St Mary's is NOT gun friendly

[Drail]

THAT was a great film. "stim!"

 

[mrortega]

THAT was a great film. "stim!"

Yeah, like in "Main stim stop walwe". They also better have had somebody off-camera catching that beautiful '03 Springfield rifle that Steve McQueen threw overboard after he had to shoot Pohan.

 

[Hammerhead]

OK. You may have learned first year of law school that probable cause and reasonable suspicion and the presence thereof is determined by the court. The officer can only articulate the facts that made him believe he had met that burden in order to "seize" a citizen, whether investigatory or custodial arrest. In order to meet the much lesser burden of reasonable suspicion I must believe that you have committed or are about to commit a crime...it is afoot as they say. If I "seize" you while investigating the possibility of a crime that has been or is about to be committed you are then compelled to provide identification at my request. If you obstruct or interfere with my investigation during the lawful execution of my duties by not providing identification you are Resisting Law Enforcement.
However, if I approach you for no particular reason and demand the same you can tell me to go pound sound as you are all so eager to do.

Ahh, but here's the rub, and we'll use Rookie's example. I'm walking down the sidewalk with a baseball bat at 2am. You drive along the road and see me walking.

Tell me what your PC or RAS is for stopping me and asking for ID? What crime is "afoot" or has been committed?

Let's tweak the example, as we all know what the real object you'd see us with is. Me, walking down the street, OCing my sidearm, 2am. Again, what's your PC or RAS?

I'll let you answer, but I'll say that no, OCing (or carry in any form) isn't PC or RAS for a Terry.

"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" This is probably what you're going to hear from me (probably most here) if you came up for any reason and asked for ID. It's also very possible that you might not even get that, but rather blank stares and silence. Tell me then, officer, how am I compelled to answer anything you're asking me, including IDing myself?

 

[rw496]

Ahh, but here's the rub, and we'll use Rookie's example. I'm walking down the sidewalk with a baseball bat at 2am. You drive along the road and see me walking.

Tell me what your PC or RAS is for stopping me and asking for ID? What crime is "afoot" or has been committed?

Let's tweak the example, as we all know what the real object you'd see us with is. Me, walking down the street, OCing my sidearm, 2am. Again, what's your PC or RAS?

I'll let you answer, but I'll say that no, OCing (or carry in any form) isn't PC or RAS for a Terry.

"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" This is probably what you're going to hear from me (probably most here) if you came up for any reason and asked for ID. It's also very possible that you might not even get that, but rather blank stares and silence. Tell me then, officer, how am I compelled to answer anything you're asking me, including IDing myself?

I really don't see either of those examples as RAS to stop you. Reasonable suspicion can be a lot of things, and what is reasonable suspicion to one officer may not cut it for another becacuse it is the facts viewed in light of the officer's experience and reasonable inferences that can be drawn. The original question was is there any other time besides being stopped for an ordinace violation or infraction that you must identify yourself. The answer is yes, a stop based on reasonable suspicion as determined by the court.

 

[Hammerhead]

I really don't see either of those examples as RAS to stop you. Reasonable suspicion can be a lot of things, and what is reasonable suspicion to one officer may not cut it for another becacuse it is the facts viewed in light of the officer's experience and reasonable inferences that can be drawn. The original question was is there any other time besides being stopped for an ordinace violation or infraction that you must identify yourself. The answer is yes, a stop based on reasonable suspicion as determined by the court.

That means the court can only compel me to ID, and you can't. So you're going to arrest me on a "resisting" charge because I refuse to ID at a point in time that you cannot produce PC or RAS. This sounds suspiciously like a "contempt of cop" charge because you don't like the fact that I'm exercising my rights under the law and the constitution.

Thanks, my lawyer will love you.

 

[rw496]

That means the court can only compel me to ID, and you can't. So you're going to arrest me on a "resisting" charge because I refuse to ID at a point in time that you cannot produce PC or RAS. This sounds suspiciously like a "contempt of cop" charge because you don't like the fact that I'm exercising my rights under the law and the constitution.

Thanks, my lawyer will love you.

Wrong. The court can only later determine that RAS did not exist and dismiss any charges that stemmed from that..fruit of the poisonous tree. I only have to articulate my RAS to the court not the person at the time. Now, if I acted unreasonably and willfully violated a clearly established guideline where a reasonable officer would have known that the conduct was unlawful I could be held civilly liable under a 1983 violation. That would be a stretch in this case probably.

 

[rw496]

Now, if some guy climbed up a bell tower with a rifle and was taking pot shots at pedestrians muttering something about RW schooling him in a public forum..maybe that's enough

 

[Rookie]

Now, if some guy climbed up a bell tower with a rifle and was taking pot shots at pedestrians muttering something about RW schooling him in a public forum..maybe that's enough

You're seriously gonna ask him to stop and ID?

just kidding

 

[hoosierdoc]

Now, if some guy climbed up a bell tower with a rifle and was taking pot shots at pedestrians muttering something about RW schooling him in a public forum..maybe that's enough

Wow, not evan a , , , , , or . I would have considered a , ,

As it is, I will just resort to

 

[Hammerhead]

He's entitled to his opinion. I don't have to agree, but that doesn't mean I have to retaliate or be mean.

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK. You may have learned first year of law school that probable cause and reasonable suspicion and the presence thereof is determined by the court. The officer can only articulate the facts that made him believe he had met that burden in order to "seize" a citizen, whether investigatory or custodial arrest. In order to meet the much lesser burden of reasonable suspicion I must believe that you have committed or are about to commit a crime...it is afoot as they say. If I "seize" you while investigating the possibility of a crime that has been or is about to be committed you are then compelled to provide identification at my request. If you obstruct or interfere with my investigation during the lawful execution of my duties by not providing identification you are Resisting Law Enforcement.
However, if I approach you for no particular reason and demand the same you can tell me to go pound sound as you are all so eager to do.

