IMPD Shooting Glock Switch

[norman428]

So LEO can't use simple gun possession for probable cause while patrolling the street, but can use it when working security at a private venue? That does seem counterintuitive. Again, I haven't read enough of this particular story to know what exactly was visible to the officer. I wouldn't think a 'bulge' would be enough reason, for in-house security or LEO, to stop and investigate the individual. I understand why the mall property owners are sensitive to security issues though. They've taken a beating in the press re: guns and violence at mall properties, here of late.

They don't need, and likely didn't have probable cause to stop this person. It is REASONABLE to believe that the person was carrying a firearm on Simon Mall property based on what the officer was seeing. This allows them to stop them, advise them they are trespassing, and simply escort them off the property while acting as an agent for the property. Had this individual simply stopped and agreed to leave the property the police never would have found that switch. I'd even argue that they have no obligation to let the officers see the firearm, just agree with them and leave. This may require identification to be placed on a trespass list, but I have no idea what exactly Simon Malls requires of the officers working there.
He only went to jail for the switch because he ran after being told to stop, at which point the Police side of things takes over the agent of the property side. That's the entire point in hiring people with police powers over just security guards.

 

[firecadet613]

They don't need, and likely didn't have probable cause to stop this person. It is REASONABLE to believe that the person was carrying a firearm on Simon Mall property based on what the officer was seeing. This allows them to stop them, advise them they are trespassing, and simply escort them off the property while acting as an agent for the property. Had this individual simply stopped and agreed to leave the property the police never would have found that switch. I'd even argue that they have no obligation to let the officers see the firearm, just agree with them and leave. This may require identification to be placed on a trespass list, but I have no idea what exactly Simon Malls requires of the officers working there.
He only went to jail for the switch because he ran after being told to stop, at which point the Police side of things takes over the agent of the property side. That's the entire point in hiring people with police powers over just security guards.

How are they trespassing? No gun signs do NOT carry the weight of law in Indiana. They can be asked to leave and if they refuse, then they are "trespassing", but not before...

 

[norman428]

How are they trespassing? No gun signs do NOT carry the weight of law in Indiana. They can be asked to leave and if they refuse, then they are "trespassing", but not before...

Sorry, stopping and advising them that they are "being trespassed" would have been better wording, as they are not trespassing until they have been informed/ asked to leave. But with that contact by an agent of the property, anything less than immediately agreeing to leave the property is trespassing. It wouldn't even have to be the police making that contact. Any agent of the property, including their private security asking them to leave, would count as being asked to leave and trespassing if refused or ignored. Running away into the mall could absolutely be taken as a refusal.
The individual was not charged with trespassing per Mycase.

 

[Cameramonkey]

How are they trespassing? No gun signs do NOT carry the weight of law in Indiana. They can be asked to leave and if they refuse, then they are "trespassing", but not before...

They are TressPASSED. Sign is posted, and management has a blanket request to IMPD for anyone caught breaking that rule to be trespassed and told never* to return. The sign was the warning. And its been years since Ive read the sign, but as I recall the sign even says you will be banned for breaking those rules.

They are within their rights to trespass the person because its their property. You have no right to be there if the owner says they dont want you there.

 

[firecadet613]

They are TressPASSED. Sign is posted, and management has a blanket request to IMPD for anyone caught breaking that rule to be trespassed and told never* to return. The sign was the warning. And its been years since Ive read the sign, but as I recall the sign even says you will be banned for breaking those rules.

They are within their rights to trespass the person because its their property. You have no right to be there if the owner says they dont want you there.

Again - no gun signs in Indiana do NOT carry the weight of law! I did not say they could not be trespassed.

You cannot be arrested for trespassing until you're asked to leave and refuse.

That is a BIG difference from states where the no gun signs carry the weight of law...

I do not go to malls and do not have a gun in this fight, but that difference matters. Simon's rules do NOT trump state law...

 

[Cameramonkey]

Again - no gun signs in Indiana do NOT carry the weight of law! I did not say they could not be trespassed.

You cannot be arrested for trespassing until you're asked to leave and refuse.

That is a BIG difference from states where the no gun signs carry the weight of law...

I do not go to malls and do not have a gun in this fight, but that difference matters. Simon's rules do NOT trump state law...

Agreed. They do not carry weight of law. Maybe one of both of us are not being clear and the other isnt understanding.

How are they trespassing? No gun signs do NOT carry the weight of law in Indiana. They can be asked to leave and if they refuse, then they are "trespassing", but not before...

The point was they were not trespassING when they walked by the sign carrying a gun. IMPD TrespassED them on first contact. (or at least attempted to) Each could have walked out and never returned and been just fine. But that is not what happened.

Each was confronted and attempted to issue a trespass order. (edit: at this point, each was free to go home) One was arrested for gun charges after running if I remember correctly, the other was arrested for trespassing because he refused to leave (or tried to walk back in) after he was trespassed.

Neither was arrested on the spot because of the sign telling them they were trespassing only.

 

[manifest destiny]

I'd like to know what made the assumption of gun possession 'reasonable'. Not because I demand to know. Not because I have a right to know. Simply, I'm curious. Again, as I've stated before, many times in this thread, there may be details missing that fill in that blank. Perhaps the gun or part of the gun was plainly visible. Perhaps the printing was so outrageous it was reasonable to assume the item to be a gun. It's also possible the decision to accost this fine, outstanding citizen was due to assumption(s) that might not seem reasonable to the average Joe. I don't give two rats tails to what the property owner wants to do regarding security at the mall. If the mall reserves the right to examine all bulging pockets, backpacks and purses, and I'm positive they do, then OK. But how many bulges, backpack and purses were there in the mall that day? How many were stopped? And specifically, why was this kind, gentle, solid citizen stopped but not others? I'm glad he's not in the mall. I'm fine with private companies hiring LEO's for security. If I'm stopped at the mall, I'll politely leave. This gentleman of highly reasoned response should have done the same.

