GUN BUYBACK!!!

[foszoe]

Stop with the name-calling. This will be the only warning.

Didn't Realize churchmouse was a name. Apologies to you and I will apologize to him.

 

[foszoe]

Really......man that hurts so bad I will be sucking my thumb in the dark sobbing all night. Wow....
If you knew me (and you do not) you would not go with the names and childish remarks. I could really care less what you feel "Fits" Do not let the handle influence you as to who I am

I didn't think of churchmouse as your name but as a handle as you referred to it, and I didn't think changing it was pointing to something I thought you had as a personality trait. That's why I added the phrase, "at least in this one instance". The moderator and you both seemed to have left that sentence out so I know my post is not being understood the way I intended it. Some folks use their name as handles and I wouldn't poke fun at a person's name so I sincerely apologize for calling you a "name" but it was only once not "names". I also regret the opening phrase because I intended it to be taken more humorously than it was. I was actually hoping to see a response to the latter half of the post but the first line seems to have been taken in a much more negative light than I intended it.

I realize I don't know you, never said I did, and that cuts both ways, and I wasn't asking if you cared. Nor would I think your handle indicates anything about you. What elicited my response was solely your posts in THIS thread. I have read several of your other posts and agreed with many of your viewpoints. I even agreed with you on the fact that "something would happen". However, I disagree with your conclusions. Until we hear more information and the resolution of the matter, we can't say it was "good" or "bad". It was that judgement that I think is premature. You said earlier you pick your battles and this wasn't one of them, fine I agree with that too, but because it wasn't yours doesn't necessarily mean that it was a "bad" one for someone else. I think it would have been much better if there could have been an organized "alternative" buyback station, but if an individual chooses to exercise their rights then its ok. I couldn't help but thinking that from the american revolution to tiananmen square, it is individuals making a stand against tyranny that makes differences. Many of them don't become famous but they provide the spark for famous changes.

For example, I usually CC instead of OC. One reason is that I don't want the hassle if approached by an LEO while CCing. That said, I am not going to tell someone else not to exercise their OC rights because I think its a bad idea personally. I believe them to be intelligent enough to have thoughtfully chosen to OC and to have accepted any consequences that could arise as a result. I apply the same reasoning here. If an individual chooses to provide an alternative across the street within his rights, I would believe this person to have already considered possible outcomes and not say that the given outcome was good or bad until avenues of recourse had been pursued.

It was and still is not the best idea. I am glad this young man came out OK. I will bet you a lunch that his affiliation with a law firm was a part of his timely release. Also the fact he broke no laws.
They allow panhandling on corners and do not site those folks. He had to trump up something to CHA and escape with any dignity.

For him, if he chose his actions and considered the alternatives, it may have been the best idea. Personally, once again, I think there would have been strength in numbers as a "best idea", but I don't think it was a "bad idea" which has been your judgement on the matter.

I suppose you were there....leading the fight for gun owner ship.....not there, figures. Neither was I and I live 20 minutes away.

Nope, I was at work. If there would have been an organized event by INGO members and I would have been off, I would have been there.
I never claimed to be a leader and like you I try to choose my battles wisely. I am more sheepish, but I do admire those who choose to do what I probably would not do but wish I was brave enough to do and when I read your posts they seemed to be putting down a behavior that I admire. Thats why I responded with the sheeply comment. I felt you were saying in multiple posts that we should just stand behind the line in this instance.

I avoid confrontational situations as I do not play well with idiots...period. When confronted by idiocy I respond in kind and that has never ended well for anyone involved. If you knew me (you do not) you would know that.

Enjoy.

This I agree with, but there usually comes a point where one does not back down. That point happens to be different for each individual, and perhaps the young man in question decided that this was a chance he was willing to take and a stand for which he was willing to accept the consequences.

Again you are right we don't know each other, so when/if I respond to you, remember that I am responding to what you POST, and not making any claim whatsoever that I KNOW you or anyone else whose posts to which I respond. If I knew you perhaps I would understand your POSTS in a different light. If you want to get to know each other, we could meet somewhere for a cup of coffee or something. Other than that I don't see how I will ever KNOW you or anyone else on here for that matter.

 

[Ted]

No arrest was made??? In what universe???

Well let's see........Seeing as he wasn't taken to jail, fingerprinted, mug shot, and arraigned (or given a summons to a date for arraignment)........this one.

I'm defining the act of arrest by the one accepted in the real world, not by what you think it is......along with the terms kidnapping and robbery.