Hold on a second... IC 35-44-3-3 specifies that the resistance must be made "forcibly". Someone who simply remains silent, as per his Constitutional right, is hardly making forcible resistance... and a Constitutional right supersedes state law to the contrary.

Do note that I am not in any way suggesting that you are less than scrupulous. You, I think, however, have to admit that an officer's "belief" is an awfully low standard to meet to violate a person's natural rights, and is fraught with the possibility of abuse. (That is to say, it would be easy for an unscrupulous officer to take any possible crime and claim a "belief" that a citizen was about to commit it. I'm reminded of the story (of questionable veracity) of the prosecutor who, questioning a defendant, claimed, "But you had all the tools necessary to commit burglary on you when you were apprehended!", to which he replied, "And standing here in this courtroom, you have all the tools necessary to commit prostitution.")

Again, I am not accusing you of anything. The majority of LEOs I've met have been honorable and scrupulous to a fault and want only to do the jobs they were hired to do. There was a quote from either one of the Founders or from one of the past Supreme Court Justices that when evaluating a law, we must consider not its planned uses but its potential abuses. I wish I knew who the person was or the precise quote.

Forcible resistance, as I understand it, would be fighting as you reached for his wallet. I suppose you could even stretch it to include a "Eff you, pig" or some similar, rude epithet when a suspect is asked his name, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to define someone sitting in a chair silently as being "forcible".



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bondhead88]

I'll post it AGAIN.



By carrying a prohibited item onto a property, that person has created a situation that interferes with the use of that property. Whether or not the owners or their agents notice or not has no being on the fact that item is still on the property.



Why do people keep putting words in my mouth? I never said I wanted it to be a criminal offense. I said I wanted a more rubust punishment. An infraction, if it got the point across, would be fine in my book. Just enough to make someone think long and hard before disreguarding the wishes and rights of the property owner is all I want.

I know this an old thread but I noticed nobody ever came back against Bumpshadow when he kept on saying cc'ing at a business that had a sign saying "No Firearms" was interfering with their property rights.

So here is the definition of Interference:

in·ter·fer·ence (ntr-fîrns)
n.
1.
a. The act or an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding.
b. Something that hinders, obstructs, or impedes.

By the definition of the word interference cc'ing at a business with a sign that says "No Firearms" is not interfering with said business.

I think we have lost the importance of words and we have gotten into making our own definitions. Which is like making your own facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts or definitions.

Bumpshadow is wrong on interference.

 

[Bondhead88]

I don't carry, yet. I have been the military as a weapons tech and have been trained with them. And I am also pro-gun. But I'm not a thug about it either.

For a guy who's never carried other than when he was ordered or given permission from someone he called a "superior" to do so, you have no business "calling out" anyone and you certainly have no right to start calling thug and hypocrite. My values are in correct priority. I take care of myself and my family first. Kinda like when you're on a plane and they tell you to put your own oxygen mask on first before anyone else's... because you can't help them if you're already unconscious or dead.

So now your going to put words in my mouth? I said I don't currently carry.

Again, I realize this is an old post but I saw something that I should post on.

Nobody caught this as well from Bumpshadow. First he said he didn't "carry yet" When you use the word yet it means up until a specified time. So when he said I don't carry, yet. It would mean that from the past until now he did not carry. He went on to say that he had been in the military and had been trained on weapons. But in his later post he went on to say I said I don't currently carry. This made it look like the other person has misquoted and made an erroneous post because he is now saying he just doesn't currently carry which is a far different statement than I don't carry, yet.

The other poster did not put words in his mouth Bumpshadow changed both the words and intent of his statement. It was obvious he was being hammered for speaking about a subject which he himself had not yet accomplished. So he changed it to seem that he was experienced and that he just currently didn't carry.

I also wanted to point out he never said what type of weapons he was trained on. Not everybody carries a sidearm in the military. While safety principles would be the same, (like always assume a gun is loaded) the handling of a pistol or revolver is quite different. I have known many men who have handled all types of rifles for as long as I have been alive. But they have never used a handgun, as in some cases they are intimidated by it or they are unsure of it. Some of these guys are men whom I have gone hunting with and they make me look like a child when it comes to knowledge and use of rifles. But I wouldn't just give them my handgun because of inexperience with that type of weapon.

 

[GlockWielder]

Police are unaware that it is unlawful for them to demand your ID if you are not committing or have committed a crime. It is also unlawful for them to stop you just for carrying a gun (which is legal right?). Most hospitals I have seen show signs that say "no weapons concealed or carried in any other method are allowed here". You can still enter but you have to leave if they say you have to. It's like a sign that says no cell phones at the movie theater. You can still bring it in but you can't use it. If you do use it, they can kick you out. There is no law that prohibits guns on a college campus either. It is just the college campus policy that prohibits guns there. To my knowledge, If you are not a student at a college there is nothing the college campus can do to you besides make you leave. If you are a student you can get banned from the school (that sucks). Is that information all correct?

 

[Damean-m44]

well first thing is congrats on the baby and way to keep your cool when the cop said you would not be able to see your son. i dont know how i would of reacted

 

[Nmathew24]

Most if not all hospitals are private owned and do not allow any firearms inside unless you are on duty LEO.

 

[Tydeeh22]

thread resurrection ftw.

 

[Nmathew24]

thread resurrection ftw.

lol I saw this after the fact.

 

[sbcman]

This zombie thread could be just in time. Frosty baby #2 is due Thursday, so he might have a whole new experience to share

 

[KG1]

thread resurrection ftw.

pffftt...This is nothing. You should check out the date on this thread he resurrected.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/handguns/5199-glock_22_violent_recoil-6.html