 

[Denny347]

I'd like to know what made the assumption of gun possession 'reasonable'. Not because I demand to know. Not because I have a right to know. Simply, I'm curious. Again, as I've stated before, many times in this thread, there may be details missing that fill in that blank. Perhaps the gun or part of the gun was plainly visible. Perhaps the printing was so outrageous it was reasonable to assume the item to be a gun. It's also possible the decision to accost this fine, outstanding citizen was due to assumption(s) that might not seem reasonable to the average Joe. I don't give two rats tails to what the property owner wants to do regarding security at the mall. If the mall reserves the right to examine all bulging pockets, backpacks and purses, and I'm positive they do, then OK. But how many bulges, backpack and purses were there in the mall that day? How many were stopped? And specifically, why was this kind, gentle, solid citizen stopped but not others? I'm glad he's not in the mall. I'm fine with private companies hiring LEO's for security. If I'm stopped at the mall, I'll politely leave. This gentleman of highly reasoned response should have done the same.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that they were carrying with a 30rd mag. Pretty typical is it had a switch.

 

[bwframe]

Teenagers with switches and stendos...

IMPD: Five Teenagers Arrested, Several Guns & Attachments Found

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department arrested five men Saturday for possessing illegal weapons and marijuana.

wibc.com

These are all adults Mr Mears. What do you intend to do with them?

...Officers made the following arrests:

18-year-old Kentavion Lowe – possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm with a scratched serial number
19-year-old Dwayne Johnson – possession of a firearm by a prohibited person
18-year-old Christian Richardson – possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm with a scratched serial number
18-year-old Sylvarion Crayton – possession of marijuana
18-year-old Jeremiah Kimbrough – possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm with a scratched serial number...

 

[manifest destiny]

From the attached wibc article above:

• Assault rifle-styled pistol with a scratched serial number and a Glock switch

So, a pistol brace maybe?? A true sbr??
ETA. I'm guessing pistol brace since it included the glock switch.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

From the attached wibc article above:

• Assault rifle-styled pistol with a scratched serial number and a Glock switch

So, a pistol brace maybe?? A true sbr??
ETA. I'm guessing pistol brace since it included the glock switch.

The AR probably has a homemade "sear" in it.

 

[bwframe]

From the attached wibc article above:

• Assault rifle-styled pistol with a scratched serial number and a Glock switch

So, a pistol brace maybe?? A true sbr??
ETA. I'm guessing pistol brace since it included the glock switch.

Not to take away from your keen observation, but I don't think it matters. If Mears lets these guys all walk, with nothing more than a slap on the hand, what then?

Same with the ATF. They don't do anything with these thugs, but they are content to threaten many million of "us" with felonies because of once authorized pistol braces?

What will be done the next time they are found with switches and stendos? Will they be found after using their equipment on innocents and cops?

There is no incentive for thugs not to have these common tools of the trade in 2023, right?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The AR probably has a homemade "sear" in it.

Someone will have to create a new meme for what the media calls a "Glock switch", similar to what they call a "Glock" or an "Assault Rifle" since apparently a sear qualifies now.

 

[manifest destiny]

Not to take away from your keen observation, but I don't think it matters. If Mears lets these guys all walk, with nothing more than a slap on the hand, what then?

Same with the ATF. They don't do anything with these thugs, but they are content to threaten many million of "us" with felonies because of once authorized pistol braces?

What will be done the next time they are found with switches and stendos? Will they be found after using their equipment on innocents and cops?

There is no incentive for thugs not to have these common tools of the trade in 2023, right?

Just to piggyback your thoughts, based upon the article, they tracked this guy down rather easy. The article didn't say it explicitly, but as written it gave the impression one, if not all, of those arrested were well known to law enforcement. So when Mears lets these guys walk, he's effectively condoning their next actions. Well known, prohibited persons, wanted for crime, released to commit more crime. Ludicrous. And to think officers had to assume a very large risk to pull over a car full of known bad guys and machine guns just so they can be released again. Worse than ludicrous, really.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Someone will have to create a new meme for what the media calls a "Glock switch", similar to what they call a "Glock" or an "Assault Rifle" since apparently a sear qualifies now.

The new official term is "machine gun conversion device.

 

[bwframe]

...And to think officers had to assume a very large risk to pull over a car full of known bad guys and machine guns just so they can be released again. Worse than ludicrous, really.

Exactly! What if just one of a carload of thugs decided they had nothing to lose by engaging officers? Then it's on, right?

NSFW!!!

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Exactly! What if just one of a carload of thugs decided they had nothing to lose by engaging officers? Then it's on, right?

NSFW!!!

The one guy posted on social media he was going to shoot cops. I guess he chickened out.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Exactly! What if just one of a carload of thugs decided they had nothing to lose by engaging officers? Then it's on, right?

NSFW!!!

Was any of that in English? Seems like they need closed captioning.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Was any of that in English? Seems like they need closed captioning.

Or maybe we need Barbara Billingsley to translate.

 

[bwframe]

The one guy posted on social media he was going to shoot cops. I guess he chickened out.

Be safe sir.

I hope someone copied Mears on that media post?


.