POLICE DISCRETION

[redneckmedic]

I have noticed over the last several months more and more questions come up about "transporting a handgun without LTCH" or something similar. I think a lot of the disagreements spawn from logic and law.

There are several example in which the law is very specific but LEO have the use of it to find other criminal behaviors or crimes. Kind of the "pulled over for a broken tail light" concept. With firearms being such a hot topic I don't know I would classify in the same "Warning and let-go" scenario, however there might be some room for wiggle.

Police Discretion Examples
Driving while under the influence vs Impaired Driving
- one states alcohol in the system
- the lather says you are legally over the limit

Public Intoxication
-this is kind of a joke... how many times have you witnessed someone inebriated in public without being arrested. Or maybe even a run in with LEO and given a chance to "chill out", general LEO gives the drunk's buddies the opportunity to get him under control before action is taken.

Off with a Warning
-Who here is been pulled over for speeding and let off with a warning? You still broke the law and caught red handed and let go.

Illegally Possessing a firearm
-Quoted several times in this forum, the state law (or is it city/county) is very specific about when it is and isn't legal to possess a handgun. With out a LTCH you may bring it home from the store which you purchased it. And if memory serves a couple other times.

Is this to limit handgun volume on the streets?
Does it make arrest and holding potential criminal easier for further investigation?
Is it because the man wants to keep us down?

All of the above (to the best of my limited knowledge) are laws that are clearly defined and yet upon opportunity do not result in citation or arrests.

I am not advising ignoring any of the above laws nor implying that if you get caught no biggie. My point is I see where members find room to debate the law because of previous experience or history as example.

Maybe some LEO would like to expand or critique my observations.

Good Read:Police Discretion

excert:
There's a difference between the ministration and administration of justice. Nobody (except mechanical jurisprudence theorists) wants a ministerial agency of justice, one that would ritually and religiously follow every rule and regulation down to the letter in a mechanistic, repetitive, assembly-line manner. Instead, we need responsible administers -- officials who show "good judgment" and exercise discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. By definition, discretion is the making of choices among a number of possible courses of action (Davis 1969). This is a modified definition of what Kenneth Culp Davis actually said was "free to make choices".

Discretion is not doing as you please. Discretion is bounded by norms (professional norms, community norms, legal norms, moral norms). The future of policing as a profession depends upon whether discretion can be put to good use. Two problems impeding police professionalization, however, in that there are few uncontroversial areas of police work, unlike other professions, AND the public seems unwilling to trust informally in the accountability of police officers; they seem to want strict, formal accountability mechanisms. Sometimes the public wants nonenforcement, and other times they want strict enforcement. Citizens will scream false arrest in the first case, and some groups may file a writ of mandamus in the second case (a writ of mandamus is a court order to get a public official to perform their duty).

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I can honestly say that after about 20-25 " run-in's" with LEO's , I've only met one that I thought was a jerk .

I've been given more breaks due to their discretion (and my honesty) than I've ever rightfully deserved .

In my experience , I believe that if your honest with them about your actions and intentions most of the time , they'll let you slide .

You cant fly without a pilot's license , you cant be a paramedic without a license , so why put yourself in a position to get in trouble if your caught ?

Wait till you get the license and your all good .

 

[Bill of Rights]

I can honestly say that after about 20-25 " run-in's" with LEO's , I've only met one that I thought was a jerk .

I've been given more breaks due to their discretion (and my honesty) than I've ever rightfully deserved .

In my experience , I believe that if your honest with them about your actions and intentions most of the time , they'll let you slide .

You cant fly without a pilot's license , you cant be a paramedic without a license , so why put yourself in a position to get in trouble if your caught ?

Wait till you get the license and your all good .

I've gotten a couple of breaks from LEOs while driving; never had a run-in involving a firearm so cannot speak to that issue from experience. However, I do not have a fundamental or Constitutional right to fly a plane nor to be a paramedic. I have the privilege and honor of the latter because I trained and educated myself in emergency medicine with expert instructors.
Conversely, if it becomes necessary to do so, I have the right to defend myself and those I love with force, including deadly force, not because I've jumped through hoops to gain a privilege but because I am a being who has been granted my life by the grace of God. I need no license, no state permission, no official authority to do so.