 

[Jake46184]

It appears at least a few of you are starting to understand why what the kid did was wrong. For the rest of you.....when we talk about those who should not have guns, we're talking about you. Going to this event to purposely cause a confrontation with the police, which is exactly what the kid did, is immature and suggestive of an intellect we don't want in possession of a firearm. If you think what he did was proper, you are just as much a part of the problem as is he.

Also in this thread we see several examples of those who want to play former policeman, etc. It's easy to be who you want to be in the Internet. However, after a while, your true identity comes through in the posts you make. You're not fooling anyone......

 

[Rookie]

Once again, who is we? This isn't officer.com

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

It appears at least a few of you are starting to understand why what the kid did was wrong. For the rest of you.....when we talk about those who should not have guns, we're talking about you. Going to this event to purposely cause a confrontation with the police, which is exactly what the kid did, is immature and suggestive of an intellect we don't want in possession of a firearm. If you think what he did was proper, you are just as much a part of the problem as is he.

Also in this thread we see several examples of those who want to play former policeman, etc. It's easy to be who you want to be in the Internet. However, after a while, your true identity comes through in the posts you make. You're not fooling anyone......

How would you have handled this one, Jake?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Indianapolis: Gun buyback on School Property (where it's a felony to have a gun)

I posted a link to our thread, Welcome NC folks!

 

[mbills2223]

It appears at least a few of you are starting to understand why what the kid did was wrong. For the rest of you.....when we talk about those who should not have guns, we're talking about you. Going to this event to purposely cause a confrontation with the police, which is exactly what the kid did, is immature and suggestive of an intellect we don't want in possession of a firearm. If you think what he did was proper, you are just as much a part of the problem as is he.

Also in this thread we see several examples of those who want to play former policeman, etc. It's easy to be who you want to be in the Internet. However, after a while, your true identity comes through in the posts you make. You're not fooling anyone......

You continually refer to yourself in the collective, but it is painfully obvious that you stand in the minority. You continually refer to him as a kid to continue to insult him because he is younger than you. You continue to insinuate that anyone who doesn't agree with you should not own a gun. He did NOT go this event to cause a confrontation. He went to buy guns. If he wanted to cause a confrontation, it would have been much more blatant.

I'm not sure I understand why you think that you have such a firm understanding of everything and that everyone who disagrees is incorrect, immature, and unintelligent, but it is completely outrageous. You seem to be struggling with the fact that he was well within his rights to be purchasing firearms near a gun 'buyback' or anywhere else he chooses because it is a legal practice under both the US and Indiana Constitutions. I suppose when an individual refuses an unwarranted search by an officer you jump up and point out that they are just looking for confrontation because they should have nothing to hide? I won't try to speak for everyone like you do, but I personally am tired of seeing you belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[jdmack79]

It appears at least a few of you are starting to understand why what the kid did was wrong. For the rest of you.....when we talk about those who should not have guns, we're talking about you. Going to this event to purposely cause a confrontation with the police, which is exactly what the kid did, is immature and suggestive of an intellect we don't want in possession of a firearm. If you think what he did was proper, you are just as much a part of the problem as is he.

Also in this thread we see several examples of those who want to play former policeman, etc. It's easy to be who you want to be in the Internet. However, after a while, your true identity comes through in the posts you make. You're not fooling anyone......

That is absolutely ridiculous. I didn't attend to confront the police, I attended to get some phenomenal deals from sellers who were unaware of the value of their guns. If exercising our rights is confrontational in your book, I truly hope you never have any type of interaction with the police.

 

[mbills2223]

That is absolutely ridiculous. I didn't attend to confront the police, I attended to get some phenomenal deals from sellers who were unaware of the value of their guns. If exercising our rights is confrontational in your book, I truly hope you never have any type of interaction with the police.

Tried to rep you for that but apparently I need to spread it around.

Can someone get him for me?

 

[Ted]

Well now that I've stirred the pot playing Devil's advocate for the police, I'm going to share some thoughts. Apply purple as applicable.

