You are cop for a day, what do you do???

[Signal23]

If I were a cop for a day, I would need to work probably double shifts to get everything I wanted to done.

My list of things I would do:
-See how fast I could stroke it, with the radar gun.
-How fast I could make the loop around 465.
-Acquire as much free stuff as possible, car washes, donuts, coffee.
-Pull people over randomly, to see how many would try and pay a bribe instead of take the ticket.
-Run into the street with my badge and commandeer as many vehicles as I could, then leave the vehicle a few blocks away and come back with the keys.
-Flip the lights on as I approach every red light, then back off as I clear the intersection.
-Drive as slow as I could around town, watching everyone else slowly staying behind me and not speeding.
-Drive up next to people, motion to roll their windows down and then take off.
- Grow a sweet mustache.
-Chug syrup, proclaim "The power comes from my lips"
-Make the rookie eat a bar of soap
-Take many naps on the side of the interstate.
-Try to best my radar "speed"

YIKES

 

[Baditude]

I would ticket every bicyclist in downtown Indy because they don't use the bike paths and don't following the traffic laws. Ok maybe only 90%

 

[printcraft]

......

Stay away from this one, though. She's...a freak!

Cops: Attorney beat boyfriend, officer

Yeah, she was the Kokomo City Atty. for a bit...... my wife said she seemed pretty level when she met her.

Hummmmm.......

 

[Dirtebiker]

Based on the evidence being presented I would probably hook and book for criminal recklessness. Thats what the clerk says happened based on his testimony that you pulled a gun on him, the video shows you pulling your gun out with the firing hand, and of course you are gonna say different. It is not the job of the police to determine your innocence or guilt. The video shows you pulling a gun on the clerk, the clerk states you pulled a gun on him, and when you were cuffed and frisked for weapons the gun he described is in your pocket.

Thats an open and shut case, regardless of intent from the view of the arresting officer. You are going to jail for criminal recklessness, you are going to go to trial, and unfortunately you would probably be convicted. In this scenario you are not seeing everything we have seen on the forum. We do not KNOW that the suspects story is true. As far as we could tell, he was lying and the evidence supports the charge. That would be IC 35-42-2-2. With all the evidence against you, that would be a tough case to beat.

a) As used in this section, "hazing" means forcing or requiring another person:
(1) with or without the consent of the other person; and
(2) as a condition of association with a group or organization;
to perform an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury.
(b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs:
(1) an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person; or
(2) hazing;
commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in subsection (c), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection (b) is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the conduct includes the use of a vehicle;
(2) a Class D felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another person; or
(3) a Class C felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.
(d) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; or
(2) performs hazing that results in serious bodily injury to a person;
commits criminal recklessness, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if committed by means of a deadly weapon.
(e) A person, other than a person who has committed an offense under this section or a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the violator was an adult, who:
(1) makes a report of hazing in good faith;
(2) participates in good faith in a judicial proceeding resulting from a report of hazing;
(3) employs a reporting or participating person described in
subdivision (1) or (2); or
(4) supervises a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2);
is not liable for civil damages or criminal penalties that might otherwise be imposed because of the report or participation.
(f) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) is presumed to act in good faith.
(g) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) may not be treated as acting in bad faith solely because the person did not have probable cause to believe that a person committed:
(1) an offense under this section; or
(2) a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the offender was an adult.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.31; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.1; P.L.323-1987, SEC.1; P.L.216-1996, SEC.17; P.L.1-2003, SEC.94; P.L.75-2006, SEC.3.

Chris, it's a good thing you're not a cop yet. The op, in his hypothetical, didn't say he "pulled a gun on" anyone, and neither did the cashier! The cashier wasn't even sure the gun was every pointed in his direction. And how do you know if the "perp" is left or right handed? As if it even matters.
Even if he was arrested AND convicted, it is by no means "an open and shut case"!
good job looking up the I.C., but poor job listening (reading)to the "suspects" and the cashiers explanations.

