Cop search

[Frank_N_Stein]

Showing up when they run your plate is "hit and miss". I had a LEO friend of mine run my name and plate and it did not show up. This was back when I had my four year LTCH. But others with my same name did show up when he ran them, and thier plates. He state that he believes that the state started merging them to your plates is when you applied for the Lifetime LTCH.

I have a lifetime LTCH, and I have run my own plates, and it didn't show up. Of all the plates I have ever run it has never come up. It is a myth that it does.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have a lifetime LTCH, and I have run my own plates, and it didn't show up. Of all the plates I have ever run it has never come up. It is a myth that it does.

I've had officers tell me both ways. Near as I can tell, it doesn't show up on a state database check, but if you're in the county in which you applied, sometimes it's in their RMS (Records Management System), which is a local county database, and it gets put in when you make application. Were I to get pulled over in, say, Muncie, no one would have a clue I had a LTCH. Here at home, far more likely.

I'll admit it surprises me that Indy doesn't use a system like that, with Ballard and Straub in charge.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88GT]

Gotta differ with you here, 88GT. You're correct that there SHOULDN'T be enough LEOs who do otherwise... But the fact is that there are enough (by which I mean that there is at least one)....and in my mind, that's reason enough to praise the ones who do it right at the same time I criticize those who do not.

If all someone does is criticize, people grow to expect that and paint a mental picture of someone who is never satisfied. Alternatively, if that person also praises when someone does the right thing, how much more does that praise mean?

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

Do you lavish praise on moms who don't beat their kids?

Or pay compliments to the lawyers who adequately represented their clients?

Do you pay your child an extra bit of allowance because he finally cleaned his room even though that's a regular chore expectation?

I'm not suggesting we don't acknowledge great LEOs. I'm simply saying that those who do exactly what they're supposed to do don't deserve high-fives because they look good in comparison to the d-bags who don't. The standard isn't set by the spectrum of existing behavior in which we compare everybody to the worst of the bunch. The standard is the expectation lawful behavior that should be met by LEO wearing a badge.

This isn't just about LEOs. Anybody that gets paid to do a job had damn well better do that job exactly as he's supposed to. That's the expectation. If he does more than expected or better than expected, sure, make note of it, praise him, reward him. But what does it say of the business if the one guy who does nothing more than the job description looks like employee of the year because every last one of his co-workers sucks at their job?

But unlike the fast food employee, a screw up by a LEO can ruin a man's life forever. So what if the burger flipper forgot my hash brown? I can choose not to give them my business in the future. What choice do I have when the unlawful actions of a LEO leaves me on a vent for the rest of my life? What compensation am I going to get from the city for the loss of my job because I was wrongfully arrested on trumped up charges because the LEO didn't like the fact that I didn't comply with his unlawful request?

Am I holding LEO to a higher standard in expecting every last one that wears a badge meets the job description exactly? You bet I am. Very few other people have the power and authority to ruin my life when they **** up.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This isn't just about LEOs. Anybody that gets paid to do a job had damn well better do that job exactly as he's supposed to. That's the expectation.

Do you cheer for Peyton Manning when he throws a touchdown?
Do you cheer for US Servicemen when they come home after serving honorably?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Do you lavish praise on moms who don't beat their kids?

Or pay compliments to the lawyers who adequately represented their clients?

Do you pay your child an extra bit of allowance because he finally cleaned his room even though that's a regular chore expectation?

I'm not suggesting we don't acknowledge great LEOs. I'm simply saying that those who do exactly what they're supposed to do don't deserve high-fives because they look good in comparison to the d-bags who don't. The standard isn't set by the spectrum of existing behavior in which we compare everybody to the worst of the bunch. The standard is the expectation lawful behavior that should be met by LEO wearing a badge.

This isn't just about LEOs. Anybody that gets paid to do a job had damn well better do that job exactly as he's supposed to. That's the expectation. If he does more than expected or better than expected, sure, make note of it, praise him, reward him. But what does it say of the business if the one guy who does nothing more than the job description looks like employee of the year because every last one of his co-workers sucks at their job?

But unlike the fast food employee, a screw up by a LEO can ruin a man's life forever. So what if the burger flipper forgot my hash brown? I can choose not to give them my business in the future. What choice do I have when the unlawful actions of a LEO leaves me on a vent for the rest of my life? What compensation am I going to get from the city for the loss of my job because I was wrongfully arrested on trumped up charges because the LEO didn't like the fact that I didn't comply with his unlawful request?

Am I holding LEO to a higher standard in expecting every last one that wears a badge meets the job description exactly? You bet I am. Very few other people have the power and authority to ruin my life when they **** up.

