithstanding.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Vince49]

[

If you pasted a few cops, I would not expect that you'd be bragging about it, Eric Clapton and Sheriff John Brown notwithstanding.

Blessings,
Bill[/QUOTE]

Yep,even Mary Hulman had a tough time getting away with that one!

 

[Dirtebiker]

I want my dream home to be sited well, not sitted well. The past tense of posit (+ed), demands a doubled final consonant to avoid the same pronunciation problem. And yes, when not suttering, I do speak this way. I have an expansive vocabulary and I'm not afraid to use it.

I'm just the opposite. I have a limited vocabulary, and I try not to waste any more words than needed to get my point across. My kids say I'm "socially challenged"!