LEO Enounter

[BugI02]

The only thing missing (I hope!) is payoffs by unscrupulous competitors to ensure a 'less rigorous', shall we say, inspection regimen for their vehicles/drivers. That situation is ripe for corruption

 

[IndyDave1776]

The only thing missing (I hope!) is payoffs by unscrupulous competitors to ensure a 'less rigorous', shall we say, inspection regimen for their vehicles/drivers. That situation is ripe for corruption

Actually, it works just the opposite way. The JB Hunts, Werners, Schneiders, Cretes, Mavericks, et alia, lobby for the most asinine regulations they can get because they can afford in-house compliance departments, where my brothers and I can't, and have a leg up when they are the ones inventing much of the crap. This is compounded by the game of hopscotch were something is prohibited right now, later required, and after that optional, wash, rinse, and repeat. Crossing chains on coils loaded with the eye running fore and aft (loaded 'shotgun' in truckerspeak) is a good example of a procedure that switched from prohibited to mandatory, and then (to the best of my knowledge) optional at my discretion. Further, they can afford to replace their equipment every few years, where we can't. Their business model allows for operating with chimpanzees out of driving school who aren't really truck drivers, but follow orders and have memorized procedures, even though they can't f**king drive, but can stay 'perfectly legal' in a system where errors and omissions are equally dangerous legally with willful illegal activity. I would not be surprised if some favorable treatment is purchased, but I am not specifically aware of it.

 

[MohawkSlim]

I had almost the exact same encounter two years ago in Cincinnati, OH. Did a write-up on it on the OFCC (Ohio's attempt at INGO) forum here - Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums ? View topic - University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati PD

I have no issue with Johnny Law momentarily stopping someone carrying a huge rucksack and saying hello. They absolutely should initiate a stop and exchange general pleasantries to make sure the person is legitimately out exercising or simply minding their damn business and leaving everyone else alone. I take issue, however, with the whole "papers, please" as there's no PC for a crime and that's the only time they should be running someone. It's pretty obvious to see the difference between someone rucking for training (#PTBeltsSaveLives) and someone who's trying to be all inconspicuous carrying or trying to hide a big bag. (Sweat, moving with purpose, waving to people, etc.)

This really is one of those Monday Morning QB type deals. It's not illegal but it scares people. Whenever I'm out rucking (or even jogging) I wave at everyone, especially the cops. I try to ruck frequently enough (and post it on INGO and facebook) that local PD/Sheriff will know I'm out there. Like OCing a firearm, we need to do this stuff so often it becomes common. But, this is 2015 so "see something, say something."

 

[Bill B]

As I was asked specifically by someone, via pm, to chime in I will.
In this instance Barney and the keystone crew were called on a specific complaint. I do not find it unreasonable for them, despite my total lack of respect for this particular pd, to ask for an ID. Assuming of course that the 911 caller isn't friends with a detective and wants to file a false complaint and the detective swears out a false warrant three weeks down the road.
As others have said, even though the person is doing nothing illegal being the grey man helps. Ditch the cammies and black balaclava, wear sweats or hiking pants and some brightly colored skiing attire on your head.

 

[historian]

I would say his rights were twice violated.
1. They did not keep his wallet.
2. There were sidewalks present and he was not curbstomped.

These officers should be reported immediately!

 

[Stang51d]

I think I'm reading this right. Assuming this is in IN, someone called and bssically states that someone was walking down the street doing something that is legal. An officer is called out and sees that not only is he not performing that legal act, but actually carrying a stick.

So now it's just a guy with a bag and a stick. And he (the low) thought that was enough to detain, question, search, and run the guys info. and after 10min or so of his life that he will never get back. Along with making a scene, he gets to go on his way while feeling good about it because he didn't get tazed, arrested, his a$$ kicked, shot, or all the above.

Pretty much it in a nut shell right?

