Did Law Change? Unreal incident at clinic...

[Hayseed_40]

I am going to do what I can and go as far as I can. Both of my sons were the patients, but since they are 6 and 4 and don't have ID, the lady at the window took mine. She then, without my permission, handed it over to the police officers..Who are you to hand my **** to the police? What gives you the right to have my information and give it to someone else? In this situation I should have only provided my LTCH, afaik my ID was not relevant considering no crime had occurred but I could be wrong.

Still the point is, if I give one of my children to the doctor, and some whacko made a call that I was beating my kid in the parking lot to the brink of death, that doctor can't just hand my kid to a social worker when NOTHING has happened. This isn't really an argument over OC, it's a question to why 7 officers felt it necessary to detain me and keep me away from my family while also displaying their inability to understand the law. And yes, I was TOLD that I have to GO HOME which is 6 miles away, to secure my weapon before I could return..who the **** makes that rule?

I wasn't ASKED if I would go home, I was told to.

I am surprised they did not tell you they had the legal right to make you put your nose in the corner.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Studying the code book only teaches you the black letter. That's why departments need to work with the prosecutor.
If by the code book, you mean the little paperback, it does not have the complete Indiana criminal code. It also contains (last I bothered to look) things like the Flag Desecration Law, which was long ago made moot by a SCOTUS decision.

The bare IC is largely gibberish passed by the legislature (please explain to me what the legislature was smoking when they wrote IC 35-50-2). Without understanding case law as well, one often really does not know the law at all. ESPECIALLY where the law intersects the federal and State constitutions.

Assuming officers do learn the code from the book, where on earth are they getting this no open carry business? It's not in the book, so clearly they're making it up. Problem, only the legislature can make laws, and only the courts can interpret them. The executive, of which the police are a part, execute the laws and that's it.

LMAO...THAT is the question of the day!

 

[ekg98]

I am a little ignorant on things sometimes. I have an idea but I think it could go either way.

I know we have the right to assemble.
We have the right to bear arms.
With a LTCH we have permission to carry a handgun (I disagree with permission granted if its alright a right)

Assemble 100 (more the better) people schedule a tour of vaious communities, towns, and cities. Everyone open carry with whatever they want. All sorts of arms. Picket signs and all.

I dont know if this has been done but it could go either way. Inform the public that open carry is legal. Some will be upset. Some will rejoyce. Could effect voting outcomes.

For some reason I think the police would be called out in riot gear. Everyone would be treated as felons.

 

[Big_John]

Sounds like we live near each other and possible go to school together? would be interesting if we did.

 

[Armed-N-Ready]

LEOs must educate themselves on the laws they enforce.

You've go to to be kidding me. I thought there was at least a minimum amount of training on laws before they hand them a badge and a gun. This sounds a bit like malpractice in the medical field. Although, not much safer, it is better they are cops and not doctors. I'd hate to have them apply a tourniquet for a head wound.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Sounds like we live near each other and possible go to school together? would be interesting if we did.

Occasionally when a particular venue is having problems understanding the law, members here will organize an "open carry" event. It generally involves a bunch of us walking around, stopping at local businesses and buying things...coffee, bagels, whatever, and engaging the public in open conversation thus educating them. Often times the police respond in numbers but always leave with a smile. I suggest organizing one in your area!

 

[Bill of Rights]

You've go to to be kidding me. I thought there was at least a minimum amount of training on laws before they hand them a badge and a gun. This sounds a bit like malpractice in the medical field. Although, not much safer, it is better they are cops and not doctors. I'd hate to have them apply a tourniquet for a head wound.

This is the problem. It's exactly as you said: a minimum amount of training on laws, and it's after the badge and gun (or can be; a 40-hr pre-basic class is good for a year. After that time, they are required to have attended ILEA, but as Denny said, the focus is on Constitutional law. The other issue is that, as you say, they should have training in what the laws are, but which laws? Criminal code? Traffic code? Gun laws? Drug laws? Housing code? There are far too many laws for anyone to know them all. That's not an excuse for LE, but rather an indictment of our legislators who continue adding more and more laws to the "too-many" we now have.

