Stopped by Terre Haute PD for OC'ing -- On a Date!

[Comp]

I feel kind of bad that THPD hassled you but I do think you at least avoided a fine in the end. Grats on getting to the second date!

P.S. does she have a cute friend

 

[Bapak2ja]

I have a tendency to agree with the THPD on this one and to disagree with Mr. Youngblood.
I have dealt with very similar situations over the years, so I speak from experience.
While carrying openly is legal (with a CCW Permit) it is not advisable.
Since Mr. Youngblood was at a venue where there were crowds all around, and since I doubt that he has been trained in weapons retention, I can see the possibility of someone coming up from behind him and "snatching" his handgun.
This young man probably has no inkling that there are prisoners in our institutions who compare notes and even rehearse how to snatch a handgun from a police officer's holster. He would be "easy pickings" for some of these types.
It has also been my experience that it is often the newly licensed who carry openly. Why? In my opinion it is because they like to "show off" and in many cases rather enjoy the attention/intimidation factor that carrying openly results in.
Mister Youngblood could have saved himself (and his date) a lot of time and embarrassment by simply concealing his handgun, but, judging from his numerous posts, I stand by my statement that he is enjoying the attention. It further sounds as if he was not embarrassed at all.
Oh, and for the record, officers can check for valid CCW permits. It is not unheard of that a CCW license has been revoked at the State level, so the mere possession of that little piece of pink paper is not indicative of the fact that the carrier of same has a clean and clear record.

And on a personal level? I wonder why a gal would want to go out on a date/dates with someone who openly carries a handgun and who seems to enjoy and, indeed, invite his confrontations with law officers?
Had that been myself who responded to this situation, and had I the City Ordinance to issue a citation, and had this young man argued with me at length, I would have.
The responding officers handled this situation very well and exercised what we refer to as "officer discretion".
And yes, the officers had every lawful right to ask this young man to unload and temporarily surrender his weapon. They had no idea of whom they were confronting.
Again, had that been myself, I would have not trusted this young man to even touch his weapon, much less remove the magazine. I would have asked him to raise his arms while I removed it and made it safe. You know...officer safety?

Sir, you underestimate "Mr. Youngblood." He has good situational awareness and is alert to guarding his weapon. He does not have your experience, but he knows the basics and is as able as anyone to retain his weapon. He is consistently practicing what he does know and seeking to learn more. He took the time to learn the laws of Indiana and Terre Haute and obeys them. He expects the LEO to do the same. He is young, and a bit cocky, but he is good kid. Makes his father proud of him.

Thanks for your advice on this matter. It helps us all think through the issues. I know many disagreed with you, but I appreciate your willingness to speak clearly on the issues.

 

[Clay]

Uhh... nooo..? I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a joke or if you actually know a girl by that name. If it's a joke, I'm sorry I didn't get it! If you're being serious, nope, it wasn't her.

Sarah Irish

 

[LittleLady]

Bottom line

I like how you concluded...date #2

 

[PatriotPride]

I have a tendency to agree with the THPD on this one and to disagree with Mr. Youngblood.
I have dealt with very similar situations over the years, so I speak from experience.
While carrying openly is legal (with a CCW Permit) it is not advisable.
Since Mr. Youngblood was at a venue where there were crowds all around, and since I doubt that he has been trained in weapons retention, I can see the possibility of someone coming up from behind him and "snatching" his handgun.
This young man probably has no inkling that there are prisoners in our institutions who compare notes and even rehearse how to snatch a handgun from a police officer's holster. He would be "easy pickings" for some of these types.
It has also been my experience that it is often the newly licensed who carry openly. Why? In my opinion it is because they like to "show off" and in many cases rather enjoy the attention/intimidation factor that carrying openly results in.
Mister Youngblood could have saved himself (and his date) a lot of time and embarrassment by simply concealing his handgun, but, judging from his numerous posts, I stand by my statement that he is enjoying the attention. It further sounds as if he was not embarrassed at all.
Oh, and for the record, officers can check for valid CCW permits. It is not unheard of that a CCW license has been revoked at the State level, so the mere possession of that little piece of pink paper is not indicative of the fact that the carrier of same has a clean and clear record.

