Ohio: Charged with CCW violation and resulting jury trial


PDA






rDigital
July 24, 2009, 09:24 PM
I have not posted here in quite a while up until recently. I would like to share a story of the pitfalls of Concealed Handgun Licenses in the State of Ohio. I was arrested and ended up having a jury trial. I think that you will find my story to be interesting and relevant. Thank you for reading.

Bryan

CCW Violation: My trial and experience. (http://ohioliberty.blogspot.com/2009/07/ccw-violation-my-experience-and-trial.html)

If you enjoyed reading about "Ohio: Charged with CCW violation and resulting jury trial" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mljdeckard
July 24, 2009, 09:51 PM
I gotta hand it to you man, You called a hard bluff and won. A lot of us talk a big game about standing up for our rights, but sing a different song after a few hours of flashing lights and the smell of a cell.

I would ask a couple of things, were you offered a plea to a charge that was not a felony or gun related?

And, would you agree with me when I advise people in here to not rely on Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground laws, or the decency of the legal system to keep them out of jail when they haven't broken the law? By this, I mean, I would use this as a cautionary tale to those who say they are never afraid to act boldly as long as they are within the law, knowing that just will probably EVENTUALLY prevail. I tell everyone, get umbrella liability coverage, consult an appropriate attorney AHEAD of time (even if you can't afford to keep one on retainer,) and do absolutely everything in your means to avoid getting arrested in the first place, meaning, WALK AWAY whenever you can.

cassandrasdaddy
July 24, 2009, 10:09 PM
really decent account of your ugly experience. you were factual and i believe fair in your descriptions. not an easy thing to do when you are the one getting shafted. glad you prevailed

rDigital
July 24, 2009, 10:33 PM
I would ask a couple of things, were you offered a plea to a charge that was not a felony or gun related?

No, the prosecutor would not even give my lawyer and I the time of day to hash things out together. I think that the judge should have thrown the case out based on speedy trial requirements as well as the "spirit of the law".

Any faith that I had left in the legal system is lost. I sometimes feel that the only reason that I was acquitted by the jury was not the facts of the matter, but rather my character.

61chalk
July 24, 2009, 10:37 PM
Scarry...I can see why so many do not like cops, prosecutors an judges. You said they stole your dignity.....I think you still got plenty...an more than your persecuters will ever have, they should all be ashamed, apoligize to you an then quit an find jobs working cleaning bathrooms.

rDigital
July 24, 2009, 10:41 PM
And, would you agree with me when I advise people in here to not rely on Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground laws, or the decency of the legal system to keep them out of jail when they haven't broken the law? By this, I mean, I would use this as a cautionary tale to those who say they are never afraid to act boldly as long as they are within the law, knowing that just will probably EVENTUALLY prevail. I tell everyone, get umbrella liability coverage, consult an appropriate attorney AHEAD of time (even if you can't afford to keep one on retainer,) and do absolutely everything in your means to avoid getting arrested in the first place, meaning, WALK AWAY whenever you can.

I agree with you 100%. I am an insurance agent. Umbrella is key for extraordinary liability issues (i.e. self-defense shooting).

The whole carefree "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 crowd" needs to wake up and realize that even the smallest indiscretions, even if you broke NO law, can cause you much pain, money and time. That is why I posted my story here.

Most Pro-2A folks are in denial on this simple truth until they are knee deep in their own personal hell. Unfortunately, by then it's too late.

rbernie
July 24, 2009, 11:12 PM
Thanks for sharing.

Ardent
July 24, 2009, 11:24 PM
I'm impressed you took the long road, and maintained your composure, well done.

Brian Williams
July 24, 2009, 11:24 PM
Great write up, go ahead and post it in full here.
I would like to know what the $$$ cost for this, not just what you had to pay but the total trial cost.

yenchisks
July 24, 2009, 11:25 PM
I think one should sue ,maybe if enough people sued they think twice ? before throwing one threw the ringer.

Ohio Gun Guy
July 24, 2009, 11:26 PM
Glad you won!

I had an experience with the law in my early 20's....not involving firearms, so I'll save the details, but I to was very suprised by how the system actually works. I also stuck it out and "Won" but was left very skeptical of the law.


It seems to me that the police get appathy for their jobs, as do all of us sometimes. However when these situations are very serious for the people involved. My theory is that they deal with situations that are repetative in nature and 75% of the time the "reality" is what they think it is, HOWEVER 25% of the time they are dead wrong. God help you if you are in that 25%. They'll fit you into a mold and proceed accordingly, regardless of fact, discoverable fact, evidence, whitnesses, etc, etc.

In thier mind, you were the bad ass boyfriend who beats his girlfriend, they probably respond to calls for that all the time.....Only this time it wasnt the case.

doc2rn
July 24, 2009, 11:27 PM
Same thing happened to me in Kansas. Fortunately they held me too long without counsel and my dad showed up with the family lawyer.

rDigital
July 24, 2009, 11:36 PM
@doc2rn Google A&A, Salem Hunting Club, and the Miami Rifle and Pistol Association. There are quite a few outdoor ranges in Ohio. Also, check out the ODNR website http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/wild_resourcessubhomepage/shooting_infolandingpage/shooting_ranges_default/tabid/17601/Default.aspx

@brian williams: I didn't want to clutter the thread. I'm not compensated for blog traffic. I just want to get the story out.:)

@Ohio Gun Guy: I'm with you. The system is a scary place to be.

@yenchisks: everyone always wants there to be a lawsuit, but rarely is one pursued or successful. I'd like to see them pay, but it's just not in the cards right now.

The city had to pay the court costs for the jury trial.:D

KyJim
July 24, 2009, 11:48 PM
The police and legal system treated you shabbily. You should never have been arrested, the prosecutor should have talked to your attorney, and the judge should have thrown out the case for lack of evidence. Fifty-one seconds is "prompt" by any stretch of the imagination.

UniversalFrost
July 24, 2009, 11:51 PM
man , sounds like those cops are like teh ones in phoenix. sucks man.

what happened to the f'ing girl that called you in? your girlfriend still a room mate with the psycho? Me i would be pissed to say the least.

lucky for me, i live in a pro gun state (with the exception of phoenix).

only time i got pulled over here, the sheriff deputy ended up interviewing me more on my gun and how i liked it and how it shot, where I got it and a good price and I ended up going shooting with him at the range the next weekend and he now shoots with our little group (most of us are mil/ex mil/BP/ retired leo) and we are introducing him to the world of class 3 (full auto and cans).

glad you had a somewhat happy ending, otherwise you could have been sharing a bunk with bubba in the state pen.

psyopspec
July 24, 2009, 11:52 PM
Hell of an experience, and a good write-up. Glad you came out relatively okay. It seems from the way you handled it that, if anything, you're more dignified than you were before. Did it ever come out at trial why the PD found it necessary to order your car towed?

Geno
July 25, 2009, 12:07 AM
When the world gives you lemons, make lemonade. But what do you do when the world decides to load your plate with bovine droppings?! Plant a garden! :D

You did well!

nathan
July 25, 2009, 12:16 AM
Shocking this happen to a CCW holder. I m glad you are okey. Move to another city is my advise. Seems like the cops over there overreacted and have done you wrong.

rDigital
July 25, 2009, 12:17 AM
@UniversalFrost: they are no longer friends and she is no longer my girlfriend. I need to be extra careful who I associate myself with from now on. I'm a sucker for a cute Jewish girls though....

@psyopspec: There wasn't any discussion about why my car was towed. I'm looking into having the PD reimburse me for the tow.

ants
July 25, 2009, 12:56 AM
Bryan (rDigital) can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he has had unfortunate experiences in the past with poorly trained police officers in Ohio who did not understand the state's firearms laws, and attempted to find wrongdoing where it did not exist. (If I have that wrong Bryan, I sincerely apologize. But I think I have seen your name in the CCW news before.)

It is complete conjecture on my part, but the cynical side of me can't help but wonder if the arresting officer in this year's incident knew his name, and did his best to develop a charge that would stick. Unfortunately the officer selected one that ultimately would not withstand the test of a jury.

If that is true, better education and training is needed. I, for one, value the service of police officers. I wish that there could be much more training to prepare them for every situation they may encounter, especially in firearms law, making their service even more vital to all of us.

Tim the student
July 25, 2009, 01:03 AM
Good write up. Thanks for sharing.

rDigital
July 25, 2009, 01:11 AM
@ants: It's funny that you say that. I had an issue with another local pd in June of last year. The arresting officers from this story knew who I was from that prior incident according to my girlfriend (ex). It makes me wonder if that had anything to do with me being charged. It's all over now, but that thought still lingers.:(

COMPNOR
July 25, 2009, 01:16 AM
So did you break up with your girlfriend because of this, or other reason not related?

rDigital
July 25, 2009, 01:26 AM
@COMPNOR: both.....:(

COMPNOR
July 25, 2009, 01:27 AM
sorry

JCisHe
July 25, 2009, 01:41 AM
I'd like to make a comment on the advice that old woman gave you...

I think she hit a nerve with her statement. "Clean your car and get a different hobby."

I think young folks, like us, tend to go a little overboard with our hobbies and that older woman made a good observation.

The whole clean car thing just makes you look a little more "careful" and "in control" but the hobbies statement makes me think.

I think she said that because of the nature of the WAY you had things arranged in the vehicle. I think it's clear you like shooting and I bet the jury saw it as some sort of overboard young man obsession. They didn't think it was criminal but it appears the cops did.

I think this situation was compounded by the fact that you had all kinds of ammunition, some loose, some loaded mags, and the large magazine loaded, plus two weapons hidden. I think as an officer I would have seen this as more of a "prepared for war" type situation than that of a prudent, thoughtful, and responsible CCW holder who is only concerned about safety.

I'd like to offer some advice too. Prepare to go to the range, at home, an hour before you go to the range, and store the range ammo and weapons like you would if you didn't have a CCW... at home.

I'd also like to suggest for appearance sake that you might consider perhaps one magazine in the weapon and one in a belt holder or something and that's it. No random rounds in boxes or large capacity mags loaded up.

I mean, dude, I feel bad for you and what those officers did was wrong because they actually conspired against you but in all honestly, you kind of looked shady. THEY WERE WRONG but it sounds like you looked a little shady.

I hope you're not offended man. I really do. I'm just trying to evaluate the situation from my point of view and attempting to make some sense of what that old woman said. I think she might have made a very valid statement based on her observation of the situation.

Paraphrased it seems like this, "you have hobbies like all young men and like all young men you go a little overboard but this particular hobby isn't one you should be taking part in as such a young inexperienced man."

