Fishers - Not so cool...

[grizman]

Yes you did but thats ok, this thread has been lost for a few pages now.
Military are trained to kill, LEO are not, at least I hope they are not.

Not all military personal are trained are trained to just kill! Some are trained to capture, detain, interrogate, gather Intel, rescue hostages, clear structures, etc etc. Not a lot true, roughly 1 % give or take. There are at least two of us on this forum with such training though.
We fully understand what it means to interact with hostile individuals while being restricted to non lethal methods unless our lives are in directly threatened. There are minor differences still, LE has nearby and abundant back up, we rarely had back up.
Given this info, can a few of us offer an apples to apples comparison or offer a training and experience based opinion of LE actions?

 

[grizman]

+1. You are absolutely right. Let's do some more comparison:

1) Soldier shoots and kills someone:Soldier is a hero and adds 1 to their body count
Cop shoots and kills someone:People evaluate why cop was there. People ask if the cop was justified in shooting with only the info available to him at that time. People make sure everyone knows how many kids/siblings/parents/A's on their report card that the deceased had. Cop finds him/herself in civil court explaining why they were forced to shoot an innocent victim that was just turning their life around.

2) Soldier defends actions by saying they were "following orders" and no one questions that defense.
If you need me to explain the reverse of this, just read through this site for another 25 minutes.

3) Soldier sees someone with a gun, kills them on the spot.
Cop tries to take possession of gun for few minutes, gets called a Nazi.


You will never find me bashing soldiers as I believe we work on the same side. I would appreciate the same respect (I won't hold my breath though). Perhaps I can polish your boots or clear the snow off your driveway and at least be considered worthy of breathing the same air as you.

Perhapse you haven't seen this post over in the "pot" thread.

Originally Posted by Love the 1911
People don't seem to read what I've been writing. Perhaps because I place it in long responses. I have had many stops where people have been armed. When I was brand new, I disarmed one guy. That won't happen again. I have yet to run one serial number from a gun that was not involved in some other crime (ran one for an INGO member at their request once), and have never checked someone's LTCH. There's a big difference between actively looking for a crime and having one put in your face.

I try everyday to make a positive difference in my community. I try to make all my decisions go toward that goal. There are aspects of my job that I don't always like doing. Writing speeding tickets to the tune of $150 for someone going 15-20 over the limit is not enjoyable but something that I must do occasionally. Bringing a kid back to central Indiana from Lake County for a Minor Consuming Alcohol charge that lead to a probation violation is something that I was ordered to do but did not enjoy. I try to balance adherance to the law with the cost to taxpayers when deciding what kind of enforcement action to take. Non-violent offenders typically find themselves sent on their way with a summons (exception=OWI, no sleep lost for those). Those who are intoxicated in public typically find a ride home in my car as long as they aren't acting a fool leading to a call that lead me to them.

When my job becomes one that is not effective at making a positive difference in my community, I will resign. When I am required to take enforcement action on citizens for exercising rights, I will resign.

My response below to the above post from a different thread.

Here we have a rare example of Officer Discretion as a primary daily tool.
This is the way it used to be, think what you may, this attitude is a good thing.
In my exp the officers showing this attitude and that practice this doctrine on duty, are a dieing breed that still have honor and integrity at the core of their personal principals.
This is also one of those rare moments when I say, "Sir, I salute you for you service to the people and for your honesty and fairness in the performance of your duty!"

 

[finity]

Perhapse you haven't seen this post over in the "pot" thread.
Originally Posted by Love the 1911

I'm confused...

You do know that the guy you're replying to is the guy who also posted the quoted post above right?

This is also one of those rare moments when I say, "Sir, I salute you for you service to the people and for your honesty and fairness in the performance of your duty!"

Based on Love the 1911's post quoted here - +1.

 

[grizman]

I'm confused...

You do know that the guy you're replying to is the guy who also posted the quoted post above right?



Based on Love the 1911's post quoted here - +1.

finity, 1911's post ends with I will resign, my response to him starts with Here we have. I used my response to 1911 from another thread to clear up this line from his post to me here.
"You will never find me bashing soldiers as I believe we work on the same side. I would appreciate the same respect (I won't hold my breath though). Perhaps I can polish your boots or clear the snow off your driveway and at least be considered worthy of breathing the same air as you."

