Question regarding "mah rights"

[T.Lex]

The best looking hookers are always cops. Teach us that in Criminal Procedure II.

Straight from Kirk's CLE materials in support of this assertion.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The best looking hookers are always cops. Teach us that in Criminal Procedure II.

Best looking? Does that mean have most of their teeth and no meth scabs?

Straight from Kirk's CLE materials in support of this assertion.

Yep, deep voice and an Adam's apple. No idea on the length of skirt though.

 

[Pepi]

I never show my weapon when going anywhere. I just keep it hidden and ready. I would rather a perpetrate could not prepare anything

 

[ArevaloSocom]

Yes

violation of your rights

state Supreme Court just ruled gun carrying alone is not a reason for law enforcement stop anymore

 

[ATOMonkey]

The best looking hookers are always cops. Teach us that in Criminal Procedure II.

Freakenomics II has a great section on the economies of turning tricks. Their conclusion is that the demand for sex across all socio-economic boundaries is inelastic. So, there is no reason not to charge an enormous sum for the transaction. In fact, the more money charged, the better the clientele. Win-Win The psychological component is that it takes a lot of self esteem to charge high prices for sex, and self esteem is normally lacking in someone willing to sell their body. Fascinating really.

 

[Somemedic]

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013)
Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable*
suspicion for detention.
(“Where a*state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify*an investigatory detention.”).
Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to*point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot. There is NO*Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun*solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.*

 

[PistolPastor]

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013)
Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable*
suspicion for detention.
(“Where a*state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify*an investigatory detention.”).
Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to*point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot. There is NO*Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun*solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.*

My question is how many LEOs are aware of this and/or follow it? However, I'm certainly not advocating to go ahead and carry without. ... Although a LEO friend of mine suggested I carry even without one...

 

[RND]

Don’t open carry!

 

[2A_Tom]

Actually that decision is not binding on Indiana. It was not until Pinner that we had standing on this point.

 

[MichaelZWilliamson]

Don’t open carry!

Why, how helpful. It reminds me of the time I asked about trigger springs for a 10-22 and someone said, "Don't modify your weapon!"

It completely avoids all the discussion of the last 9 pages. Kudos to you, sir, for cutting through the BS and negating the need to think or talk!

 

[PistolPastor]

Actually that decision is not binding on Indiana. It was not until Pinner that we had standing on this point.

I'm going to have to look up this Pinner thing. It gets brought up a lot and I don't really know much about it.

 

[Leonidas]

Answer

When I see people open carry I wonder why they want to be the first target of a criminal. If you are in a public setting and open carry and a person decides to commit a robbery or other violent crime, tactics determine they will take out the first and most obvious threat. That’s the open carry guy. I want to tell these dudes, I understand and appreciate your desire (and right) to carry a firearm, but don’t make yourself a target. A handgun is a defensive weapon, so carry it that way. Give yourself the tactical advantage over your adversary.
Next point, don’t provoke law enforcement, it’s just dumb. If you walk down the street with a rifle or walk through Walmart open carrying a firearm, someone is going to be rattled and call the police. The police then have to respond and the call comes out as “a person with a gun”, not a law abiding dude advertising his 2nd Ammend. rights. It just creates an unnecessary situation. If you are the anti-government type and just want to cause a stir and provoke a confrontation so you can film it to be a YouTube legend, you should rethink your priorities in life. That is not the reason warriors died protecting your rights. It’s similar to the saying “you have freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence...”. If you say something particularly offensive to someone and they punch you in the face, you should expect that. Sure you had the right to say it and they may be wrong for punching you, but why create the situation in the first place. The police aren’t out to get you, don’t provoke bad situations.

 

[chipbennett]

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013)
Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable*
suspicion for detention.
(“Where a*state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify*an investigatory detention.”).
Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to*point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot. There is NO*Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun*solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.*

An excellent decision, and one I reference often. But it is only binding on the 4th District.

 

[eldirector]

When I see people open carry I wonder why they want to be the first target of a criminal. If you are in a public setting and open carry and a person decides to commit a robbery or other violent crime, tactics determine they will take out the first and most obvious threat. That’s the open carry guy. I want to tell these dudes, I understand and appreciate your desire (and right) to carry a firearm, but don’t make yourself a target. A handgun is a defensive weapon, so carry it that way. Give yourself the tactical advantage over your adversary.
Next point, don’t provoke law enforcement, it’s just dumb. If you walk down the street with a rifle or walk through Walmart open carrying a firearm, someone is going to be rattled and call the police. The police then have to respond and the call comes out as “a person with a gun”, not a law abiding dude advertising his 2nd Ammend. rights. It just creates an unnecessary situation. If you are the anti-government type and just want to cause a stir and provoke a confrontation so you can film it to be a YouTube legend, you should rethink your priorities in life. That is not the reason warriors died protecting your rights. It’s similar to the saying “you have freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence...”. If you say something particularly offensive to someone and they punch you in the face, you should expect that. Sure you had the right to say it and they may be wrong for punching you, but why create the situation in the first place. The police aren’t out to get you, don’t provoke bad situations.

