watch out my car was just car shopped

[Roadie]

Do cops have to wait until they are unconscious before they draw on a threat too?






Huh? Did you just proceed to justify disarming every LTCH-carrier you meet, using this random story?

If you are disarming people for no other reason than you saw them wearing a holster, you are infringing peoples' rights. It doesn't matter who has done what in the past. Your safety is not paramount to citizens' rights. Please remember that when you are holding us at gunpoint.

Its not fair to group all gun-owners together, just like its not fair to group all cops together. We are all individuals and must not be punished for the mistakes of others.

This is what I still do not understand. If a person cannot be stopped in their car just to make sure they have a license, why is it OK to do the same to a gun owner?

Then, on top of it, a legally armed citizen has his 4th Amendment rights violated, and their gun taken without cause. My car can't be taken while they make sure it's legal, but my gun can?

 

[groovatron]

Do cops have to wait until they are unconscious before they draw on a threat too?






Huh? Did you just proceed to justify disarming every LTCH-carrier you meet, using this random story?

If you are disarming people for no other reason than you saw them wearing a holster, you are infringing peoples' rights. It doesn't matter who has done what in the past. Your safety is not paramount to citizens' rights. Please remember that when you are holding us at gunpoint.

Its not fair to group all gun-owners together, just like its not fair to group all cops together. We are all individuals and must not be punished for the mistakes of others.

....You can use the same argument for cops. I was at a small indoor gun range and was in a firing lane next to a LEO. He rapid-fire emptied an entire magazine....I think the first one hit the paper and the next 11 went all over the place....including the ceiling. The rangemaster shut the range down and gave everybody a warning as to not point him out.....but it was obvious. Anyway, I don't use this experience to run for cover everytime I see a cop at the range. I have had more positive experiences than negative and I am willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt untill they give me a reason to feel otherwise.

 

[indymike]

HAHA I am kinda new to this forum and seeing that smiley for the first time just made me bust a gut laughing and freaking out my co-workers. That's all, please move along....

 

[caddywhompus]

I joined INGO thinking: "This place is cool: responsible gun owners and no juggalo's or wannabe G's. I've finally found a home!" I really hope the OP decides to continue his training and education after this little "incident."

 

[jimbojr]

Sounds to me lilke the LEO needs a trip back to the academy. Offering advice like " you should have shot a tire out" and not hauling you in for those kind of actions, he may be a little rusty on his role as a LEO.

I offer this advice to you, not as an insult, but as a gun owner, take a PD class. You will benefit from the training as to when to draw your weapon. Untill then, be careful out there, let this be a learning lesson and grow from it.

Yep what he said.

 

[esrice]

Get training.

 

[MTC]

Get training.

The winnah!!

 

[Indy317]

the thing that happened was me seeing one of my last worldly possesions being vandalized and molested by two scum of the earth.

Sorry to hear that they stole your Faygo.

I don't care if he was standing beside him when broke the window and took his Hi Point Hoodie he still has no LEGAL reason to "pull" his gun!!

So what if he pulls his gun. What is wrong with OCing by holding the gun in your hand? Now I agree he shouldn't have _pointed_ his gun, as that is a crime, but surely folks aren't against OCing by merely holding a gun in the hand?

In this case, there is no reason to put your life at more risk than need be. The Indiana Code gives people the right to use reasonable force to retrieve their property.

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.

The question would be if it is "reasonable" to hold someone at gun point to retrieve property. Way too many factors to consider here. The one thing I will say is that having worked in the LE field, I know that many folks who break into cars are using large screw drivers, bricks, and rocks to break windows. Any of these can easily be used as weapons, and all have the ability to cause death. The argument would be made by a lawyer that if it is acceptable for an LEO to take such people down at gun point, why not an average person?

In this case, there was nothing stated about the poster knowing something was taken, thus I don't agree with the pointing of the firearm. Secondly, we have threats made. To me, if you are going to use your weapon to retrieve property, I would only make statements as to the retrieval of the property "Give me my stuff back now!!" Cursing, threatening death, is very questionable behavior and extremely dependent on what the other person does/says.

This is what I still do not understand. If a person cannot be stopped in their car just to make sure they have a license, why is it OK to do the same to a gun owner?

Because no court has ruled, based on _Indiana's_ law. The US Supreme Court ruled on the driving issue. Until they do the same, based on Indiana law (or something very similar), the issue is actually up to interpretation.

Then, on top of it, a legally armed citizen has his 4th Amendment rights violated, and their gun taken without cause. My car can't be taken while they make sure it's legal, but my gun can?

