Indiana setting local homicide records year-after-year.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    Indianapolis setting local homicide records year-after-year.

    This story is from last week, so the comments are just a few days old. Using it because it's the most recent article/event that mentions the record number of homicides in Indy.



    Violent week in Indianapolis results in 9 murders in 7 days

    On Thursday, two more people were shot to death with the city's 100th criminal homicide of the year taking place at an east side apartment complex.

    "Gun violence and criminal activity is just extraordinarily random," said Indianapolis mayor Joe Hogsett.

    Still, while police and city leaders are working hard to stop the violence, the mayor admitted this week no promises can be made when the violence will begin to slow.

    "We could go five or six days without a homicide. I guess the only thing that you can count on is the random nature of gun violence and criminal activity," said Hogsett.


    Here's 2017

    2017 Crime Wrap: Tracking Indianapolis Homicides

    2017 will go down as the deadliest year on record in the Circle City. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) investigated 175 homicides as of December 28th, out of those, 152 have been deemed “criminal.”
     
    Last edited:

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,065
    77
    Southside Indy
    This story is from last week, so the comments are just a few days old. Using it because it's the most recent article/event that mentions the record number of homicides in Indy.



    Violent week in Indianapolis results in 9 murders in 7 days




    Here's 2017

    2017 Crime Wrap: Tracking Indianapolis Homicides

    "Gun violence and criminal activity is just extraordinarily random," said Indianapolis mayor Joe Hogsett.

    Um, not really Joe. If you look at a homicide map, you can see a definite "non-randomness" to it. If it were "random", the homicides should be spread out over a fairly homogeneous distribution, not concentrated in 2 or 3 areas of the city. If you look at the background of most of the "victims", I'm sure you could find some other common characteristics.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Little Lord Stinky Shoes, if you don't think this is all on you, then you are hitting your boy's stash.

    Maybe the residents of Indianapolis should not vote for a Mayor whose qualifications include having stinky feet and a father who was involved in a motor vehicle accident?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08271801mpb.pdf

    Because everyone knows that the Court of Appeals releases opinions in order to sate INGO's thirst for legal answers, this case provides a really interesting (IMHO) recitation of how IMPD does police work in areas that are... problematic.

    Kinda curious what some INGOers will think of the stop. Of course, I'm also curious what the Indiana Supreme Court will do with it. :) This is a close case, IMHO, and I think the cops on the street probably did the right thing at the time, even if it didn't lead to a conviction.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,065
    77
    Southside Indy
    https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08271801mpb.pdf

    Because everyone knows that the Court of Appeals releases opinions in order to sate INGO's thirst for legal answers, this case provides a really interesting (IMHO) recitation of how IMPD does police work in areas that are... problematic.

    Kinda curious what some INGOers will think of the stop. Of course, I'm also curious what the Indiana Supreme Court will do with it. :) This is a close case, IMHO, and I think the cops on the street probably did the right thing at the time, even if it didn't lead to a conviction.

    This seems contradictory:
    The evidence presented at the hearing, at one point, was an officer telling another, "We need to stop that car” for no specific reason other than it was unfamiliar to the police in that area.

    When earlier in the same document it says this:
    Officer Mills radioed to
    Officer Greathouse that they "might want to stop that car” because he had seen it in Spanish Oaks earlier in the night.

    He didn't say to stop it because it was unfamiliar. He said to stop it because he had seen it near the scene of an earlier crime.

     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    I don't know about the statistics, but what percentage of both killers and victims have criminal records?

    I always told my sons, stay from people who are around drugs, even just users. Somewhere there is a connection to some really mean people.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08271801mpb.pdf

    Because everyone knows that the Court of Appeals releases opinions in order to sate INGO's thirst for legal answers, this case provides a really interesting (IMHO) recitation of how IMPD does police work in areas that are... problematic.

    Kinda curious what some INGOers will think of the stop. Of course, I'm also curious what the Indiana Supreme Court will do with it. :) This is a close case, IMHO, and I think the cops on the street probably did the right thing at the time, even if it didn't lead to a conviction.