Want proof? Consider that if, rather than a firearm, I choose to arm myself with a sword, a rock, or 15-20 years of training in the martial arts. Let us say as well that I choose to carry a poison-dart blowgun with me. None of the above items require a LTCH or anything similar. None of them to my knowledge are subject to federal, state, or local regulation. (possible exception for the poison darts)
If I use any of them in my own defense, it is unlikely that a prosecutor will get a bone-on to put another notch in his briefcase handle to convict me, and the newspapers will give me a brief mention somewhere around page A4-maybe.

In any of the above cases, the force used can be deadly and in some cases can be so even at a distance or even against multiple opponents. Any of them can be misused by those with criminal intent, and the fact that few do so is no evidence against the possibility. Only with a firearm is my right of self-defense called into question.

There is no logic in these ludicrous regulations, there is only emotional hand-wringing and wetting of undergarments over the poor little altar boys who commit crimes and receive swift, certain, possibly final justice when their guilt is beyond question: at the scene of the crime, wearing masks and carrying weapons in hand while threatening their use if demands (for things to which they are not entitled) are not met.

I do have a LTCH. Near the end of this year, I plan to make application to change it to a Lifetime LTCH. I have it because it is easier to change the system from within it than from without and I will jump through the unConstitutional hoops because I do not choose to be charged with a felony for exercising my rights. Neither of these facts changes the unConstitutionality of the consequences of doing otherwise, nor does either imply agreement with the exercise of power on the part of government. They are strictly for my convenience, or more precisely, to prevent my inconvenience. This should not be a matter of "officer discretion"; officers of the law should have no jurisdiction over those who have not violated the law, and the jurisdiction they have over those who have done so should be limited to the violations in question.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

OMG dude seriously calm down , the Gestapo isn't out to get you .

My point is to use your head and not put yourself in a position where you can get in trouble in the first place . A think before you act kinda thing .

 

[redneckmedic]

This should not be a matter of "officer discretion"; officers of the law should have no jurisdiction over those who have not violated the law, and the jurisdiction they have over those who have done so should be limited to the violations in question.

I think you missed this part.....

Discretion is not doing as you please. Discretion is bounded by norms (professional norms, community norms, legal norms, moral norms). The future of policing as a profession depends upon whether discretion can be put to good use. Two problems impeding police professionalization, however, in that there are few uncontroversial areas of police work, unlike other professions, AND the public seems unwilling to trust informally in the accountability of police officers; they seem to want strict, formal accountability mechanisms. Sometimes the public wants nonenforcement, and other times they want strict enforcement. Citizens will scream false arrest in the first case, and some groups may file a writ of mandamus in the second case (a writ of mandamus is a court order to get a public official to perform their duty).

 

[Mgderf]

I've gotten a couple of breaks from LEOs while driving; never had a run-in involving a firearm so cannot speak to that issue from experience. However, I do not have a fundamental or Constitutional right to fly a plane nor to be a paramedic. I have the privilege and honor of the latter because I trained and educated myself in emergency medicine with expert instructors.
Conversely, if it becomes necessary to do so, I have the right to defend myself and those I love with force, including deadly force, not because I've jumped through hoops to gain a privilege but because I am a being who has been granted my life by the grace of God. I need no license, no state permission, no official authority to do so.

Want proof? Consider that if, rather than a firearm, I choose to arm myself with a sword, a rock, or 15-20 years of training in the martial arts. Let us say as well that I choose to carry a poison-dart blowgun with me. None of the above items require a LTCH or anything similar. None of them to my knowledge are subject to federal, state, or local regulation. (possible exception for the poison darts)
If I use any of them in my own defense, it is unlikely that a prosecutor will get a bone-on to put another notch in his briefcase handle to convict me, and the newspapers will give me a brief mention somewhere around page A4-maybe.