 

[phylodog]

I think I'm reading this right. Assuming this is in IN, someone called and bssically states that someone was walking down the street doing something that is legal. An officer is called out and sees that not only is he not performing that legal act, but actually carrying a stick.

So now it's just a guy with a bag and a stick. And he (the low) thought that was enough to detain, question, search, and run the guys info. and after 10min or so of his life that he will never get back. Along with making a scene, he gets to go on his way while feeling good about it because he didn't get tazed, arrested, his a$$ kicked, shot, or all the above.

Pretty much it in a nut shell right?

Oh yeah, you definitely nailed it.

 

[Bill B]

I think I'm reading this right. Assuming this is in IN, someone called and bssically states that someone was walking down the street doing something that is legal. An officer is called out and sees that not only is he not performing that legal act, but actually carrying a stick.

So now it's just a guy with a bag and a stick. And he (the low) thought that was enough to detain, question, search, and run the guys info. and after 10min or so of his life that he will never get back. Along with making a scene, he gets to go on his way while feeling good about it because he didn't get tazed, arrested, his a$$ kicked, shot, or all the above.

Pretty much it in a nut shell right?

No, considering the "town" he was in he now has to worry for weeks if some "detective" will swear out a false warrant.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

No, considering the "town" he was in he now has to worry for weeks if some "detective" will swear out a false warrant.

What town? And what false warrant?

 

[Dirtebiker]

I would say stopping people for the sole purpose of checking ID would be across the line. Asking for ID any time an officer has a legitimate reason for stopping someone is considered normal procedure and how many people with warrants are located.

What was the legitimate reason? It was obvious that he wasn't carrying a rifle.
and of course we all know even if he was, it's not illegal.

 

[phylodog]

What was the legitimate reason? It was obvious that he wasn't carrying a rifle.
and of course we all know even if he was, it's not illegal.

It was a call for service. When people call the police with a concern they expect to have it addressed. The fact that he didn't have a rifle in his hand when the officer arrived doesn't mean he didn't have one when the caller called. A call for service is a legitimate reason for an officer to investigate. Some people go through their daily lives searching for reasons to get their feelings hurt or be pissed off, some don't.

 

[Lld]

I think I would of done the same thing that this young man did and let the police do there job.

 

[Dirtebiker]

It was a call for service. When people call the police with a concern they expect to have it addressed. The fact that he didn't have a rifle in his hand when the officer arrived doesn't mean he didn't have one when the caller called. A call for service is a legitimate reason for an officer to investigate. Some people go through their daily lives searching for reasons to get their feelings hurt or be pissed off, some don't.

I understand driving by and having a look, I just don't think there was any nessesity to stop him, ecspecially with four or five officers.
And again, nothing illegal about carrying a rifle (yet!). Strange, maybe. Illegal, no!

So, any request a citizen makes merits several officers checking it out?

I'm not really the "some people" you mention. Just playing devils advocate.

 

[Doug]

If I'm out walking after dark and a LEO wants to check my ID, fine.
I'd rather explain what I'm doing than have the neighborhood cased by a burglar who didn't get stopped.

 

[phylodog]

Driving by and having a look doesn't necessarily cut it.

A call reporting a man walking down the street with a rifle is going to result in more than on officer starting that way (assuming officers are available). Should it turn out to be legitimate and someone with a plan to use it the help may come in handy. You are absolutely correct that it is not illegal to walk down the street carrying a rifle and you are also correct that it is unusual. We regularly get called to investigate unusual happenings and it is not uncommon for them to result in arrests.

Yes, if a citizen calls for the police they will respond. We aren't in the business of saying no.

 

[Wild Deuce]

*

 

[Dirtebiker]

Yes, if a citizen calls for the police they will USUALLY respond.

Fixed.

 

[phylodog]

Okay

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Frank_N_Stein ... clear your inbox. I have something for you.

 

[Bill B]

What town? And what false warrant?

It's an old, sordid tale of small town "justice." But they paid up in the end
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2024-saint-john-indiana-not-gun-friendly.html