seized by police

imported post

This is a recent post from ingunowners.com

Couldn't believe my eyes when I read this.

Me personally I have never been asked for ID or LTCH I have always had an officer come from behind me grab my gun (glock 22) remove it from my holster ( after letting me know he is a LEO) handcuff me take out my wallet remove my ID and LTCH make there calls field strip my gun and remove ammo from mag stick it all in different pockets and let me go (without saying sorry or have a nice day) last time this happened was sunday march 22 at the plainfield wal-mart with my wife and 3 children there asking "is daddy going to jail" that is the way it goes for me at least...

imported post

Sounds like some cop is asking for a lawsuit of some kind. No cause whatsoever.

imported post

Beau wrote:

This is a recent post from ingunowners.com

Couldn't believe my eyes when I read this.

Me personally I have never been asked for ID or LTCH I have always had an officer come from behind me grab my gun (glock 22) remove it from my holster ( after letting me know he is a LEO) handcuff me take out my wallet remove my ID and LTCH make there calls field strip my gun and remove ammo from mag stick it all in different pockets and let me go (without saying sorry or have a nice day) last time this happened was sunday march 22 at the plainfield wal-mart with my wife and 3 children there asking "is daddy going to jail" that is the way it goes for me at least...

Click to expand...

The pig committed battery, assault, violations of your civil rights, and false imprisonment.

The pig really, really needs to be sued personally.

Do you have dates and names?

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

The pig committed battery, assault, violations of your civil rights, and false imprisonment.

The pig really, really needs to be sued personally.

Do you have dates and names?

Click to expand...

It is my experience that this site frowns upon derogatory name calling. Please refrain.

I agree that this shouldn't have happened. I'm looking for useful input as to whether this person does have any options for recourse.

The way his post is worded he did not consent to search or seizure of his possessions. Due to the fact that he was handcuffed he was very obviously detained. Was it unlawful detainment?

imported post

Beau wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

The pig committed battery, assault, violations of your civil rights, and false imprisonment.

The pig really, really needs to be sued personally.

Do you have dates and names?

Click to expand...

It is my experience that this site frowns upon derogatory name calling. Please refrain.

I agree that this shouldn't have happened. I'm looking for useful input as to whether this person does have any options for recourse.

The way his post is worded he did not consent to search or seizure of his possessions. Due to the fact that he was handcuffed he was very obviously detained. Was it unlawful detainment?

Click to expand...

I make a distinction between oath-abiding officers and pigs. What was described was the act of a pig, and it's certainly actionable.

imported post

Beau wrote:

This is a recent post from ingunowners.com

Couldn't believe my eyes when I read this...

Click to expand...

How about a link?

imported post

This post was made in a thread about requirement to show ID when stopped by LE.

I'm going to try and get a MOD to move it to its own thread.

http://ingunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/27950-show_id-3.html#post308966

imported post

Some of those cops over there need to have some sense slapped into them. What an anti-American bunch of thugs and goons.

You are exactly correct, and your posts were properly grounded in Americanism. Driving a car, without more, does not allow a cop to pull you over to see if you're properly licensed. So also it goes for guns. Mere carrying, absent more, does not give the cops permission to demand "papers, please" from Americans.

Actually, the Nazis used "please." American cops don't even extend that courtesy.

Unless the cops have a reason to stop you, they are duty bound to let free Americans continue on their way without accounting to the State. Seems these cops have forgotten their place.

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Some of those cops over there need to have some sense slapped into them. What an anti-American bunch of thugs and goons.

You are exactly correct, and your posts were properly grounded in Americanism. Driving a car, without more, does not allow a cop to pull you over to see if you're properly licensed. So also it goes for guns. Mere carrying, absent more, does not give the cops permission to demand "papers, please" from Americans.

Actually, the Nazis used "please." American cops don't even extend that courtesy.

Unless the cops have a reason to stop you, they are duty bound to let free Americans continue on their way without accounting to the State. Seems these cops have forgotten their place.

Click to expand...

Please feel free to sign up over there and lend some help.

imported post

First to the person who called the officer a PIG in this thread I want you to know what pig means to an officer Pride Integrety and Guts.

Now moving to the original post. According to state law the officer was well within his rights to do what he did. For verification of this you need to see IC 35-47-2-24. See below
IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter. emphasis added.

The courts have long ruled an officer has a right to protect themselves from people with weapons. This includes seizing a persons weapon until after the incident is complete. Further there is an important US Supreme Court case which relates to this. It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress. Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.

I will not say the officer did anything wrong, but I would have handled it differently. I would have still taken the gun from the person, but I probably would not have placed the person in handcuffs. I personally think, not professionally, anyone who carries their gun in the open is stupid. This comes from the following line of thinking. If I am a criminal and have a gun I am going to shoot the person who I know has a gun. If you are carrying in the open then I know you have a gun and you are threat to me.

imported post

If I am a criminal and have a gun I am going to shoot the person who I know has a gun.

Click to expand...

