My Fishers Incident February 2010

[Captain Bligh]

... I stopped at home took a quick shower and headed to Britton to say hello to some friends and was heading to my GF's to spend the night...

This is the part that I don't understand. When I buy a new gun, I take it home, fondle it briefly, and put it away before going back out (wearing just the one on my hip). You buy a gun, leave the new gun in the car under the back seat, go in the house, take a shower, and then go back out with the new gun still in its bag under the back seat?

 

[dsom2006]

This is the part that I don't understand. When I buy a new gun, I take it home, fondle it briefly, and put it away before going back out (wearing just the one on my hip). You buy a gun, leave the new gun in the car under the back seat, go in the house, take a shower, and then go back out with the new gun still in its bag under the back seat?

Because I was going to fondle it briefly Saturday night and on Sunday @ my GF's house. You people are all reading to much into this. Again i just stated what happened. Why do many of you have to try to pick the events apart and cast shadows where they don't belong. If you don't know don't speculate.

 

[Wabatuckian]

I think the thing that bothers me most is the fact that your initial report sounds like it was written by a 20-something mall ninja (no offense to you 20-something mall ninjas out there!)

I don't mean tone; writing skills vary widely.

What I mean to say is that you seem to list some very, very naive mistakes -- and you post this a year after it allegedly took place!

I am not seeing the point of the thread (to cop bash?) or where the officer did anything wrong.

Arguably, he shouldn't have taken your guns. He should have just hauled your ass in.

Here's how I read it from the cop's point-of-view:

First, you come from a bar and smell of alcohol, having had two beers. You are observed having firearms -- and no, the number doesn't matter -- and you state that you're going to go to your girlfriend's house. You didn't have to answer this question. However, you chose to, and the officer was good enough to try to at least check up on it.

When things started not looking good for you -- no answer at your girlfriend's, guns in the car, drinking -- the officer was suspicious. He could have -- and arguably should have -- arrested you on suspicion of mischief or another charge along those lines.

Every single thing you typed points to criminal intent of one sort or another, you know, the things police are trained to look for.

No, I'm not a cop. I had a major in law enforcement. Based on what I learned there, I would have detained you. I think that you've incriminated yourself to that point.

There must have been something that the officer saw which made him feel that if he pulled your teeth it would be a good enough compromise. What that was, I do not know.

The more I think about it:

1. Drunk, or potentially drunk, unverified but smelling of alcohol.

2. Firearms and ammunition in vehicle.

3. Statement that you're going to your girlfriend's house. Girlfriend doesn't answer. Called from your phone? If so, call block?

4. Asked if anyone on the department knew you. This was the officer looking for a character reference!

The officer felt something was hinky. From what you describe, it sounds very much like he was thinking along the lines of a drunk ex/stalker/domestic scenario going down if you proceeded.

Tonight, I had a Scotch, neat, before supper at a somewhat fancy restaurant. This is a custom of mine, and the neat Scotch was somewhat larger than usual (by about three times). I was carrying my 1911 and a spare magazine.

When I drink and carry, even if I'm not drunk (and I don't drink to drunkenness ever), I expect to be treated as if I were driving after drinking, that is, as an improper person to be doing either.

Even if I'm ultimately not over the legal limit, I will not be treated the same as someone who blows a 0.000.

I accept that.

If I want to drink and carry and have the chances of harassment be nil, then I must do it in the comfort of my home, or of a friend's.

You're not special in that you should be treated any differently.

As I said, your actions were stupid. Hell, my actions are stupid at times. Difference is, you happened to be pulled over and can't figure out why you were treated as you were.

Dude, it's about personal responsibility. You messed up, and you don't like the consequences, so you come and complain about it.

The cop did not violate your liberty; you voluntarily gave it up. That was stupid as well.

Suck it up, realize that you were under investigation for potential mischief, and quit whining. Instead, feel lucky that you didn't spend the night behind bars while they sorted things out.

By the way, you do not have to blow 0.08 BAC to be considered "impaired." There is leeway on that. BAC of 0.08 is MAXIMUM. If you've never drunk before, you're naturally going to be impaired by, say, two beers. You can be hauled in for that, if driving.

