+1 to fishers pd

[ProLibertate]

There are casualties in a war. War on crime = a few innocent people get inconvenienced every now and then.

I believe Benjamin Franklin has already refuted this far better than I ever could, so I will quote him;

"Any society that would give up essential liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."





Besides, I would hardly qualify Fishers as the front lines of "The War on Crime"....

 

[LPMan59]

Besides, I would hardly qualify Fishers as the front lines of "The War on Crime"....

front line for the War on Donuts.

 

[Rookie]

I have nothing illegal on my person.
I do not consent to search.
Am I free to go?

Repeat as many times as necessary...

This would force the officer to decide if it's going to be a consensual encounter or a terry stop (of course he would have to have RAS)

 

[stanicus]

A man posts as to how he found some police officers to be polite and professional and how he appreciated it. Then as predicted follows the pointless and very tiresome bashing: How dare this man say something nice about the police who stopped him? Doesn't he know how he is causing all of us to lose our rights?

It is tiresome and boring. Oh, and I forgot ridiculous.

I will probably stop visiting this site due to being sick of this crap.

Terry

Hey, hang in there! Some people have just eaten too many rabid squirrels which brings out the crazy in them. Eventually the foil hat cant hold back the crazy.

 

[SSGSAD]

Well, I have two things to say, I hope the PD, in that area, continue to do their job. One of my stores, was robbed Tue., night, along with a gas station, my store, hasn't been open but a month or two... Also, I had a friend, who lived in Miss., for a few years, he was pulled over, because he drove a white Ford van. When he opened the door, the PD., saw blue paint, and cuffed him, and "detained" him, for about 2 hrs.... Turns out that a robbery, had been committed, with a white Ford van, that had been painted... (orig. color was blue)...

 

[ProLibertate]

I have nothing illegal on my person.
I do not consent to search.
Am I free to go?

This.

If an officer does not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, an individual is not obligated to answer any questions beyond providing their identity.
The truth is, very few people actually know their rights- let alone how to exercise them. For this reason, many officers push the envelope. Remember, anything you say to an officer can later be admitted as evidence against you in a court should any charges actually be filed.
Again, I was not there, and we are only hearing one side of the story, but it sounds like the traffic stop was highly suspect.
The argument here is not whether or not the officer conducted themselves in a professional manner. The argument is whether or not the stop was legit to begin with.
A report of a black sedan being involved in the commission of a crime does not give me the right to pull over, and subsequently detain, the driver of every black sedan I see on the road.

 

[Tripp11]

Original OP did say he or his vehicle matched the description of someone committing burglaries in the area.

Don't think so...unless I missed it.

Edit: Booya corrected himself.

 

[Pocketman]

No, this was not a perfect experience with Fishers PD. It was however much better than what we often hear about. Although inconvenienced, the OP felt the officers were courteous. Fishers Police are under pressure to stop the recent armed robberies before someone gets hurt. furbymac (OP) or his vehicle may fit the description of the suspect and that was the officer's cause for the stop. Some may consider this profiling, which depending upon the camp you're in, is alright for some but not others. There's another thread going defending Juan Williams for being uncomfortable around Arabs at airports.

If they had crystal balls, police would immediately be able to differentiate between cowboys and Indians. Perhaps Carmel will pass an ordinance requiring bad guys to wear name tags. "Gosh furbymac, sorry to have inconvenienced you. Let us buy you a cup of coffee. Oh you belong to INGO, then we'll walk your dog for the next month." Not gonna happen folks.

 

[youngda9]

Looks like I had it right with post #2...Deja-Vu all over again.

Carry on.

 

[MTC]

Also, the LTCH states (not grants you) the right to carry any handgun lawfully possessed.

Hmm. Mine states, "The Licensee is hereby licensed by the Indiana State Police to carry on their person or in a vehicle, any handgun lawfully possessed by Licensee."

license (noun)
- a legal document giving official permission to do something
- authorize officially
- the act of giving a formal (usually written) authorization

The verb license or grant license means to give permission. The noun license refers to that permission as well as to the document memorializing that permission...

licensed - accredited: given official approval to act

Licensee (n) One to whom or to which a license is granted.

= I don't have a right under current statute to bear (handguns) off my own property.