I hope you recover well from this brother.

Regards,
Beau

rDigital
July 25, 2009, 02:16 AM
@JCisHe: My firearms and ammo are always stored neatly in the glove compartment and center console. I was driving a recent model car in great condition. I had clothes and other household items strewn throughout the car as I was in the middle of moving. Thanks for the alternate perspective though.

I've always been pretty above board. People who are acquainted with me would describe me as clean cut, well spoken, educated, well dressed and polite. I know that those things are only superficial, but as far as appearances go I don't think that I looked shady in the least. There was no valid reason to arrest me.

I think I'll be recovering from this for a while. It's quite a shock to your system to be handcuffed, arrested, falsely accused and placed on trial. I feel blessed that I had such competent counsel. Being raised in a house full of Boy Scouts (myself included), I never imagined I would find myself in such a predicament. I've always valued my personal integrity and trusted the authorities to do the right thing, but being honest and friendly will only get you so far when people in positions of power have an agenda. At least, that is the what I have experienced in my encounters with LEOs in the last year or so. I guess that I learn something new everyday.

I understand the part about the hi-cap mag, but it's not illegal nor is it something that I carry on my person. It just stays in the glove compartment. I'm scared to think of they would have tried accusing me of if I left an AR-15 in the trunk, also legal. The only thing that was shady about this whole situation was the actions of the officers involved. No obsession on my part, just some overzealous police trying to make something out of nothing.

JCisHe
July 25, 2009, 03:02 AM
I didn't mean to say you were shady at all. I meant to say that to the officers you appeared shady and I think even that little old woman could understand how and why it did. And I think it had to do with the loose ammo and hidden guns (not in the trunk but hidden places) and especially that large magazine. I think I can understand why it appeared to be a shady thing. Remember we are in a world of individual interpretations. Honestly, I don't see any other reason for her comment then that she thought you were being a little overzealous. I agree though those cops had an agenda with you and actively tried to severely effect your life in a negative way. It's just something to think about and I could be totally wrong. Really sorry to hear about your troubles man.

I'm going to take from this the need to carry only the PP firearm with "enough" ammo and leave the range stuff at home. Honestly, I think that was the big problem here. I mean, carrying an Ar-15 in the trunk, after a fight, in the middle of the night... that would have definitely raised a red flag or two. Cops deal with criminals day in and day out man. You really have to give them some right to be pessimistic. THOUGH THEY WERE WRONG! They're interpretation of events matters a great deal.

Oyeboten
July 25, 2009, 03:45 AM
Some LEO (DAs, Prosecutors, and anyone else in any position to manipulate others, or to weild power unilaterally over others) are able to hype themselves into parahypnoic 'as-if' kinds of 'believing' and collusion-seeking among peers, subordinates or superiors, on the slightest pretexts or projection or tacit 'defensible' fabricated pretexts.


"Just doing our job..."



Any sort of 'domesic disturbance' involving a female 'victim' possibility, or excited female victim-mentality 3rd party caller, (whose parenthetical role assignment and utility to the LEO, is as 'enabler') can be a 'trigger' for this kind of hyped-out overblown self-hypnotic 'trigger' event for those LEOs who have done this to their own minds...or, who wish to use it as pretext for 'fishing expeditions' in trying to find some infraction.


I'm surprised LEO is not yet allowed to supena personal Computer surfing and e-mail records, because of a bad Tail Light Bulb, just in case there is something 'there' which can be hyped up into a fake issue for prosecution.




To me, examples of LEO behaving like this, are a lot more freightening and 'dangerous' than any 'criminal' threats which an ordinary person would ever face.


And in Life, I've seen far more people emotionally traumatized, financially and legally harmed and damaged by various LEO 'hypey-self-indulgence', when they had not comitted any crime, or, had merely been seen as vulnerable and 'guilty' of some victimless petty nothing of an infraction...than I have ever seen harmed or damaged or traumatized by 'criminals'.

WTBguns10kOK
July 25, 2009, 03:55 AM
I think if this happened to me I'd spontaneously combust out of frustration. You're the man if you find a way to get over it and not stay angry...Maybe sue the police or whatever legally possible hah.

MDW GUNS
July 25, 2009, 04:05 AM
Over the years I read several stories where people get charged with this.
It's such a BS.
OH sure would not be a place I would want to live.
Even CA and MA is better in that respect!

pmeisel
July 25, 2009, 04:48 AM
I know, from personal experience, that there are many fine, hard working LEOs. And also from personal experience that there are some real jerks in the field as well.

Every time I read a story like this I have an emotional reaction... let's de-badge everyone and start over.

kyo
July 25, 2009, 05:15 AM
great job man. good thing it only took 4 months instead of years! oh and screw your GF's friend. i would either dump the GF or tell her to dump her friend cause she almost ruined your life with that irrational fear thing

cassandrasdaddy
July 25, 2009, 06:14 AM
And in Life, I've seen far more people emotionally traumatized, financially and legally harmed and damaged by various LEO 'hypey-self-indulgence', when they had not comitted any crime, or, had merely been seen as vulnerable and 'guilty' of some victimless petty nothing of an infraction...than I have ever seen harmed or damaged or traumatized by 'criminals'.


really? where is this? i'm torn on the one hand a place so crime free must be wonderful on the other hiding from leo would remove most of such an areas appeal

71Commander
July 25, 2009, 09:31 AM
What of your girlfriend and her roomie? Especially the roomie.

stove6
July 25, 2009, 10:11 AM
Move to another city is my advise.

We'd love to have you here in Texas...

Rockwell1
July 25, 2009, 10:27 AM
I, nor anyone else, has anything to gain, and everything to lose, by giving law enforcement ANY written or verbal statement without the blessing of competent legal counsel. It's akin to stepping into the boxing ring with Mike Tyson as an amateur. Besides, what could I add that the dash cam video didn't already take care of?

Personally I would have asked for a lawyer as soon as they started patting me down

rbernie
July 25, 2009, 10:46 AM
I'm going to take from this the need to carry only the PP firearm with "enough" ammo and leave the range stuff at home. Honestly, I think that was the big problem here. I mean, carrying an Ar-15 in the trunk, after a fight, in the middle of the night... that would have definitely raised a red flag or two. This bugs me.

It should not be that the officer would 'raise a red flag or two' for what is a clearly and completely lawful act.

FFMedic
July 25, 2009, 11:10 AM
Sorry to hear of your bad run in with "the law" but oh so glad you came out on top. I have been getting harrassed from time to time lately in OH for OC. Ohio is so hit or miss with guns depending on where you are.

FFMedic

pittspilot
July 25, 2009, 11:28 AM
Police officers seem to fall into the trap that I sometimes do as an attorney. I sometimes forget that the routine hearing I am attending can be a central event that carries enormous stress to my client. I have to keep reminding myself of that.

I am not sure that those cops appreciate the carnage they can cause. Or if they do, then the worse thing is that they do not care.

Deltaboy
July 25, 2009, 11:38 AM
Sorry you got ran through the Wringer on this. Nothing like dealing with under educated LEO's anywhere you go.

LRaccuracy
July 25, 2009, 12:15 PM
Have you considered a civil suit against the cops? It appears that there was no Probable Cause in this case to stop you. The cops found something after the fact of stopping you. If I were you I would file. Because of the verdict of no wrong doing (not guilty), you already have some ammo (no pun intended.)

nitetrane98
July 25, 2009, 01:10 PM
I'm glad all worked out well for you, such as it is.
I'd sure like to read a transcript of the original 911 call from, as I understand it, the GF's, GF's mama. I can only imagine the hyped up scenario she described to likely another female dispatcher, who likely had been in an abusive relationship herself. Sounds like what started as a simple argument somehow morphed into full blown domestic violence involving firearms by the time it got to the RO. The feminazis have made it just about impossible to respond to a domestic call and not take somebody to jail. It's mostly CYA on the LEO' part. If he can find some reason to put you in jail. He knows that you won't go back to the the house and beat the tar out of GF for calling the heat. At least not on the same shift.

JCisHe
July 25, 2009, 03:21 PM
Rbernie, I agree but we don't live in the objective law ruling world we would like too. Don't you agree?

Browns Fan
July 25, 2009, 03:48 PM
I have a friend who is a Cleveland LEO and I made the mistake of telling him that I have an AR15. He told me not to bring it with me if I come up to visit or he would have to arrest me!

The anti-gun sentiment of some northern Ohio LEO is unbelievable!

Deanimator
July 25, 2009, 04:31 PM
I have a friend who is a Cleveland LEO and I made the mistake of telling him that I have an AR15. He told me not to bring it with me if I come up to visit or he would have to arrest me!
When did he say that to you?

Ohio now has state preemption. Cleveland's "assault weapon" ban (and registration) is now null and void. When the mayor ordered the police to continue enforcing it in violation of state law, the Cleveland FOP advised its members to ignore the order. I expect that every Cleveland cop knows that if he's sued as an individual and loses everything he owns and can't feed his family, Frank Jackson isn't going to let him and the family stay in HIS basement or kick in a little something for groceries.

The AWB threat in Cleveland is a totally impotent one.

LRaccuracy
July 25, 2009, 07:14 PM
Deanimator,

Cleveland is not following the preemption law. I believe that the NRA is taking this to the Supreme Court. I also believe that the majority of LEO's in the state of Ohio are not anti-gun. I base this on only knowing one anti-gun cop and then he is a pinhead.

LRaccuracy
July 25, 2009, 07:21 PM
rDigital,

One other thing I would like to add to my comment above. If the police did not have probable cause to pull you over, the search of your vehicle would be another violation of your Civil Rights. If the story is as exactly as you posted you definitely have a good chance of wining a Civil Rights violation case. This is just more than an opinion.

rDigital
July 25, 2009, 07:28 PM
Cleveland is not following the preemption law. I believe that the NRA is taking this to the Supreme Court. I also believe that the majority of LEO's in the state of Ohio are not anti-gun. I base this on only knowing one anti-gun cop and then he is a pinhead.


Buckeye Firearms Association is also suing Cleveland. That mayor Jackson needs to seek employment where he can do no harm.
(http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6528)

Deanimator
July 25, 2009, 08:29 PM
Cleveland is not following the preemption law.
In effect, they ARE, for want of anybody stupid enough to fall on their sword for Frank Jackson.

I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find many Cleveland cops willing to see their kids go hungry in the name of enforcing Cleveland's "assault weapon" ban.

gbran
July 25, 2009, 09:07 PM
I'm sorry I read this. It makes my blood boil. I am very happy you were found not guilty, but horrified this sort of travesty occured and actually went all the way thru the legal system.