Josh

 

[rockhopper46038]

Didn't read the whole thread...I'm tired. Don't go to Britton Tavern. They don't even have decent beer.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Why do many of you have to try to pick the events apart and cast shadows where they don't belong. If you don't know don't speculate.

Because then it wouldn't be INGO.

 

[finity]

I think the thing that bothers me most is the fact that your initial report sounds like it was written by a 20-something mall ninja (no offense to you 20-something mall ninjas out there!)

I don't mean tone; writing skills vary widely.

What I mean to say is that you seem to list some very, very naive mistakes -- and you post this a year after it allegedly took place!

I am not seeing the point of the thread (to cop bash?) or where the officer did anything wrong.

Arguably, he shouldn't have taken your guns. He should have just hauled your ass in.

Here's how I read it from the cop's point-of-view:

First, you come from a bar and smell of alcohol, having had two beers. You are observed having firearms -- and no, the number doesn't matter -- and you state that you're going to go to your girlfriend's house. You didn't have to answer this question. However, you chose to, and the officer was good enough to try to at least check up on it.

When things started not looking good for you -- no answer at your girlfriend's, guns in the car, drinking -- the officer was suspicious. He could have -- and arguably should have -- arrested you on suspicion of mischief or another charge along those lines.

Every single thing you typed points to criminal intent of one sort or another, you know, the things police are trained to look for.

No, I'm not a cop. I had a major in law enforcement. Based on what I learned there, I would have detained you. I think that you've incriminated yourself to that point.

There must have been something that the officer saw which made him feel that if he pulled your teeth it would be a good enough compromise. What that was, I do not know.

The more I think about it:

1. Drunk, or potentially drunk, unverified but smelling of alcohol.

2. Firearms and ammunition in vehicle.

3. Statement that you're going to your girlfriend's house. Girlfriend doesn't answer. Called from your phone? If so, call block?

4. Asked if anyone on the department knew you. This was the officer looking for a character reference!

The officer felt something was hinky. From what you describe, it sounds very much like he was thinking along the lines of a drunk ex/stalker/domestic scenario going down if you proceeded.

Tonight, I had a Scotch, neat, before supper at a somewhat fancy restaurant. This is a custom of mine, and the neat Scotch was somewhat larger than usual (by about three times). I was carrying my 1911 and a spare magazine.

When I drink and carry, even if I'm not drunk (and I don't drink to drunkenness ever), I expect to be treated as if I were driving after drinking, that is, as an improper person to be doing either.

Even if I'm ultimately not over the legal limit, I will not be treated the same as someone who blows a 0.000.

I accept that.

If I want to drink and carry and have the chances of harassment be nil, then I must do it in the comfort of my home, or of a friend's.

You're not special in that you should be treated any differently.

As I said, your actions were stupid. Hell, my actions are stupid at times. Difference is, you happened to be pulled over and can't figure out why you were treated as you were.

Dude, it's about personal responsibility. You messed up, and you don't like the consequences, so you come and complain about it.

The cop did not violate your liberty; you voluntarily gave it up. That was stupid as well.

Suck it up, realize that you were under investigation for potential mischief, and quit whining. Instead, feel lucky that you didn't spend the night behind bars while they sorted things out.

By the way, you do not have to blow 0.08 BAC to be considered "impaired." There is leeway on that. BAC of 0.08 is MAXIMUM. If you've never drunk before, you're naturally going to be impaired by, say, two beers. You can be hauled in for that, if driving.

Josh

FAIL!!!


How was that, ATM? Short, sweet & to the point...

 

[dsom2006]

I think the thing that bothers me most is the fact that your initial report sounds like it was written by a 20-something mall ninja (no offense to you 20-something mall ninjas out there!)

I don't mean tone; writing skills vary widely.

What I mean to say is that you seem to list some very, very naive mistakes -- and you post this a year after it allegedly took place!

I am not seeing the point of the thread (to cop bash?) or where the officer did anything wrong.

Arguably, he shouldn't have taken your guns. He should have just hauled your ass in.

Here's how I read it from the cop's point-of-view:

First, you come from a bar and smell of alcohol, having had two beers. You are observed having firearms -- and no, the number doesn't matter -- and you state that you're going to go to your girlfriend's house. You didn't have to answer this question. However, you chose to, and the officer was good enough to try to at least check up on it.

