If dropping you're weapon doesn't suggest mitigating circumstances I don't know what does. In this case I believe the LEOs acted correctly. At very least this individual was not maintaining control of their weapon, they could have just as easily been intoxicated or otherwise a danger to themselves or others. We aren't talking about a weapon that was in a holster or concealed in this case. If the accused had acted responsibly with the weapon it would probably have never been an issue.Jusme wrote:LabRat wrote:I'm going to disagree. Calls come into the police all the time. Its the duty of police to gather facts surrounding the event to determine if an officer is required. Not all PD's do this, but in the interest of resources and priority, it's something they should be doing. It also would prevent these types of situations from ever developing.TexasTornado wrote:I probably would agree except for the call made to police. ...<snip>>
Additional questions would be "is he pointing the gun at anyone?", "is he threatening anyone?", etc....anything that would indicate a crime is afoot. If we subscribe to the idea that all calls to police should result in an officer response, then any report, regardless of how facetious, would require a police officer to intervene, even when the citizen activities are completely legal. Swatting would take on a whole new meaning and the privacy of the citizens would be eliminated completely. The police could stop you and demand "papers" at any time. That's not the society we envisioned.
I'm not for any criminal escaping punishment for a criminal transaction, but this ruling actually protects law-abiding citizens from governmental overreach. No crime had occurred or suspicion of a crime been witnessed, IMHO. That's what makes the stop a violation of the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
LabRat
This.
Of course we may not have all of the facts of the case, as to why the police were called, or whether they were led to believe a crime may have been in progress, but this was the debate during the legislative session on open carry here in Texas. The left wanted to give the authority to the police to check for LTC verification, simply if someone was seen carrying. This was echoed by left leaning police chiefs. The legislature said that the police can ask for verification, but not solely based on seeing someone carrying a handgun. There must be other mitigating circumstances. <snip>
Search found 2 matches
Return to “IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"”
- Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:17 pm
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
- Replies: 13
- Views: 6218
Re: IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
- Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:26 am
- Forum: Other States
- Topic: IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
- Replies: 13
- Views: 6218
Re: IN: Court of Appeals: Merely having a gun not "reasonable suspicion"
I probably would agree except for the call made to police. He was being careless with his weapon, which would make me wonder if he possibly intoxicated or any other number of things. Given that he was seen with a weapon, upon checking on the situation that was called in, the LEO had every right for his/her own safety to ask if the gentleman was armed and then to see a licence once the weapon was seen, especially since the gentleman lied about its possession (never ever lie to an officer about possessing a weapon 
) If the officer had meerly seen the butt of a pistol while walking down the street I'd agree, but in this case I believe the LEO was just acting in the interests of public and personal safety.
) If the officer had meerly seen the butt of a pistol while walking down the street I'd agree, but in this case I believe the LEO was just acting in the interests of public and personal safety.