And on a personal level? I wonder why a gal would want to go out on a date/dates with someone who openly carries a handgun and who seems to enjoy and, indeed, invite his confrontations with law officers?
Had that been myself who responded to this situation, and had I the City Ordinance to issue a citation, and had this young man argued with me at length, I would have.
The responding officers handled this situation very well and exercised what we refer to as "officer discretion".
And yes, the officers had every lawful right to ask this young man to unload and temporarily surrender his weapon. They had no idea of whom they were confronting.
Again, had that been myself, I would have not trusted this young man to even touch his weapon, much less remove the magazine. I would have asked him to raise his arms while I removed it and made it safe. You know...officer safety?

Youngblood?

CCW permit? Not adviseable?

Officer safety?

You speak on his level of training...why?

You have provided me with my entertainment for the day. To suggest that I as a "youngblood" OC for the attention is RUDE, to say the very least.

Let me tell you something. I am PROUD to Open Carry my firearm. I know this nation's history. I act within the law, and I proudly carry my pistol openly. I am NOT ashamed to exercise my rights, and to suggest that I should be ashamed to exercise the most BASIC of rights indicates to me that you count yourself among the true enemies of freedom.

There was no need to be "embarassed". The OP was exercising his rights. We have laws in place to protect us from people like YOU.

You cross the line when you attack the OP and his date on a personal level. To imply that there is something wrong with a person who exercises a basic right is deeply offensive.

You've made your position known. Thank you for taking the time to post your views. It is clear to me that you and I stand on different sides of the issue. Good day.

 

[PatriotPride]

I'm out of Neg rep can someone hit him again?

Done My how I enjoyed that.

And for the record, based off of unit308's previous posts, it appears that he is EX-LEO, if in fact he ever was LEO to begin with.

 

[critter592]

Sarah Irish

WOW!!! I have to show this to my daughter.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Aw heck, church doesn't start for another several hours, so I guess I have time to go ahead and reply to this.



If you have indeed spent time as a LEO, I do thank you for being willing to put your life on the line to maintain law and order in our society.



As others mentioned, I don't have a permit to a carry concealed weapon. There are several states that dictate the manner in which a handgun must be carried, but Indiana is not one of them. (Which is fortunate as it leaves the decision up to the informed citizen.) I have participated in discussions about the merits of OC and CC and read through many more without chiming in, and, subsequently, I have made what I believe is a solid, informed decision about the manner of carry at various times and locations. (Yes, I cede that I made a mistake by OC'ing in a "victim-disarmament zone" and did, in this case, make myself a target for the cops by carrying in a prohibited area. That was a failure on my part -- and one which I will not allow to happen again.)



I come from an engineering background, so I see things through that type of lens. One observation I've made about carrying a gun is that, in some respects, it is about playing the odds. First, the reason we carry in the first place is that we believe the odds are non-zero that we may find ourselves in a situation where the presence of a firearm -- and, in some cases, its use -- will be able to prevent or terminate an encounter with a person or persons doing very bad things. It is probably true that more people in this country are not involved in such situations, so the odds are heavily against us needing our guns, yet we carry them anyway.

Moreover, we play the odds when we decide what we carry. Do we want to carry a 1911 and hope that 7+1 rounds of .45 ACP are enough? Or would we rather have 19 rounds of 9mm? Perhaps we decide on a .40S&W as a middle ground. What we feel we are most likely to need in a self-defense situation drives what we decide to carry... but even that may not be consistent. Maybe a person carries a small subcompact while jogging -- he plays the odds that it will still be enough to meet his needs even though he'd rather carry a full-size sidearm. Maybe a person carries a fancy 1911 with ivory handles to a wedding -- he plays the odds that it will still meet his needs even though he'd rather carry a higher-capacity sidearm. Everything is a trade-off at some point, just like we learned in high school economics.

Similarly, the decision to OC or CC plays the odds. Do we want the element of surprise or the element of deterrence? Is the element of surprise not the same thing as literally making oneself a target so that one has the ability to take a step back, draw steel, and, with a yell of "Ha! I gotcha now!", make the criminal pay for thinking he had been a helpless, defenseless target? (Yes, an exaggeration, forsooth. Hopefully a slightly humorous one, as few would claim that's the attitude maintained by one who CC's.)