Some light reading on this topic:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/71996-open-carry-argument.html

 

[AngryRooster]

When I see people open carry I wonder why they want to be the first target of a criminal. If you are in a public setting and open carry and a person decides to commit a robbery or other violent crime, tactics determine they will take out the first and most obvious threat. That’s the open carry guy. I want to tell these dudes, I understand and appreciate your desire (and right) to carry a firearm, but don’t make yourself a target. A handgun is a defensive weapon, so carry it that way. Give yourself the tactical advantage over your adversary.
Next point, don’t provoke law enforcement, it’s just dumb. If you walk down the street with a rifle or walk through Walmart open carrying a firearm, someone is going to be rattled and call the police. The police then have to respond and the call comes out as “a person with a gun”, not a law abiding dude advertising his 2nd Ammend. rights. It just creates an unnecessary situation. If you are the anti-government type and just want to cause a stir and provoke a confrontation so you can film it to be a YouTube legend, you should rethink your priorities in life. That is not the reason warriors died protecting your rights. It’s similar to the saying “you have freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence...”. If you say something particularly offensive to someone and they punch you in the face, you should expect that. Sure you had the right to say it and they may be wrong for punching you, but why create the situation in the first place. The police aren’t out to get you, don’t provoke bad situations.

 

[2A_Tom]

OK, STOP, Please. I cannot take it any more.

If you want a discussion on Open vs. Concealed Carry it is over here. Before you post in it you need to read the OP (original post).

The Open Carry Argument

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...nse/71996-open-carry-argument.html#post803054

We try not to turn every thread inti an OC/CC argument.

 

[RND]

Why, how helpful. It reminds me of the time I asked about trigger springs for a 10-22 and someone said, "Don't modify your weapon!"

It completely avoids all the discussion of the last 9 pages. Kudos to you, sir, for cutting through the BS and negating the need to think or talk!

Sorry

 

[2A_Tom]

appreciate you calling me “sir.” It’s a sign of respect. Type of carry and modifying are two different topics of discussion and have little to no bearing on each other. My three word post was trying to keep it simple, STUPID. Apologize for your “butt-hurt.

QFT

This post is poorly worded. Please consider revision.

Reported.

 

[agerm220]

This is exciting.

 

[chipbennett]

I think you're looking for this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/71996-open-carry-argument.html

But I'll address some of your points, anyway:

When I see people open carry I wonder why they want to be the first target of a criminal.

Surely, you have data to support the assertion that open carriers are the "first target of a criminal."?

If you are in a public setting and open carry and a person decides to commit a robbery or other violent crime, tactics determine they will take out the first and most obvious threat.

Actually, criminal psychology indicates that criminals take a "tunnel vision" view of their surroundings, and focus on their objective. You are thinking like a sane, law-abiding person, rather than thinking like a criminal.

That’s the open carry guy.

(Citation Needed)

I want to tell these dudes, I understand and appreciate your desire (and right) to carry a firearm, but don’t make yourself a target. A handgun is a defensive weapon, so carry it that way. Give yourself the tactical advantage over your adversary.

The real, tactical advantage comes through one's situational awareness, whether carrying openly, carrying concealed, or not carrying at all.

Next point, don’t provoke law enforcement, it’s just dumb. If you walk down the street with a rifle or walk through Walmart open carrying a firearm, someone is going to be rattled and call the police. The police then have to respond and the call comes out as “a person with a gun”, not a law abiding dude advertising his 2nd Ammend. rights.

No, the police do not *have* to respond, though they can *choose* to respond. As more dispatchers are learning to inquire about the actual behavior/criminal intent of the reported MWAG, fewer police are being dispatched to respond to reports of law-abiding people doing lawful things.

It just creates an unnecessary situation. If you are the anti-government type and just want to cause a stir and provoke a confrontation so you can film it to be a YouTube legend, you should rethink your priorities in life.

I would consider this to be either psychological projection, or else a gross mis-perception of the typical open carrier. The vast majority carry openly for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with drawing attention to themselves (and similarly find that they do not, in fact, draw attention to themselves). The YouTube wannabe stars are statistical noise.

That is not the reason warriors died protecting your rights. It’s similar to the saying “you have freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence...”. If you say something particularly offensive to someone and they punch you in the face, you should expect that. Sure you had the right to say it and they may be wrong for punching you, but why create the situation in the first place. The police aren’t out to get you, don’t provoke bad situations.

A law-abiding person, doing lawful things in a lawful manner, that impacts no other person in any way, is not provoking anyone or anything. The vast majority of police officers understand this, and support such people.

The OP in this thread is talking about those few police officers who do not understand or support the lawful actions of law-abiding citizens, where the exercise of the natural, civil, constitutionally protected right to bear arms is concerned.