Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Well, maybe he'll have friends waiting for him...

An Indiana Dept. of Corrections officer who worked at the Reception Diagnostic Center got picked up in a Wally World parking lot with meth and marijuana on his person, enough to qualify for the charge of "dealing while in possession of a handgun."

I guess their union isn't as good as the FOP Local here in Indy, because his employers dropped him like a live grenade as soon as he was charged. Quis custodiet, indeed.

10 comments:

Chas S. Clifton said...

I wonder if he was on his way to work, planning to smuggle it in.

Kristopher said...

If he had enough for a dealer conviction, then it was probably his inventory.

IMPD officers only carry enough intoxicants for personal medicinal use.

BobG said...

He could always try for a transfer to the IMPD. He sounds like he might fit in.

Brad K. said...

I don't like the sound of that law, "dealing while in possession of a handgun". I would rather see a law against "dealing while brandishing a weapon". If the perp hadn't pulled a weapon, it wasn't part of the crime. Just like having a checkbook and pen on you doesn't make you guilty of trying to write bad checks. Even if you have a whole carton of "mightier than the sword" pen ink refills in the back seat, in plain sight.

Cybrludite said...

From the title, I was hoping that perhaps Assad was en route to hang with Saddam & Muammar.

Kristopher said...

Brad K: How about Dealing while not being forced to quarter troops in your home?

Brad K. said...

@ Kristopher,

Huh?

Using a weapon while violating the law in other aspects makes a more serious impact on society; I did not recommend removing that aspect of the law. But mere possession of a gun doesn't make the act more violent. Mere possession, until/unless one is convicted of a felony, ought to be as interesting as whether your shoe lace were untied. Lose the shoe, or wave or fire the weapon, and they become important aspects of the situation.

It was the mere possession aspect, in the absence of additional threat or risk to others, that I object to.

Your comment is quite poetic, in a prosey way. But I don't get your point.

Kristopher said...

Sorry, I was being too obscure ... It was a reference to the third amendment to the bill of rights.

By the same logic, you could also add penalties for committing a crime while exercising free speech, or while choosing to not incriminate oneself.

Chris said...

IN DOC is represented by the UAW (at least till GOV Mitch yanked all collective bargaining agreements). I always had an issue with what does the UAW know about prisons and putting one's life on the line everyday.

Brad K. said...

@ Kristopher,

Sorry -- I just got it.

I had thought you were contradicting me.