In any of the above cases, the force used can be deadly and in some cases can be so even at a distance or even against multiple opponents. Any of them can be misused by those with criminal intent, and the fact that few do so is no evidence against the possibility. Only with a firearm is my right of self-defense called into question.

There is no logic in these ludicrous regulations, there is only emotional hand-wringing and wetting of undergarments over the poor little altar boys who commit crimes and receive swift, certain, possibly final justice when their guilt is beyond question: at the scene of the crime, wearing masks and carrying weapons in hand while threatening their use if demands (for things to which they are not entitled) are not met.

I do have a LTCH. Near the end of this year, I plan to make application to change it to a Lifetime LTCH. I have it because it is easier to change the system from within it than from without and I will jump through the unConstitutional hoops because I do not choose to be charged with a felony for exercising my rights. Neither of these facts changes the unConstitutionality of the consequences of doing otherwise, nor does either imply agreement with the exercise of power on the part of government. They are strictly for my convenience, or more precisely, to prevent my inconvenience. This should not be a matter of "officer discretion"; officers of the law should have no jurisdiction over those who have not violated the law, and the jurisdiction they have over those who have done so should be limited to the violations in question.



Blessings,
Bill

A more complete, and concise explanation, of one's personal views, I can NOT fathom.
I agree 100%
Thank you- Bill of Rights, for saving me the trouble of trying to articulate exactly what you said!

 

[Bill of Rights]

OMG dude seriously calm down , the Gestapo isn't out to get you .

My point is to use your head and not put yourself in a position where you can get in trouble in the first place . A think before you act kinda thing .

I'm very calm, and it's not the "Gestapo" that worries me; It's the citizens who are willing to cede to police (or anyone) their rights for the peace of mind of others. I understood your point. You seem to have missed mine. Rights are not subject to license or permission, only privileges are. See... 'don't put yourself in a position where you can get in trouble in the first place', in the hands of those who use their discretion like Chief Farrar is described as doing in another recent thread would restrict us from doing much of anything of which he personally did not approve. (How many times have LEOs stated that they can follow someone driving for at most three miles and bust them for violation of any number of infractions?) IMHO, the problem is twofold: "too many laws" and "arbitrary standards".

I think you missed this part.....

Discretion is not doing as you please. Discretion is bounded by norms (professional norms, community norms, legal norms, moral norms). The future of policing as a profession depends upon whether discretion can be put to good use. Two problems impeding police professionalization, however, in that there are few uncontroversial areas of police work, unlike other professions, AND the public seems unwilling to trust informally in the accountability of police officers; they seem to want strict, formal accountability mechanisms. Sometimes the public wants nonenforcement, and other times they want strict enforcement. Citizens will scream false arrest in the first case, and some groups may file a writ of mandamus in the second case (a writ of mandamus is a court order to get a public official to perform their duty).

Nope, I saw it. I want enforcement of those laws applicable to those who do intentional harm to others. I don't care if that enforcement is by some government official of whatever level or title or by the intended victim.
I don't want mala prohibita "laws" applied to those whose actions threaten only those (in or out of uniform) who would do them harm.

A more complete, and concise explanation, of one's personal views, I can NOT fathom.
I agree 100%
Thank you- Bill of Rights, for saving me the trouble of trying to articulate exactly what you said!

You are most welcome.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Denny347]

 

[redneckmedic]

I understood your point. You seem to have missed mine. Rights are not subject to license or permission, only privileges are.

I generally agree with you Bill, and I don't disagree with you on a concept level here, just actuality.

Here is my only argument...

There is no such thing as rights....just the limitations of them... at any point in time... BOOM EVERYTHING IS GONE, WHEN HUSSEIN OBAMA SAYS SO!!!

World War Two - Japanese internment camps in the US

 

[oldfb]

+1 Bill I agree 90 percent with your explanation. The last 10 percent is either confusion or brainwashing by the machine. I think many of our feelings about these political or constitutional issues are based on the information we have been spoon fed by our parents, education or Main stream media. When confronted with a clear presentation of the facts there will be many of us who will refuse to be swayed. Not because you are wrong but mainly out of pride or prejudice. Akin to plugging ears and chanting "lalalalalalala I can't hearyou. Because obviously you have explored an alternative idea while the rest of us are stuck regurgitating illogical or manipulated positions. Thank you and if you run for office you would have my vote. Unfortunately the well of life and the tree of liberty have been poisoned to such a level by people with strong convictions and good intentions. One voice likely will be drowned out until neither will sustain life or bear fruit.