When things started not looking good for you -- no answer at your girlfriend's, guns in the car, drinking -- the officer was suspicious. He could have -- and arguably should have -- arrested you on suspicion of mischief or another charge along those lines.

Every single thing you typed points to criminal intent of one sort or another, you know, the things police are trained to look for.

No, I'm not a cop. I had a major in law enforcement. Based on what I learned there, I would have detained you. I think that you've incriminated yourself to that point.

There must have been something that the officer saw which made him feel that if he pulled your teeth it would be a good enough compromise. What that was, I do not know.

The more I think about it:

1. Drunk, or potentially drunk, unverified but smelling of alcohol.

2. Firearms and ammunition in vehicle.

3. Statement that you're going to your girlfriend's house. Girlfriend doesn't answer. Called from your phone? If so, call block?

4. Asked if anyone on the department knew you. This was the officer looking for a character reference!

The officer felt something was hinky. From what you describe, it sounds very much like he was thinking along the lines of a drunk ex/stalker/domestic scenario going down if you proceeded.

Tonight, I had a Scotch, neat, before supper at a somewhat fancy restaurant. This is a custom of mine, and the neat Scotch was somewhat larger than usual (by about three times). I was carrying my 1911 and a spare magazine.

When I drink and carry, even if I'm not drunk (and I don't drink to drunkenness ever), I expect to be treated as if I were driving after drinking, that is, as an improper person to be doing either.

Even if I'm ultimately not over the legal limit, I will not be treated the same as someone who blows a 0.000.

I accept that.

If I want to drink and carry and have the chances of harassment be nil, then I must do it in the comfort of my home, or of a friend's.

You're not special in that you should be treated any differently.

As I said, your actions were stupid. Hell, my actions are stupid at times. Difference is, you happened to be pulled over and can't figure out why you were treated as you were.

Dude, it's about personal responsibility. You messed up, and you don't like the consequences, so you come and complain about it.

The cop did not violate your liberty; you voluntarily gave it up. That was stupid as well.

Suck it up, realize that you were under investigation for potential mischief, and quit whining. Instead, feel lucky that you didn't spend the night behind bars while they sorted things out.

By the way, you do not have to blow 0.08 BAC to be considered "impaired." There is leeway on that. BAC of 0.08 is MAXIMUM. If you've never drunk before, you're naturally going to be impaired by, say, two beers. You can be hauled in for that, if driving.

Josh

You're clueless and I'm done defending myself against your unknowledgable accusations.

 

[Wabatuckian]

<Shrug>.

You asked.

You asked for facts, not opinion.

My personal opinion is that the government needs to step back and let us all handle our own lives. That would be ideal.

Under the government's school of thought, yeah, you did some stupid *****.

Under my personal philosophy, I do not see that you did anything wrong.

That's what I see it boiling down to.

Josh

 

[Wabatuckian]

Were some posts deleted from the thread? There is a reference to ATM, but see no post...?

 

[finity]

Ok since you asked so “nicely” here is why you fail!:

I think the thing that bothers me most is the fact that your initial report sounds like it was written by a 20-something mall ninja (no offense to you 20-something mall ninjas out there!)

I don't mean tone; writing skills vary widely.

What I mean to say is that you seem to list some very, very naive mistakes -- and you post this a year after it allegedly took place!

*Opinion

I saw nothing in the OP that suggested that he made any naïve mistakes outside of so easily giving up his rights. I don’t agree that he should but I can see why he did & it’s his choice.

There’s NOTHING in the OP that would lead one to believe that he is some kind of “Mall ninja”.

Fail!

I am not seeing the point of the thread (to cop bash?)

*Opinion

No. It was to post an encounter that he had. Just like the half dozen other active threads here in which other people are doing the same thing.

Do you think those threads are just for cop bashing, as well? Or are you just deciding to pick on the OP for some reason?

I’m not seeing the point of this post of yours except to bash the OP.

Fail!

or where the officer did anything wrong.

All I can say here is wow.

Fail!

Arguably, he shouldn't have taken your guns. He should have just hauled your ass in.

Here's how I read it from the cop's point-of-view:

First, you come from a bar and smell of alcohol, having had two beers.

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

You are observed having firearms -- and no, the number doesn't matter –

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

and you state that you're going to go to your girlfriend's house.