Actually, any car a driver is driving can be taken if they can't show proof of being able to possess the vehicle. The thing is, vehicles are registered _and_ one is mandated to carry the registration in the vehicle. As such, most owners who are stopped driving their own vehicle easily can prove they _own_ the vehicle, so the vehicle is legal. With the gun, there is no registration, so there is no way to know who is the owner. This is why I would advocate for those buying private party to get a receipt or be prepared to jump through many hoops, maybe even having to hire an attorney, to retrieve a pistol. Again, it takes court rulings to change these issues, and so far, we haven't had any that I know of.

 

[dross]

Because no court has ruled, based on _Indiana's_ law. The US Supreme Court ruled on the driving issue. Until they do the same, based on Indiana law (or something very similar), the issue is actually up to interpretation.



Actually, any car a driver is driving can be taken if they can't show proof of being able to possess the vehicle. The thing is, vehicles are registered _and_ one is mandated to carry the registration in the vehicle. As such, most owners who are stopped driving their own vehicle easily can prove they _own_ the vehicle, so the vehicle is legal. With the gun, there is no registration, so there is no way to know who is the owner. This is why I would advocate for those buying private party to get a receipt or be prepared to jump through many hoops, maybe even having to hire an attorney, to retrieve a pistol. Again, it takes court rulings to change these issues, and so far, we haven't had any that I know of.

So let me see if I understand your two points here - you're saying that as an LEO, you determine what you can't do to a citizen by what the courts have ruled on? So if it's not covered by the law, or department policy, and the courts haven't ruled on it, that's open for you to do to a citizen?

As to your second point, you're saying that if I'm carrying property around in public, I must have a receipt for that property so I can PROVE to an LEO that it's mine?

I suggest to you, respectfully, that some of the strong reactions people have on these boards is in response to the implications of statements like these.

 

[USMC_0311]

I suggest to you, respectfully, that some of the strong reactions people have on these boards is in response to the implications of statements like these.

Yes there must be a balance for any understanding of different view points.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I agree it's not a legal shoot. If you, or noone else was in intimate threat of deadly force. Now I agree that if they would have broken the window out, while you where in the car. That's a totaly different situation. As much as it sucks, there is not much phsicaly you can do.

 

[glocktoys]

well as long as the OP has looked at the responces and learned about this. to chase is fine to draw and threaten to shoot is not. eaven if it was the guy who just broke in your car, you just gave him a out to shoot you as you point a gun at him. with gun in hand running after someone could leave you dead...shot by a off duty LEO, on duty LEO, friend of the guy you were chasing who was just dumping trash in the dumpster or whatever.

 

[finity]

Where in that IC does it say pointing a gun is reasonable force? The IC quoted doesn't even say anything about a gun.

You have to read the two laws TOGETHER. Here, I’ll help you out…IC 35-47-4-3 will be in red, IC 35-41-3-2 will be in blue:

A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. This section does not apply to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person. A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession.

You're going to sit there and tell me it's REASONABLE to point a firearm at someone, yelling expletives and running around like rambo because he MAY have broken your window.

Sorry. I’m really not trying to be a smart*** but you should really read my post. I said:

If he had an articulable reason for believing that the guy was in fact the thief then the OP pulling his gun & pointing it at him would be legal. If not then he should not have pointed it at the guy. BTW, I was wrong when I said he legally couldn’t pull his gun. It was a bad (& confusing) choice of words on my part. He could legally pull it any time he wants. He just can’t point it at the guy without some evidence.

I also must say that (IN MY OPINION) I don't necessarily agree that you should pull a gun & point it at someone over property (there may be times when it is appropriate, though, & it's nice to be able to have the option). I'm just saying the law gives us that option so you won't just automatically get a visit from Denny.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS REASONABLE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I SAID THE IC MAKES IT LEGAL IF HE COULD ARTICULATE WHY IT WAS REASONABLE. Obviously the legislature could envision some scenario when it would be reasonable or they would not have put the exception into the language of the law.

If you believe that, I don't believe you have any business with a firearm before proper training and some prioritizing. I'm not about to endanger anyone's life over a couple hundred bucks.

OMFG. Why is it that the latest “go to” comeback anytime someone disagrees with an action taken (or in my case a mere disagreement about what the LAW actually allows) is to imply that the other person is less than intelligent & call for their rights to be taken away?

I'm not about to endanger anyone's life over a couple hundred bucks.

If you can say that you would NEVER use that exception then good for you. Please don’t take the option away from others just because YOU can’t ever see a need for it. Believe it or not, there are some people who don’t even see the need for a firearm for self-defense. It’s a good thing the law doesn’t necessarily bow down to their feelings either.

Fancy IC quoting or not, that's not REASONABLE.

Sorry again. In deference to you I guess I’ll just stop using the LAW (or in your words “fancy IC quoting”) as my basis for taking actions or not & just go with my good ol’ gut FEELING. Or not…

eaven if it was the guy who just broke in your car, you just gave him a out to shoot you as you point a gun at him.

No.