At a maximum, there should only have been some LEO's upset that they couldn't find anything to charge you with.

Browns Fan
July 26, 2009, 12:33 AM
Quote:
"When did he say that to you?"

Granted, it was a few yrs ago, but it still was very unsettling, to say the least. I have not contacted this guy for a long time.

razorback2003
July 26, 2009, 01:23 AM
I had no Ohio was that bad when it came to carrying a handgun with a license, even legally. You were mentioning something about storing handguns in gloveboxes/consoles, even with a license? That seems wierd to matter to the state lawmakers where you keep your handgun when you are LICENSED!!!! The whole purpose of a license is to keep/carry a handgun however you want in your car, whether that be the glovebox or under a newspaper on the car seat or in your pocket in a holster. That place sounds so foolish. Glad I know if I ever have to drive up there.

I've never had any such encounters when police found out I did or did not have a license and had handguns in my vehicle in Arkansas (before and after license...legal sometimes without) or Tennessee (with license/permit). Most police either do not care or seem to be very police when they run my drivers license. We are not required to inform in TN if we are carrying and we were not required, under law, to inform in Arkansas. The drivers licenses in Arkansas and Tennessee are linked to licenses/permits. I do not inform in Tennessee, unless I think the police officer may come across my handgun, such as a poorly concealed/openly carried handgun or me being asked out of my car. Police have bigger problems in the South than law abiding gun owners. Some strike up conversations about guns b/c a lot really enjoy shooting. I've had some let me try out their guns at ranges. Nice guys.

stevemis
July 26, 2009, 02:09 AM
This sounds like a case where "the police acted stupidly."

Sorry to hear about this, but glad you prevailed.

GripGambler
July 26, 2009, 03:03 AM
you should add a digg button to that blog, stories like this need to get out.

Deanimator
July 26, 2009, 10:54 AM
Granted, it was a few yrs ago, but it still was very unsettling, to say the least. I have not contacted this guy for a long time.
It may actually have been true when he said it. It's not anymore.

RDak
July 26, 2009, 01:08 PM
I'm happy for you rdigital!! Also happy you got rid of your two "friends". They were jerks and put you through alot of misery. Not to mention the obvious overreaction of the police and prosecutor.

Don't lose all trust in the legal system though. When I was young, the prosecutor took two weeks reviewing my case, etc., and came back with a "justifiable self-defense" decision.

It was a bad two weeks mentally but, in the end, that prosecutor, and whoever else was involved in the review, were fair. I never heard another thing about it and it never showed up on my record. (Of course that was LONG before the computer age and the ridiculously anti-gun sentiment that ran through the country in the Clinton era though!!)

You did good rdigital!! :)

Zoogster
July 26, 2009, 02:46 PM
If it requires a permit or a license then it is not a right. Now you can see why.
Endless numbers of discretionary requirements can be tacked on. Like the requirement to notify the officer in a "timely manner."

Had there not been a dash camera you would have lost. 51 seconds would have been "a long time" or "several minutes" when the officer recalled it in court without a dash camera with a clock.
Had it happened in front of or at the apartment while you were carrying you would have been far from the dash camera.


You were simply lucky that it happened right in front of the dash camera of a patrol car, and the tape was not "lost" or recorded over. So you were lucky it was a vehicle confrontation. If they ran into you on foot and you were carrying you would not have done so well in court.


A lot of naive people believe the truth always comes out or justice prevails in the system. They are simply wrong. Court is a bunch of random people, with many of the intelligent people getting out of jury service, or being considered unsuitable because of education or experience. Who remains is who seem simple (which does not mean they are or those who serve are) and therefore "non-biased". The clay like minds that they feel start with little or no foundation and can be molded by the details presented in the case. The very people least likely to see through deception from either side, unless explained to them by the other.
Those with a career in the system make thier living processing people through it and need a constant flow of numbers. You were just another number. You were nothing special to them. Your petty case no more or less important than another petty case. The precision with which it is processed no greater. Just part of another day's work on a case they won't remember next week.
Innocent people are convicted all the time. Exaggerated charges stick, and the word of an officer will trump the word of a mere peasant every time.
The only thing that saved you was the dash cam.

jbrown50
July 28, 2009, 11:22 AM
This whole thing could have been avoided had the police not overeacted to the feminazis (as nitetrane98 so aptly put it) and simply used some common sense. You were in your car leaving after an argument with your girlfriend and no one had been injured or threatened. You were mature enough to know to get on your horse and get out of Dodge. Had they investigated the incident instead of overzealously reacting, this would have turned out much more reasonably. Cooler heads should have prevailed.

It also amazes me how so many police officers think that it is OK to abuse their police powers by fabricating charges against someone in the name of protecting the public.

I'm not a person who cries 'lawsuit' at every drop of a hat but if there's any other way to start forcing these jurisdictions to crack down on this goulish behavior by their police I'd be open to it.

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 11:34 AM
I'm not a person who cries 'lawsuit' at every drop of a hat but if there's any other way to start forcing these jurisdictions to crack down on this goulish behavior by their police I'd be open to it.
There really isn't and a central part of the solution is suing the officers in question as individuals whenever possible. Nobody cares if the city/county coughs up $1,000,000, but when YOUR paycheck goes to somebody else, or the Sheriff's coming to get YOUR furniture, it's a real deterrent.

Example: Cleveland, Ohio has an "assault weapon" ban. That ban has been preempted and rendered null and void by Ohio state law. Frank Jackson, the Mayor of Cleveland ordered the Cleveland Police to continue to enforce the now legally dead AWB. The Cleveland FOP advised its members to NOT obey that order, lest THEY be sued for civil rights violations and lose their homes in lawsuits they can't possibly win. KNOWINGLY violating the law pierces the cops' qualified immunity. I doubt you could fill a phone booth with Cleveland cops willing to fall on their swords (much less throw their families onto them) to help Mayor Jackson beat a dead horse. THAT is deterrence.

Keb
July 28, 2009, 11:58 AM
Did the matter of 51 seconds come up in the trial?

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 12:11 PM
Did the matter of 51 seconds come up in the trial?
That was the fundamental issue at trial, whether those ***51*** elapsed seconds did NOT constitute "prompt" notification. Clearly, 51 seconds IS prompt notification, at least in Beachwood, Ohio.

Zoogster
July 28, 2009, 12:17 PM
Did the matter of 51 seconds come up in the trial?

The police and the prosecutor certainly reviewed the dash cam video before it ever went to court.
They would have known before court that such a time frame was not the best way to make the individual look bad. They certainly still would have mentioned it as it pertains to the charge, but with proof of the exact number of seconds in video they would have been foolish to make the exact number of seconds a central part of thier case.
A timely manner is still however discretionary, so if they could make the jury think he was a bad or dangerous guy, they jury could still technicaly find him in violation of the law.
So the evidence would likely instead focus on implying (likely without outright saying so) the potential danger he posed with guns and large ammunition clips (31 mag) and the excessiveness of is hobby. Then combining it with the reported domestic disturbance to make it seem like he is a danger just waiting to happen. A danger they could stop by finding him guilty.

While those things are not illegal, biasing the jury by making him seem strange and dangerous would have been the only potential way to win absent creating false evidence and other charges.
They simply had a very poor case from the start, and would have known it after reviewing the dash cam footage, but the prosecutor clearly still felt confident enough to take it to court.
Perhaps thier intent was trying to get the defendent to plea to a deal. A deal with no jail time, without the expense of trial and attorney fees by pleaing to a minor crime. Many people take such a deal under the circumstances, especialy if they cannot afford court and think they have a decent chance of losing (which the system will assure them they do).
That would have given him a record, likely keeping him from continuing to have a Concealed Carry permit, which could have been the motivation for proceeding with charges on a weak case the entire time. To take away the RKBA from someone they felt was a little too into firearms, and has domestic problems (which they may imagine are greater than they are), or at least his ability to carry guns around with him legaly.

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 12:22 PM
Perhaps thier intent was trying to get the defendent to plea to a deal.
And how'd that work out for them? :neener:

I suspect that the odds of the victim NOT suing the officers and the city are vastly lower than those of Rosie O'Donnell dieing of anorexia in the next ten days.

By the way, Ohio awards reasonable legal fees in such cases.

WLE
July 28, 2009, 12:50 PM
I may have missed it, but I wonder what was initially reported to the police when the mother called in?

Zoogster
July 28, 2009, 12:59 PM
I suspect that the odds of the victim NOT suing the officers and the city are vastly lower than those of Rosie O'Donnell dieing of anorexia in the next ten days.

By the way, Ohio awards reasonable legal fees in such cases.

To find the officer liable and not protected under law you would need to show the charge was malicious in nature and he was not acting in good faith in the performance of his duties.
Suing would require even more money (in addition to his current court fees and impound and towing fees), and there is a good chance the single charge which he technicaly could have commited will not be seen as malicious. Just an officer doing what he thought was the right thing.

Charging someone for a crime they technicaly did commit if 51 seconds, 20 seconds, or 5 minutes, is determined to have been too long is not likely to be seen as malicious. It is not likely to be considered a violation of thier rights which then means the Officers are immune from suit under Ohio law.
Let me show another case verdict that cites case law in Ohio to demonstrate (one of the first that popped up, but the case itself is not as important as the cited reasons the officers are immune with relevant case law) It shows why both the department and the officer are immune under Ohio law:


http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/104/104.F3d.361.95-4124.html
I. IMMUNITY
6

Plaintiff's case fails initially because all defendants are immune from suit.
7

In suits brought under § 1983, qualified immunity protects those police officers "whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." Kelm v. Hyatt, 44 F.3d 415, 421 (6th Cir.1995). Applying this test, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of alleging that the actions of the Eaton police officers violated any clearly established right. See Pray v. City of Sandusky, 49 F.3d 1154, 1158 (6th Cir.1995). In the absence of any such allegation, the officers are immune from plaintiff's § 1983 claims. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 (1991).
8

Plaintiff's attempt to hold the City of Eaton liable under § 1983 also fails. Municipalities cannot be sued under § 1983 for the actions of their employees or agents unless those actions were executed pursuant to a policy or custom of the city. Monell v. New York Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Plaintiff's complaint is entirely barren of any allegation of custom or policy on behalf of Eaton.
9

Defendants are also entitled to immunity under Ohio law from plaintiff's ancillary common law claims.2 Ohio law provides statutory immunity to political subdivisions unless the cause of action asserts "negligent ... acts by their employees with respect to proprietary functions." Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2744.02(B)(2) (Anderson 1992) (emphasis added). Ohio law also protects employees of political subdivisions engaged in governmental or proprietary functions unless the employees acted outside the scope of their employment or with "malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner." Ohio Rev.Code §§ 2744.03(6)(b) (Anderson 1992). At all times during the incident the officers were engaged in routine police services, which the statute defines as governmental, rather than proprietary, functions. Ohio Rev.Code §§ 2744.01(C)(1), (G)(1) (Anderson 1992). Furthermore, plaintiff has again failed to allege any facts that would indicate the officers acted maliciously or in bad faith. Both the officers and the City of Eaton are immune from liability for the state tort claims.