He obviously felt I had no respect for any LEO, wrong I respect the good honest ones! No respect for the bad apples though.

 

[Roadie]

Sure! Of course, it's just my opinion - but I think the cited cases fully support that opinion.

I appreciate the kind words. It also sounds like you'd be interested in my "Comprehensivce Indiana Gun Law" course sometime. I'm holding one tomorrow - but that's rather short notice. LOL

Next time!

 

[grizman]

As you know, I think the actions of the officer as described in the OP are inexcusable and illegal - and I personally would love to read about the OP recovering a huge settlement or winning a huge verdict against the Fishers PD. But I respectfully disagree completely with the idea that officer safety is not a legitimate concern. I think it is huge.

Personally, I have unlimited respect for any man or woman who is willing to walk up to the window of a vehicle without knowing if they're going to be greeted with a smile or the muzzle of a sawed-off shotgun. So I think the goal of our legal system ought to be a balance between the very legitimate concern of officer safety and the rights of citizens to have their Constitutional rights protected. So far, I think Indiana law does a pretty good job of that.

And when that law is violated - like by the Fishers PD in this situation - I hope they're held legally, morally, financially and publicly accountable.

Just my $.02.

Guy

It is not that officer safety is of zero concern, it however is not of such concern that it justifies flagrant violations of the BOR and allows officers to perform felony, even temporarily, acts while hiding behind the excuse of officer safety.

My still hold that "officer safety" is a BS excuse used to intimidate and violate peoples rights by deception.

 

[Indy317]

With respect, did you read the Indiana cases that I referenced above? You'll see how the specific circumstance that we've been discussing here - a motorist with a valid LTCH, who is cooperating with LE - is addressed by Indiana courts under Indiana law, under the much broader principles discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Maryland (most of which having nothing to do with this discussion.

Those two cases, and that of Malone, likely could be used to argue an officer can't take the weapon. While none of them deal with that specifically in the case of a person with a handgun stopped for a traffic violation, the langauge the judges use leads me to believe that unless an officer can point out to something more than just "I wanted to take the gun for my safety.", taking the handgun likely wouldn't fly. That being said, the justices said nothing in the Washington ruling about the officer removing Washington and placing him in handcuffs. There are a lot of factors that would come into play if the argument is soley: Can officers take temp. poss. of firearms while conducting a lawful and proper traffic stop?

Reality check boy's and girl's, your fear is not our problem, it's yours! Show some guts, grow some balls, suck it up and do your jobs without the JBT mentality or find a new job!
To those fine men and women that do their job each day in a polite professional manner I salute you! The rest of you need to grow up!!!

Fear isn't a bad thing, but over reaction to it could be. I could use the same logic to support restrictions on the carrying of handguns. Grizman's fear isn't my problem, it's his. If Grizman's fear is so high that he feels he needs to carry a handgun on K-12 property, in the courthouse, on university property, etc., then he shouldn't visit those places.

I'm not sure why you needed to use all the silly comments like "grow some balls" "show some guts", etc.. While some will argue against it, most officers do have common sense, but at the same time, we have driven it into our LEOs that they must do "something" when people call. When it gets to the point where cops have to deal with odd people who are in poss. of firearms, and they can't restrict that poss. while asking questions, we may finally see the start of minimalization when it comes to law enforcement. What this means is that when one of your loved ones calls the cops because "This guy is out on the walk acting strange, cause he is just staring a women who walk by." don't expect the cops to do that much. Eventually the cops will just do drive-bys: They don't see a criminal act, and the witness doesn't report a criminal act, they just keep on driving.

A lot of "don't take the guns" folks here seem to say there are cases where LEOs should "talk to" x, y, or z individual, or to a lesser extent "watch." Well, I can tell you that the more you restrict an officers ability to make the situation safe, the more likely LEOs won't be talking to anyone. A big plus for supporters of minimization in LE, but it could be a huge minus for folks who end up victimized by someone who in prior years, LE would have interacted with (non detainment) and maybe have stopped something before it even began.