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

You didn't have to answer this question. However, you chose to, and the officer was good enough to try to at least check up on it.

How in the heck is the officer calling his girlfriend in the middle of the night “to check up on it” possibly considered being “good”?

There was no reason for the officer to “check up on it” in the first place.

You’re right though. He shouldn’t have answered. Just like he shouldn’t have informed him he was carrying. Those are a couple of things I don’t necessarily think he should have done but even at that a simple “I’m going to my girlfriends house” to show what cops say they want – respect & cooperation (see where that gets you?) - is a fairly simple & benign comment.

However,

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

When things started not looking good for you -- no answer at your girlfriend's, guns in the car, drinking -- the officer was suspicious.

*opinion

None of that is illegal so how is it “not looking good” for him? The officer can be “suspicious” all he wants. That only allows him to MAYBE perform a cursory inspection of the outer clothing of the person to check for weapons (ala Terry) WHICH the OP already admitted to having (silly boy).

However,

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

He could have -- and arguably should have -- arrested you on suspicion of mischief or another charge along those lines.

*opinion

So looking at the IC on “criminal mischief” driving around with legal guns in his possession does not meet any of the elements of that crime.

IC 35-43-1-2
Criminal mischief; penalties
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the other person's consent; or
(2) knowingly or intentionally causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or by an expression of intention to injure another person or to damage the property or to impair the rights of another person;
commits criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor.

So can you show me anywhere in the OP that he said that he damaged or defaced anyone’s property or threatened to injure another person?

Besides the offense is just a misdemeanor so the officer would have to have witnessed the OP performing the act or have PC that the OP was going to do it in his presence to arrest him for it. The “suspicions” of the officer DO NOT rise to the level of PC so…

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

Every single thing you typed points to criminal intent of one sort or another, you know, the things police are trained to look for.[/quote]

*opinion

BS.

No it doesn’t.

Driving around with legally owned & carried guns after drinking a couple of beers is NOT evidence of criminal intent. If so I guess I’ve been guilty of criminal intent on a few occasions.

Can you show ANY evidence by either the IC or case law to support that statement?

You can’t just make crap up & arrest somebody for it. There has to be PC of a crime before an arrest can be made. There are these things called standards of evidence. They are well defined in the CJ system. Since you have a background in law you should know that.



Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

No, I'm not a cop.

Good thing.

I had a major in law enforcement. Based on what I learned there, I would have detained you. I think that you've incriminated yourself to that point.

*opinion

NO FREAKIN’ WAY!

What law EXACTLY would you have charged him with to support an arrest? Specifically? Since you have a major in LE that should be easy.

Remember, you have to use ONLY the information that you say the OP gave that “incriminated” himself. You can’t IMPLY anything. There has to be PC of a crime to arrest someone. You know that “probable” means “more likely than not”, right? What evidence do you have that ANY crime was committed AT ALL?

MAJOR Fail!

There must have been something that the officer saw which made him feel that if he pulled your teeth it would be a good enough compromise. What that was, I do not know.

*opinion

Exactly. You’re just making **** up & have been since the beginning of this thread.

Where was this so-called “compromise”?

Tell me, without the consent of the OP was there any LEGAL (as in REAL) justification for the cop to confiscate the OP’s guns?

Nope. The OP gave them up. If he would have said “no” then the cop could have done nothing except give him the ticket for the original traffic stop & sent the OP on his way to his GF’s house with all 3 of his legally owned guns.

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

The more I think about it:

1. Drunk, or potentially drunk, unverified but smelling of alcohol.

Not drunk. At least not that the cop thought or they wouldn’t have let him go.

No evidence to support that claim at all.

Fail!

2. Firearms and ammunition in vehicle.

Not illegal

Fail!

3. Statement that you're going to your girlfriend's house. Girlfriend doesn't answer. Called from your phone? If so, call block?

Not illegal

Fail!

4. Asked if anyone on the department knew you. This was the officer looking for a character reference!

Nobody at the Auburn PD knows me by name either, so what?

Not illegal.

Fail!

The officer felt something was hinky. From what you describe, it sounds very much like he was thinking along the lines of a drunk ex/stalker/domestic scenario going down if you proceeded.