So you would have to show the city had a custom or policy, not acting under statute on state law for the department to be liable, ie something the department permits that it shouldn't.
Or that the officer himself was "negligent" as defined by law and "malicious" or in a "wanton or reckless manner".

Do you think the court will find the officer was malicious and acting in a wanton or reckless manner? Or do you think they will grant a summary judgement of immunity to civil action?

If he loses it just means he will be out even more money to pay a lawyer to argue a case. Since the case is certainly not strong he will be unlikely to find any lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency fee arrangement. So he will need to fork over money that will not likely be repaid.

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 01:06 PM
If he loses it just means he will be out even more money to pay a lawyer to argue a case. Since the case is certainly not strong he will be unlikely to find any lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency fee arrangement. So he will need to fork over money that will not likely be repaid.
I think rDigital has a better chance of showing that the arrest was INTENTIONALLY unreasonable than Beachwood did of proving that he didn't "promptly" notify. The diversions attempted at trial only back this up.

I'm sure more information will turn up on the Ohioans for Concealed Carry website.

Zoogster
July 28, 2009, 01:22 PM
I think rDigital has a better chance of showing that the arrest was INTENTIONALLY unreasonable

On someone who had a call placed on them for a domestic dispute or perhaps alleged domestic violence or fear of domestic violence? (We don't know what that other girl said when she was afraid during the argument, and her mother likely made it sound even more dramatic afraid for her daughter.)

The dispatcher likely told the officers to respond to a domestic dispute involving the specific individual known by name as mentioned by the friend. An individual who then is a known CCW holder (a gun!) when they pull up his name on the computer.
The information the officers had prior to thier meeting with rDigital was no different than what they would have if someone who was in the process of attacking thier wife was called into 911.

Dispatch does not relay every detail of a 911 call to the officers while they are in route. They just give them a general summary of alleged events.
Domestic situations are known to be highly fluid and unpredictable.

Additionaly since the call was made by the mother of the girl texting her mother to call the police, the actual caller likely had no idea of what was really going on. Just that her daughter was very scared and some sort of domestic incident was going on and the name of the individual responsible (rDigital). So the 911 call was made by someone receiving second hand information, and may have been even more embellished by a mother afraid for her daughter who wanted a prompt response.

So when the officers first arrived they could have really been anticipating a serious situation being commited by someone known to carry a gun (concealed permit holder in thier database.)

Gryffydd
July 28, 2009, 01:28 PM
I may have missed it, but I wonder what was initially reported to the police when the mother called in?
This would be very interesting. a FOIA request should get a recording or at the very least a transcript of the call.

JCisHe
July 28, 2009, 01:29 PM
Right Zoogster and then add to that loose ammo, multiple guns, a large magazine, and cops who really weren't interested in his innocence. That's what brought about this situation (more the "stuff" than the cops though they were jerks).

My position was that it would have been MUCH Better to have had a weapon, perhaps 2 mags (enough ammo), and everything properly stored in the trunk so that he looked like he was in control.

I think the cops and the little old woman who gave this guy advice saw a young man who was overzealous. I would also add that the cops saw a dangerous person because of the multiple hidden guns and large cap magazine loaded.

It wasn't right but the circumstances are understandable. And like I said, THEY WERE WRONG but I can understand it. I've taken from this the need to leave range stuff at home until I'm going to the range and the need to be prudent about what exactly I am carrying.

Rodeo4joe
July 28, 2009, 01:34 PM
I would think that rDigital would have a chance if he pressed forward on the mailicious case between the conspiracy to search for a reason (if it was on the dash cam) and the fact that they confiscated his CCW permit prior to the conviction if he was correct in his statement that they are not allowed to confiscate that until the conviction comes about. (not questioning you rDigital just dont know Ohio law)

Zoogster
July 28, 2009, 01:40 PM
Right Zoogster and then add to that loose ammo, multiple guns, a large magazine, and cops who really weren't interested in his innocence. That's what brought about this situation (more the "stuff" than the cops though they were jerks).

Exactly. They received a likely very frantic call by a mother afraid of what was going on who didn't really know what was happening.
They don't know that the alleged domestic incidents are not really occuring, or what type of domestic incidents do occur and may assume they are like what they see on other calls all the time.
They find a young man, who has several guns, ammunition, and a magazine alone twice as large as the guns they carry.
They look for a technicalty to arrest this potentialy dangerous individual who just returned to a vehicle filled with loaded weapons after a domestic situation.

They then probably proceeded with the charges in an attempt to remove his RKBA or at least his ability to hold a concealed carry permit. Whether through a plea bargain, or hoping the jury would see him as a danger and find him guilty on the discretionary technicality. So centering thier case more on him, the guns, and the domestic situation than on the crime itself to paint him as a dangerous person that they can stop by finding him guilty.

None of that makes it right. It is simply the perspective of the other side.

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 01:46 PM
On someone who had a call placed on them for a domestic dispute or perhaps alleged domestic violence or fear of domestic violence? (We don't know what that other girl said when she was afraid during the argument, and her mother likely made it sound even more dramatic afraid for her daughter.)

Was rDigital arrested for "domestic violence"? No.
Was rDigital tried for "domestic violence"? No.

What was rDigital arrested for? "Failure to notify".
What was rDigital tried for? "Failure to notify".
What was rDigital acquitted of? "Failure to notify".

Under the law, he was arrested for what he was arrested for. "Domestic violence", "too many" guns or "too much" ammunition is as irrelevant as whether he was ever a member of the Communist Party.

The question at hand is whether the arrest and prosecution were both unreasonable and malicious. The police and prosecutor have met rDigital halfway in proving that they were.

Stupidity and malice go hand in hand, and the Beachwood PD and prosecutor have done their level best to show just that.

jbrown50
July 28, 2009, 01:51 PM
Charging someone for a crime they technicaly did commit if 51 seconds, 20 seconds, or 5 minutes, is determined to have been too long is not likely to be seen as malicious. It is not likely to be considered a violation of thier rights which then means the Officers are immune from suit under Ohio law.

In this case the arresting cop made it difficult for rDigital to abide by the law by effectively not letting him speak and verbally silencing him. Then later, while searching for a charge to lay upon him, he and the other officers use it against rDigital by charging him with failure to notify. The police can't prevent you from obeying a law by restaining or arresting you then later charge you with breaking that same law.

You lawyer types please correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's called entrapment.

Ooooops, sorry Deanimator, I didn't see your post. You're saying the same thing basically.

Zoogster
July 28, 2009, 01:57 PM
In this case the arresting cop made it difficult for rDigital to abide by the law by effectively not letting him speak and verbally silencing him. Then later, while searching for a charge to lay upon him, he and the other officers use it against rDigital by charging him with failure to notify. The police can't prevent you from obeying a law by restaining or arresting you then later charge you with breaking that same law.


They did not silence him in the begining, they had him at what he believed was gunpoint with a laser pointing at him. He could have told them he had a gun while believing he had officers pointing guns at him. It could have been a fatal move if they had been guns and it scared them during thier adrenaline rush, but he could have still done it.
If officers rush up to you with guns drawn, and you have a requirement to tell them you have a CCW permit and a gun in your state, the fact that you have officers with thier guns pointed at you and maybe fingers on the trigger does not relieve you of that requirement.
You may die as a result, but it is still the requirement of the law. Proceeding to do so as calmly as possible is of course the best method.
If you wait until later when you don't have guns pointed in your face, it could be considered not "in a timely manner" at the discretion of the system and the jury members who hear the case. It may be the most logical thing to do, but could still be considered illegal.

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 02:06 PM
You lawyer types please correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's called entrapment.
It certainly goes BEYOND entrapment.

Entrapment is the authorities enticing someone to commit an illegal act which they would not otherwise have committed without the intervention of those authorities.

Example: An Ohio CHL holder is walking past a Chipotle. A cop steps out of the front door of the Chipotle and asks the CHL holder to come inside. The CHL holder "promptly" notifies the cop and declines to enter, citing Ohio law which forbids carry of a firearm into an establishment with a "Class D" license to dispense alcohol. The cop tells the CHL holder, "It's ok, you can come in." The CHL holder enters and is promptly arrested for carrying into an establishment which serves alcohol by the drink.

In rDigital's case, it's more like police arresting him for not having a front license plate after having first stopped him and then removed the plate THEMSELVES.

RDigital's case is one of those "We'll find something" situations. Sometimes all they find is a civil rights suit. That kind of thing needs to be deterred, and people losing their homes is a good way to do it.

Smithiac
July 28, 2009, 02:15 PM
Thanks for sharing

jbrown50
July 28, 2009, 03:43 PM
They did not silence him in the begining, they had him at what he believed was gunpoint with a laser pointing at him. He could have told them he had a gun while believing he had officers pointing guns at him. It could have been a fatal move if they had been guns and it scared them during thier adrenaline rush, but he could have still done it.
If officers rush up to you with guns drawn, and you have a requirement to tell them you have a CCW permit and a gun in your state, the fact that you have officers with thier guns pointed at you and maybe fingers on the trigger does not relieve you of that requirement.

In other words, in a situation like this, rDigital or any other concealed carry licensee in Ohio, would be forced to put there life in danger in order to obey the law. Is this what you're saying too, Deanimator?

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 03:57 PM
In other words, in a situation like this, rDigital or any other concealed carry licensee in Ohio, would be forced to put there life in danger in order to obey the law. Is this what you're saying too, Deanimator?
Sure seems that way, doesn't it?

I've heard about instances where people have literally had to shout over cops in order to "promptly" notify. And that's certainly my plan if necessary.

It would be interesting if an Ohio cop were to tase a CHL holder who, refusing to obey a command to remain silent, INSISTED upon "promptly" notifying. The cop who does that might as well hand over his car title and the deed to his home to the CHL holder before he does. A couple of those and the cops themselves would be demanding to have the requirement to notify eliminated.

If you put me in an impossible situation, I'm going to make sure you're neck deep in it with me.