You make good points. In answer, do I lavish praise on non-abusive moms? No, that, I don't. Do I pay compliments to adequate attorneys? No, but if one just got me off on one of those trumped up charges you mention, I'm darn sure going to thank him... probably profusely. As to the question about my kid, we let her know when she did wrong, but we also let her know when she did right, even if it took an act of God and Congress to get her to do it.

I do agree that the standard is not properly set by the existing spectrum but by the expectations on those in that spectrum. I expect nothing short of the best I have to give for any and every patient who is on my cot... but it's sure nice to hear an occasional "thank you" from someone who appreciates me doing what I can for them. If my boss asks me to clean out a truck that is being sold, I do it. At the same time, when he sees the job we did and praises it as a job well done, that gives me an incentive to continue doing well, rather than half-assing next time. The guy he replaced never praised. He had people who did what they had to to meet job requirements and no more. Same people, BTW.

I'd rather positively reinforce it when I see something I like than negatively reinforce things that don't meet standard. YMMV.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[NYFelon]

Do you lavish praise on moms who don't beat their kids?

Or pay compliments to the lawyers who adequately represented their clients?

Do you pay your child an extra bit of allowance because he finally cleaned his room even though that's a regular chore expectation?

I'm not suggesting we don't acknowledge great LEOs. I'm simply saying that those who do exactly what they're supposed to do don't deserve high-fives because they look good in comparison to the d-bags who don't. The standard isn't set by the spectrum of existing behavior in which we compare everybody to the worst of the bunch. The standard is the expectation lawful behavior that should be met by LEO wearing a badge.

This isn't just about LEOs. Anybody that gets paid to do a job had damn well better do that job exactly as he's supposed to. That's the expectation. If he does more than expected or better than expected, sure, make note of it, praise him, reward him. But what does it say of the business if the one guy who does nothing more than the job description looks like employee of the year because every last one of his co-workers sucks at their job?

But unlike the fast food employee, a screw up by a LEO can ruin a man's life forever. So what if the burger flipper forgot my hash brown? I can choose not to give them my business in the future. What choice do I have when the unlawful actions of a LEO leaves me on a vent for the rest of my life? What compensation am I going to get from the city for the loss of my job because I was wrongfully arrested on trumped up charges because the LEO didn't like the fact that I didn't comply with his unlawful request?

Am I holding LEO to a higher standard in expecting every last one that wears a badge meets the job description exactly? You bet I am. Very few other people have the power and authority to ruin my life when they **** up.

excellent post. set 'em up, take 'em down.

 

[philo]

Do you lavish praise on moms who don't beat their kids?

Or pay compliments to the lawyers who adequately represented their clients?

Do you pay your child an extra bit of allowance because he finally cleaned his room even though that's a regular chore expectation?

I'm not suggesting we don't acknowledge great LEOs. I'm simply saying that those who do exactly what they're supposed to do don't deserve high-fives because they look good in comparison to the d-bags who don't. The standard isn't set by the spectrum of existing behavior in which we compare everybody to the worst of the bunch. The standard is the expectation lawful behavior that should be met by LEO wearing a badge.

This isn't just about LEOs. Anybody that gets paid to do a job had damn well better do that job exactly as he's supposed to. That's the expectation. If he does more than expected or better than expected, sure, make note of it, praise him, reward him. But what does it say of the business if the one guy who does nothing more than the job description looks like employee of the year because every last one of his co-workers sucks at their job?

But unlike the fast food employee, a screw up by a LEO can ruin a man's life forever. So what if the burger flipper forgot my hash brown? I can choose not to give them my business in the future. What choice do I have when the unlawful actions of a LEO leaves me on a vent for the rest of my life? What compensation am I going to get from the city for the loss of my job because I was wrongfully arrested on trumped up charges because the LEO didn't like the fact that I didn't comply with his unlawful request?

Am I holding LEO to a higher standard in expecting every last one that wears a badge meets the job description exactly? You bet I am. Very few other people have the power and authority to ruin my life when they **** up.

Hmmm...I guess I both agree and disagree with you here.

We realistically don't want to give credit where none is due - that tends to give us a "Lake Woebegone" outlook where "all of our children are above average". Or maybe a better analogy would be the soccer league syndrome, where just showing up nets you a trophy.

However, in the age of "good news is no news" we tend to only hear anything about LEO's when there is a scandal (real or imagined).

Other than the posts in this thread how often do you actually hear of a good cop doing a good job or having an opinion in agreement with yours?

"It's only what we should expect" you say. Unfortunately you're wrong on that count. Human nature leads us to expect others to live up to (or down to) the level of the reports we most often hear about them. Most LEO's are not JBT's, but thats not the picture we get from the media and unfortunately some of our fellow posters.