My final point on how we play the odds leads right back to your scenario. While I do not doubt that what you proposed is possible, I deem that it is more unlikely that I will meet that type of criminal than the kind who sees the gun and decides to find another, less prepared, less dangerous mark for his crime. There are numerous documented cases throughout the country of criminals seeing armed citizens and decided not to follow through with plans to commit various crimes; there are few, if any at all, documented cases of people being targeted for a crime because they were openly carrying a gun. I'll take those odds.




Compared to many, I am still a newly licensed individual. I've only been carrying for about 13 months now. When my father and I decided to start carrying, we turned to those who had been carrying already for a while to get advice. The person who helped us get started was one whose opinion we highly respected, and he guided us towards concealed carry, which was what he had decided to do. So for the first couple months, that's what I did.

I continued to educate myself about the matters of carrying, though, both by reading on these forums, reading respected experts' books, and looking for opportunities to receive further training from qualified instructors. The more I learned, and the more I applied my own mind to the situations, the more I came to realize that there are situations when OC is appropriate, even preferred, and there are situations when CC is appropriate and preferred. Subsequently, I now carry how I feel is most appropriate for the time and place wherein I find myself.

My decision has nothing to do with wanting to show off or intimidate people, but I will not say it has nothing to with attention. As I mentioned to Cop 1 and to my date, one reason I OC is that it helps the ignorant (often called "sheeple") realize that merely seeing a person with a gun is not just cause for alarm. I have been carrying for over a year now, and on many occasions I have had people strike up conversation as a result of my sidearm. "Are you a cop?" "Are you in the military?" "Are you allowed to carry that like that?" "Are you allowed to carry that here?" "What kind of gun is that?" "Is that a 9mm?"

I do not shirk my responsibility to help educate my fellow citizens about our rights, just as others were willing to help me and my dad get started down this path not too long ago. Sparsely scattered among the ocean of uneventful "OC days", I have had the pleasure of engaging many people in conversation about my sidearm, my authorization to carry it, my motivation to carry it, and our right to carry one. (Refer to the "where did you OC today?" thread for many more posts from me about these encounters, or, more commonly, completely uneventful days.) This was not the first time I'd met a cop while carrying openly, but it was the first time I met a cop while OC'ing in a prohibited area. That was "my bad", and it won't happen again.



Could have saved myself a lot of time if I hadn't even gone to the park... or if I hadn't even mustered up the nerve to ask the girl out in the first place! Then I could've just sat at home reading a book or watching a movie or shooting the breeze with my friends over in the Official [STRIKE]Post Whore[/STRIKE] Status Update thread. Incidentally, that is why I have such a -- shall we say, "healthy"? -- post count. Making friends with other people who share my desire to be able to defend ourselves, I have learned much about life and about guns from these folks.

I didn't catch the time on my watch when the first cop approached me, but I would estimate that I had the phone recording at least half of the time. The entire encounter couldn't have been much more than 5-6 minutes. We weren't even late for the movie!

You know what I did find embarrassing? The fact that my gun hadn't been cleaned since the last time I shot it. As I said in a previous post, I was in the process of moving, living out of a suitcase -- I just hadn't had time to clean it yet! Having a cop see my gun in such an unclean state, yes, that left me embarrassed.

I submit to you, sir, that if you and I met, your opinion that I do anything for the attention would surely change. I believe I have friends on this very website who would back up that claim based on the few times they've met me and the discussions we've had over the past year.



I did not dispute their authority to do so, neither at the time of the encounter nor in my posts recounting it, so I realize this probably isn't directly aimed at me. It is good to have it on the record, though. And, I'll point out, also for the record, that since it turned out I was carrying in a prohibited zone, the cops had every responsibility and authority to stop me and check me out.

Fortunately, I do have a clean and clear record, so I was sped along on my way.



Heh, I kinda wondered why she'd go out with me at all!

In all seriousness, though, it would appear that some women nowadays still recognize that a man with a gun is probably a lot better equipped to keep her safe from any threat than a man without. As for my blatant desire to cause confrontations with law enforcement... please understand that I have no such desire. I think that the officers I met were able to determine that, as well, which was why the situation ended as harmlessly as it did -- no shots fired, no backups called, no cuffs, and no tickets. And, as it turned out, not really much of a delay either.




