Boss Hogsett is at it again

[phylodog]

How lovely a society in which the lowest form of existence, the politician, is comfortable pandering to an audience he cares nothing about by promising to violate the rule and the intent of law.

 

[BigRed]

They then do anything you want including giving you a month celebration.

Don't forget...you can also get a ******* mural of paint slopped all over a street at taxpayer expense.

 

[TheGrumpyGuy]

How lovely a society in which the lowest form of existence, the politician, is comfortable pandering to an audience he cares nothing about by promising to violate the rule and the intent of law.

You know, the 1st time I read your statement I thought it said pollution, not politician

 

[BigRed]

You know, the 1st time I read your statement I thought it said pollution, not politician

Same thing

 

[thompal]

Given most, if not all, of his wish list conflict with state law, I see zero chance of any of this happening.

That doesn't mean that he won't try. He'll go full Illinois and get a law passed in Indy that he knows is against state law.

 

[thompal]

And dont forget basically making Indianapolis one big gun free zone.

It would be interesting to see his proposed law. How is he proposing to "outlaw" "assault rifles?"

 

[thompal]

You've been here a bit longer than me. I've never seen IPD/IMPD officers leave to go to outlying departments until a few years ago. Maybe a few here and there to go to another state to follow a spouse or something, but never to surrounding counties. Now it's a steady drain.

With our current prosecutor and courts it's no surprise. Why would anyone want to risk their life to arrest the thugs when they know that nothing will happen to them?

 

[Denny347]

Why would anyone want to risk their life to arrest the thugs when they know that nothing will happen to them?

Because there are people who still care about Indy residents. We arrest those who deserve it. THAT we can control. We cannot control what the Judges/Prosecutor does.

 

[Destro]

With our current prosecutor and courts it's no surprise. Why would anyone want to risk their life to arrest the thugs when they know that nothing will happen to them?

I used to work an occasional off-duty gig in Indy if it was something cool, but I gave that up shortly after the riots. $50 an hour is not worth the amount of risk down there. Those IMPD guys have way more guts than I do.

 

[BJHay]

What if you are in the minority?

In this case you either tolerate the situation and live an armed careful life or move out of the county. A fight against the siren song of modern liberalism isn't going to by successful in most large cities.

 

[thompal]

IMO. I actually prefer being under a mayor. Sheriff's being elected is a double edged sword.

Yes, but an elected sheriff doesn't answer to the mayor. An IMPD chief is appointed by, and answers to, the mayor.

If a mayor wants to start taking guns away to achieve his political goal, the chief is the tool he will use to accomplish it.

 

[Denny347]

Yes, but an elected sheriff doesn't answer to the mayor. An IMPD chief is appointed by, and answers to, the mayor.

If a mayor wants to start taking guns away to achieve his political goal, the chief is the tool he will use to accomplish it.

So you are saying the CHIEF will go confiscate firearms on the Mayor's behalf? First off, this all smoke and mirrors since State law will not allow him to do what he stated. Second, how street officers actually conduct business every day has little to do with what the Mayor wants.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes, but an elected sheriff doesn't answer to the mayor. An IMPD chief is appointed by, and answers to, the mayor.

If a mayor wants to start taking guns away to achieve his political goal, the chief is the tool he will use to accomplish it.

..and the mayor is elected. There's no difference in accountability on that front, though for some reason since the sheriff tends to wear a uniform in public and the mayor doesn't people think otherwise.

 

[edporch]

All that would need to happen is to have the police add to their present policy of intentionally slow walking every gun through the system and making innocent people who've committed no crime wait YEARS or even never to have their guns (legally owned property) returned.

THEN ADD to this policy that EVERY firearm the police encounter must be taken from the owner and entered into the system to be "checked" to be sure it isn't a stolen firearm.
Knowing the owner will likely never get it returned to them.

So then the Mayor can still in essence have his gun "confiscation" scheme, and still TECHNICALLY abide by Indiana State law.