 

[public servant]

Yeah, she was the Kokomo City Atty. for a bit...... my wife said she seemed pretty level when she met her.

Hummmmm.......

She wasn't the night I met her. She called me names I had to look up.

 

[KG1]

If you "already new that there wasn't a specific 'brandishing law' ", then what is all of the above about?

If you were a cop, you would arrest someone for something that you admit you KNOW is not a law!? I'm GLAD your NOT!!!!!

This is exactly what I was wondering myself... I just don't get the intent or purpose. Ah well.

I guess I need to spell it out. All that was intended for the OP's consumption. He continually claimed in another thread that there was indeed a "brandishing" law.

Therefore I posted the statement in this thread about arresting for brandishing fully expecting other members to chime in and correct me even though I already knew there was not a specific "brandishing" law on the books just to back up my point that I tried to convey to the OP that there was no such law in Indiana.

Now I know that the both of you have read that other thread because you posted in it after the discussion between myself and the OP of this thread.

It's pretty obvious if you look at it that it was carried over to this thread.

Here is the thread for reference purposes beginning with the post and continuing on from there that started this whole brandishing nonsense:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...6-help_banned_from_restaurant_for_ccw-25.html

 

[Bunnykid68]

I would give any LEO parked in a Fire lane a ticket

 

[public servant]

I would give any LEO parked in a Fire lane a ticket

 

[KG1]

I would give any LEO parked in a Fire lane a ticket

I observed what you did there too but I used proper form with my carry over because this thread was created as a spinoff from the other thread where the very same scenario used in the OP was mentioned.

Does this have anything to do with this thread, HELP: Banned from restaurant for CCW ? Trying to gain a different opinion in a different section of INGO?

 

[Signal23]

I guess I need to spell it out. All that was intended for the OP's consumption. He continually claimed in another thread that there was indeed a "brandishing" law.

Therefore I posted the statement in this thread about arresting for brandishing fully expecting other members to chime in and correct me even though I already knew there was not a specific "brandishing" law on the books just to back up my point that I tried to convey to the OP that there was no such law in Indiana.

Now I know that the both of you have read that other thread because you posted in it after the discussion between myself and the OP of this thread.

It's pretty obvious if you look at it that it was carried over to this thread.

Here is the thread for reference purposes beginning with the post and continuing on from there that started this whole brandishing nonsense:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...6-help_banned_from_restaurant_for_ccw-25.html

I copied and pasted from the last post to get fresh opinions, and said so.

The origianal question still stands, because you CAN brandish a weapon in Indiana, and you may or may not be arrested for it (My point, that you hate)....you say NO SUCH LAW AS BRADISHING.......I still say, if you brandish a gun or waive it or display it in an area like the examples given, you run the risk of arrest. I know you don't like that, but it's true.

 

[TravisJ]

How about if you don't have a holster on for some reason and your gun falls down your pant leg, you reach down and discreetly pull it out and stick it back in your belt. Do you think you would get arrested for that? If I was a cop for a day I would hang out in parking lots with other cops all day and eat pizza king for lunch. Might pull over some folks with bumper stickers I didn't like too.

 

[Frosty]

Might pull over some folks with bumper stickers I didn't like too.

God help the fools who still have obama bumper stickers!

 

[j706]

To threadjack this, if I was a Cop for a day, I would drive up and down I-65 ticketing all of the jerks driving 3 under the speed limit in the left lane!!

Not to thread jack but Indiana needs a right hand lane law. Stragglers in the fast lanes are a source of constant road rage incidents. Way to many of these dumb a--'s driving today drive the left lane exclusively.

 

[KG1]

I copied and pasted from the last post to get fresh opinions, and said so.

The origianal question still stands, because you CAN brandish a weapon in Indiana, and you may or may not be arrested for it (My point, that you hate)....you say NO SUCH LAW AS BRADISHING.......I still say, if you brandish a gun or waive it or display it in an area like the examples given, you run the risk of arrest. I know you don't like that, but it's true.