Do you get the impression from that transcript that I was arguing at length? I think a clear-headed reading of the transcript easily reveals that no party involved was being argumentative. Perhaps once I get the audio posted, so that you can hear the tone of voice, that will make it easier for you to realize.



I whole-heartedly agree.



Again, we are in agreement. Had I been in an area where I was sure I was not in violation of any law, code, or ordinance, I would likely have replied, "Sir, I'd rather keep it on my person." Given the circumstances, though, I think that we (the cops and I) each handled that aspect well.



Indeed, I was exceedingly surprised that he asked me to hand him my sidearm! And, once the magazine was removed, and they were informed of the additional round in the chamber, I did stand with my arms raised above my waist (not over my head like I was under arrest) while he reached over and carefully removed it from my holster.




Whew... that only took an hour to write. God bless anybody who reads all that!

I read it. Well done!

 

[Bapak2ja]

This begs a few questions:

Why did you engage him in conversation by answering his questions? I would imagine because you were not sure you were on legal ground.

Why did you show your driver's license? (not operating)

For the rest of you, is there anything in the Indiana code that says you must provide anything other than your name and address to identify yourself? (If not operating a motor vehicle?) I'm not counting the LTCH. I mean any other form of identification.

One of the lessons here is: If you don't know if it's legal to carry, find out BEFORE you potentially break the law.

If he called my girlfriend 'hun' I'm not sure what I would have said, if anything, but that does not sit well with me. When I was a paramedic instructor I taught my students to NEVER use terms of endearment when speaking to a patient.

It happens a lot in that community. I can't count the number of time I have been called "Hon," "Sugar," "Sweetie," and similar things by waitresses and other service providers in Terre Haute. I think the LEO was trying to defuse the situation, keep things cool and pass the time while waiting. Of course, he could have been fishing for something with which to charge these "criminals," too; but I think it was well-meant.

 

[Bapak2ja]

One last comment on this thread. I suggest we take it easy on Unit 308. Enough on the neg reps. He presented a point of view that is very commonly held by our LEOs. It gave us all an opportunity to reflect on various aspects of the issue. He also did it with respect—no vulgarities or name calling. Agreed, he did use a pseudonym that can be interpreted as condescending or demeaning, but I think it was appropriate given the context.

I disagree with the point of view Unit308 presented, but I believe he had every right to present it. I value hearing opposing points of view as it helps me learn and think through the ramifications of various issues.

Finally, I commend Unit308 for his LEO service and contribution to our peace and well-being. He is doing a tough, dangerous job under very difficult circumstances. LEOs have taken more than a fair share of verbal abuse since Chicago 1968. We all dislike getting pulled over, or being hassled, by a LEO, but I prefer having a solid blue line at work in Indiana to not having one. We need these guys/gals. Give a bit of respect.

 

[Joe Williams]

One last comment on this thread. I suggest we take it easy on Unit 308. Enough on the neg reps. He presented a point of view that is very commonly held by our LEOs. snip

No.

It's true he presented a point of view held by some LEOs. Those who hold that view need to be aware that there is an ever growing number of citizens who will no longer tolerate their disrespect for the law, the Constitution, and the citizens they serve.

 

[Kick]

I think this is one of these situations where remaining courteous and cordial is the best plan. Turns out you were carrying illegally. If you had made it adversarial the odds of getting arrested or ticketed would have gone up. That is just human nature.

REPPED. It seems like a decent amount of people throw respect right out the window. I am aware that respect is a two-way street. However, from my experiances, it seems that the situation goes a lot smoother, when respect is given from both sides. Just because nothing says that you cannot have an attitude with Officers, it does not mean you should. There are a lot of measures out there to protect your civil rights AND there are a lot of measures out there to protect an Officer who is acting in good faith.

With all of that being said, it seems that we often forget that a large part of an Officer's job, involves DISCRETION. Which, means based upon their preception of the situation, they can make a decision as long as it falls between certain guildlines. Which are often between, you being sent on your way or sitting in jail on felony charges. Your attitude has a lot to do with the Officer's preception of the situation. It can't hurt to just be nice.