Right here today I ask us all to set aside our differences and stop arguing over when, if or how it is going to change.

WE MUST FIND A PATH TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL CHANGE!

Bill I have asked you about several issues and you have offered sound advice and direction. I think if you helped lay the framework of the real issues without being in a post of yay or nay ideas. Just plain true hardline constitutional ideas with optional solutions. And if everyone participating agrees to check their ego at the door. I believe we have enough people here to actually help offer the elected officials and future reps some sound advice not based on the biggest check- book.

Any ideas on where to start?
Perhaps a spin off of INGO or new Constitutional Education Section with Bill leading with a plan instead of just a problem and another moderater to ensure free speach with out insults? Maybe call it : INCONFU - Indiana Constitution For Us!

Anyone else interested?

 

[redneckmedic]

Maybe call it : INCONFU - Indiana Constitution For Us!
Anyone else interested?

That would be considered unpatriotic and you would make "The List"





​

 

[Bill of Rights]

I generally agree with you Bill, and I don't disagree with you on a concept level here, just actuality.

Here is my only argument...

There is no such thing as rights....just the limitations of them... at any point in time... BOOM EVERYTHING IS GONE, WHEN HUSSEIN OBAMA SAYS SO!!!

World War Two - Japanese internment camps in the US

Sorry, I can't agree. There most certainly are rights, and the people above were wronged (please ignore this horrible pun; I don't know a better way to say it) when they were prevented from exercising theirs.

This man had rights.

He exercised them, and his government killed him for doing so, as I recall. The rights were still his to exercise, and while he was wrongly punished for doing so, he knew the risks and took them anyway-a voice in the wilderness, so to speak.

Jefferson did not invent the concept about which he wrote, saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." No, he did not invent the concepts, he just put them on paper. The basic human rights named and those not named exist and predate the man, the documents, and the country, and do so, if you use the Bible as a reference, back to Genesis: Cain interfered with Abel's right to his life, and IIRC, "the voice of his brother's bloods" called out to God at the injustice.

Is the glass half full or half empty? Abel had the right to his life, but not the ability to protect it. Cain ignored his rights out of his own jealousy, but the fact remains that Abel had rights. If he did, so do we all.

+1 Bill I agree 90 percent with your explanation. The last 10 percent is either confusion or brainwashing by the machine. I think many of our feelings about these political or constitutional issues are based on the information we have been spoon fed by our parents, education or Main stream media. When confronted with a clear presentation of the facts there will be many of us who will refuse to be swayed. Not because you are wrong but mainly out of pride or prejudice. Akin to plugging ears and chanting "lalalalalalala I can't hearyou. Because obviously you have explored an alternative idea while the rest of us are stuck regurgitating illogical or manipulated positions. Thank you and if you run for office you would have my vote. Unfortunately the well of life and the tree of liberty have been poisoned to such a level by people with strong convictions and good intentions. One voice likely will be drowned out until neither will sustain life or bear fruit.

Right here today I ask us all to set aside our differences and stop arguing over when, if or how it is going to change.

WE MUST FIND A PATH TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL CHANGE!

Bill I have asked you about several issues and you have offered sound advice and direction. I think if you helped lay the framework of the real issues without being in a post of yay or nay ideas. Just plain true hardline constitutional ideas with optional solutions. And if everyone participating agrees to check their ego at the door. I believe we have enough people here to actually help offer the elected officials and future reps some sound advice not based on the biggest check- book.

Any ideas on where to start?
Perhaps a spin off of INGO or new Constitutional Education Section with Bill leading with a plan instead of just a problem and another moderater to ensure free speach with out insults? Maybe call it : INCONFU - Indiana Constitution For Us!