If you look a little further down in the IC that authorizes the use of force on someone for committing a crime you’ll see that claiming self-defense by the person who committed the crime is not an allowable defense (crap, here I go posting that danged law again):

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

IF the guy WAS guilty of the crime that the OP accused him of, then self-defense against the OP would be illegal.

Disclaimer: I’m not saying he was guilty or that the OP had any evidence to say that he was guilty. I think that the OP is lucky he is not in jail based on the story as presented here.

IANAL or a prison buddy. YMMV.

with gun in hand running after someone could leave you dead...shot by a off duty LEO, on duty LEO, friend of the guy you were chasing who was just dumping trash in the dumpster or whatever.

Agreed.

 

[38special]

Wow....got ya a little riled up, no?

What if children got hurt?

I hate to think of it. I mean - no children were hurt, but WHAT IF?!?!







Anyone?

 

[theturtle06]

This is by no means concrete evidence but HERE he talks about a Mosin and a 10/22 being stolen. But HERE he is selling a Mosin and a 10/22. I know they're both relatively common rifles and he could have just happened to buy or "inherit" new ones, but with the other posts that he has, I am not so sure.

Lots of fishy stuff going on with this guy.

I also wonder with the admittance of his actions if any charges can/are being pursued against him. He has a phone number listed in that sale thread. I am doing some A&E Biography investigative work just out of curiosity more than anything, but the OP is definitely not a person that should currently be a gun owner in my eyes.

 

[bigg cheese]

Could be a fishing expedition?

Cops do that with child-*cough*-cases.

and some libs did it with gun shows (poorly as it was).

See who's willing to buy stolen property...

 

[printcraft]

This is by no means concrete evidence but HERE he talks about a Mosin and a 10/22 being stolen. But HERE he is selling a Mosin and a 10/22. I know they're both relatively common rifles and he could have just happened to buy or "inherit" new ones, but with the other posts that he has, I am not so sure.

Lots of fishy stuff going on with this guy.

I also wonder with the admittance of his actions if any charges can/are being pursued against him. He has a phone number listed in that sale thread. I am doing some A&E Biography investigative work just out of curiosity more than anything, but the OP is definitely not a person that should currently be a gun owner in my eyes.

HAHAHHAHHAHA!! Nice catch! He must have had 2 of each!!!!

Dated 7-2-09

I have up for trade two rifle from my collection to make room for a new toy. I have had the mosin since march of this year and have kept it in good condition and have only fired 20 rounds through it. All which were clean. The ruger i have had since i was a kid but has been kept in great condition.

Dated 5-13-09

.......They took my WASR 10, my 91/30 moisin nagant, my ruger 10/22 rifle, and my fratellie model ta-90 9mm handgun.
...................

He must have had the "Other" mosin and 10/22 in a different location that was not "stolen" at the same time.

WOW.

Could be a fishing expedition?

Cops do that with child-*cough*-cases.

and some libs did it with gun shows (poorly as it was).

See who's willing to buy stolen property...

So he was selling his own stolen property? That would make him the thief!

 

[theturtle06]

Oh I am digging up more. Give me just a sec. I am kind of embarrassed that I am going this far but I really have nothing better to do until I go to work in a couple hours.

 

[theturtle06]

wow. This guy's posts...I figured he was a certain type of person due to the "juggalo" in his name but this just adds to it. Forgive me for stereotyping, but as it has been said before, there is truth in every cliche.

I also take THIS with a grain of salt (IOW, I don't believe him at all) but that may be how he got them back.

HERE "...got this kneecapper..."

That is the extent of my "investigation," and there is just too much here wrong. Either he is a UC, or just, well,

ETA - I am not surprised he did not mention the fact they were stolen in his threads in the classifieds, so this more of a reminder to others buying guns - you may want to do a quick search of someone's posts before you buy stuff as you may never know. What if these guns were reported stolen - but actually not - then used in a crime, then bought by you? It's a stretch, I know, but the OP here is just and the people that ended up with his guns may want to know of their history.

 

[printcraft]

wow. This guy's posts...I figured he was a certain type of person due to the "juggalo" in his name but this just adds to it. Forgive me for stereotyping, but as it has been said before, there is truth in every cliche.

I also take THIS with a grain of salt (IOW, I don't believe him at all) but that may be how he got them back.

HERE "...got this kneecapper..."

That is the extent of my "investigation," and there is just too much here wrong. Either he is a UC, or just, well,

Yeah, but he posted that "story" the same day he posted the items for sale.

Someone stole them, he get them back and then immediately posts
them for sale and............

OH, btw...... use lead bullets in your revolver because they will only penetrate 1" and not kill a perp.
Also you can load different rounds into the cylinder and quickly select which one you need for your situation.



I don't know, he only posts the thread then disappears. Sound like mall ninja syndrome.