Bad Experience with Carmel PD

[Roadie]

Didn't Carmel just fire a black officer for the offense of watching some women play tennis or something?

He must have gotten "uppity." I guess the people of Carmel want it that way.

Edit - I seem to recall that he also shook hands with a white woman.

Carmel doesnt exactly have a glowing history with regards to racism...

 

[Hawkeye]

And I thought no one was above the law, silly me.

Most people in Little Rock "wanted it that way" too. When I took Con Law nearly 35 years ago, could have sworn the taught me that even "majority rule" didn't trump a civil right. They must have taught it differently at T-lex's Alma mater!

 

[Walter Zoomie]

Carmel has plenty of victim disarmament zones. The Monon Trail, their parks and who knows where else. It's not a reflection of the "will of the people", either. It's a reflection of their government.

I suspect you've just explained brilliantly why the prosecutor decided to pursue the case against Liberty...

 

[ProLibertate]

Ah...I'm beginning to understand.

Carmel self-defense is different from self-defense in the real world.

Carmel has Wine & Cheese self-defense.

Why didn't somebody tell me? If I'd have known that I'd have whacked the mutt with a bottle of Dom Perignon and I'd have walked.

I just spit coffee all over my laptop...

Would somebody please rep the gentleman for me? I'm fresh out.

 

[38special]

] Carmel, for good or bad, is different. Shooting is uncommon. OC is uncommon. Most people in Carmel want it that way. One role of City government is to reflect the will of the people, not just the people we agree with.

Aaaaand there it is. If you don't have a grasp of how a Representative Republic works, you can't clearly understand the role of government.

Wow.

So, cops are called to investigate a "suspicious" black guy walking down the sidewalk of Main Street in Carmel. They suggest he move along, and then cite him for some bogus charge. When his wife a kids come out of the shop, purchases in hand, the suspect explains the situation. They're all flabbergasted.

Fast forward to after they guy wins his case in court and has the charges dropped. The losing prosecutor says: "Black folk living and shopping in Carmel is uncommon... most people want it that way."

Carrying a firearm is a constitutionally-protected right. I don't give a damn what the majority of people in Carmel want. That's why we have laws.

At least, that's how I thought it was supposed to work.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Just something being uncommon is NOT justification for prosecution based on such absurd circumstances, to penalize someone with no prior record (to my knowledge) or violence or criminality.

Go back to jailing couch potato dope smokers for their "crime" and leave the ex-cop gun owner defending his well being alone.

 

[Lex Concord]

Wine & Cheese self-defense - I Love It

I often wonder how an old dog like you ended up in Caramel by the Sea or So They Think it is. Is it still Illegal to Drive While Black in Carmel. According to the City Barrister (X) Laws are Enforced so as Not to offend the Gentile Yuppies Perception of the World. I moved where I am the King of all that I Peruse and it's Great

I have always thought of it as "Carmel by th' Crick"

 

[38special]

] Carmel, for good or bad, is different. Shooting is uncommon. OC is uncommon. Most people in Carmel want it that way. One role of City government is to reflect the will of the people, not just the people we agree with.

Aaaaand there it is. If you don't have a grasp of how a Representative Republic works, you can't clearly understand the role of government.

Wow.

So, cops are called to investigate a "suspicious" black guy walking down the sidewalk of Main Street in Carmel. They suggest he move along, and then cite him for some bogus charge. When his wife a kids come out of the shop, purchases in hand, the suspect explains the situation. They're all flabbergasted.

Fast forward to after they guy wins his case in court and has the charges dropped. The losing prosecutor says: "Black folk living and shopping in Carmel is uncommon... most people want it that way."

Carrying a firearm is a constitutionally-protected right. I don't give a damn what the majority of people in Carmel want. That's why we have laws.

At least, that's how I thought it was supposed to work.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Just something being uncommon is NOT justification for prosecution based on such absurd circumstances, to penalize someone with no prior record (to my knowledge) or violence or criminality.

Go back to jailing couch potato dope smokers for their "crime" and leave the ex-cop gun owner defending his well being alone.

 

[T.Lex]

It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with expectations. And, it has everything to do with representative republicanism. The democratically elected legislative branch of Carmel passed that ordinance.