Anyone else interested?

At this point in time I am not interested. That's saying what I mean, but much more strongly than I intend. To clarify, I am doing what I can in promoting Appleseed. I am writing here and speaking iRL about what I see to be so terribly wrong in our country. My great frustration is that while to me, the answer is so clear, so many do not see it that way, mainly, as you said, due to paradigms and brainwashing over the last at-least-50 years.

Other than what I am already doing, I do not have a plan as to how to fix what is wrong. We need to wake up those sleeping Americans within us and within those we know.

In September of 1774, the King's troops seized over 250 half-barrels of gunpowder belonging to the colonists. Within 24 hours, over 30,000 armed men were marching to Boston to rectify this injustice.

Read that again.
Twenty four hours.
Thirty thousand men, armed and very angry.

Consider, no television, no telephone, no internet, and weekly newspapers, not dailies.

Thirty. Thousand. Men. Ready to fight and ready to die for a cause in which they believed.

Today, we could expect a 'let George do it' response; perhaps we might even be graced with a "Meh." from far, far too many people.

I know that this is what must change. I have not the first clue what one action would bring about the so-called "sea change" that would make it happen. If I did, I would have taken that action years ago. I think there is no one action to take, but many actions by many people. They need the proper motivation. That motivation, 235 years ago, was "The Regulars are out!" Today, I am saddened to say it will probably take multiple atomic explosions within our borders, and I am afraid that it will be "too little, too late".

​

That would be considered unpatriotic and you would make "The List"​

​

I have little doubt that I am already on such a list. I consider it an honor.
Patriotism is not, "My country, right or wrong."
Patriotism, IMHO, is, "My country, and if it's wrong, we're damn sure going to fix it."

Unfortunately, those making the list do not want it fixed, as they find patriotism of that sort threatening. Hmm. Wonder why?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATF Consumer]

Police discretion = selective enforcement.

 

[oldfb]

I see your point Bill and wasn't trying to push you in front of a bus.lol

We need someone that gets it to help awaken that founding spirit. Otherwise we are just pi$$in in the wind. I also feel that being on the list is something we all should strive for. Too many times this month alone I watch a select few stand for the rights of us all while the rest say "let george do it".

Or worse they tell George to stop wearing his "dingaling" on his hip lock step with the rest of the crowd.

Until we stop arguing amongst ourselves over which right we allow them to trample. Which trillion dollar fiasco is the right one. Their list will grow but really they have nothing to fear from us. I don't want them to fear me. I want the USA to wake up and stop trying to look for Gov't to solve our problems. In another post there actually was a question about how to deal with a neighbors barking dog. The answers ranged from intelligent to humorous to nonsense. If we can't all agree to first talk with the owner politely we are seriously worse than even I believed we are. When exactly did we as a nation stop talking and communicating with our neighbors? Why do we feel there should be "rules" about everything. Is it just because it was easier to have "the man" do it for us? Was it in the Dodge City days when "civilized" towns hired armed thugs to disarm the other armed thugs upon entering the town? Well we tried that for a bit and it hasn't worked so now the majority of the states have some form of carry laws in place. But still something is missing. Is it because even though we are armed we still have to worry about making sure we are "legal" to defend ourselves? How many of us armed Americans still fear the laws and legal ramifications from exercising our right to self defense?

Wake up INGO and America, we fear the law more than the crimminals do! And that my brothers is the saddest thought I have had today.

Be well my brothers!

Chris

 

[Denny347]

Police discretion = selective enforcement.

And?

 

[Bill of Rights]

And?

You and I have discussed this before, Denny. We did so with mutual respect, and I have no reason to think that will change this time.


Officer Discretion= Selective Enforcement

And?

And when this is done with an eye toward justice, i.e. a 19 or 20 year old girl is raped while at a party, drinking with friends and you get there, get her to the hospital, and ignore the fact she was drinking rather than cite her for it, you're using discretion to avoid adding insult to injury. Contrast that to some guy whose neighbor reports they've had words and the guy happens to be OC in his own yard, and you start looking.. maybe his car is parked 19", rather than the permitted 18" from the curb, or any number of other things for which you could, but normally would not take action.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but both are discretionary and thus, your choice to enforce or not. In the former case, "the girl has been through enough" is the likely reasoning, while in the latter, "I'm going to find SOMEthing to take this scumbag downtown!"