Zoogster
July 28, 2009, 05:12 PM
The cop who does that might as well hand over his car title and the deed to his home to the CHL holder before he does.

I've heard about instances where people have literally had to shout over cops in order to "promptly" notify. And that's certainly my plan if necessary.

I hate to point this out:
If a cop fires at someone that actually has a loaded firearm on them, do you think they are not going to say the person appeared to be going for that gun?
Do you think they are going to accept responsibility for firing thier weapon when unnecessary, lose thier career, thier assets, and possibly face criminal charges, or are they going to say the man who really did have a loaded firearm on him appeared to be going for his weapon?

If they say you were going for your weapon, and shoot you full of holes because you are yelling at them that you have a gun (a concealed permit and firearm) and it scares them while they are pointing firearms at you, they are going to say they were in fear of thier life. Yelling at them during a tense situation makes the tension higher. You have a loaded gun on you. Any mistake they make will be legally justified because they will claim you went for it.
The facts after the fact will show you really were armed, and the decision of the officer in the field was to use lethal force against an armed threat.

cassandrasdaddy
July 28, 2009, 05:16 PM
I hate to point this out:
If a cop fires at someone that actually has a loaded firearm on them, do you think they are not going to say the person appeared to be going for that gun?
Do you think they are going to accept responsibility for firing thier weapon when unnecessary, lose thier career, and possibly face criminal charges, or are they going to say the man who really did have a loaded firearm on him appeared to be going for his weapon?


your gonna hate this more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502245.html

Zoogster
July 28, 2009, 05:42 PM
your gonna hate this more
That individual was unarmed. Different than someone who is telling the police he is armed, yelling at them to "promptly notify them" and actually is armed with a loaded firearm.
It is harder to claim the unarmed man was going for the weapon they did not have, even though people are shot with cell phones and other items when they are believed or said to have been believed to be firearms. It really can be hard to tell the difference between an electronic and a gun in poor lighting during a face paced situation, but it is also convenient if any mistakes are made.

In that story an entire team was approaching and one of thier guns discharged striking the individual. That would require an entire team of police to be crooked, when a guy not even facing officers who was not armed was shot clearly by accident not due to escalating tensions is not very comparable.

Similarly in this situation (please ignore the immature poster's title) where the officer negligently fires her weapon on accident narrowly missing the man's head, when the man was being taken into custody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSJgcpqePk
In that situation self defense would be hard and unlikely to be claimed or supported by other officer's present. Had he been standing and yelling at the officers at the time, and had a concealed firearm on him at the time things would be different.


Yet you will notice in the article:
In the nearly 39 years that Robert F. Horan Jr. has been the chief prosecutor in Fairfax, no officer has been charged with improperly shooting someone.
So no officers have ever been charged with improperly shooting anyone in at least 39 years there. That could mean they are quite outstanding, or it could mean after the fact a valid reason always exists.
In that specific situation it was probably just too clear it in no way could be anything but an accident.
Go through the records and see how many times lethal force has been used in Fairfax in 39 years. Probably a decent number, yet every single one was justified even in any questionable situations. The truth is we simply cannot know if they all were, or some needed a little fabrication to protect an officer who made a mistake after the fact.


So I don't think that story should make you think anything different.
If you are shot by an officer while you possess a concealed and deadly weapon, and it even sounds or looks like you are being uncooperative or argumentative because you are yelling over the noise and tense situation and police yelling commands to inform them as legally required as in Deanimator example...
If you are shot they will likely claim self defense. You are after all armed. If you are shot and survive or are tasered they may even need to follow through with charges to support thier story rather than face charges themselves. Which would make you just another criminal shot by police.

cassandrasdaddy
July 28, 2009, 05:50 PM
could you show an example of
If a cop fires at someone that actually has a loaded firearm on them, do you think they are not going to say the person appeared to be going for that gun?

Gryffydd
July 28, 2009, 06:00 PM
could you show an example of
Take any case where a cop shot somebody and said they were going for their gun. It could possibly be any of those. If there were easy examples to find it wouldn't be a good tactic.

kidrice
July 28, 2009, 06:01 PM
Read your story/blog, sorry to hear about what you went through.

I just have one question....did you beat the **** out of your GF's roomie?

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 06:21 PM
If a cop fires at someone that actually has a loaded firearm on them, do you think they are not going to say the person appeared to be going for that gun?
A cop shot a guy and claimed he tried to grab his gun. Too bad he forgot about the video cameras. He's under a portion of a $12.5 million judgement. I'm sure he'd appreciate any help you could give him.

Yeah, I'll bet your scenario would make excellent dash-cam video...

Zoogster
July 28, 2009, 07:08 PM
A cop shot a guy and claimed he tried to grab his gun. Too bad he forgot about the video cameras. He's under a portion of a $12.5 million judgement. I'm sure he'd appreciate any help you could give him.

Yeah, I'll bet your scenario would make excellent dash-cam video...

That was in a train station with high quality cameras everywhere. You sitting in your car are hidden from the view of most dash cams. On foot you will usually be outside of view. Even in view during a tense situation with a lot of movement someone in the situation may feel in danger. You can find several on camera shootings where if you pause the video it is a cell phone or another object, or they may have been reaching for thier wallet for ID (or even your CCW card.)
Look at almost any video of a cop pulling someone over, or shooting someone in a vehicle during a traffic stop. You cannot really see what the driver is doing, maybe some movement sometimes. You can often only see the officers' reaction, and must trust that he made the right call in the field, especially if there really is a firearm on the suspect or within reach.
If the suspect really did have a weapon, then it lends credibility to what the officer says put him in fear for his life.

Officers tend to stick together. It is a culture of having eachother's backs, where nobody but them understand what they go through, and all they got is eachother in a a job the public at large will criticize. All they have when things get tough is eachother. So there is often a code of silence. A "snitching" or unloyal officer may find themselves with slow backup when they need it most.
A culture where letting thier partner go down for something like an accident is something many won't let happen if there is any way to avoid it.
That is if they are decent, and only slightly...dishonest.


Police have a very tough job, and making mistakes in those situations happens. If they can spin the situation and stay out of prison and keep thier freedom, or lose everything and go to prison for an accident, which one do you think they choose? You can find many situations where they do a lot worse than lie over an accident.
I lived in some corrupt areas. I could tell you many stories of corruption where I lived.
I even remember the police used to regularly pick up enemy gang members from one neighborhood and force them out of the car in enemy neighborhoods where I once lived (bad area) before driving off. The results could be quite violent.
Or local punks that thought they were too slick, who found out they could never be too slick because even if were "too slick" to get caught, the police framed them to take them off the streets. "Finding" evidence like drugs they didn't really even have.
Reach in the car, pretend to be searching around with some palmed drugs and...viola look what officer clean up the streets found. Same thing during a pat down, look what fell from mr scumbag's clothing...
Other criminals would have actual drugs or weapons they really did have taken, with no arrest or official mention...Which is likely where the stuff to plant came from.
Some were known to even carry guns confiscated from other criminals to plant on anyone unarmed who was shot.
These are just minor examples, there was far worse, and it was common and normal.
This was before the Rampart Scandal made the news in areas of LA, and while that received a lot of news attention, I can assure you it was not even the tip of the iceberg.
Things just as bad or worse happened daily. If they wanted someone they couldn't pin a crime on, evidence was created. If they made a mistake, evidence was created. Not just at Rampart, but in several surrounding areas.

Today that area is not as bad, and I fortunately do not live near there, but there is others that are known for corruption today.
Chicago and a few other large PDs are known to be rather corrupt, not to mention some small towns that are not big enough to be noticed when they are corrupt.

Now I know those are extremes and many areas are not so bad.
However it is unlikely officers would allow themselves or thier partner to go down in that culture for an accident if there was any other way to paint the situation differently.

Deanimator
July 28, 2009, 07:19 PM
That was in a train station with high quality cameras everywhere. You sitting in your car are hidden from the view of most dash cams. On foot you will usually be outside of view.
Risk takers frequently lose. If the cop wants to bet his life on that, hey roll those dice.

Look at almost any video of a cop pulling someone over, or shooting someone in a vehicle during a traffic stop.
You mean the EDITED video, with the actual shootings taken out?

Crimes and civil torts are usually much simpler than they are on CSI: Ulan Bator, whether they're committed by citizens or cops. There were three Atlanta cops who rolled those dice and there weren't even any cameras. Snake eyes. If he survives, the first one should be out of prison in about seven years, I think.

WLE
July 28, 2009, 08:44 PM
Just think, if you were black, Al shapton and Jessie Jackson would be all over this screaming racism!

rDigital
July 29, 2009, 12:23 AM
Just think, if you were black, Al shapton and Jessie Jackson would be all over this screaming racism!

Maybe they should. I am in the smallest minority of all, the individual.

JCisHe
July 29, 2009, 12:36 AM
Zoogster we think along the same lines. It doesn't make it right...

jerkface11
July 29, 2009, 12:56 AM
rDigital you should probably watch your back. That kind will hold a grudge.

JCisHe
July 29, 2009, 01:37 AM
Naw man. rdigital, if you can stomache it. Perhaps you might give Matthew a call, let him know that you can understand his situation, let him know that you learned a lesson (even though it was wrong and despite being mad about it there is always something to learn), and wish him the best. Maybe you might help that officer not be such a hothead given that although he was wrong you still respect him and let him know it.

A little forgiveness, respect, and appreciation go a long way.

jbrown50
July 29, 2009, 07:18 AM
rDigital,
I noticed that your incident is one of the hot topics on the Ohioans For Concealed Carry website and forums. I'm sure that Ohioans For Concealed carry has made it a point to take incidents like yours and similar ones and present them before the powers to be such as the OSHP who insisted upon having this notification law. As it is currently written and interpretated it is downright dangerous for citizens with carry permits especially in your experience. In your case the police disregarded discretion altogether and tried to use it against you unfairly when the law was misguidedly intended for their protection. In my opinion, if they're going to disregard discretionary use of the law for their own twisted purposes then it should be taken away from them. Just my opinion of course.

Deanimator
July 29, 2009, 09:19 AM
Maybe you might help that officer not be such a hothead given that although he was wrong you still respect him and let him know it.

A little forgiveness, respect, and appreciation go a long way.
OR, he'll think rDigital is a sucker and go back to business as usual.

The company I used to work for was almost killed by a sociopath who simply steals wherever he goes as though he's entitled to do so. He's done it at least four times before and since. In fact, I'm sure he's doing it right now. If we hadn't been the FIRST to TRY to get him criminally prosecuted, the company would be $300,000 richer, and I wouldn't be laid off.