Disclaimer: I am fully aware that there are times when someone may feel as if the Officer has no business questioning you. You do not know if he does or not because you cannot possibly know all of the reasons that he is there or what the complainant (if there is one) told the Officer. It is better to be nice and "investigate" later. Remember, per percentage, there are less bad cops than priests!

Disclaimer to the Disclaimer: I am sure even with this said, I am going to see replies about crooked cops and cops that are on a "power trip". I am also going to see replies about cops violating civil rights.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would like to offer a public apology to any LEO who I unintentionally offended with a phrase I used in an earlier post. I received a PM telling me that the term "tin shield" is taken as a derogatory comparison to a security guard or other, less-trained worker (similar in my field to calling a paramedic an "ambulance driver", a term from the very early days when and shortly after the ambulances were actually hearses.

I intended no insult but was attempting to show that a person's merits and demerits, his/her character or lack thereof, his worth as a human being, do not come from a piece of metal pinned to a uniform shirt but from within him/herself.

If I have given the impression, as I was told, that I am anti-LEO, I am not. I am anti-bad(/crooked)-LEO. Those who hold their oath sacred, I hold in high regard. Those who do not, who have neither integrity nor scruples have instead, my contempt.

The person who wrote me wrote a polite version of a rant. I appreciate very much his coming to me directly with the issues he brought, and I respect his opinions. It is through discussion and the sharing of opinions and perspectives that we learn things we did not know previously.

Once again, my apologies if my words have offended.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyBeerman]

I have a tendency to agree with the THPD on this one and to disagree with Mr. Youngblood.

I find it disrespectful that you call him "Mr. Youngblood", I have meet and spent more than an ample amount of time to know that mk2ja is a fine outstanding young man, and should at least be addressed by his screen name.

I have dealt with very similar situations over the years, so I speak from experience.
While carrying openly is legal (with a CCW Permit) it is not advisable.

Don't know where you're from but in Indiana it's called a LTCH, there is nothing that requires him to conceal or not, just that you must have a LTCH to carry your firearm.

This young man probably has no inkling that there are prisoners in our institutions who compare notes and even rehearse how to snatch a handgun from a police officer's holster. He would be "easy pickings" for some of these types.
It has also been my experience that it is often the newly licensed who carry openly. Why? In my opinion it is because they like to "show off" and in many cases rather enjoy the attention/intimidation factor that carrying openly results in.

WOW, and what's that percentage of prisoners doing this .01 percent? One of the responsibilities of having a LTCH is to be aware of your surroundings, situational awareness is everything. Which mk2ja has.

Now as far as addressing carrying openly, I guess since I'm 48 had my license for over 14 years, I'm still showing off. No, not even close, I carry open for the same reason that a officer carries openly, because when having to fumble get your firearm out from under a shirt means life or death.

Here's that disresoect again.

Mister Youngblood could have saved himself (and his date) a lot of time and embarrassment by simply concealing his handgun, but, judging from his numerous posts, I stand by my statement that he is enjoying the attention. It further sounds as if he was not embarrassed at all.
Oh, and for the record, officers can check for valid CCW permits. It is not unheard of that a CCW license has been revoked at the State level, so the mere possession of that little piece of pink paper is not indicative of the fact that the carrier of same has a clean and clear record.

So you won't be offended if the next time you as a officer wearing your uniform and badge have someone ask for additional information like a ID card, because we all know of the numerous security guards out there who have impersonated officers.

And on a personal level? I wonder why a gal would want to go out on a date/dates with someone who openly carries a handgun and who seems to enjoy and, indeed, invite his confrontations with law officers?

Maybe she's hot for some who carries, or the more logical reason, she comfortable with a man that not is not afraid to protect himself of the people who are around him, because when law enforcement is needed ther ARE more than a few minutes away and that is more than enough time to commit a crime.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Oh I would love to see an officer's face after being told this LOL!

I bet even he would have to chuckle...

That's the idea. Defuse the situation entirely with a good, clean laugh, though it seems like it went very well anyway.