I'm reminded of the hall monitor in the old "Funky" comic strip... the kid with the machine gun mounted to a desk in the hall, a parody of the exceeding of authority, or at least the taking of authority beyond what one is given by others.

Discretion is a powerful tool, useful for justice, by those who choose to do so or able to be misused by those who power-trip, and we both know guys who fit both descriptions. In the hands of the former, I have no issue with it, while in the hands of the latter, I think we probably both do (which should tell you into which category I think you fit.) Taken with the fact that LEOs' statements in court are taken as gospel in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I think we all have a responsibility to root out those who abuse that trust.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATF Consumer]

You and I have discussed this before, Denny. We did so with mutual respect, and I have no reason to think that will change this time.


Officer Discretion= Selective Enforcement

And?

And when this is done with an eye toward justice, i.e. a 19 or 20 year old girl is raped while at a party, drinking with friends and you get there, get her to the hospital, and ignore the fact she was drinking rather than cite her for it, you're using discretion to avoid adding insult to injury. Contrast that to some guy whose neighbor reports they've had words and the guy happens to be OC in his own yard, and you start looking.. maybe his car is parked 19", rather than the permitted 18" from the curb, or any number of other things for which you could, but normally would not take action.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but both are discretionary and thus, your choice to enforce or not. In the former case, "the girl has been through enough" is the likely reasoning, while in the latter, "I'm going to find SOMEthing to take this scumbag downtown!"

I'm reminded of the hall monitor in the old "Funky" comic strip... the kid with the machine gun mounted to a desk in the hall, a parody of the exceeding of authority, or at least the taking of authority beyond what one is given by others.

Discretion is a powerful tool, useful for justice, by those who choose to do so or able to be misused by those who power-trip, and we both know guys who fit both descriptions. In the hands of the former, I have no issue with it, while in the hands of the latter, I think we probably both do (which should tell you into which category I think you fit.) Taken with the fact that LEOs' statements in court are taken as gospel in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I think we all have a responsibility to root out those who abuse that trust.



Blessings,
Bill

Multiple examples of this could be drawn out here, but yours was as good as any I could have said.

 

[Denny347]

You and I have discussed this before, Denny. We did so with mutual respect, and I have no reason to think that will change this time.


Officer Discretion= Selective Enforcement

And?

And when this is done with an eye toward justice, i.e. a 19 or 20 year old girl is raped while at a party, drinking with friends and you get there, get her to the hospital, and ignore the fact she was drinking rather than cite her for it, you're using discretion to avoid adding insult to injury. Contrast that to some guy whose neighbor reports they've had words and the guy happens to be OC in his own yard, and you start looking.. maybe his car is parked 19", rather than the permitted 18" from the curb, or any number of other things for which you could, but normally would not take action.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but both are discretionary and thus, your choice to enforce or not. In the former case, "the girl has been through enough" is the likely reasoning, while in the latter, "I'm going to find SOMEthing to take this scumbag downtown!"

I'm reminded of the hall monitor in the old "Funky" comic strip... the kid with the machine gun mounted to a desk in the hall, a parody of the exceeding of authority, or at least the taking of authority beyond what one is given by others.

Discretion is a powerful tool, useful for justice, by those who choose to do so or able to be misused by those who power-trip, and we both know guys who fit both descriptions. In the hands of the former, I have no issue with it, while in the hands of the latter, I think we probably both do (which should tell you into which category I think you fit.) Taken with the fact that LEOs' statements in court are taken as gospel in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I think we all have a responsibility to root out those who abuse that trust.



