ISP Supt. Carter

[chipbennett]

Doing the best I can to transcribe from the recording:

Reporter: "The legislature didn't pass legislation that... you're exempt from it anymore. [Ed: Kind of indistinguishable - seems to be a reference to permitless carry?] Do you think that's going to escalate crime in our state, and maybe attacks on law enforcement officers?"

Carter: "Well, you know the attacks on law enforcement officers, uhm, we've experienced two of them in two weeks. And that's, um, what we signed on to do. Um, so that, that is, uh, something I just can't get my arms around. I just cannot get my arms around, with people like Seara and Noah. I just cannot get my arms around that. In regards to the guns, my position's pretty clear. And my position remains, that this was not going to cause law enforcement officers to be killed, but it was going to add a level of danger to us. And anybody who disputes that is simply being disingenuous. So, we don't know. The future is going to be able to, uh... the future will tell us. Uhm. But we have limitations now with what we can do with individuals that, that, have uh, have pistols."

 

[Destro]

Somewhat off topic but I noticed from this picture he appeared to be in a soft armor type over carrier. Why are cops wearing armor that can’t stop a common 7.62x39 or 5.56 round ? Looks to be wearing soft armor like I see almost all cops wearing.

Real level 3+ or level 4 plates can be had for a low cost with little in the way of weight compared to a 3a panels

1500ish a set and only 1.5 pounds per plate
No reason cops should be wearing anything that can’t stop a common threat profile.

Two Highcom 3S15M UltraLight Multi Curve Level 3+ Plates (1.49lbs+) | Apex Armor Solutions

New Lower Pricing For 2023! Get 6 Months Interest Free Financing With PayPal Pay Later.Click Here To Learn More. *10x12 Shooters Cut In Stock, see below for individual lead times*DESCRIPTION:The Highcom 3S15M is an ultra lightweight and high performing standalone plate constructed of the highest...

www.apexarmorsolutions.com

It is a good question.

There are hundreds, probably thousands of officers in small towns like Elwood wearing expired and/or improperly sized SOFT armor as it is across Indiana. There is a department that has 1 vest they provide for officers to wear on their shift. If your 100 pounds or 400 pounds....you want to wear a vest? Buy your own or wear that one. A tall order for someone making $30,000 a year...maybe less. $1500 is a fortune to communities that wont spend $600. Nobody cares....

Those plates wouldn't have saved Noah. Maybe it could save another officer. Even at 3 pounds for the pair, that is a lot of additional bulk to carry. SAPI plates don't cover like soft armor either so your going to still need to wear both.

 

[Denny347]

Yep. The only change is they dont have a quick and easy way to arrest somebody for carrying a gun without a pink permission slip. Now they have to actually work at finding out whether that person shouldnt be allowed.

Work harder but without extending the stop to do it. Sometimes that's not an issue, sometimes it is.

 

[chipbennett]

Yep. The only change is they dont have a quick and easy way to arrest somebody for carrying a gun without a pink permission slip. Now they have to actually work at finding out whether that person shouldnt be allowed.

In the first incident, the attacker was a prohibited person, still prohibited from carrying a firearm under current Indiana statutes. (There is zero evidence that the prior LTCH requirement would have prevented said, convicted felon from carrying a firearm.)

In the second incident, the attacker used a rifle, which would not have been subject to the prior LTCH ("H" standing for Handgun) requirement.

So, Carter's statements are specious and idiotic.

 

[Destro]

Yep. The only change is they dont have a quick and easy way to arrest somebody for carrying a gun without a pink permission slip. Now they have to actually work at finding out whether that person shouldnt be allowed.

It wasn't really quick and easy for a sole charge though. It was actually kind of difficult to find. It was usually tacked on with additional charges related to the initial encounter. If the police are finding a gun on you in Indiana, the encounter probably isn't related to carrying without a license.

 

[Cameramonkey]

It wasn't really quick and easy for a sole charge though. It was actually kind of difficult to find. It was usually tacked on with additional charges related to the initial encounter. If the police are finding a gun on you in Indiana, the encounter probably isn't related to carrying without a license.

Agreed. But this time last year they had the luxury of saying "while investigating x crime, we discovered he was carrying a handgun. When we searched the LTCH database we did not find him to have one, so therefore we can easily charge him with carrying without a license." Now they cant rely on that "cheat sheet." since lack of a LTCH is no longer an immediate legal issue. Now they have to do what the ISP would have done had the perp applied for a LTCH and determine if there is anything in their past that would prohibit them.

 

[chipbennett]

Agreed. But this time last year they had the luxury of saying "while investigating x crime, we discovered he was carrying a handgun. When we searched the LTCH database we did not find him to have one, so therefore we can easily charge him with carrying without a license."

Now, they have to respect due process, and charge as a prohibited person in possession, should they have evidence of prohibited possessor status.

Now they cant rely on that "cheat sheet." since lack of a LTCH is no longer an immediate legal issue.

Lack of LTCH on one's person was already no longer an immediate legal issue. I could be wrong, but I believe that mere failure to have an LTCH on one's person was also not grounds to extend the detention in order to search the LTCH database?

Now they have to do what the ISP would have done had the perp applied for a LTCH and determine if there is anything in their past that would prohibit them.

Exactly. And I don't imagine it is too difficult to find evidence of someone already committing a crime being a prohibited possessor.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Now, they have to respect due process, and charge as a prohibited person in possession, should they have evidence of prohibited possessor status.


Lack of LTCH on one's person was already no longer an immediate legal issue. I could be wrong, but I believe that mere failure to have an LTCH on one's person was also not grounds to extend the detention in order to search the LTCH database?


Exactly. And I don't imagine it is too difficult to find evidence of someone already committing a crime being a prohibited possessor.

And I found out the hard way that at least several years ago, Westfield PD didnt have an electronic tie in to the LTCH database. They had to have dispatch call the ISP on the phone and hope they picked up to verify the status of a LTCH. I had mine on me, but the dip wanted to go fishing for some reason. (He ended up cutting me loose (rightfully) because ISP wouldnt call them back)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The only thing that has changed is that the police have one fewer lever over racial minorities and the cop brass are big mad about it.


Let's work to take the money away from the cops and they will snap into line. There must be consequences for ISP for daring to make statements like this. Simply outrageous. Hit them hard and fast and take their gas.

 

[ECS686]

The only thing that has changed is that the police have one fewer lever over racial minorities and the cop brass are big mad about it.


Let's work to take the money away from the cops and they will snap into line. There must be consequences for ISP for daring to make statements like this. Simply outrageous. Hit them hard and fast and take their gas.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe this is the same Superintendent that refuses to allow ISP to do any kind of PIT maneuvers when it’s warranted as well. He’s a Paper Tiger

Also loved how the schmuck crude that constitutional carry prohibits police from finding criminals.

Funny Vermont had it for decades yet found criminals and there wasn’t blood everywhere.

The whole Carrying a Handgun without a permit was a stack on charge anyway totally a waste for everyone except the Cartman Cop types!