*opinion

So…if the cop had those suspicions (which again is not the same as PC) then he thought just letting him go without the guns he had on him was OK? Did he not think that he MIGHT have more at home that he could go get & continue on with his nefarious plan?

Come on. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in this whole thread.

Why didn’t he just arrest the OP then? Oh that’s right, he didn’t have any PC. Just like he didn’t have PC to take his guns from him. Which is why he ASKED in the first place.

Fail!

Tonight, I had a Scotch, neat, before supper at a somewhat fancy restaurant. This is a custom of mine, and the neat Scotch was somewhat larger than usual (by about three times). I was carrying my 1911 and a spare magazine.

When I drink and carry, even if I'm not drunk (and I don't drink to drunkenness ever), I expect to be treated as if I were driving after drinking, that is, as an improper person to be doing either.

Even if I'm ultimately not over the legal limit, I will not be treated the same as someone who blows a 0.000.

*opinion

I guess the cops can “treat” the OP however they wanted (within the confines of the Constitution) UNTIL they found no evidence of any crime being committed then he has to be treated EXACTLY like anybody else that blew a 0.000.

Fail!

If I want to drink and carry and have the chances of harassment be nil, then I must do it in the comfort of my home, or of a friend's.

You're not special in that you should be treated any differently.

As I said, your actions were stupid. Hell, my actions are stupid at times. Difference is, you happened to be pulled over and can't figure out why you were treated as you were.

Dude, it's about personal responsibility. You messed up, and you don't like the consequences, so you come and complain about it.

*opinion

The OP didn’t do ANYTHING ILLEGAL. How could he have “messed up”? Because you want the cops to be right?

Fail!
Fail!
Fail!

The cop did not violate your liberty; you voluntarily gave it up. That was stupid as well.

The OP already said he felt he really didn’t have a choice but to go along with what the cop asked out of fear of the repercussions.

The whole idea of voluntarily giving up rights is just asinine.

The courts made that up completely.

Can you tell me how I can voluntarily give up my rights when they are “unalienable”?

I’m sure you’ve heard this phrase somewhere in your LE courses:

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

What the heck does that word even mean? Here let me help you:

un·al·ien·a·ble(n-ly-n-bl, -l--)
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

So according to common usage it means that I can’t even GIVE AWAY an unalienable right.

The cops shouldn’t even be able to ask if they are truly following our founding documents or is that “swear to uphold & defend” just a bunch of lip-service.

Fail!

Suck it up, realize that you were under investigation for potential mischief, and quit whining.

*opinion

You keep using that term but I don’t think you have any idea what it means.

Can you explain to me using the OP how what he did falls under the IC for “criminal mischief”?

When you add the word “potential” on to it, it doesn’t mean the standard of evidence is any less.

Fail!

Instead, feel lucky that you didn't spend the night behind bars while they sorted things out.

*opinion

FOR WHAT?!?!?!

Fail!

By the way, you do not have to blow 0.08 BAC to be considered "impaired." There is leeway on that. BAC of 0.08 is MAXIMUM. If you've never drunk before, you're naturally going to be impaired by, say, two beers. You can be hauled in for that, if driving.

Josh

Finally something I agree with.

However, they never did a FST so I guess they didn’t think he was “impaired” & they sent him on his way MINUS SOME OF HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY.

<Shrug>.

You asked.

You asked for facts, not opinion.

My personal opinion is that the government needs to step back and let us all handle our own lives. That would be ideal.

Under the government's school of thought, yeah, you did some stupid *****.

Under my personal philosophy, I do not see that you did anything wrong.

That's what I see it boiling down to.

Josh

There are very few FACTS in the above post. I have annotated it to show opinion as opposed to fact. You can see that the *opinion WAY outweighs the facts.

Were some posts deleted from the thread? There is a reference to ATM, but see no post...?

Nope.

Just a little joke based on an IM.



I promised you it would be long in my reply to you in IM

Sorry ATM I tried to keep it short but he wouldn’t let me.

BTW, I know you told me in PM that you don't really agree with what you said above but that's not the way you stated it.

YOU said

He should have just hauled your ass in.

That's not "maybe he was thinking" or anything of that nature. That is your belief. Own it. Don't try to waffle out or backpeddle now.