Blessings,
Bill

I agree with all of this. For some reason I just see the term "selective enforcement" in a negative light. Officer discretion is a great tool. I could not be an effective officer without it. I am not sure if ATF meant the selective enforcement to be seen as a negative. To be honest, I not sure how to take this entire thread. Maybe I just got lost reading it

 

[redneckmedic]

I agree with all of this. For some reason I just see the term "selective enforcement" in a negative light. Officer discretion is a great tool. I could not be an effective officer without it. I am not sure if ATF meant the selective enforcement to be seen as a negative. To be honest, I not sure how to take this entire thread. Maybe I just got lost reading it

This is post that I have been waiting for. Too many people jump on the LTCH is sacred and dont tough a firearm without it. (again not advising breaking the law) just looking for some level of logic to define the law. Can you expand on the ideas behind Officers Discretion and ETOH, LTCH, DUI vs DWI, ext... give us some example... if you don't mind or have to self incriminate.

~Medic

 

[Denny347]

This is post that I have been waiting for. Too many people jump on the LTCH is sacred and dont tough a firearm without it. (again not advising breaking the law) just looking for some level of logic to define the law. Can you expand on the ideas behind Officers Discretion and ETOH, LTCH, DUI vs DWI, ext... give us some example... if you don't mind or have to self incriminate.

~Medic

Ahhh, I see. Sorry for my density . Well, this is only MY opinion but many of my coworkers follow along with me. I would say the biggest factor in my discretion is "What is the person's INTENT?" For DUI's, there is little wiggle room. I have arrested many a good people for making 1 bad choice. I will tell them that. I will tell them that they are NOT criminals, but merely a normal Joe that made a bad choice in driving. State law is pretty clear that if PC exists in a DUI, the officer SHALL arrest...not MAY but shall. Same with DV arrests. IF I have PC to make an arrest for DV, I better make it because if I do not and someone complains...it could be lots of unpaid vacation for me. Now, most of the time it have lots of room to wiggle.
One time I was called to a disturbance between male and female over a child. I get there and talk to the female. She is yelling, screaming, acting like a child. Come to find out she has mental issues and that the Dad has stepped up (even though he is young) and has been taking care of their child alone, without her. He works 2 jobs and seemed like he was really trying to be the dad his child needed. In fact he had gotten custody of the child (in Indiana that is no small feat) and was at work she she came up there trying to get him fired just because she was angry. He was maybe 19 but he seemed quite sincere. Come to find out he had a open warrant for driving with a suspended license (not a big deal). If I had taken him on the warrant I would have had to take the baby to CPS since I can only release him to the mom or dad and mom does not have custody. I made a command decision and talked to dad about it. He promised to turn himself in the next day to the traffic judge and I would allow him to go home with his child. I checked the next day and he was a man of his word and it worked out best for the child (most important).
I know several officers (myself included) that come across a person carrying a pistol. They forget their pinky at home but we confirm that the person has a valid license. Most of the time that person will go about the rest of their day as long as there was nothing else going on even though it is technically against the law. It comes back down to INTENT. It is an acquired talent to know the difference. Many rookies might not know that until they have a few years under their belt.
I stopped a carload of teens and up at the driver I could smell the cut weed coming from inside. I tell the driver if he is honest with me and gives it up, I will let them go. I just hate to be lied to my face when they know that they are caught. I knew it wasn't much since it was just a very faint odor and it took a few minutes to convince the kids I meant what I said. The driver gave up a small baggie of weed (maybe a joint). I took the driver over to the trash and he watched as I threw it away. I told him that he did the right thing, that I could not let him leave with it, and that his honesty allowed him to drive away. I used my discretion to weed out the "dumb kids" from real criminals. We all make mistakes and I could not ,in good conscience, arrest someone that had no intention in breaking a single law unless the law was worded that I had to. Thankfully those are few. We also may decide that something does not add up in a particular run. We will do a report and refer it to our detectives for further investigation to determining charges. Maybe we could have made an arrest on the spot but we were not able to get a hold of a witness. Instead of rushing in and making an arrest (even though we had PC for it) we will slow it down and give it over to a detective. The detective will follow up in the following days and ensure that all witnesses are heard before making any formal charges. That is another form of our discretion. Man that was a long response. I hope it helps.