This wasn't a mistake. It was a CHOICE, a MALICIOUS one, and not JUST by the cops.

The ONLY lesson either one is going to learn is going to come out of civil court.

Ughh
July 29, 2009, 09:39 AM
Geezez, I'm so sorry this happened to you. I can't think of another outcome only except that Officer "Mathew" should have understood your point of view, provided your story is 100% accurate.

Deanimator
July 29, 2009, 09:47 AM
Geezez, I'm so sorry this happened to you. I can't think of another outcome only except that Officer "Mathew" should have understood your point of view, provided your story is 100% accurate.
It's not a question of "point of view". It's a question of law and acceptable behavior.

The police can't prevent or make it unreasonably difficult for somebody to obey a legal requirement, then arrest them for not obeying the requirement that they themselves encumbered the ability to obey.

If rDigital had been caught carrying into a restaurant with a liquor license, there'd be ZERO talk about "respect" or "forgiveness" for him from "Officer Matthew" OR the prosecutor.

JCisHe
July 29, 2009, 03:14 PM
Dean has a realistic outlook however it is a negative one. Sometimes it's better to extend a hand of kindness than it is to hold grudges and pursue the worst possible outcome for the other person.

That's the real issue here. rdigital got a person who wanted to pursue the worst possible outcome for him and I'm not sure responding in the same manner is the right thing to do. Of course it is discretionary.

I would say this, if rdigital does call the guy to talk with him a bit and express understanding and forgiveness and the guy responds with some snide remark. The cop is obviously out of control and needs to be taken to court to protect other people from him. My guess though is that the guy won't say much at all and will think hard about what he did to such a nice guy.

Regards...

Faitmaker
July 29, 2009, 04:45 PM
I didn't mean to say you were shady at all. I meant to say that to the officers you appeared shady and I think even that little old woman could understand how and why it did. And I think it had to do with the loose ammo and hidden guns (not in the trunk but hidden places) and especially that large magazine.

He didn't have any loose ammunition. It was all in the glove box. The guns were not hidden. They were in his glove box and console which is appropriate carry for a CCW holder. He can carry holstered on the hip, console, glove box, or trunk.

I'm going to take from this the need to carry only the PP firearm with "enough" ammo and leave the range stuff at home. Honestly, I think that was the big problem here. I mean, carrying an Ar-15 in the trunk, after a fight, in the middle of the night... that would have definitely raised a red flag or two. Cops deal with criminals day in and day out man. You really have to give them some right to be pessimistic. THOUGH THEY WERE WRONG! They're interpretation of events matters a great deal.

??? Some reading comprehension going on here. He was not carrying an AR-15 in the trunk (which would have been legal). He mentioned in a comment that he would hate to SEE what he would have been accused of if he HAD been carrying an AR-15.

Deanimator
July 29, 2009, 04:51 PM
Dean has a realistic outlook however it is a negative one. Sometimes it's better to extend a hand of kindness than it is to hold grudges and pursue the worst possible outcome for the other person.
rDigital already got the back of this guy's hand as well as that of the prosecutor. This wasn't any moment of bad temper. It was an ORCHESTRATED attempt to violate his rights which cost him thousands of dollars to defend against.

What do you expect that cop to say that would mean ANYTHING at all, other than an offer to pay rDigital's legal fees?

Unless you're planning to reimburse rDigital, I think it's inappropriate to ask that he just eat the costs of somebody else's maliciousness.

That cop and the city wronged rDigital and I guarantee you they couldn't care less about the harm they caused him. I expect anything that cop would say to him would be a cynical attempt to dupe him into not recovering the monetary damage which he incurred. Enabling bad behavior is never "kindness".

Faitmaker
July 29, 2009, 05:00 PM
So you would have to show the city had a custom or policy, not acting under statute on state law for the department to be liable, ie something the department permits that it shouldn't.
Or that the officer himself was "negligent" as defined by law and "malicious" or in a "wanton or reckless manner".

Do you think the court will find the officer was malicious and acting in a wanton or reckless manner? Or do you think they will grant a summary judgement of immunity to civil action?

If he loses it just means he will be out even more money to pay a lawyer to argue a case. Since the case is certainly not strong he will be unlikely to find any lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency fee arrangement. So he will need to fork over money that will not likely be repaid.


Bull****. It was malicious and the Dash cam would prove it. They spent 30 minutes talking about how they had to find SOMETHING to charge him for.

They tried to get me to admit that my Icon Ti-Max motorcycle gloves were weapons.

The police can be overheard in the dash cam tape describing me in less than favorable terms. I was called a "loser" and they were audibly upset that I was had 2 firearms in my vehicle. I had done nothing illegal. They did not have anything to arrest me for, and then all of a sudden they had an epiphany.

They took about 30 minutes trying to figure out if there was a way that they could charge me with a crime (the discussion was recorded on the dash cam's voice recorders).

It was a fishing expedition for sure. And I'm wandering if a lawyer could somehow use that as a case for Civil action for deprivation of rights (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html). It seems to me like that is what they were trying to do, any way they could.

Deanimator
July 29, 2009, 05:55 PM
And I'm wandering if a lawyer could somehow use that as a case for Civil action for deprivation of rights. It seems to me like that is what they were trying to do, any way they could.
It's a prima facie false arrest. They THEMSELVES tried to prevent him from doing that which they arrested him for not doing, which he in fact DID, despite their efforts.

He needs to sue the city as well as the individual officers.

A good strategic move would be to allow the city to settle for his already incurred legal fees, PLUS any reasonable and customary legal fees AND court costs for his prospective suit against the officers as individuals, win or lose.

That does three things:

1. It makes him whole from the original offense against him.
2. It allows him to go after the cops who started the whole thing.
3. It drives a wedge between the city and the cops, so that the cops will be FAR less willing to engage in such behavior if the cops know the city will throw them under the bus when things get rough.

Big Daddy Grim
July 29, 2009, 06:02 PM
Thats awful way to keep your cool not sure if I could have.

30mag
July 29, 2009, 06:48 PM
I would absolutely recommend a lawsuit.

JCisHe
July 29, 2009, 07:10 PM
As far as I understand they already had to pay his legal fees. Fait, you need to read all the comments.

Deanimator
July 29, 2009, 07:15 PM
As far as I understand they already had to pay his legal fees.
Is there a source for that? I know that the CCW law provides for legal fees where its provisions are violated by police, but I'm unaware of any action to that end so far.

He needs to go after the officers, otherwise there's no deterrent from them doing this again.

t165
July 29, 2009, 09:27 PM
Bad luck seems to follow you rDigital. Are you the same Bryan Ledford who was ordered to his knees in Willowick, Ohio on or about June 17, 2008, for openly carrying firearms? If you are one and the same then did you ever find out exactly what you were accussed of in each of these incidents which brought you to the attention of the authorities? From what I understand the mother of the girl who witnessed the disagreement between your past girlfriend and you called the authorities. Since you did go to a jury trial the initial complaint should have been available to you through discovery. And mention was made in the Willowick incident that a citizen called the authorities on you. Was you accussed of anything more than simply walking down the street in this incident?

And in Ohio what sort of time limit does one have to inform the authorities you are armed or that firearms are stored in a vehicle. The complaint against you only makes mention of "promptly" as a time frame...unless I missed something. IIRC the officers dash cam indicated 7 seconds but 51 seconds was mentioned also. I guess what I am asking is how many seconds after being engaged by a police officer does one have to disclose firearm possession information? It sounds like a vague law.

And does the notification requirement apply to out of state residents who enjoy reciprocity with Ohio. Does the notification requirement apply to current active or retired police officers from other states who carry firearms, or store them in their vehicles while visiting or traveling through your state?

HexHead
July 29, 2009, 10:07 PM
Just goes to show, cops are a bunch of thugs not worthy of respect or cooperation.

JCisHe
July 29, 2009, 11:18 PM
Dean, he said it in this blog or on the article or in the comments on the article or on his facebook or twitter or something. Ah, he cleared it up. His fees weren't covered.

Hex, that's exactly the sort of attitude that isn't needed.

rDigital
July 29, 2009, 11:29 PM
Are you the same Bryan Ledford who was ordered to his knees in Willowick, Ohio on or about June 17, 2008, for openly carrying firearms?
Yeah, that's me.

In Ohio, the language of the notification law is "promptly", that's it there's no time limit or constraint otherwise.

Here's the story :OFCC Member Detained and Harassed.... (http://www.ohioccw.org/200806184010/ofcc-member-detained-and-harassed-for-open-carry.html)

Here's the audio: Audio from June 2008 (http://www.ohioccw.org/files/2008-06-17_14_45_05-0001.mp3)

Tim the student
July 30, 2009, 12:02 AM
Just goes to show, cops are a bunch of thugs not worthy of respect or cooperation.

Please, restrain your ignorance.

JCisHe
July 30, 2009, 12:23 AM
Listen to the audio from this guys last encounter. "Why are you carrying so many weapons?"

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He's got a gun on his hip and one in a bag to go to a restaurant?

He has every right to do that but why so much? The cop says, "Carrying two I don't know what your anticipating but". Those cops were shocked and having all the stuff he had is one of the reasons this last situation went down like it did.

You should have taken a hint dude.

t165
July 30, 2009, 12:47 AM
I'm a pretty strong supporter of law enforcement but the audio did make me cringe a bit. It seems that about 3/4th's the way through the audio the Officer's came to the realization that open carry was legal. And that the CC permit did not void you from legally carrying your weapon OC. I never heard you being disorderly even though you were accussed of wrongdoing. It was never explained by the LEO what actions you committed to justify that claim. And what exactly was the one officer going to "take you in" for? I hate to say it but it appeared to me the officers dug themselves a hole and before they knew it there was no graceful way out. That had to be embarrassing for them.

I can pretty much guarantee you the officer's involved in this situation are well versed on Ohio's firearm laws now. I'm sure the officer who told you OC was illegal is the butt of other officer's jokes now. Police officer's are actually pretty hard on each other. God knows I made my share of mistakes in the past and it is humiliating. The first thing I would do is grab the Indiana Code and educate myself on the law. And changes in the law happen every year. In Indiana new or modified laws usually went into effect June 1st of the next year. Had to keep up on that stuff. Nobody likes looking like a fool.

Obviously you had a tape recorder on you...did you expect to be stopped and questioned by the police that day? Was this the first time you had carried a firearm openly within city limits? I'm just curious. Heck, if you had tape recorded the police officers in Illinois you could have been arrested for that...it is a two party state. Illinois is one strict state.