    Only in a courtroom does seeing the same car, which has previously not been seen in the area, immediately after two different robberies and containing people displaying suspicious body language not cause a reasonable person to conclude that it is reasonably suspicious.

    We have mountains of case law about how to keep the truth out of court. Another example.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,065
    77
    Southside Indy
    Only in a courtroom does seeing the same car, which has previously not been seen in the area, immediately after two different robberies and containing people displaying suspicious body language not cause a reasonable person to conclude that it is reasonably suspicious.

    We have mountains of case law about how to keep the truth out of court. Another example.

    There must be a lot of case law that keeps common sense out of the courtroom too. Seems that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, in a courtroom, it might possibly be an elephant.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Only in a courtroom does seeing the same car, which has previously not been seen in the area, immediately after two different robberies and containing people displaying suspicious body language not cause a reasonable person to conclude that it is reasonably suspicious.

    We have mountains of case law about how to keep the truth out of court. Another example.

    So, you have me in a bit of a quandry.

    Yes, the various constitutional amendments (and the cases applying them) act to keep the truth out of court. That's basically what they do. Certain facts (even assuming truthyness) may have been gotten the improper way or establish things that we don't want juries to use to convict people.

    Now, in this case, the "body language" problem is that there's nothing illegal or unlawful about having suspicious body language. If the officers had waited for an actual traffic violation (which shouldn't have taken long) or some other pretense, then I don't think there'd be a problem. Yes, the officers got dinged for being too proactive in protecting the people of that area.

    It sucks; it happens.

    This isn't really the final say on the matter. I hope the ISC takes it up and finds in favor of the officers. I could see Massa, at least, publishing his view, even if transfer is ultimately denied.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,065
    77
    Southside Indy
    So, you have me in a bit of a quandry.

    Yes, the various constitutional amendments (and the cases applying them) act to keep the truth out of court. That's basically what they do. Certain facts (even assuming truthyness) may have been gotten the improper way or establish things that we don't want juries to use to convict people.

    Now, in this case, the "body language" problem is that there's nothing illegal or unlawful about having suspicious body language. If the officers had waited for an actual traffic violation (which shouldn't have taken long) or some other pretense, then I don't think there'd be a problem. Yes, the officers got dinged for being too proactive in protecting the people of that area.

    It sucks; it happens.

    This isn't really the final say on the matter. I hope the ISC takes it up and finds in favor of the officers. I could see Massa, at least, publishing his view, even if transfer is ultimately denied.

    But it wasn't just about body language alone. The suspects were described as two black males wearing hoodies. The two black males in the car were wearing hoodies. So you have two people that match the description given by the victims, at least superficially. Do they just ignore that? It seems like the person that wrote that decision ignored, or misstated some things that should not have been misstated, even though the statements were included in the decision. I just see a lot of inconsistency.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    But it wasn't just about body language alone. The suspects were described as two black males wearing hoodies. The two black males in the car were wearing hoodies. So you have two people that match the description given by the victims, at least superficially. Do they just ignore that?

    No. Well. IMHO, no.

    They were in the car, right? Driving around?

    First, let me say this is my own personal view as someone who's spent some time in this area of the law (but not recently). I'd defer to a couple other INGOers for their perspective. But since you asked.... :)

    Second, since it sounds like they were driving around 1 of 2 things was inevitable:
    1) The car would stop, and the people would either get out or not. IMPD pulls up next to/behind (without blocking the car in) and officer asks, "How are you folks doing tonight? Mind if I ask you a couple questions?" The reality is that at least a couple of them would run after exiting the car, which changes this significantly, IMHO. If they don't run and answer questions, I think the IMPD officer could confirm that they match the description pretty quickly and they would have REALLY bad answers to the easy questions.

    2) The driver of the car would commit an infraction/traffic violation and there'd be a reason to stop it. Pretty much fair game after that.

    From what I can tell, the problem was the stop of the car. If there'd been a reason for that -almost ANY reason - then a different result (maybe).

    Total MMQBing, with an eye toward informing the public at large and maybe helping the officers that read this act in a way that avoids suppression of important evidence.