• Life isn't fair.
• Police officers are human and fallible, and occasionally corrupt.
• Its not a crime for police officers to make a mistake. Mistakes of fact, as well as mistakes of law.
• Sometimes telling the difference between mistakes and corruption, requires more than just a cursory review.
• Cops don't screw cops. But when cops screw cops, cops screw cops.
• There is no excuse for ignorance of the law.
• The world is largely run by lawyers, and before that, it was largely run by religion. Not much of a pragmatic change.
• Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but what are the qualifications again to be a police officer?
• Looking good is better than doing good.
• Justice and fairness are not synonymous.
• The courts aren't about finding the truth, despite insisting upon the truth when submitting testimony and other evidence.
• When you mess with the bull, often time you get the horn.
• Armchair quarterbacking or Monday morning quarterbacking is just that.
• Television and film isn't real life, despite what Hollywood insists.
• Common sense is uncommon practice.
• Sometimes what you see, isn't what is really happening.
• Perception is politics.
• Politics is perception.

There are many more, but these seem to fit the evolution of this thread.

I watched the detention of the JDMack79, from beginning to end. I've already stated that he didn't appear to have done anything wrong or illegal. However, I'm open minded enough to know that what I see, isn't always what is occurring.

If anybody want to know what really happened, the facts have to come out first. The only way that I am aware of this happening, is for the legal system to do its job. This is the only way that anything will change the next time someone wants to privately purchase a firearm; because if the police can do this, this time........they can keep you from doing it on INGO classifieds.

Many police officers have a God-complex, akin to many physicians, lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, and politicians. The reason being, is that they're enabled to do so. If you want to changed the mentality, changing their leadership is required. This isn't an easy task.

Of course, now we have the armchair quarterbacking, stating that he was arrested, kidnapped, and robbed. That may be a perception of a few, but it isn't what really happened. Overreacting doesn't help the cause of gun owners, so lets try to remain focused here.

For the sake of brevity, I won't go into a 3 page dissertation of my thoughts of what occurred and related to the above, but know this:
IMO, JDMack79's civil rights were violated, by mistake or by design. Such is apparent by his lack of arrest, as well as by the issued citation that didn't meet the elements of the offense.

Secondly, from a sensible standpoint, JDMack79's common sense wasn't firing on all cylinders as well......unless it was his point to be detained and/or arrested. From a legal standpoint he was absolutely correct, but could have exercised a bit more discretion to avoid this unfortunate situation.

End of rant.

 

[Dirtebiker]

It appears at least a few of you are starting to understand why what the kid did was wrong. For the rest of you.....when we talk about those who should not have guns, we're talking about you. Going to this event to purposely cause a confrontation with the police, which is exactly what the kid did, is immature and suggestive of an intellect we don't want in possession of a firearm. If you think what he did was proper, you are just as much a part of the problem as is he.

Also in this thread we see several examples of those who want to play former policeman, etc. It's easy to be who you want to be in the Internet. However, after a while, your true identity comes through in the posts you make. You're not fooling anyone......

I guess I'm "part of the problem"!!!!
He did NOTHING wrong! He was trying to make a perfectly LEGAL purchase albeit in an unusual way!
So, YOU think that people who believe that he did nothing wrong should not be allowed to own firearms? Please explain why I shouldn't and you should!
Why do you assume he went to confront the police? If I could legally purchase S+W revolvers for $60 each, I would deplete my savings account to do it!
Last, I doubt that anyone here cares whether you believe they are or were in law enforcement!




Please don't pretend to speak for other INGO members! Feel free to express your twisted logic but don't act as though you speak for anyone but yourself!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Indianapolis: Gun buyback on School Property (where it's a felony to have a gun)

I posted a link to our thread, Welcome NC folks!

It's not a felony if they have permission from the administration!

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Well let's see........Seeing as he wasn't taken to jail, fingerprinted, mug shot, and arraigned (or given a summons to a date for arraignment)........this one.

I'm defining the act of arrest by the one accepted in the real world, not by what you think it is......along with the terms kidnapping and robbery.

In the LEGAL world, when an individual is detained and is not free to leave, that person is under arrest. The fact that they have a change of heart and release the person without charges doesn't change that.

 

[Ted]

In the LEGAL world, when an individual is detained and is not free to leave, that person is under arrest. The fact that they have a change of heart and release the person without charges doesn't change that.

Yeah, I guess that Terry v. Ohio isn't real law.

He was cited on a ordinance violation, contrary to your statement.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Yeah, I guess that Terry v. Ohio isn't real law.

I don't know what your source of legal information is, but it's not the same one used by this country's legal profession or law enforcement establishment.

 

[BGDave]

Everyone here is on the same side. Believe it or not. But when this went from a no questions asked to name and number it became a set-up. You really don't want to interfere in the business of setting up people dumb enough to think it wasn't. For an education on the difference between rights and privileges see the George Carlin HBO special about the U.S. Japanese during WW2.