Maybe it is time to change the rules of when LEOs can interact with individuals: Unless a reasonable witness makes a complaint about a law violation, or an LEO witnesses the violation, LEOs can't have any contact with an individual unless that individual starts the engagement?

But very importantly, having the right to remove the occupants from the vehicle has NOTHING to do with: 1) being able to search the vehicle; or 2) being able to seize the property of the driver - particularly after the driver has produced a valid LTCH that makes the presence of a firearm within the vehicle totally legal.

I agree with the above, which means that unless the courts specifically address the issue of #2, cops will just default to what seems to be legal: Removing armed occupants. Now, the next question: Would it be legal to then handcuff those occupants? Obviously such a ruling may rely on number of officers, number of people being ordered out of the vehicle, etc.. Washington was removed and handcuffed, and the courts didn't say anything pro or con about that action.

And by the way, nothing I said above would prevent the officer from requiring the driver to step outside the vehicle during the stop - to separate the driver from the firearm.

Most folks with a license have the firearm on their person. As such, removing the person from the vehicle doesn't seperate them from the weapon. So then what? Some here are claiming a license means you can't take the gun, so does that then mean handcuffing the now removed and still armed individual? To me, I think it is a balance between dealing with the firearm and dealing with the person. Right now, officers who feel the need to temp. take poss. of a firearm during a traffic stop likely do that because they feel it is less intrusive than having the person step out onto what could be a busy street. Then you factor in rules that the firearm can't be confiscated so long as there is a license shown, then how does one safely deal with an armed person standing outside the vehicle? Does it bother me personally? No, as I can usually get a good read on people, but like you (or someone else) pointed out, there is a huge unknown factor, and a little pink piece of paper doesn't make anyone less prone to criminal behavior similar to working a job with a badge that says "Police."

I figure four things could happen if guns can't be taken on traffic stops:

1: Some officers will just start holding people as suspects of violating the carrying a handgun law. Those officers who go this route will make the argument that the stop has now went from a traffic infraction, to a possible criminal law violation. They will handcuff the person and start their investigation. They will aruge in courts that they were dealing with a criminal act, and the person admitted to being armed with a weapon. The weapon would be confiscated as the investigation progresses. Not sure how courts would rule on this interpretation.

2: Officers who don't go the way of #1 will just have any armed person step out slowly and cuff them up while they continue on with their infraction stop.

3: Some officers will just say "Screw this! I can't take firearms from those folks I, and everyone on INGO, would say is 'off'. Well, I'm not here to take a bullet from some wierdo standing on a sidewalk who is gawking a women and not breaking the law prior to my arrival. I'll just drive-by and radio in the person is still doing nothing illegal and mark in-service. Let those INGO folks deal with this armed nuts themselves." I would say this would be kinda like the stuff they described as "de-policing." It is where polices, procedures, and court rulings start making some officers to just do the minimium, for various reasons (too much paperwork, fear of bad press, fear of false complaints, fear of harm, etc.).

4: Those officers who don't take guns or make armed folks get out will just keep going on doing what they are doing. Though if the courts come down hard against what constitutes threatening behavior, I could see some of these officers moving towards #3.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

All I can say is WOW!

 

[Roadie]

Again, I would like to see ONE case, just one, where a citizen, pulled over for a traffic violation:
A: volunteered they had a gun
B: showed their License to Carry
C: THEN shot the Officer

Anyone?

 

[E5RANGER375]

+1. You are absolutely right. Let's do some more comparison:

1) Soldier shoots and kills someone:Soldier is a hero and adds 1 to their body count
Cop shoots and kills someone:People evaluate why cop was there. People ask if the cop was justified in shooting with only the info available to him at that time. People make sure everyone knows how many kids/siblings/parents/A's on their report card that the deceased had. Cop finds him/herself in civil court explaining why they were forced to shoot an innocent victim that was just turning their life around.

2) Soldier defends actions by saying they were "following orders" and no one questions that defense.
If you need me to explain the reverse of this, just read through this site for another 25 minutes.

3) Soldier sees someone with a gun, kills them on the spot.
Cop tries to take possession of gun for few minutes, gets called a Nazi.