 

[jffyg]

I dont know what to say about the incident, it sounds weird. The only thing that I know is that generally if I am going to be drinking I leave the gun at home, and try not to drive. I know he only had a couple of beers but still, its just not worth it to me. I will just wait and have a beer at home, plus its such a rip off drinking at the bars. They want like $7 for decent scotch....the police should be going after the bars for robbery!....all kidding aside it was weird incident, dont know what to make of it.

 

[Wabatuckian]

OK, I'll keep it short.

The whole post was a speculation on what the officer was thinking. It's what I would have been thinking.

What I am saying, and maybe you're not getting it, is that the officer may have half-assed it. He had suspicions but nothing solid and didn't want to commit himself to an arrest which may have been unconstitutional.

There is so much political crap that goes on in the police departments of this nation that many times cops are stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place.

The OP empowered the officer to do what he did, so he did it, seeing a way out from between that rock and hard place.

This, above all else, was the stupid part. While most of what I wrote was speculation, that is fact. He forfeited his rights voluntarily when asked! If that's not stupid, what is?

The other three facts that I'll present are these: First, there is a lot of cop bashing that goes on here. Frankly, it makes me a bit sick. Most of these people are doing the best they can to make a living and very few abuse their powers. The good ones need to be recognized and backed.

It was fact that the incident took place a year ago, and that would suggest either a) a trial that can just now be talked about (and this was not indicated) or b) an attempt to start cop bashing again. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was just a conversation starter. But we both know where this topic inevitably leads.

The third and final fact is that I'm a Constitutionalist. I do not believe the government can, should, or does, have any power not granted by the State and Federal constitutions. However, I am also a realist. I know what should happen is rarely the same as what does happen, and I expect any level headed person to know this.

In this society of governmental excesses and abuses, one must expect hassle if he is leaving a bar, has been drinking, etc; possession of firearms merely complicate the matter further. Is it right? NO. Is it what I agree with? HELL NO. Is it reality? Unfortunately, yes. You drink and drive, you will be hassled. You drink and carry, you will be hassled. Hell, you carry more than one gun, chances are you will be hassled if the cop is not gun-savvy. If you're packing two and he's only packing one, feelings of, *ahem*, inadequacy, arise.

I've done all of these. I've not been hassled for all, or even one, of them. I've been stopped, and I've informed. I've been stopped, and I've not informed. I've been asked, and I've informed.

First incident resulted in getting the gun unloaded. I didn't appreciate that, so I stopped informing back when I was young enough to get pulled over (lesson learned, right?).

Many incidents where I was pulled over or in wrecks (none my fault) where I was carrying. No informing there.

When I finally did get asked, I said, "Yessir, it's on my left hand side behind my hip." He asked if I had a license to carry (NOT CCW -- good on the officer). I told him "of course".

He didn't bother to take my gun, ran both my licenses, and asked me to slow down.

We then had a nice, long talk about firearms. Very pleasant, and surprising for such a young officer.

Had I been drinking, I don't expect things would have gone quite as well.

From there on out, I had several similar incidents. In all cases they just told me to leave the pistol where it was at.

The agencies involved in these stops were IMPD, ISP, VPD, VUPD, WPD, WCSD, and a few others. Metro is foremost in my mind because, from reading on this board, they are not gun friendly. I was somewhat nervous, and my thoughts ran along the lines of, "Oh boy, here we go." Nothing came of it.

I chalk the lack of melodrama up to this: I treated the officer(s) with respect due to any official business contact. I tend to dress nicely. I don't overdress, but I do not wear holes in clothing unless I'm doing work, like on my car, in which case it's evident that I'm in my old clothes for that reason. I don't drink to excess or drive until it's worn off. If I have been drinking, I still stay cool, calm, and confident, use the "yessirs" in the right places, etc.

In other words, I've modeled my behavior to deal professionally with any official police contact I might have.

I'm also not afraid to say "hello" when I run down to get donuts or coffee or whatever. I talk to cops like they're <gasp> human beings. Most seem to be taken aback at first, then they chill out and enjoy the banter.

Cops really get a bad rap because people, and especially those people who choose to take our lives in our own hands, are the independent types and do not like authority. Police represent authority, and it's way too easy to look past an officer's humanity.