Our focus here on INGO is guns, obviously. It's easy to forget that there are other laws out there, too. FWIW, I'd like to see them all know the gun laws at both federal and state levels:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The people shall have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.

Seems simple enough to me.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Scutter01]

The other issue is that, as you say, they should have training in what the laws are, but which laws? Criminal code? Traffic code? Gun laws? Drug laws? Housing code? There are far too many laws for anyone to know them all. That's not an excuse for LE, but rather an indictment of our legislators who continue adding more and more laws to the "too-many" we now have.

It's easy enough to generate a table of the most common citizen interactions and the reasons behind those contacts and focus training efforts on the top 10. I'm willing to bet that MWAG ranks at least in the top ten, along with drugs, traffic, etc.

 

[public servant]

I'm willing to bet that MWAG ranks at least in the top ten, along with drugs, traffic, etc.

In all honesty, I doubt it would even make the top 100.

 

[Hayseed_40]

In all honesty, I doubt it would even make the top 100.

Agreed - I doubt it ranks very high.

 

[Scutter01]

Well, then I stand corrected and it makes a nice excuse to not have to know the law.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Well, then I stand corrected and it makes a nice excuse to not have to know the law.

Of course it does not give an excuse - it was just stated as a fact

 

[Scutter01]

No, I understand perfectly. Departments don't have enough money for training, and so they have to focus what little training they can give where it will do the most good. Since gun laws don't even rank in the top 100, there's no point in training them. I agree completely.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Well, most gun laws are just "common sense" anyway...

 

[Bill of Rights]

This is the problem. It's exactly as you said: a minimum amount of training on laws, and it's after the badge and gun (or can be; a 40-hr pre-basic class is good for a year. After that time, they are required to have attended ILEA, but as Denny said, the focus is on Constitutional law....

Just to clarify, that 40 hr class is what an officer takes if he can't get straight into ILEA. It's a one-time class. Once they complete that, they have one year to complete ILEA. I'm not aware of what, if any continuing education requirements exist in re: newly written laws or case law. My thanks to the member who repped me and in the process, let me know that my earlier message was unclear. It's not (that I know of) 40 hrs/year.

I know that as a medic, I have to have 72 hrs of continuing education every two years, spread over specific areas of my practice. If any LEOs would care to explain what your con-ed requirements are, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested in knowing.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cobber]

No, I understand perfectly. Departments don't have enough money for training, and so they have to focus what little training they can give where it will do the most good. Since gun laws don't even rank in the top 100, there's no point in training them. I agree completely.

They don't have to pay for the training. Just have the prosecutor send over a deputy to do in-service. That's about as free as it gets. (Not quite free, salary for one DPA for 4 hours.)

 

[Scutter01]

They don't have to pay for the training. Just have the prosecutor send over a deputy to do in-service. That's about as free as it gets. (Not quite free, salary for one DPA for 4 hours.)

So why aren't they getting trained?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So why aren't they getting trained?

Thats the million dollar question isn't it?

I really don't have a clue but I would almost take a guess that one of two things:

1. They take the training, ignore it, and use their own judgement because they know better.

2. They DON'T take the training because they are so used to be being better than everyone else and the vast majority of people have no idea what their rights are so they just get to bully those people that do things they don't agree with.

 

[public servant]

Well, then I stand corrected and it makes a nice excuse to not have to know the law.

I've never made an excuse for any inappropriate actions by the police.

I merely gave you what I felt was a more realistic figure. Sorry your anger towards the police doesn't allow you to see the difference.

 

[Scutter01]

I merely gave you what I felt was a more realistic figure. Sorry your anger towards the police doesn't allow you to see the difference.

I don't have anger towards the police. I have anger towards incompetent police. I'm sorry your anger towards me doesn't allow you to see the difference.