You will never find me bashing soldiers as I believe we work on the same side. I would appreciate the same respect (I won't hold my breath though). Perhaps I can polish your boots or clear the snow off your driveway and at least be considered worthy of breathing the same air as you.

sorry, but you dont work on the same side or at least agenda. Police officers do not protect freedoms. YOU enforce laws, thats it. I respect your job, but your not soldiers, your not warriors, you ARE peacekeeping public servants. war is NOTHING like police work. NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!!!
I hope I made that clear.

I dont think im better than anyone who upholds the constitution. As long as you do that, I will support you.

 

[Denny347]

sorry, but you dont work on the same side or at least agenda. Police officers do not protect freedoms. YOU enforce laws, thats it. I respect your job, but your not soldiers, your not warriors, you ARE peacekeeping public servants. war is NOTHING like police work. NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!!!
I hope I made that clear.

I dont think im better than anyone who upholds the constitution. As long as you do that, I will support you.

True, you fight at the will/direction of the Government...we do not. You fight in foreign lands, our authority stays Stateside. We both took oaths to defend our Constitution, I do so in a different way. Of course we are not soldiers and soldiers are not police. I do take exception to the thought that non-military can NEVER be warriors. "Warriors" do not have to involve "War". What is a Warrior? What about the "Warrior Spirit"? There are lots of officers I know/work with that performed as warriors. Does the officer who engaged an active shooter firing 7.62 rifle, officer trades rifle fire, gets shot in the leg, runs out of ammo, then butt strokes the shooter to subdue him, while getting on the radio and directing other units not meet the "test" as a warrior? How about the officer who get shot with a 7.62 through the head in an ambush, calmly gets on the radio to let the other units know what happened...then dies? How about the officers who get killed running INTO the gunfire? Are they not warriors? How about any of us that are willing to do the same thing, are willing to do what is needed to get innocents out of danger, place ourselves between the bullets and the innocents because we are wearing the vests...is that not the warrior spirit? We are peacekeeprs 100% and should not be soldiers. You are soldiers and should not be peacekeepers. Peacekeeprs can handle this Country and the military and have the foreign ones. But we BOTH serve our country, just in different ways.

 

[grizman]

True, you fight at the will/direction of the Government...we do not. You fight in foreign lands, our authority stays Stateside. We both took oaths to defend our Constitution, I do so in a different way. Of course we are not soldiers and soldiers are not police. I do take exception to the thought that non-military can NEVER be warriors. "Warriors" do not have to involve "War". What is a Warrior? What about the "Warrior Spirit"? There are lots of officers I know/work with that performed as warriors. Does the officer who engaged an active shooter firing 7.62 rifle, officer trades rifle fire, gets shot in the leg, runs out of ammo, then butt strokes the shooter to subdue him, while getting on the radio and directing other units not meet the "test" as a warrior? How about the officer who get shot with a 7.62 through the head in an ambush, calmly gets on the radio to let the other units know what happened...then dies? How about the officers who get killed running INTO the gunfire? Are they not warriors? How about any of us that are willing to do the same thing, are willing to do what is needed to get innocents out of danger, place ourselves between the bullets and the innocents because we are wearing the vests...is that not the warrior spirit? We are peacekeepers 100% and should not be soldiers. You are soldiers and should not be peacekeepers. Peacekeepers can handle this Country and the military and have the foreign ones. But we BOTH serve our country, just in different ways.

Denny, fine examples of very brave dedicated men. Men showing glimpses of the warrior spirit, yes. I can not speak for E5 he has his own views.
Bravery, sacrifice and the will to fight is part of a what makes a warrior, dieing in the line of duty is an honorable way to die for a LEO and for a soldier. Even in the Rangers you weren't a warrior because you were trained to be one, you weren't a warrior because you saw a firefight. Heck man most of us do not consider ourselves warriors when our brothers in arms do.

Warrior's? look at the men in Mogadishu on 3 OCT and 4 OCT 1993, surrounded cut off no support, limited ammo, limited cover, out numbered 10 to 1. I saw true warriors there! Some say I earned the right to be called a warrior there. There is no comparison stateside to equal the actions of those men around me to anything I have seen or heard of happening here to LE. Closest may have been the LA shootout and that was two bad guys outnumbered surrounded with out back up.

