Illinois State Trooper incident

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!
  • 04FXSTS

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 31, 2010
    1,789
    129
    Eugene
    I wasn
    t sure if this was the best place but it should work out. Rember only law enforcement should be able to carry guns and then there is this. It also mentions his father is a retired state trooper. I rember his father and it seems the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I remember his father (Mike) was basicly an arrogant tyrant that should never have been a cop. In fact the father was not liked by the other state police in the area. Jim.


    UPDATE: State trooper charged with felony after Steak N' Shake altercation - News - Mobile


    Westville incident preceded Steak 'n Shake altercation in Danville | News-Gazette.com
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    So much wrong, encapsulated in this one paragraph:

    Mason initially was arrested by police for aggravated battery to an officer and disarming an officer, Thomason indicated. Garza initially was arrested for reckless discharge of a firearm.

    So, a drunk, off-duty police officer initiates an unlawful physical confrontation, illegally discharges his firearm, and the non-LEO defending himself gets charged with a bogus, some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others charge?

    It appears that Mason's charges were later modified to simple battery; but still: how/why was he charged in the first place?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    It sounds like he may have started the fight.

    Not with a police officer, nor did he disarm a police officer - because the officer in question was off-duty. Further, there is equal evidence that the drunk, belligerent off-duty police officer initiated and escalated the confrontation.
     

    voidsherpa

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 16, 2015
    1,034
    38
    NE
    Further, there is equal evidence that the drunk, belligerent off-duty police officer initiated and escalated the confrontation.

    These articles are such a cluster I'm just going to say, Sure?

    "and Mason faces one count of battery, a Class A misdemeanor, in connection with the incident."
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    These articles are such a cluster I'm just going to say, Sure?

    "and Mason faces one count of battery, a Class A misdemeanor, in connection with the incident."

    So, if they charge both with getting into a fight with each other? I have no real problem with that. It is that he was initially charged with bogus "assault of police officer" and "disarming a police officer" that concerns me.
     

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,417
    149
    Napganistan
    Not with a police officer, nor did he disarm a police officer - because the officer in question was off-duty. Further, there is equal evidence that the drunk, belligerent off-duty police officer initiated and escalated the confrontation.
    I haven't read the article nor do I care to, sounds like a cluster However, the duty status is irrelevant if he identified himself with a badge. If he is plain clothes an no one knew he was police, then those charges are unenforceable.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    I haven't read the article nor do I care to, sounds like a cluster However, the duty status is irrelevant if he identified himself with a badge. If he is plain clothes an no one knew he was police, then those charges are unenforceable.

    The article doesn't say that he does or does not identify himself with a badge, IIRC. But he wasn't on duty, and wasn't acting in the capacity of law enforcement. If a clearly drunk, clearly belligerent (got himself kicked out of a bar an hour earlier), off-duty police officer can start a fight, negligently discharge his firearm, and then play the "I'm a cop" card, then there's something wrong with that.
     

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,417
    149
    Napganistan
    The article doesn't say that he does or does not identify himself with a badge, IIRC. But he wasn't on duty, and wasn't acting in the capacity of law enforcement. If a clearly drunk, clearly belligerent (got himself kicked out of a bar an hour earlier), off-duty police officer can start a fight, negligently discharge his firearm, and then play the "I'm a cop" card, then there's something wrong with that.
    Like I said, I'm not touching all that BS. I was only addressing that if a situation got to the point where I felt the need to identify myself as LE (badge and ID) then the LE laws are enforceable, ie resisting LE, disarming LE, failure to obey LE, ect. It matters not if I am "on the clock" or not since our powers are 24/7. Now if he didn't do that then he cannot claim those laws.
     

    Joniki

    Master
    Trainer Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Nov 5, 2013
    1,593
    119
    NE Indiana
    The article doesn't say that he does or does not identify himself with a badge, IIRC. But he wasn't on duty, and wasn't acting in the capacity of law enforcement. If a clearly drunk, clearly belligerent (got himself kicked out of a bar an hour earlier), off-duty police officer can start a fight, negligently discharge his firearm, and then play the "I'm a cop" card, then there's something wrong with that.