It also has nothing to do with gun rights. Every officer I can think of in CPD strongly favors RKBA. This case had to do with responsible use of guns. The officer and LS had a disagreement about responsible use, and the judge made the decision. That's how the system works.

Carmel doesn't have the best history when it comes to racial incidents. But, I can tell you from first hand experience, it is much better. Part of that is a product of how diverse Carmel has become in the last 10-15 years. Another part is the efforts of CPD leadership.

 

[hubbard]

OK, so how did the judge rule? This post has over 800 replies. Which # gives the final details.? Thanks.

 

[Fargo]

Not guilty.

 

[T.Lex]

Indeed.

After some reflection on the last 10 pages or so, perhaps that's the best way to leave this thread.

LS gets scoreboard.

I get to spend more time on the parts of this forum that interest me more, and perhaps there will be less argument in this thread. Net win for the forum.

 

[cbop]

Well, I have read all 850 posts (so far) and have heard the arguments of LS, T-lex, a bunch of people with common sense and from some with uncommon sense and all I can boil this down to is a lot of money was spent for no good reason. The City of Carmel spent a lot of money pursuing this case but then again, it is not their money but rather money taxpayers give them to run the city. Liberty spent a lot of money, I am sure, defending himself and unfortunately, do not have the coffers of public money to work with and to what result? Is the City of Carmel a better place for the money spent? Are they now free from the threat of a retired police officer discharging a weapon in a likely once-in-a-lifetime type event? Is society in general and the public now safer and life in Carmel improved? Is Liberty Sanders more secure in his knowledge that he was in the right albeit much poorer for the experience? Is the citing officer chagrined in his judgment and wiser for the experience? Can dogs now roam free in Carmel, secure in the knowledge that the local law enforcement feel they should be either unmolested or dead?

Civilization has not taken a step forward here, it has merely shuffled its feet, in place. The only entities that gained from this have been the attorneys. I have no problem with our litigators making a living but it seems that through the whole process, it took the judge to put the 'prudence' in 'jurisprudence' and that my friends is a sad statement.

The workings of the halls of justice should be a rare and wonderful thing and not the playground of those who bring frivolous suits to the bench because a written law takes precedence over common sense.

 

[SirRealism]

It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with expectations. And, it has everything to do with representative republicanism. The democratically elected legislative branch of Carmel passed that ordinance.

I didn't say race had anything to do with the case. I used race as analogy, refuting that the will of the people somehow trumps law. Your statement about OC had nothing to do with the ordinance or the case.

It also has nothing to do with gun rights. Every officer I can think of in CPD strongly favors RKBA. This case had to do with responsible use of guns. The officer and LS had a disagreement about responsible use, and the judge made the decision. That's how the system works.

By mentioning OC (again, the will of the people trumping law), you brought RKBA into the discussion.

 

[Hotdoger]

It also has nothing to do with gun rights. Every officer I can think of in CPD strongly favors RKBA. This case had to do with responsible use of guns. The officer and LS had a disagreement about responsible use, and the judge made the decision. That's how the system works.

.

It was not a "disagreement".
The "officer" lied about the incident to bolster his citing LS. Plain and simple.

 

[hubbard]

Thanks Fargo.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As much as I despise those DAZs and the lawmakers who create them, at least they're based in law, not on some sort of implied activism by cops and the courts.

What happened to the preemption bill for IN? SB0292, I believe.

I read elsewhere on INGO that that bill is to be heard in the House Committee on Public Policy on Wednesday, 4/6. I cannot at this time locate a time or location for that meeting, however it was posted that there is "planned opposition" for the bill. I'm on duty that day, but any of you who can plan to attend to counter that opposition would probably be a help.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[hornadylnl]

So if a run away slave case made it to court in 1860, the prosecutor would be "doing his job" to represent the slave owner?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So if a run away slave case made it to court in 1860, the prosecutor would be "doing his job" to represent the slave owner?

lol that had already been covered with Dred Scott...

 

[E5RANGER375]

So if a run away slave case made it to court in 1860, the prosecutor would be "doing his job" to represent the slave owner?

look at all the cases the govt never let go to trial because they knew they would lose and then something would be set in stone. ruby ridge comes to mind.

 

[hornadylnl]

lol that had already been covered with Dred Scott...

My point was that my soul isn't worth "following the law". Not every conviction or an attempt at one brings liberty.