You see it depends on perspective and background to understand each mans definition of what a warrior is. I saw men fire M4's until the gas tubes melted, men burning there hands through the barrel gloves swapping M60 barrels, I saw men continue to fight with bad injuries. I saw enemy men and women cut to pieces by M60's and M249's still holding weapons and firing rounds to their last breath. What of the two men that roped down to the crash of Super Six Four knowing full well that it would take a miracle for, we the ground force fighting our way to them,to arrive before they ran out of ammo?

No sleep, no rest, no food, a single quart of water the rest was all ammo is what had. Yet we fought forward and all around all the way in. We were a bubble fighting toward a smaller bubble in the hopes we could hold out till help arrived. We were fighting every single inhabitant of that area and they could switch off to rest and eat get medical attention they had supplies and fighters in reserve.

Those men are what I see when anyone uses the term warrior, I was among them right there in the dirt,dust,blood, dead bodies the constant incoming fire, constantly scooping up live grenades and throwing them away from us before they could detonate. The air was so thick with the smoke from weapons fire and RPG smoke trails it was an acrid smog. Those men are warriors in my mind, the examples you put forth as I stated Brave men yes, but not on the same level sorry.

 

[Denny347]

Denny, fine examples of very brave dedicated men. Men showing glimpses of the warrior spirit, yes. I can not speak for E5 he has his own views.
Bravery, sacrifice and the will to fight is part of a what makes a warrior, dieing in the line of duty is an honorable way to die for a LEO and for a soldier. Even in the Rangers you weren't a warrior because you were trained to be one, you weren't a warrior because you saw a firefight. Heck man most of us do not consider ourselves warriors when our brothers in arms do.

Warrior's? look at the men in Mogadishu on 3 OCT and 4 OCT 1993, surrounded cut off no support, limited ammo, limited cover, out numbered 10 to 1. I saw true warriors there! Some say I earned the right to be called a warrior there. There is no comparison stateside to equal the actions of those men around me to anything I have seen or heard of happening here to LE. Closest may have been the LA shootout and that was two bad guys outnumbered surrounded with out back up.

You see it depends on perspective and background to understand each mans definition of what a warrior is. I saw men fire M4's until the gas tubes melted, men burning there hands through the barrel gloves swapping M60 barrels, I saw men continue to fight with bad injuries. I saw enemy men and women cut to pieces by M60's and M249's still holding weapons and firing rounds to their last breath. What of the two men that roped down to the crash of Super Six Four knowing full well that it would take a miracle for, we the ground force fighting our way to them,to arrive before they ran out of ammo?

No sleep, no rest, no food, a single quart of water the rest was all ammo is what had. Yet we fought forward and all around all the way in. We were a bubble fighting toward a smaller bubble in the hopes we could hold out till help arrived. We were fighting every single inhabitant of that area and they could switch off to rest and eat get medical attention they had supplies and fighters in reserve.

Those men are what I see when anyone uses the term warrior, I was among them right there in the dirt,dust,blood, dead bodies the constant incoming fire, constantly scooping up live grenades and throwing them away from us before they could detonate. The air was so thick with the smoke from weapons fire and RPG smoke trails it was an acrid smog. Those men are warriors in my mind, the examples you put forth as I stated Brave men yes, but not on the same level sorry.

I will NEVER try to be on the same level, or say that we are. I can only hope and prepare that IF my time comes to face my mortality, I will do so with honor and courage.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So, I am not a warrior because I was never a military person, fought in a war and killed people? Whats with all the labels. I am a warrior, never shot at or killed anyone. Sounds to me like you are describing heroes. Everyone of you that have done the things that you have done much like my father did in Nam are heroes. As I said I am a warrior, as are many, we have just never had the situation present itself in our lives for that to be shown.

Thanks to all of you heroes and the warrior spirit that is within a lot of us.