SO PICTURE this.
You're pulled over by the police in Marion County, and they ask you about any firearms in your car.
You inform them you have your carry pistol with you.

The cop who pulled you over has ZERO probable cause to believe you've committed a crime, or that your pistol is stolen.

BUT informs you of the new Mayor Hogsett public safety policy that every firearm encountered by the police MUST be checked to be sure it isn't stolen.
After all, it's "for the children".

ONCE it enters the system, you can kiss good-bye to your pistol, and it's ALL "NICE AND LEGAL".

 

[KellyinAvon]

Boss Hogg has come out with a hashtag and t-shirts. Watch out criminal element

 

[Cameramonkey]

All that would need to happen is to have the police add to their present policy of intentionally slow walking every gun through the system and making innocent people who've committed no crime wait YEARS or even never to have their guns (legally owned property) returned.

THEN ADD to this policy that EVERY firearm the police encounter must be taken from the owner and entered into the system to be "checked" to be sure it isn't a stolen firearm.
Knowing the owner will likely never get it returned to them.

So then the Mayor can still in essence have his gun "confiscation" scheme, and still TECHNICALLY abide by Indiana State law.

SO PICTURE this.
You're pulled over by the police in Marion County, and they ask you about any firearms in your car.
You inform them you have your carry pistol with you.

The cop who pulled you over has ZERO probable cause to believe you've committed a crime, or that your pistol is stolen.

BUT informs you of the new Mayor Hogsett public safety policy that every firearm encountered by the police MUST be checked to be sure it isn't stolen.
After all, it's "for the children".

ONCE it enters the system, you can kiss good-bye to your pistol, and it's ALL "NICE AND LEGAL".

You forgot "and not release it without a proof of purchase."

 

[manifest destiny]

So you are saying the CHIEF will go confiscate firearms on the Mayor's behalf? First off, this all smoke and mirrors since State law will not allow him to do what he stated.

What if the state law were changed? Might the chief then give directives to confiscate weapons guns? Would the patrolmen agree to the directive from the chief? I agree with smoke and mirrors... for now. But laws come, go and get amended. I'm also curious if the chief offers any pushback when the mayor attempts to circumvent existing law.

 

[BigMoose]

Jefferson Shreve.

He is going to get my vote .

 

[Denny347]

All that would need to happen is to have the police add to their present policy of intentionally slow walking every gun through the system and making innocent people who've committed no crime wait YEARS or even never to have their guns (legally owned property) returned.

THEN ADD to this policy that EVERY firearm the police encounter must be taken from the owner and entered into the system to be "checked" to be sure it isn't a stolen firearm.
Knowing the owner will likely never get it returned to them.

So then the Mayor can still in essence have his gun "confiscation" scheme, and still TECHNICALLY abide by Indiana State law.

SO PICTURE this.
You're pulled over by the police in Marion County, and they ask you about any firearms in your car.
You inform them you have your carry pistol with you.

The cop who pulled you over has ZERO probable cause to believe you've committed a crime, or that your pistol is stolen.

BUT informs you of the new Mayor Hogsett public safety policy that every firearm encountered by the police MUST be checked to be sure it isn't stolen.
After all, it's "for the children".

ONCE it enters the system, you can kiss good-bye to your pistol, and it's ALL "NICE AND LEGAL".

Holy crap, that is a LOT of "what ifs". You'd also have to change Dept policy that a CIVILIAN board controls as well as 7th Circuit Case Law. There are so many "what ifs" and assumptions that we might as well be discussing aliens from outer space.

 

[Denny347]

What if the state law were changed? Might the chief then give directives to confiscate weapons guns? Would the patrolmen agree to the directive from the chief? I agree with smoke and mirrors... for now. But laws come, go and get amended. I'm also curious if the chief offers any pushback when the mayor attempts to circumvent existing law.

The State would have to create a State Law doing what the Mayor wants. The CCC can only create City Ordinances where the only consequences are fines. No one can go to jail for an ordinance violation. Most patrol officers care little for ordinance violations. They have their hands full with ACTUAL criminal activity.