I will defend your right to say what you will, but I will also defend police to the death, always giving them the benefits of doubt in a very hard, often thankless profession where many times the only story told is by the private citizen who was investigated.

Josh

 

[public servant]

OK, I'll keep it short...

Somewhere around line 12...you forgot about line 1...didn't you?

To the OP...please post the names of the officers involved.

Thanks.

 

[zecho]

sorry, wrong thread...

 

[Wabatuckian]

Somewhere around line 12...you forgot about line 1...didn't you?

To the OP...please post the names of the officers involved.

Thanks.

That... that was short, Mister Ociffer!

 

[dsom2006]

Ok since you asked so “nicely” here is why you fail!:



*Opinion

I saw nothing in the OP that suggested that he made any naïve mistakes outside of so easily giving up his rights. I don’t agree that he should but I can see why he did & it’s his choice.

There’s NOTHING in the OP that would lead one to believe that he is some kind of “Mall ninja”.

Fail!



*Opinion

No. It was to post an encounter that he had. Just like the half dozen other active threads here in which other people are doing the same thing.

Do you think those threads are just for cop bashing, as well? Or are you just deciding to pick on the OP for some reason?

I’m not seeing the point of this post of yours except to bash the OP.

Fail!



All I can say here is wow.

Fail!



Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!




Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!




Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!




How in the heck is the officer calling his girlfriend in the middle of the night “to check up on it” possibly considered being “good”?

There was no reason for the officer to “check up on it” in the first place.

You’re right though. He shouldn’t have answered. Just like he shouldn’t have informed him he was carrying. Those are a couple of things I don’t necessarily think he should have done but even at that a simple “I’m going to my girlfriends house” to show what cops say they want – respect & cooperation (see where that gets you?) - is a fairly simple & benign comment.

However,

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!




*opinion

None of that is illegal so how is it “not looking good” for him? The officer can be “suspicious” all he wants. That only allows him to MAYBE perform a cursory inspection of the outer clothing of the person to check for weapons (ala Terry) WHICH the OP already admitted to having (silly boy).

However,

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!




*opinion

So looking at the IC on “criminal mischief” driving around with legal guns in his possession does not meet any of the elements of that crime.



So can you show me anywhere in the OP that he said that he damaged or defaced anyone’s property or threatened to injure another person?

Besides the offense is just a misdemeanor so the officer would have to have witnessed the OP performing the act or have PC that the OP was going to do it in his presence to arrest him for it. The “suspicions” of the officer DO NOT rise to the level of PC so…

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!

Every single thing you typed points to criminal intent of one sort or another, you know, the things police are trained to look for.[/quote]

*opinion

BS.

No it doesn’t.

Driving around with legally owned & carried guns after drinking a couple of beers is NOT evidence of criminal intent. If so I guess I’ve been guilty of criminal intent on a few occasions.

Can you show ANY evidence by either the IC or case law to support that statement?

You can’t just make crap up & arrest somebody for it. There has to be PC of a crime before an arrest can be made. There are these things called standards of evidence. They are well defined in the CJ system. Since you have a background in law you should know that.



Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!




Good thing.



*opinion

NO FREAKIN’ WAY!

What law EXACTLY would you have charged him with to support an arrest? Specifically? Since you have a major in LE that should be easy.

Remember, you have to use ONLY the information that you say the OP gave that “incriminated” himself. You can’t IMPLY anything. There has to be PC of a crime to arrest someone. You know that “probable” means “more likely than not”, right? What evidence do you have that ANY crime was committed AT ALL?

MAJOR Fail!



*opinion

Exactly. You’re just making **** up & have been since the beginning of this thread.

Where was this so-called “compromise”?

Tell me, without the consent of the OP was there any LEGAL (as in REAL) justification for the cop to confiscate the OP’s guns?

Nope. The OP gave them up. If he would have said “no” then the cop could have done nothing except give him the ticket for the original traffic stop & sent the OP on his way to his GF’s house with all 3 of his legally owned guns.

Not illegal. No reason to “haul his ass in”.

Fail!



Not drunk. At least not that the cop thought or they wouldn’t have let him go.

No evidence to support that claim at all.

Fail!



Not illegal

Fail!



Not illegal

Fail!



Nobody at the Auburn PD knows me by name either, so what?

Not illegal.

Fail!