JCisHe
July 30, 2009, 12:52 AM
Hey man, the officer in the first few seconds on the tape said it wasn't illegal. They were railing on him for "stupidly doing what he was doing." Go listen to it again.

It's later in the audio that one of the cops got annoyed and starts really railing on him but right away they say it's not illegal. I quote, "it's not illegal here, you're not going to jail." This is right at the beginning.

This guy has been looking for trouble in my opinion. Not because he OC'd but because he OC'd with two guns and knives and had two guns and magazines and ammo and a hi-cap mag in his car the night he got arrested. I mean come on... the dude basically drives around with his range bag.

The cops were harassing this guy for being way too brazen and overzealous.

rDigital
July 30, 2009, 01:05 AM
Dean, he said it in this blog or on the article or in the comments on the article or on his facebook or twitter or something. I know I read it. Just look around or perhaps he will clear it up but I remember correctly his fees were covered.

No one has paid my legal fees and it's not in my blog. In fact, people have been donating to help with my legal fees through my blog.

Listen to the audio from this guys last encounter. "Why are you carrying so many weapons?"

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He's got a gun on his hip and one in a bag to go to a restaurant to get some food?

He has every right to do that but why so much? The cop says, "Carrying two I don't know what your anticipating but". Those cops were shocked and having all the stuff he had is one of the reasons this last situation went down like it did.

You should have taken a hint dude.

This line of thought is a slippery slope. Would the cops also be shocked if I wasn't Caucasian or didn't speak proper English? I don't like where you are going with this.

JCisHe
July 30, 2009, 01:14 AM
I'm going to a place where it looks bad for a human being to be carrying what would get the response of "man you have an arsenal with you" when you really don't need it. I mean you say "I'm an insurance agent and things happen so...". Those cops were pretty good to you I think.

The cops were shocked when they learned you had another weapon in the bag and they got suspicious let alone carrying around your range gear everywhere you go.

Like it or not, you were looking for trouble. The little old woman called you out. I bet if you contact her and ask her she's going to say she saw a young overzealous boy playing with guns like he used to collect g.i. joes. What does race or country of origin have to do with this anyway?

That comment is sort of like what you said to the cop "but you have a gun" as if that's some kind of valid response. You should have taken a hint from the first encounter and been more cautious, appeared more prudent, and kept with you only what you needed.

They were wrong man but so were you. That's my opinion at least.

t165
July 30, 2009, 01:46 AM
JCisHe...you are right. I missed it the first time. I think one of the officers states "It's not illegal dude...you are not going to jail". Passing traffic made it a bit hard to hear. Later in the conversation another officer was telling rDigital it was wrong to OC for various reasons.

Police officers can only enforce the law. They cannot substitute the law with their personal opinions. Those actions lead to bad arrests and possible lawsuits. Thats not professional. Perhaps rDigital was laying a trap. Nonetheless, it is not against the law to be obnoxious.

Years ago a teenage kid yelled out "I smell bacon" at me one night in front of a large group of his friends as he was exiting a parking lot. The crowd got a good laugh out of it at my expense. The real funny part is when I did a U turn and pulled the vehicle over. The comedian was the front seat passenger in the car. The driver informed me he did not make the comment and that the passenger had. I smiled and told him I didn't pull him over because of the "I smell bacon" comment. :rolleyes: The reason I had stopped him was because he had a burnt out front headlight. He received a citation which cost about $75.00 at that time. I later became good friends with the young man I issued the citation to and we still laugh about the incident. If you bait the authorities then you shouldn't expect any favors from them. There is an old saying which goes something like "you reap what you sow". If rDigital is baiting the authorities then that is his decision.

JCisHe
July 30, 2009, 02:26 AM
t165, you must be an officer then? Let me ask you, if a gentleman had complaints called against him for OC'ing and you were called out (I know that you know it's not wrong). Anyway, you have to respond because there is some serious complaining going on like these officers and you come across a young man carrying not one but two weapons, and knives, would you become suspicious? Those cops certainly did.

And you know what, I think the second half of your post about giving the guy a citation for a headlight is why rdigital went through the issues he did. Those cops saw all that hardware and got suspicious so they then tried to find a way to roast this guy. It has everything to do with being inappropriate, though not illegal, it is still inappropriate and that cop in the recording tried to explain to him that. Just the second time around he didn't have "Prozac" to vouch for him.

clarence222
July 30, 2009, 02:33 AM
So now we can be arrested for carrying ammo and more than one gun? Come on get real I always have more than one gun in our vehicles and always plenty of extra ammunition, some loose some boxed and some loaded in magazines. Is that illegal or does it give probable cause no I don't think so. Just because the police don't like what you are doing does not mean that it is illegal. If it is not illegal then you should not be arrested.

JCisHe
July 30, 2009, 02:35 AM
Clarence, I think you should learn from the Op's experience and be a little more careful about how you look in the eyes of law enforcement. It may not be illegal but it may be perceived as inappropriate and suspicious. Let's wait to hear what t165 says. I'm interested to get an officers opinion.

t165
July 30, 2009, 02:56 AM
I'm a past LEO. IIRC correctly open carry absent a Indiana issued "License to carry handgun" is illegal. If I am wrong I'm sure I'll be promptly corrected. The license reads in part as follows..."The Licensee is hereby licensed by The Indiana State Police to carry on their person or in a vehicle, any handgun lawfully possessed by Licensee." Most individuals carry concealed but a few do OC.

Police officers have no idea what they are responding to many times. A dispatcher may simply give the call out as a 10-32 (man with a gun) without many details. Sometimes details are better explained. Complainants often times hangup for various reasons and the responding officers are flying blind. And police officers are individuals and they handle situations differently. Regardless of the reasons for the initial complaint officers have to respond. And I can understand that an individual may very well feel they are being harassed if they are doing nothing wrong. The duties of a police officer can be intrusive by nature. Many people do not wish to be quized by police officers. Particularly if they have done nothing wrong. If the individual was legally carrying and I could ascertain no reason to detain him for a crime I would simply wish him a nice day. Indiana is a very firearm friendly state. Rifles in the back windows of pickup trucks are very common. I could see where in urban areas police officers would be more suspicious. Individuals cannot be arrested for suspicion anymore. However, it is not illegal for officers to ask questions regarding behavior.

JCisHe
July 30, 2009, 03:31 AM
t165, you didn't answer my question. Please give it a whirl?

Let me ask you, if a gentleman had complaints called against him for OC'ing and you were called out (I know that you know it's not wrong). Anyway, you have to respond because there is some serious complaining going on like these officers and you come across a young man carrying not one but two weapons, and knives, would you become suspicious?

Looking forward to the answer!

t165
July 30, 2009, 04:12 AM
I am a bit reluctant to dive into the subject of suspicion and the questioning of individuals along with pat down searches and limited vehicular searches because it will open up a "Terry Stop and Frisk" discussion (argument).

The answer is "yes"...for me to see an individual walking down the street OC would gain my attention. And it will gain the attention of citizens who do not like firearms or understand gun laws. I would be a liar to say it wouldn't. I'm sure I'll take a verbal beating for these comments.

I do not believe that in Ohio merely walking down the street OC is enough to justify a "Terry Stop and Frisk" if a citizen does not have to be issued a "carry permit" to practice OC. I do not know if simply receiving a report of an individual walking down the street OC from a concerned citizen is enough to justify a "Terry Stop and Frisk" in Ohio absent additional suspicions/reasons. What the Ohio police officers did with rDigital would be defined as a "Terry Stop and Frisk" in my humble opinion.

I do not know if merely walking down the street OC in Indiana would justify a "Terry Stop and Frisk" or not. I do believe indiana requires a "carry permit" to OC but would that justify detaining, questioning and requiring proof of a "carry permit" from an individual absent additional justifiable suspicions that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed? Perhaps Indiana has a "produce proof on demand" handgun carry permit statute I am not aware of. I have not kept up on the Indiana Code and current Indiana Case Law. Perhaps some practicing Indiana LEO's on this forum can answer that question.

A "Terry Stop and Frisk" is a tool granted to law enforcement officers through case law to briefly stop, detain, and question individuals when a LEO has suspicions a crime has just been, is being, or may be committed. I should mention the reasons/suspicions have to be articulated/explained in police reports and potential subsequent court testimony should that need arise. The suspicions must have merit to justify the "Terry Stop and Frisk". Absent justifiable articulated reasons a "Terry Stop and Frisk" is nothing more than an illegal search. Officers can do pat down searches of suspects and limited searches of vehicles and nearby areas around the suspect(s) to check for weapons which may be used to injure/kill them. A "Terry Stop and Frisk" is a tool to be used for officer safety...not for evidence gathering. I've been involved in these discussions before (I noticed Deanimator has posted on this thread :)) and I really do not wish to spar the matter any further. The legality and proper practice of a "Terry Stop and Frisk" can only be settled in a court of law. Many individuals believe a "Terry Stop and Frisk" is nothing more than a blatant violation of their constitutional rights regardless of case law. I hope this answers your question JCisHe. I'm speaking only for myself and I do not represent any other current or retired police officer/federal agent.

The Case Law can be found under "Terry V. Ohio". You can do a Google search and read the decision.

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 08:22 AM
Clarence, I think you should learn from the Op's experience and be a little more careful about how you look in the eyes of law enforcement. It may not be illegal but it may be perceived as inappropriate and suspicious.
I can "look" any way that pleases me that's LAWFUL. It doesn't matter one iota if the cop LIKES it or not. It's his job to enforce the LAW, not whim or prejudice.

Those cops CREATED a situation where rDigital was PREVENTED from obeying a lawful requirement, which they then arrested him for. They need to pay a HARSH price for it. Perhaps losing their homes for an inability to pay rDigital's judgement against them AND their mortgages would teach them the difference between the law and their prejudices.

jbrown50
July 30, 2009, 09:00 AM
The answer is "yes"...for me to see an individual walking down the street OC would gain my attention. And it will gain the attention of citizens who do not like firearms or understand gun laws. I would be a liar to say it wouldn't. I'm sure I'll take a verbal beating for these comments.

I do not believe that in Ohio merely walking down the street OC is enough to justify a "Terry Stop and Frisk" if a citizen does not have to be issued a "carry permit" to practice OC. I do not know if simply receiving a report of an individual walking down the street OC from a concerned citizen is enough to justify a "Terry Stop and Frisk" in Ohio absent additional suspicions/reasons. What the Ohio police officers did with rDigital would be defined as a "Terry Stop and Frisk" in my humble opinion.


t165,
Seeing someone walking down the street OCing would get my attention too and i'm not a cop. For me though, as long as the citizen is otherwise law abiding, I wouldn't think anything else of it. I also think, as evidenced by your next paragraph, that you realize there's an overreaction as well. If Ohio is truly an open carry state then nothing rDigital has done so far has warranted the level of suspicion and harassment that he's received.

