IMPD officers arrested.

[Route 45]

Ok, what are they going to do? Run it through IDACS? If so, how would he be at fault for doing exactly what any officer would do to check a gun? To clarify, I'm not talking about anything else related to the case, I'm talking about using IDACS.

I buy/get a gun. I ask the police to see if it's stolen. They check IDACS.

He buys/gets a gun. He checks IDACS to see if it's stolen.

Where does it become a no no?

When you call an on-duty officer to conduct an investigation of a suspected stolen item, he is doing his job.

When the officer acquires a firearm for his personal collection and uses government resources and authority for his own personal use, that is misconduct.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Ok, what are they going to do? Run it through IDACS? If so, how would he be at fault for doing exactly what any officer would do to check a gun? To clarify, I'm not talking about anything else related to the case, I'm talking about using IDACS.

I buy/get a gun. I ask the police to see if it's stolen. They check IDACS.

He buys/gets a gun. He checks IDACS to see if it's stolen.

Where does it become a no no?

I see what you’re saying, and I’m probably the least educated on how this works, but from what I’m understanding is the problem would be using it for personal use instead of going through the system.

 

[HoughMade]

I didn't see the PCA. It sounds like the question being raised here is did the place having posession of the car own the car, and would they own the firearm. Was it theirs to give. And did the officer have the same knowledge of ownership.

All the officer needs to know when (and if) he possesses it with the intent to deprive the owner of it is that he is not the owner. Does not have to know who is.

 

[tbhausen]

OK. Why in the hell was it not reported stolen by the owner. This is an issue with me. A serious one. Way to many loose ends here by what we have so far.

Unless I missed something, the gun owner got busted for DUI and his car got impounded. He left the gun in the car and must have inquired about getting it back after some period of time had passed. Sounds like about a month or two.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Ok, what are they going to do? Run it through IDACS? If so, how would he be at fault for doing exactly what any officer would do to check a gun? To clarify, I'm not talking about anything else related to the case, I'm talking about using IDACS.

I buy/get a gun. I ask the police to see if it's stolen. They check IDACS.

He buys/gets a gun. He checks IDACS to see if it's stolen.

Where does it become a no no?

When it comes back hot and he doesnt check it into the property room.

Whether its a cop friend on duty does it or whatever rookie (no relation) dispatch sends to me makes no difference.

 

[MarkC]

Be sure to include that second lifetime permit in your will....and remember- lives in being plus 90 years.

Gosh, this is starting to sound like a law school exam question.


ETA: that brought a smile to my face.

 

[tbhausen]

I'm starting to get the idea that few here have read the probable cause affidavit.

Of course we haven’t… If there’s a way for us to access it I’d be interested to know what that is for future reference.

Edit: saw your post about having to be logged in as an attorney. How does the media get these? Do they have attorneys on staff for this purpose? How do some of them end up on places like smokinggun.com? It kind of pisses me off that the media filters these kind of things and mere mortals like us have trouble getting to them despite the fact they are public records. I don’t think we should have to jump through hoops to review these.

 

[KG1]

When you call an on-duty officer to conduct an investigation of a suspected stolen item, he is doing his job.

When the officer acquires a firearm for his personal collection and uses government resources and authority for his own personal use, that is misconduct.

The question is what was the accused motivation for doing what he alledgedly did? The only thing that the PC affidavit alledges is the accused took possession of the firearm under what appears to be the guise of an official duty and it's current whereabouts are unknown. That's the sketchy part right there.

 

[Sigblitz]

All the officer needs to know when (and if) he possesses it with the intent to deprive the owner of it is that he is not the owner. Does not have to know who is.

So it wasn't a gift?

 

[KG1]

So it wasn't a gift?

It's not a gift if he took possession of it under the guise of official business and then gifted it to himself.

 

[Twangbanger]

If I have a gun that I'm concerned may be stolen, how would I go about finding out?

Well, judging from the discussion here...you contact a friend who knows a super stand-up guy who will run it for you...

 

[churchmouse]

A lot of speculation based on a few tidbits of info we are allowed to have at this point in the game.

 

[Sigblitz]

It's not a gift if he took possession of it under the guise of official business and then gifted it to himself.

If you don't want your firearms, I'm here for you.

 

[printcraft]

Theft? No. I wouldn’t hold anyone else to that given what we know.

Misconduct on the IDACS? Doing do diligence on finding out if it was stolen. Went about it the wrong way. Probably/maybe, place a reprimand in his file at the most.

Firing? **** no. He’s a scalp being thrown out. **** whoever recommended that.

 

[Rookie]

A lot of speculation based on a few tidbits of info we are allowed to have at this point in the game.

No doubt about it. However, very few have the ability to get anything more than tidbits, and we're working with what we have. No one is damning anyone.

 

[PaulF]

No doubt about it. However, very few have the ability to get anything more than tidbits, and we're working with what we have. No one is damning anyone.

...except the guy who beat his wife so bad she lost an eye. **** that guy.

 

[churchmouse]

No doubt about it. However, very few have the ability to get anything more than tidbits, and we're working with what we have. No one is damning anyone.

Did not mean to come off that way. A couple of posts were very specific In Their accusatory tone but good info being shared over all

 

[KG1]

Theft? No. I wouldn’t hold anyone else to that given what we know.

Misconduct on the IDACS? Doing do diligence on finding out if it was stolen. Went about it the wrong way. Probably/maybe, place a reprimand in his file at the most.

Firing? **** no. He’s a scalp being thrown out. **** whoever recommended that.

I'm not going as far as "theft" but the question still remains of which we don't have an answer to is this. Did he have a legal right to keep the firearm and under what pretenses did he use to take possession of it?

 

[Dutchisaurus]

Pretty damning that the weapon is not in IMPD evidence or in possession of the attorney general.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[Cameramonkey]

...except the guy who beat his wife so bad she lost an eye. **** that guy.

Troof!

**** him with his own nightstick. sideways.