*opinion

So…if the cop had those suspicions (which again is not the same as PC) then he thought just letting him go without the guns he had on him was OK? Did he not think that he MIGHT have more at home that he could go get & continue on with his nefarious plan?

Come on. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in this whole thread.

Why didn’t he just arrest the OP then? Oh that’s right, he didn’t have any PC. Just like he didn’t have PC to take his guns from him. Which is why he ASKED in the first place.

Fail!



*opinion

I guess the cops can “treat” the OP however they wanted (within the confines of the Constitution) UNTIL they found no evidence of any crime being committed then he has to be treated EXACTLY like anybody else that blew a 0.000.

Fail!



*opinion

The OP didn’t do ANYTHING ILLEGAL. How could he have “messed up”? Because you want the cops to be right?

Fail!
Fail!
Fail!



The OP already said he felt he really didn’t have a choice but to go along with what the cop asked out of fear of the repercussions.

The whole idea of voluntarily giving up rights is just asinine.

The courts made that up completely.

Can you tell me how I can voluntarily give up my rights when they are “unalienable”?

I’m sure you’ve heard this phrase somewhere in your LE courses:



What the heck does that word even mean? Here let me help you:



So according to common usage it means that I can’t even GIVE AWAY an unalienable right.

The cops shouldn’t even be able to ask if they are truly following our founding documents or is that “swear to uphold & defend” just a bunch of lip-service.

Fail!



*opinion

You keep using that term but I don’t think you have any idea what it means.

Can you explain to me using the OP how what he did falls under the IC for “criminal mischief”?

When you add the word “potential” on to it, it doesn’t mean the standard of evidence is any less.

Fail!



*opinion

FOR WHAT?!?!?!

Fail!



Finally something I agree with.

However, they never did a FST so I guess they didn’t think he was “impaired” & they sent him on his way MINUS SOME OF HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY.



There are very few FACTS in the above post. I have annotated it to show opinion as opposed to fact. You can see that the *opinion WAY outweighs the facts.



Nope.

Just a little joke based on an IM.



I promised you it would be long in my reply to you in IM

Sorry ATM I tried to keep it short but he wouldn’t let me.

BTW, I know you told me in PM that you don't really agree with what you said above but that's not the way you stated it.

YOU said

That's not "maybe he was thinking" or anything of that nature. That is your belief. Own it. Don't try to waffle out or backpeddle now.

Thank you Finity for takng the time to state your opinion. I have the same opinion, but could never have stated it as well as you did. This Josh fellow was so set that his embellishments were fact that I didn't want to bother defending myself any longer.

As I stated before, I am not going to post the names of the officers involved. I don't see the good in making them public.

 

[1032JBT]

Feel free to PM myself or any of the other INGO LEO's the name or names of the officers. I can pretty much promise you I know them and if this truly did happen the way you have posted then I or one of the others can deal with it. We, as LEO's, do not like it when others give us a bad name.

If you REALLY want something to come out of this other than a "B" fest on the internet............now is your chance.

 

[ATM]

There is a reference to ATM, but see no post...?

Rule #378: References to ATM have no prerequisites and may be invoked spontaneously at any time.

I found that in the INGO FAQ.

Sorry ATM I tried to keep it short but he wouldn’t let me.

A dubious claim if I ever heard one.

Stop abusing rule #378.

 

[kludge]

@ dsom2006

So, since this OBVIOUSLY falls into the definition of a SEIZURE, did you ask to see the sworn statement from the officer that describes the reasons he though you were DANGEROUS?

If not, please go back and ask for it. If they can't produce it then, I would file a complaint and threaten a lawsuit.

 

[Hoosier8]

I feel like I don't even want to waste my time anymore on threads like this, but it's so hard to resist! This website is becoming more and more for me just a place to look at the classifieds.

Now don't get all butthurt (love that word you used) about what someone posts on the interwebz. LOL

I got stopped on the way home one day, three sheets to the wind. Got pulled over through a bad part of town but about 10 blocks from home for a burnt out license plate light. Knew I could not hide my breath. I was asked if I had been drinking, answered yup. Asked if it were a couple of beers, nope scotch. Got a warning and was told to drive straight home. Clean record, close to home, not a thug or mall ninja, and a nice guy that stopped me. I was sure I was screwed when I got stopped.