 

[Roadie]

I would like to offer a public apology to any LEO who I unintentionally offended with a phrase I used in an earlier post. I received a PM telling me that the term "tin shield" is taken as a derogatory comparison to a security guard or other, less-trained worker (similar in my field to calling a paramedic an "ambulance driver", a term from the very early days when and shortly after the ambulances were actually hearses.

I intended no insult but was attempting to show that a person's merits and demerits, his/her character or lack thereof, his worth as a human being, do not come from a piece of metal pinned to a uniform shirt but from within him/herself.

If I have given the impression, as I was told, that I am anti-LEO, I am not. I am anti-bad(/crooked)-LEO. Those who hold their oath sacred, I hold in high regard. Those who do not, who have neither integrity nor scruples have instead, my contempt.

The person who wrote me wrote a polite version of a rant. I appreciate very much his coming to me directly with the issues he brought, and I respect his opinions. It is through discussion and the sharing of opinions and perspectives that we learn things we did not know previously.

Once again, my apologies if my words have offended.

Blessings,
Bill

Very well said, however, I can't help but wonder if the same person PM'd Unit308 and pointed out HIS errors...

 

[Jack Ryan]

Sir, you underestimate "Mr. Youngblood." He has good situational awareness and is alert to guarding his weapon. He does not have your experience, but he knows the basics and is as able as anyone to retain his weapon. He is consistently practicing what he does know and seeking to learn more. He took the time to learn the laws of Indiana and Terre Haute and obeys them. He expects the LEO to do the same. He is young, and a bit cocky, but he is good kid. Makes his father proud of him.

Isn't that kind of contradicting your self?

 

[IndyBeerman]

Only trouble it attracts is from verminous scum who cannot respect our rights or freedom.

Now, that is not the same as saying people SHOULD OC. The fact that I choose to do so now and then is my choice, as is it is yours to CC if you wish. There are valid arguments about the merits of both, and it's a choice we are free to make. Oh and welcome to INGO. That's a heck of a "first" post.

Verminous Scum! I like that. I like the way it sort of rolls off my tongue. "Verminous Scum!"

I prefer Venomous Duck. Inside joke of the Bob & Tom Show.

 

[downzero]

One last comment on this thread. I suggest we take it easy on Unit 308. Enough on the neg reps. He presented a point of view that is very commonly held by our LEOs. It gave us all an opportunity to reflect on various aspects of the issue. He also did it with respect—no vulgarities or name calling. Agreed, he did use a pseudonym that can be interpreted as condescending or demeaning, but I think it was appropriate given the context.

I disagree with the point of view Unit308 presented, but I believe he had every right to present it. I value hearing opposing points of view as it helps me learn and think through the ramifications of various issues.

Finally, I commend Unit308 for his LEO service and contribution to our peace and well-being. He is doing a tough, dangerous job under very difficult circumstances. LEOs have taken more than a fair share of verbal abuse since Chicago 1968. We all dislike getting pulled over, or being hassled, by a LEO, but I prefer having a solid blue line at work in Indiana to not having one. We need these guys/gals. Give a bit of respect.

I think you're wrong. Unit308's view is to entirely disregard the Fourth Amendment and do whatever he wants. Unit308's view is thus illegal, which makes him a criminal for doing that. The Supreme Court of Indiana has already said that once you show your LTCH, you can no longer be detained unless some other suspicion exists.

Indiana, as far as I know, has full preemption. Some village ordinance prohibiting carry in parks is, as far as I know, illegitimate. OP wasn't doing anything illegal.

Defending dirty cops who violate the Fourth Amendment, admit to doing so in an open forum, hassle law-abiding gun owners, and do so under some perceived privilege that they can carry openly but we can't, is ridiculous.

If I was stopped by Unit308 and he behaved like he says he would, and I could show that he posted that in the open forum ahead of time, and then did it, I'd have a great lawsuit. It might be an instance where I could even sue him individually....where the taxpayers wouldn't pay, he would.

Police officers know, or should know, and are required to know, when they can legally stop someone they've confronted. Having a handgun is not evidence that one is "armed and dangerous." Obviously they're armed. But once they show a LTCH, absent some suspicious activity, they should be free to go. Officers, even if ignorant, who violate this, should be liable--individually.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I read it. Well done!

Bapak2ja, I've said it once, I'll say it again....

You've raised one heck of an outstanding son there.