 

[femurphy77]

I tried to warn folks not to Pi$$ with the Po-Po but no, gotta go and get hand cuffed. Notg a good idea guys. It was a LEO show and not to be screwed with. You wonder what folks are thinking. Hope it is not serious.

Edit...so Jdmack 79 just had to get a deal on a questionable at best firearm from an unknown individual in plain view of the LEO.....Brilliant move.

Disagree with you on this one CM, this was all about intimidation, period. JD was stealing some of their thunder and they didn't like it. IF he was doing nothing illegal, impeding traffic, dealing stolen guns, spitting on the sidewalk, whatever then there was no need for action after the initial detective presumably verified his license.

He didn't respect their authoritah so they slapped his wrist. I hope he slaps back, hard! Happens fairly regularly with the respect mah authoritah crowd.

Not bashing, I know several good cops, unfortunately they rarely make the news.

 

[mbills2223]

Yeah, I guess that Terry v. Ohio isn't real law.

He was cited on a ordinance violation, contrary to your statement.

The problem with Terry V. Ohio is that it lets officers who are ignorant of the law get away with search and seizures in almost any situation. I'm not doubting the legal precedent, and I'm not saying that to take any side in this whole kidnapping argument, I just wanted to throw that out there.

It's unfortunate for everyone really...

 

[churchmouse]

Well now that I've stirred the pot playing Devil's advocate for the police, I'm going to share some thoughts. Apply purple as applicable.

• Life isn't fair.
• Police officers are human and fallible, and occasionally corrupt.
• Its not a crime for police officers to make a mistake. Mistakes of fact, as well as mistakes of law.
• Sometimes telling the difference between mistakes and corruption, requires more than just a cursory review.
• Cops don't screw cops. But when cops screw cops, cops screw cops.
• There is no excuse for ignorance of the law.
• The world is largely run by lawyers, and before that, it was largely run by religion. Not much of a pragmatic change.
• Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but what are the qualifications again to be a police officer?
• Looking good is better than doing good.
• Justice and fairness are not synonymous.
• The courts aren't about finding the truth, despite insisting upon the truth when submitting testimony and other evidence.
• When you mess with the bull, often time you get the horn.
• Armchair quarterbacking or Monday morning quarterbacking is just that.
• Television and film isn't real life, despite what Hollywood insists.
• Common sense is uncommon practice.
• Sometimes what you see, isn't what is really happening.
• Perception is politics.
• Politics is perception.

There are many more, but these seem to fit the evolution of this thread.

I watched the detention of the JDMack79, from beginning to end. I've already stated that he didn't appear to have done anything wrong or illegal. However, I'm open minded enough to know that what I see, isn't always what is occurring.

If anybody want to know what really happened, the facts have to come out first. The only way that I am aware of this happening, is for the legal system to do its job. This is the only way that anything will change the next time someone wants to privately purchase a firearm; because if the police can do this, this time........they can keep you from doing it on INGO classifieds.

Many police officers have a God-complex, akin to many physicians, lawyers, judges, bureaucrats, and politicians. The reason being, is that they're enabled to do so. If you want to changed the mentality, changing their leadership is required. This isn't an easy task.

Of course, now we have the armchair quarterbacking, stating that he was arrested, kidnapped, and robbed. That may be a perception of a few, but it isn't what really happened. Overreacting doesn't help the cause of gun owners, so lets try to remain focused here.

For the sake of brevity, I won't go into a 3 page dissertation of my thoughts of what occurred and related to the above, but know this:
IMO, JDMack79's civil rights were violated, by mistake or by design. Such is apparent by his lack of arrest, as well as by the issued citation that didn't meet the elements of the offense.

Secondly, from a sensible standpoint, JDMack79's common sense wasn't firing on all cylinders as well......unless it was his point to be detained and/or arrested. From a legal standpoint he was absolutely correct, but could have exercised a bit more discretion to avoid this unfortunate situation.

End of rant.

+1.............
I am nervous every time I do the clandestine exchange from a deal completed on the classifieds. Yes, you are right about the God reference and it comes with the territory. Once put into a power position it is easy to use it against those you disagree with. I wanted to be LEO when I was 18 and did take the test, was accepted and found early on I do not have the mentality for it so I moved on.
Yes, it seemed from his first post he was spoiling to make a point and jump in with youthful enthusiasm. I hope he has some re-course in this but you would know better than I as you saw the inevitable outcome.