    But, again, these officers appear to have stopped a robbery spree that night, which is a small victory in and of itself.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,065
    77
    Southside Indy
    No. Well. IMHO, no.

    They were in the car, right? Driving around?

    First, let me say this is my own personal view as someone who's spent some time in this area of the law (but not recently). I'd defer to a couple other INGOers for their perspective. But since you asked.... :)

    Second, since it sounds like they were driving around 1 of 2 things was inevitable:
    1) The car would stop, and the people would either get out or not. IMPD pulls up next to/behind (without blocking the car in) and officer asks, "How are you folks doing tonight? Mind if I ask you a couple questions?" The reality is that at least a couple of them would run after exiting the car, which changes this significantly, IMHO. If they don't run and answer questions, I think the IMPD officer could confirm that they match the description pretty quickly and they would have REALLY bad answers to the easy questions.

    2) The driver of the car would commit an infraction/traffic violation and there'd be a reason to stop it. Pretty much fair game after that.

    From what I can tell, the problem was the stop of the car. If there'd been a reason for that -almost ANY reason - then a different result (maybe).

    Total MMQBing, with an eye toward informing the public at large and maybe helping the officers that read this act in a way that avoids suppression of important evidence.

    But, again, these officers appear to have stopped a robbery spree that night, which is a small victory in and of itself.

    Perhaps. But I wonder how many other people have been robbed by the suspects since they were released. Oh wait, the court as much as said they were just innocent folks out for an evening drive. Nothing to see here!
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Perhaps. But I wonder how many other people have been robbed by the suspects since they were released. Oh wait, the court has said they were just innocent folks out for an evening drive. Nothing to see here!

    So... kinda interesting answer to that, at least officially. Other than some civil collection stuff and speeding/criminal mischief, I don't think any of these 3 have had any similar charges filed against them. These don't appear to be hardcore recidivists, at least not within the criminal justice system.

    Again, I'll defer to the IMPD guys on here to say whether these people are "known" to agencies as complicit in stuff that just hasn't been proven yet. We don't know that kind of thing.

    But, IMHO (there that is again), I don't see the indications that these people are gangbangers.

    If nothing else, as gun owners, we might be keen to protect the presumption of innocence. How would we feel getting pulled over and arrested for meeting a vague description of armed robbers?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Only in a courtroom does seeing the same car, which has previously not been seen in the area, immediately after two different robberies and containing people displaying suspicious body language not cause a reasonable person to conclude that it is reasonably suspicious.

    We have mountains of case law about how to keep the truth out of court. Another example.

    I have an easier fix. Just follow the car until it commits a traffic infraction.

    I commit at least a dozen every morning and I live 10 minutes (with a stop for coffee) from my office.

    Cops always rush into crap. Just wait for Ray-ray and Ice Dawg to move, once they move they are going to commit traffic infraction(s) and that will give them the valid stop.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I have an easier fix. Just follow the car until it commits a traffic infraction.

    I commit at least a dozen every morning and I live 10 minutes (with a stop for coffee) from my office.

    Cops always rush into crap. Just wait for Ray-ray and Ice Dawg to move, once they move they are going to commit traffic infraction(s) and that will give them the valid stop.
    I get chills every time KF and I agree. :)
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,065
    77
    Southside Indy
    So... kinda interesting answer to that, at least officially. Other than some civil collection stuff and speeding/criminal mischief, I don't think any of these 3 have had any similar charges filed against them. These don't appear to be hardcore recidivists, at least not within the criminal justice system.

    Again, I'll defer to the IMPD guys on here to say whether these people are "known" to agencies as complicit in stuff that just hasn't been proven yet. We don't know that kind of thing.

    But, IMHO (there that is again), I don't see the indications that these people are gangbangers.

    If nothing else, as gun owners, we might be keen to protect the presumption of innocence. How would we feel getting pulled over and arrested for meeting a vague description of armed robbers?

    If that's the case (no similar prior encounters with the law), then I do see your point. I wasn't aware of their background, but was going by what is most often the case (suspected robbers having had similar charges in the past). Living in Marion County with our revolving door justice system, I'm asking for lenience. :):
     
    Top Bottom