 

[ProLibertate]

You see it depends on perspective and background to understand each mans definition of what a warrior is. I saw men fire M4's until the gas tubes melted, men burning there hands through the barrel gloves swapping M60 barrels, I saw men continue to fight with bad injuries. I saw enemy men and women cut to pieces by M60's and M249's still holding weapons and firing rounds to their last breath. What of the two men that roped down to the crash of Super Six Four knowing full well that it would take a miracle for, we the ground force fighting our way to them,to arrive before they ran out of ammo?
No sleep, no rest, no food, a single quart of water the rest was all ammo is what had. Yet we fought forward and all around all the way in.

I find it interesting that you saw M4's melting in Mogadishu since there were no M4's in service in 1993. As a matter of fact, they weren't introduced into service until 1997 when they replaced the M727 and M733 variants of the Colt Commando.

I also find it interesting that almost every one of your posts on this site involve you recalling the horrors of your wartime experiences as though you are the only combat veteran on this site.
There were US engagements before Somalia and many since as well, yet you seam to be under the impression that your bravado is somehow inspiring to others. It isn't. You're not impressing anyone- as a matter of fact the contrary is closer to the truth.
I am aware that this post may indeed earn me a 'violation', but your arrogant hot air word vomit of self worship is growing tiresome to read.

 

[Que]

Let's stay away from the personal insults, guys.

 

[grizman]

I find it interesting that you saw M4's melting in Mogadishu since there were no M4's in service in 1993. As a matter of fact, they weren't introduced into service until 1997 when they replaced the M727 and M733 variants of the Colt Commando.

I also find it interesting that almost every one of your posts on this site involve you recalling the horrors of your wartime experiences as though you are the only combat veteran on this site.
There were US engagements before Somalia and many since as well, yet you seam to be under the impression that your bravado is somehow inspiring to others. It isn't. You're not impressing anyone- as a matter of fact the contrary is closer to the truth.
I am aware that this post may indeed earn me a 'violation', but your arrogant hot air word vomit of self worship is growing tiresome to read.

OMG, I used M4 as a generic term for a shortened M16 to make it easier for most to understand. How many here know what a Colt 933 Commando or an XM177E1 is? Few I bet.
As for the rest, simply childish and shameful!

 

[public servant]

I know I do not have to notify in Indy, but being an Ohioan, I did instinctively. The officer calmly rephrased what I had just said "So, you have a license and a loaded weapon on you?". I agreed that I did in fact. Then he says "I want you to take it out of the holster and hand it to me butt first"..... Ok, I don't know about you guys (and girls) but I'm not about to reach for my gun when there is a cop at my car door. I said "I would rather step out of the vehicle and let you disarm me, I'm not comfortable reaching for it". He then steps back, grabs his weapon (causing traffic in both directions to come to a screeching halt) and said "I've got you covered, take the gun out of the holster and hand it to me".... I about fell out! I'm sure I turned white. I agreed that I would do so, and damn near dropped it pulling it out of my holster. The people in the stopped cars were just terrified. So, he takes my pistol and goes back to his car and writes me a speeding ticket and as he is walking back from his car to me, he has my ticket in one hand and my pistol in the other. The stopped traffic all started backing up thinking he was going to shoot me. And they completely flipped when he handed it to me. I seriously thought things were about to go really really bad. Came home, changed shorts, hired an upholsterer to fix the hole in the seat of the car.

Please post the name of the officer involved.

Thanks.

 

[grizman]

Public Servant, the OP posted a while back his lawyer told him to stay off this post or something to that effect. Doubt he will answer.

 

[grizman]

So, I am not a warrior because I was never a military person, fought in a war and killed people? Whats with all the labels. I am a warrior, never shot at or killed anyone. Sounds to me like you are describing heroes. Everyone of you that have done the things that you have done much like my father did in Nam are heroes. As I said I am a warrior, as are many, we have just never had the situation present itself in our lives for that to be shown.

Thanks to all of you heroes and the warrior spirit that is within a lot of us.

That is what I don't get when I see posts like the one after yours. Anyone ever see me call myself a warrior or a hero? Anything other than a soldier who did his duty? I don't feel I do it in away to come off like I am thumping my chest for personal glory, to show where I am coming from with a point or why I see certain thing certain ways yeah.
I meant no insult in my response to Denny, but it is how I feel about the use of the term Warrior. To each his own though no hard feelings either.