Forgive threadjack. May seem like a small thing. One of the biggest obstacles (but by no means the only one) to getting 35-47-2-1(a) stricken from the code is to get people (especially representatives) to realize it is by definition a violation of Article 1 section 32 of the Indiana Constitution.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hmm. Mine states, "The Licensee is hereby licensed by the Indiana State Police to carry on their person or in a vehicle, any handgun lawfully possessed by Licensee."

license (noun)
- a legal document giving official permission to do something
- authorize officially
- the act of giving a formal (usually written) authorization

The verb license or grant license means to give permission. The noun license refers to that permission as well as to the document memorializing that permission...

licensed - accredited: given official approval to act

Licensee (n) One to whom or to which a license is granted.

= I don't have a right under current statute to bear (handguns) off my own property.

Forgive threadjack. May seem like a small thing. One of the biggest obstacles (but by no means the only one) to getting 35-47-2-1(a) stricken from the code is to get people (especially representatives) to realize it is by definition a violation of Article 1 section 32 of the Indiana Constitution.

I hereby revoke your permission to speak on this issue anywhere, at any time.

Now of course, that doesn't really change your right to do so, does it?

My point? The right predates our Constitutions, both state and federal. It exists regardless of any infringement by any unConstitutional law. You may be restricted from the exercise of your rights, but that does not change the fact that you have them. More proof? OK. Do your basic, fundamental rights as a human being or as an American citizen change because of your physical location? I would answer this question with a "no." So if you have a right to carry in, say, Vermont, you have that same right in Indiana, or Illinois, or DC, or for that matter, England, Afghanistan, Australia, etc., etc.

Your ability to exercise your rights without someone in a uniform challenging you or interfering in that exercise may not exist in all those places, but the right is universal and by the text of the Amendment protecting it here in the US, the right shall not be infringed.

It's a difference of semantics, I'll grant you, but words do have meanings, and rights with which we are endowed by our Creator do not change because someone wrote some words on a piece of paper and someone else stuck his name on the bottom of it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

Hi Bill.

Yeah, I believe we're in agreement on that main point. Hope it wasn't viewed as unnecessary nitpicking, just something I'd been working on. Certainly don't like to give offense to my favorite people (and posters), although it has happened in the past due to my failure to properly qualify or clarify remarks.

I maintain low tones...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hi Bill.

Yeah, I believe we're in agreement on that main point. Hope it wasn't viewed as unnecessary nitpicking, just something I'd been working on. Certainly don't like to give offense to my favorite people (and posters), although it has happened in the past due to my failure to properly qualify or clarify remarks.

I maintain low tones...

I think I must have missed the last part where you advocated the repeal of 35-47-2-1(a).

And sucking up is not necessary... Just give rep. Or money. Money's more useful. Rep's cheaper.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[kludge]

got pulled over today in the parking lot of my place of employment. (116th&allisonville) apparently i looked suspicious enough to get pulled over due to recent burglaries in the area.

"Looked Suspicious"?

Response: "Officer do you have a specific and articulable reason for stopping me today?"

"Well, you just look suspicious, and we've had lots of recent burglaries"

"Am I free to go?"

 

[Rookie]

"Looked Suspicious"?

Response: "Officer do you have a specific and articulable reason for stopping me today?"

"Well, you just look suspicious, and we've had lots of recent burglaries"

"Am I free to go?"

Or your response could be, "Well, your eyes look glazed, have you been eating donuts?"

YMMV

 

[MTC]

I think I must have missed the last part where you advocated the repeal of 35-47-2-1(a).

Yes, that's right. Belaboring the point further here, though, would be too much of a threadjack. Another thread... another time ...

... Just give rep. Or money. Money's more useful. Rep's cheaper.

Very well then. Money's tight. Rep it shall be.

 

[JLawsonTXRH]

WOW! Interesting conversation to say the least. I didn't realize that we had so many lawyers on INGO. And shame on the thread starter for having an opinion!

 

[03mustgt]

WOW! Interesting conversation to say the least. I didn't realize that we had so many lawyers on INGO. And shame on the thread starter for having an opinion!

+1

 

[furbymac]

And if his boss saw this and fires him in the morning would it still be ok?

Police exist to arrest criminals, not to inconvenience law abiding citizens.

if he fired me he would have to fire everyone as every employee there carries to work with the exception of maybe 1 or 2. that and he already knew .

 

[furbymac]

ok so i left out the detail that they did have a call about a "suspicious character" and i turned onto a dark road as the cop passed. i give the fishers pd another +1 because they have to put up with jackasses like some of you that think you know every little letter of the law.