I think you, as the criminal, are equally likely (in fact MORE likely) to either find a softer target or just wait until the gun leaves to commit your crime. Why would you start out by shooting? The second you (the criminal) pull the trigger, the clock starts running on your escape-o-meter. Your window to commit your "true" crime is now closed. Not only will you be unlikely to complete your robbery, you've just added murder or attempted murder to your list of charges if you get caught.

I challenge you to present ANY evidence whatsoever that your statement holds any water.

imported post

PIG223 wrote:

First to the person who called the officer a PIG in this thread I want you to know what pig means to an officer Pride Integrety and Guts.

Now moving to the original post. According to state law the officer was well within his rights to do what he did.

The courts have long ruled an officer has a right to protect themselves from people with weapons.

I will not say the officer did anything wrong,

Click to expand...

You don't make the definitions.

No, he wasn't, and your citation was ridiculously inapposite.

But not to confiscate property. You don't get to take preemptive actions against citizens.

I will. He did lots wrong.

imported post

Whether the LEO was right or wrong is just a little beside the point to me. If someone comes up from behind me and doesn't identify themselves and attempts to remove my weapon I will assume that they are NOT A LEO and attempting to take my life! Iwill then defend my life and my loved oneswith the use of deadly force. :cuss:



THE LEO WAS WRONG, COULD HAVE BEEN DEAD WRONG FOR ONE OR BOTH OF US!:what:



IT WAS STUPID AND UNREASONABLE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO HIS SUPERVISOR.

imported post

I guess these cops think that no body is ever going to shoot back. I'm only thinking of myself. But if someone attempted to disarm me I would push them away out of instinct. That cop is lucky that he didn't die. It just goes to show how delusional the police think they are. That they can just walk up to someone and take their firearm without fear of death. That badge is not going to stop bullets.


edit: I should clarify if someone tried to disarm me from behind.

imported post

As we all know criminals don't care if they commit another crime. In fact if they cared about committing crimes in the first place they would not be a criminal, so what does it matter if they murder someone in the process. If the criminal cared about shooting someone in the first place do you think they would carry a gun to commit a crime. Second if they cared why are so many LE officer killed or wounded in the line of duty from gun carrying criminals. I will just name three officers in recent years, two of who I happened to have known, one of them I knew well. Jason Fishburn, Jake Laird and Jason Baker, all in Indianapolis. So don't try to sell the criminal might add murder to his record he doesn't care or he wouldn't be a criminal in teh first place. He would be a hard working citizen who had a license to carry the handgun in the first place. Not someone out terrorizing the citizenry of our great communities and country. Don't get me wrong I totally support citizens carrying guns, but this forum is ab out open carry. I believe the best place to carry is concealed not in the open. As someone pointed out if a criminal is in the commission of a crime with a firearm he deserves a bullet, but he can get the bullet from a citizen carry concealed as he can from a citizen carrying in the open and there is less of a chance of the citizen carrying the gun concealed to get made by the bad guy and killed.

imported post

If you would have read the original post you would have noticed the officer did identify himself.

imported post

( after letting me know he is a LEO) handcuff me

officer come from behind me grab my gun

I would say that I did read the original post......how about you????:lol:

imported post

PIG223 wrote:

Now moving to the original post. According to state law the officer was well within his rights to do what he did. For verification of this you need to see IC 35-47-2-24. See below
IC 35-47-2-24
Indictment or information; defendant's burden to prove exemption or license; arrest, effect of production of valid license, or establishment of exemption
Sec. 24. (a) In an information or indictment brought for the enforcement of any provision of this chapter, it is not necessary to negate any exemption specified under this chapter, or to allege the absence of a license required under this chapter. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter. emphasis added.

The courts have long ruled an officer has a right to protect themselves from people with weapons. This includes seizing a persons weapon until after the incident is complete. Further there is an important US Supreme Court case which relates to this. It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress. Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.

Click to expand...

I've read this too.

The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he is exempt under section 2 of this chapter, or that he has a license as required under this chapter.

Click to expand...

Could the key word here be defendant?

de⋅fend⋅ant 

[di-fen-duh

nt or, especially in court for 1, -dant]
1.
Law. a person, company, etc., against whom a claim or charge is brought in a court


By definition you are misusing this code. A defendant is a person who has been charged with a criminal offense.

It is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the court ruled an officer can detain, yes handcuff, a person if he has reasonable suspicion a crime is in progress.

Click to expand...

How is peaceably carrying a firearm RAS that a crime is being committed?

I'll answer for you. It's not.

Since the gun owner has to prove a crime is not being committed under this law any time an officer comes into contact with a person who has a gun the officer can reasonable infer a crime is in progress and detain the person for further investigation.

Click to expand...

Since the law you quoted is irrelevant the gun owner does not have to prove anything to you.

imported post

"I personally think, not professionally, anyone who carries their gun in the open is stupid."

Click to expand...

We personally we don't care what you think "personally" or "professionally"! :banghead:

It's people such as yourself that are "afraid to offend" or "scare" someone that causes others to lose THEIR RIGHTS! :cuss:

If it bothers you that much either look away or leave the building! :monkey