Long overdue help for Law Enforcement
- Thread starter JcMack
- Start date
I guess most of you guys have never tried to arrest someone in a hostile area with a crowd constantly moving in on you making hostile and threatening comments, while rocks and bottles land around you as you try to circle around to keep your eye on the threatening crowd while struggling with the original suspect. It's not a comforting situation. I think that's what the law is trying to address.
I haven't read the actual statute. I hope it written well and with clarity and is reasonable. It does address a scenario that needs some addressing. It's especially important outside of metro areas where you get the one riot, one "deputy" scenarios, if only for 5, 10 or 15 minutes or so. 5 minutes can seem a very long time. I've been there and it can really stink. Try having an arrestee in one arm backed up against your patrol car while holding off a crowd with a stun gun and backup is somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes away.
I doubt the law was written to address scenarios described in previous comments. It was my understanding that the law doesn't kick in until warned by the officer. They aren't going to chase people out of a car in a traffic stop. The cops almost always want the other occupants to stay in the car. In a bar situation you wouldn't expect people to back away 25 feet but you sure don't want them crowding in on you. I they don't back up when instructed it sure would be nice to come back and snatch them up too after unloading the original subject.
Oh well, I hope they wrote it well.
I haven't read the actual statute. I hope it written well and with clarity and is reasonable. It does address a scenario that needs some addressing. It's especially important outside of metro areas where you get the one riot, one "deputy" scenarios, if only for 5, 10 or 15 minutes or so. 5 minutes can seem a very long time. I've been there and it can really stink. Try having an arrestee in one arm backed up against your patrol car while holding off a crowd with a stun gun and backup is somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes away.
I doubt the law was written to address scenarios described in previous comments. It was my understanding that the law doesn't kick in until warned by the officer. They aren't going to chase people out of a car in a traffic stop. The cops almost always want the other occupants to stay in the car. In a bar situation you wouldn't expect people to back away 25 feet but you sure don't want them crowding in on you. I they don't back up when instructed it sure would be nice to come back and snatch them up too after unloading the original subject.
Oh well, I hope they wrote it well.
LVSteve
Member
If you cannot video an interaction between any two people from 25 feet away and see what needs to be seen, learn how to use your cell phone (mine has three lenses) or get a better one. 
For sure this will end up in SCOTUS with the "filming in a public place is protected" argument to the fore, but don't bank on it falling on that alone.
For sure this will end up in SCOTUS with the "filming in a public place is protected" argument to the fore, but don't bank on it falling on that alone.
Benton Quest
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 655
It's interesting when you consider the somewhat "imaginary" 7-yard rule that Dennis Tueller developed...that magic, sacrosanct bubble for bladed weapons...
This is 8.33 yards.
It's pretty close to the crazies if you have just kicked the hornets' nest.
Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
This is 8.33 yards.
It's pretty close to the crazies if you have just kicked the hornets' nest.
Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
So the Officer says to the crowd "Per House Enrolled Act 1186 I am ordering all of you to stand back 21 feet or you will be arrested. I only have one pair of handcuffs and I see there are 15 of you so please consider all of yourselves under arrest and watch peacefully until my backup arrives".
Got to love dumb laws.
OP
JcMack
Member
I think "ignorance of the law is no excuse" will apply. Witness the fact that thankfully marijuana in any form or intended use is still illegal here in Indiana. Every day I read of Illinoisians who recently moved here claiming "I dint know" as they are arrested and tried for smoking the noxious weed.
So 25 is bad, but 30 is ok? Sounds like a dumb law to me. Just another ridiculous waste of time by our legislature in an effort to appear that they're "doing something." (Presumably "doing something" nowadays is a proper activity in legislatures at the national level, and on down. 
)
For as long as I can remember, here in Indiana, interfering with a police officer pursuing his lawful duties has just about guaranteed to land you in some pretty serious trouble.
)For as long as I can remember, here in Indiana, interfering with a police officer pursuing his lawful duties has just about guaranteed to land you in some pretty serious trouble.
1) I always carried 2 pairs of handcuffs on my person and 2 more in the car (spotlight handle), and a hobble and usually leg chains, plus some zip ties, when they became a thing.
2) I most often knew the players, if only by face. Going back for them later works well as a deterrent when they know that's an option. Kind of like Tasers. The threat of being tased actually works better than the actual tasing. Word gets out and the law, if utilized openly a few times, will act as a deterrent.
Another aside: My favorite Taser arrest was when I had a chronic small time crackhead burglar semi-cornered. While he was deciding which way to flee, I advised the suspect that if he failed to comply with my order to get on the ground, I would be forced to utilize my Taser on the posterior portion of his anatomy. While not really verbalizing the command in that manner I was holding my hand behind my back as if grasping a Taser. As he had previously taken a ride he decided to comply and submit to arrest. He expressed his displeasure later when I told him I was glad he submitted as I'd forgot my Taser on my bedroom dresser.
3) Even if you can't find them later there is a positive effect because when they think you're looking for them they go into hiding and cause less trouble, at least for a fair while.
4) If they aren't aware you're keeping an eye out for them it's worth it for the surprise factor. - "What are you arresting me for, I didn't do nothin." - "Well remember last Saturday in front of the club!" Plus there's a good chance they're holding now.
A misdemeanor that must be committed in my presence doesn't have to have been committed just then. It's good if you did some sort of documentation originally. It should be even better now with body cams.
When I first worked as the PD in a little podunk town where I couldn't legally pursue outside my jurisdiction I had a traffic infraction fleeing problem. I solved my traffic fleeing problem when I started arresting the perpetrators a week or two later when they came back thinking they had got clean away. Surprise! (A little Mississippi River town now bypassed by the highway).
As mentioned earlier by Muss, the old Mo "Failure to comply with the reasonable request of a police officer" was well utilized back in the day. And probably no longer valid. The Fl "Resisting officer W/O violence" can also be useful but their vagueness can make prosecution difficult. Adding some measurable clarity to the situations the law addresses could be a good thing while still allowing "citizens" the ability to record, from a distance safe for the officer.
If well written I think the law in question is a great law.
I think I'm done here.