Do I think an LEO deserves special praise just for doing whats required by their job? You bet I do. I take a great deal of responsibility for my safety and that of my family, but I'm damn glad there are good LEO's on the job as well.

 

[Brian S.]

I have been reading these cop disarm threads and I have a question that I have not seen addressed, so if it has been I apologize for repeating it.

From the perspective of the victim, it seems like it comes down to two basic issues: Rights and safety. My question relates to safety. Specifically, there is a concern that when a cop disarms you and unloads your weapon, there is the risk of an ND.

Is there a reason why we can't just clear our own weapon before handing it over? Are the police not allowing this? Are they SO pathologically paranoid that they won't allow us to clear our own weapon?

 

[ATM]

...Specifically, there is a concern that when a cop disarms you and unloads your weapon, there is the risk of an ND.

Is there a reason why we can't just clear our own weapon before handing it over?

Same reason, same risk.

Are the police not allowing this? Are they SO pathologically paranoid that they won't allow us to clear our own weapon?

If they have a problem with you leaving it safely holstered, they'll probably have a bigger problem with you handling it.

It's just silliness.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have been reading these cop disarm threads and I have a question that I have not seen addressed, so if it has been I apologize for repeating it.

From the perspective of the victim, it seems like it comes down to two basic issues: Rights and safety. My question relates to safety. Specifically, there is a concern that when a cop disarms you and unloads your weapon, there is the risk of an ND.

Is there a reason why we can't just clear our own weapon before handing it over? Are the police not allowing this? Are they SO pathologically paranoid that they won't allow us to clear our own weapon?

Man, I'm "not sure if srs" or you're seriously confusing me...

 

[Brian S.]

Same reason, same risk.

You mean from THEIR perspective of risk, or same risk in general? If it's the latter I disagree.

 

[Brian S.]

Man, I'm "not sure if srs" or you're seriously confusing me...

In these threads, there are many complaints that the officer takes their weapon and clears it, and that there have been incidents of the officer lasing people or even accidentally shooting them.

My question is if these cops are insisting that we not clear our own weapons, or if people are not insisting they clear their own weapon.

I'm not trying to argue a point, it's just a hole in my understanding of the issue.

 

[ATM]

You mean from THEIR perspective of risk, or same risk in general? If it's the latter I disagree.

My point is that here's a greater risk of ND when anybody is unloading/loading compared to leaving it holstered.

I may trust myself more than an officer to unload it safely but I'm just not touching it while detained, even if ordered to do so.

 

[Brian S.]

My point is that here's a greater risk of ND when anybody is unloading/loading compared to leaving it holstered.

I may trust myself more than an officer to unload it safely but I'm just not touching it while detained, even if ordered to do so.

I agree, and if it ever comes up I don't plan on disclosing, but if you are ordered to hand it over aren't you obligated by law to hand it over?

I don't mean to derail the thread with my silly newb questions, I just want to understand the issue.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In these threads, there are many complaints that the officer takes their weapon and clears it, and that there have been incidents of the officer lasing people or even accidentally shooting them.

My question is if these cops are insisting that we not clear our own weapons, or if people are not insisting they clear their own weapon.

I'm not trying to argue a point, it's just a hole in my understanding of the issue.

You won't find an officer in the world, with any common sense, that will allow you to clear your own weapon after requesting it be handed over. If an officer wants your firearm because he views you as a possible threat, the last thing he'll have you do is touch your weapon. When people are disarmed, an officer does the disarming, not the subject....ever.

 

[ATM]

...but if you are ordered to hand it over aren't you obligated by law to hand it over?

No law that I'm aware of.

I won't resist being disarmed, but I will not do it.

 

[Rookie]

I don't believe you are obligated by law to hand it over. However, the side of the road is not the place to take your stand. If I'm in that situation, I will politely inform the officer that I will not give him my property, but I will assure him that I won't resist his unlawful seizure. If he wants to slap on the cuffs, so be it. When all is said and done, I will file a complaint.

 

[Brian S.]

Answered my questions, thank you.

 

[Rookie]

To me, it's simple. You have no business complaining if you willingly comply with any demand.

 

[Hammerhead]

Please, those of you who might be considering the idea of remembering the Washington v. IN, which in a nutshell says that officer safety doesn't satisfy being disarmed for a subject who is cooperating, or has been removed from the situation (i.e. gun in car, subject outside of car with no easy access and being cooperative), please don't forget that State v. Richardson is also important, if not moreso, because the court said that once a valid LTCH is presented (seems to apply immediately when you people keep handing it over with your DL), nothing else can be asked or required of you pertaining to your weapons.