    No doubt. This "cop" should be removed from the roster.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    Like I said, I'm not touching all that BS. I was only addressing that if a situation got to the point where I felt the need to identify myself as LE (badge and ID) then the LE laws are enforceable, ie resisting LE, disarming LE, failure to obey LE, ect. It matters not if I am "on the clock" or not since our powers are 24/7. Now if he didn't do that then he cannot claim those laws.

    Understood. But "all that BS" is the crux of this particular story. A law-abiding, sober LEO giving lawful orders is an entirely separate matter.
     

    Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,368
    149
    Those articles lacked a lot of info.

    Refer to this for the GFs "account".

    Accused's girlfriend recounts Steak 'n Shake incident | News-Gazette.com

    So much wrong, encapsulated in this one paragraph:

    So, a drunk, off-duty police officer initiates an unlawful physical confrontation, illegally discharges his firearm, and the non-LEO defending himself gets charged with a bogus, some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others charge?

    It appears that Mason's charges were later modified to simple battery; but still: how/why was he charged in the first place?

    Not with a police officer, nor did he disarm a police officer - because the officer in question was off-duty. Further, there is equal evidence that the drunk, belligerent off-duty police officer initiated and escalated the confrontation.

    The article doesn't say that he does or does not identify himself with a badge, IIRC. But he wasn't on duty, and wasn't acting in the capacity of law enforcement. If a clearly drunk, clearly belligerent (got himself kicked out of a bar an hour earlier), off-duty police officer can start a fight, negligently discharge his firearm, and then play the "I'm a cop" card, then there's something wrong with that.

    Understood. But "all that BS" is the crux of this particular story. A law-abiding, sober LEO giving lawful orders is an entirely separate matter.

    See the link provided in post number 2(quoted above). It is an interview with Mason's girlfriend, in it she states that the LEO identified himself as an officer and produced a badge at the beginning. She also states that Mason started the physical encounter. Basics is that Garza was in the drive up on foot attempting to order food, Mason and his girlfriend were in a car behind him. Mason got out to confront Garza and Garza informed Mason that he was LEO and produced badge. Mason got back into his car and then got back out argued with Garza and then started a physical confrontation.

    Where exactly did Garza initiate an unlawful physical confrontation? And as pointed out it doesn't matter on duty or not. Also the other article doesn't indicate if he was the belligerent one at the bar or not. It states that police were called because of an argument at the bar and that Garza was one of the participants. It doesn't indicate who started the argument or escalated it to the point of police being called. In my younger days that could have been me, and not because I was belligerent. Hell it could have been me in my not so younger years, except I chose discretion as the better part of valor and removed myself from the situation.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Disclaimer: I have not read the articles at this writing.

    The description in this thread of what happened sounds very similar to the situation faced by a member here who has not posted in a very long time, at least that I've seen. In short, he was in a bar with some friends, they got a little noisy for another patron's tastes, and the other patron started a fight. Being that he was drunk and started the fight with at least one current, active-duty (but on leave) serviceman, the fight did not go his way. Lo and behold, local police showed up and the guy on the floor pulls a badge and claims the other guy started it. Despite witnesses, the thin blue line held firm and the guy who went on to become one of our members ended up with bad advice and a felony conviction. This was not in Indiana, but the local authorities then refused, even years later, to apply post-conviction relief and reduce his charge to a misdemeanor or to expunge it.
    Second disclaimer: The above is how I remember the man in question explaining it. I cannot speak to the veracity of his story, but I have no reason to doubt it: he had nothing to gain by convincing members here of the truth of it if it was not, in fact, true.

    This is an example, if the story is true, of someone abusing the authority with which they are entrusted, and of others attempting to make this a nation of men rather than one of laws, in contravention to the stated wish and belief of Mr. John Adams, one of our Founders.

    Persons doing so, in a just world, would be stripped of any authority. Those doing so out of pure vindictiveness should probably be horsewhipped as well.

    JMHO and :twocents:

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    The next time you get pulled over, you wont question the LEO on if he's really sober.

    I generally avoid getting pulled over in the first place. But I'll assume that a uniformed officer, in a patrol car, enforcing traffic laws, is not drunk on duty. I really don't see what your point is.
     
    Top Bottom