The problem with your argument is that you are using the term "brandishing" generically as a catch all but the fact of the matter is there is no specific IC for "brandishing" which in and of itself is a specific act wholly different from other IC's on the books about other specific acts such as knowingly or intentionally pointing a firearm at someone.

An example that you wrongly tried to apply to your brandishing argument.

 

[Dirtebiker]

I guess I need to spell it out. All that was intended for the OP's consumption. He continually claimed in another thread that there was indeed a "brandishing" law.

Therefore I posted the statement in this thread about arresting for brandishing fully expecting other members to chime in and correct me even though I already knew there was not a specific "brandishing" law on the books just to back up my point that I tried to convey to the OP that there was no such law in Indiana.

Now I know that the both of you have read that other thread because you posted in it after the discussion between myself and the OP of this thread.

It's pretty obvious if you look at it that it was carried over to this thread.

Here is the thread for reference purposes beginning with the post and continuing on from there that started this whole brandishing nonsense:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...6-help_banned_from_restaurant_for_ccw-25.html

Ok, I get it now. I don't usually look at names when I'm reading posts. Consider using purple, for us slow people.

 

[Brian 45]

If it was pulling down the pants it was doing it before the gas station. Stupid to pull it out in the store but stupid is as stupid does they say. Just lucky they didn't come in with guns drawn and cuff you right there.

 

[KG1]

Ok, I get it now. I don't usually look at names when I'm reading posts. Consider using purple, for us slow people.

No biggie. I should have supplied some much needed context earlier. It's on me.

 

[inccwchris]

What is the legal definition of reckless and how do you think it is met here? Do you think it is criminal recklessness just because the gun was pulled? Or are you saying it is because it was pointed?

Thanks,

Joe

It was reckless because he pulled it out with the grip in his firing hand. The clerk had no idea of his intentions and therefore was given reason to believe momentarily that his life was in danger. He pushed the panic button because he was, in his mind, being robbed. The actions of the OP's suspect were not intended as criminal, but because of the careless way he acted, he placed the clerk in fear for his life. Had the clerk been armed and shot the suspect, he would not be convicted. In my opinion the violation of the law occured because instead of simply readjusting his pants, he pulled the gun out of his pocket by the grip in what could be readily construed as ready to engage. The clerks statement of he might have pointed it at me is pushing things closer to a pointing a firearms charge on scene, thats IC 35-47-4-3 for anyone wondering.

(a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.



Dirtebiker, it clearly states in the OP that the gun was being held in the right hand by the grip. The cashier also stated that the suspect may have pointed the gun at him.
I take it out of my pocket, I hold the slurpie and slim jim in my left hand, gun in my right,

but I did clearly have it out and grabbed it by the grip in manner to surprise the guy at the counter, he want something done, he tells the cops "I am not sure, but I think he pointed it at me".....

Based on further review of the video it states the the cop on scene is almost certain of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on my interpretation of the OPS original post, I change my answer slightly. The suspect is going to be arrested for criminal recklessness, IC 35-42-2-2, and pointing a firearm IC 35-47-4-3. He may be innocent, he may not, but by the preponderance of evidence I have reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed and probable cause to make the arrest. He did remove the firearm from his pocket, an act that was reckless in the situation, he should have just held his pants up and readjusted, he did in fact in the clerks statement point the firearm. Upon Terry stop and search he was found to be carrying a firearm. Upon review of the camera footage the suspect has been seen removing a firearm from his pocket by the grip. It does not get any clearer than that, the intent was not there which is why it is not an armed robbery or battery charge. However, the reckless behavior and pointing of a firearm is present.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Did it say if he was left handed or right handed?

 

[Signal23]

Did it say if he was left handed or right handed?

Right handed, blue eyed, and he left Pittsburg at 65 miles an hour