From here to eternity you're always going to have some citizens who will fear the mere presence of a gun. They're going to call it in and LEOs will have to respond. The difference is that LEOs should not contribute to the hysteria by interjecting their own fear and biases. As long as the citizen isn't doing anything illegal the investigation should end right there without any further contact or harassment. The citizen(s) who made the complaint should be told that the individual is doing nothing illegal and have a nice day.

There are quite a few citizens that I personally know who do not feel comfortable with even police officers having guns. There are also some police officers who are anti-gun when it comes to citizen's posession. I don't placate irrational people. I ask them: as long as it's legal and the person isn't doing anything bad then, what's the problem? Get over it. If you can't cope then go see a shrink.

The job of law enforcement is to enforce the law, not contribute to the hoplophobia. Maybe more training is needed for some officers?

HexHead
July 30, 2009, 10:23 AM
I stand by my original statement regarding the OP and the way he was treated by the cops. When he got out of the car, he should have closed the door and locked it behind him.

Here's an interesting article on police behavior. Yeah I know, a couple of bad apples... ;)

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jul/29/girls-say-cops-showed-them-bondage-porn-supplied-a/

jerkface11
July 30, 2009, 11:17 AM
Clarence, I think you should learn from the Op's experience and be a little more careful about how you look in the eyes of law enforcement. It may not be illegal but it may be perceived as inappropriate and suspicious. Let's wait to hear what t165 says. I'm interested to get an officers opinion.

So we should walk on eggshells because some cop may not know the law? How about they learn how to do their job the right way or lose it?

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 11:32 AM
So we should walk on eggshells because some cop may not know the law? How about they learn how to do their job the right way or lose it?
YOU have a duty to know and obey the laws concerning owning and carrying a firearm, no excuses of ignorance accepted. Police should be held to exactly the same standard.

I have a LEGAL DUTY to know that carrying into a "Class D" establishment in Ohio is forbidden, and to NOT do it. Any claim of "ignorance" will fly like Rosie O'Donnell off the top of the Chrysler Building. Any similar claim that "he didn't know" the law on concealed carry, open carry or anything else by a cop should be treated with equal scorn and contempt.

Know the law. Obey the law. Don't whine if your laziness or arrogance in not knowing or ignoring the law comes back to bite you, citizen or cop.

Deltaboy
July 30, 2009, 11:42 AM
I hope you sue the city and the PD. What a group of gun haters.

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 11:52 AM
I hope you sue the city and the PD. What a group of gun haters.
"Hating" guns isn't the problem. Hating the LAW and acting as though they had no duty to obey it is the problem.

Those cops have an ABSOLUTE right to hate guns, gun owners, or anything and anyone else. What they DON'T have a right to do is to unlawfully ACT on that hatred, which is precisely what they did.

clarence222
July 30, 2009, 12:08 PM
Clarence, I think you should learn from the Op's experience and be a little more careful about how you look in the eyes of law enforcement. It may not be illegal but it may be perceived as inappropriate and suspicious. Let's wait to hear what t165 says. I'm interested to get an officers opinion.[

So lets assume I'm on my way home from a large purchase of ammo, some loose some boxed. Does that mean that I should be detained and even arrested. No as long as I am doing nothing illegal there should be no problem.

I am not concerned about how an office might or might perceive me, if they take the time to properly investigate the matter they will find out that I have done nothing wrong. I can understand an officer wanting to breifly detain someone while they investigate, and although I wouldn't like it would not be the end of the world.

The problem here is that the officers involved did not take the time to properly investigate the matter. They jumped to conclusions and then dreamed up some charges.
That they thought might work.

HexHead
July 30, 2009, 12:14 PM
I have a LEGAL DUTY to know that carrying into a "Class D" establishment in Ohio is forbidden, and to NOT do it. Any claim of "ignorance" will fly like Rosie O'Donnell off the top of the Chrysler Building. Any similar claim that "he didn't know" the law on concealed carry, open carry or anything else by a cop should be treated with equal scorn and contempt.


No, they should be held to a much higher standard of accountability. It's their job to know the law before they go around arresting people for what they think the law is or should be.

The poor shlub they just arrested is going to spend big bucks defending himself from an improper arrest, what does it cost the cop? In most cases nothing as his superior will probably say he was following departmental procedures. We see that nonsense all the time. Just like that OK state trooper who got 5 days suspension for pulling over an ambulance (with a patient in the back) for failing to yield to him and put the driver in a choke hold.

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 12:35 PM
No, they should be held to a much higher standard of accountability. It's their job to know the law before they go around arresting people for what they think the law is or should be.
You'll certainly have a BETTER society if they're held to a HIGHER standard, but you'll at least have a tolerable society if they're held to the same standard of abiding by the law.

JCisHe
July 30, 2009, 03:07 PM
Clarence, the situations are completely different. Nobody would fault you for coming home from a gun shop but driving from home to a restaurant an officer would probably be suspicious of you.

Hex, wow man. Just wow!

GEM
July 30, 2009, 03:32 PM
Presenting the guns to the jury throughout the trial is a classic example of trying to prime aggressive ideation towards the defendant and is right out of the jury simulation research literature. I reviewed this for the folks at the NTI and Polite Society. Mas mentioned it on his blog.

Defense attorneys should know this stuff, IMHO.

kilo729
July 30, 2009, 04:00 PM
2923.126 Duties of licensed individual.

...

If a licensee is the driver or an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped as the result of a traffic stop or a stop for another law enforcement purpose and if the licensee is transporting or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle at that time, the licensee shall promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the licensee has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the licensee currently possesses or has a loaded handgun; the licensee shall not knowingly disregard or fail to comply with lawful orders of a law enforcement officer given while the motor vehicle is stopped, knowingly fail to remain in the motor vehicle while stopped, or knowingly fail to keep the licensee’s hands in plain sight after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves, unless directed otherwise by a law enforcement officer; and the licensee shall not knowingly remove, attempt to remove, grasp, or hold the loaded handgun or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun by touching it with the licensee’s hands or fingers, in any manner in violation of division (E) of section 2923.16 of the Revised Code, after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves. Additionally, if a licensee is the driver or an occupant of a commercial motor vehicle that is stopped by an employee of the motor carrier enforcement unit for the purposes defined in section 5503.04 of the Revised Code and if the licensee is transporting or has a loaded handgun in the commercial motor vehicle at that time, the licensee shall promptly inform the employee of the unit who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the licensee has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the licensee currently possesses or has a loaded handgun.

If a licensee is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and if the licensee is carrying a concealed handgun at the time the officer approaches, the licensee shall promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the licensee while stopped that the licensee has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the licensee currently is carrying a concealed handgun; the licensee shall not knowingly disregard or fail to comply with lawful orders of a law enforcement officer given while the licensee is stopped or knowingly fail to keep the licensee’s hands in plain sight after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves, unless directed otherwise by a law enforcement officer; and the licensee shall not knowingly remove, attempt to remove, grasp, or hold the loaded handgun or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun by touching it with the licensee’s hands or fingers, in any manner in violation of division (B) of section 2923.12 of the Revised Code, after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves.
Source. (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126)

Talk about learning the hard way. I'm glad you were found not guilty, what a horrible waste of time and money. A word of advice, keep your non-CCW pieces locked up and unloaded when transporting them in a vehicle.

Any claim of "ignorance" will fly like Rosie O'Donnell off the top of the Chrysler Building.
The mental image of this sent me into a fit of giggles. :o

Just goes to show, cops are a bunch of thugs not worthy of respect or cooperation.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

clarence222
July 30, 2009, 04:55 PM
Clarence, the situations are completely different. Nobody would fault you for coming home from a gun shop but driving from home to a restaurant an officer would probably be suspicious of you

The problem with that thinking is one the officer in this case had not figured out where he had been or where he was going. What if I didn't buy the ammo from a gunstore I have bought several thousands rounds of ammo from individauls before. What if I left the gunstore and stopped to eat on my way home.

The best gunstore in my area is about 30 miles from my house. It is not unusual for me and the family to go to town visit the gunstore the mall and anywhere else we need to go then stop and eat supper before going home.

Your logic is flawed, if its legal for me to own them why should it look bad for me to have them in the car.

JCisHe
July 30, 2009, 05:12 PM
No Clarence, you're creating instances that don't apply to the OP's situation which was what I was addressing.

He was leaving his girlfriends house, late at night, with range gear in his car and the officers could plainly see that and were also called for a domestic disturbance which automatically raises the threat level. In the 1st instance he was armed to the teeth walking to a restaurant and Bryan told them that. It's not my logic that's flawed friend.

Beside, the premise stands that driving around for other than transporting, to and from a destination, for storage, large amounts of ammunition and a few firearms will make that person seem sketchy.

I'm not a cop, but if I were, that's exactly how I would see it. "Sir, where are you going?", "Oh, uhm, to the restaurant down the road.", "With TWO handguns, an extra mag, and 2 knives?! What are you planning to do?"

That's the obvious line of questioning and that's exactly what the cop did in the recording. In fact, the officer was pro 2a and gave the dude good advice about having so much hardware on him. Later, he got mad and said some stuff he shouldn't have but in all reality there is reason in that as well.

If you can CCW and people are complaining it's probably best to avoid any trouble and just CC.I can understand that line of reasoning. The officer in the 1st recording was being a little jerky but if Bryan would have taken the hint from him this second event wouldn't have happened. I'll add again though just so there is no misunderstanding that the second set of officers were clearly wrong and gunning for this guy without any legal means to do so. But like I said, my guess is that they think that Bryan is dangerous because of the hardware and whatnot. So, you take from that what you want but if I were Bryan I'd be a little more prudent.

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 07:17 PM
But like I said, my guess is that they think that Bryan is dangerous because of the hardware and whatnot.
Now he'll just be "dangerous" to their financial futures.

It must be tough to have to choose between food, the mortgage, and required payments to rDigital. Of course if you miss a required payment, that usually calls the entire amount due IMMEDIATELY.

The only thing worse than having to sit hungry with your wife and kids on your couch thinking about why it's wrong to violate people's rights, is having to sit hungry with your wife and kids on the floor thinking about why it's wrong to violate people's rights because the Sheriff came to get your couch because you were late on a payment from a settlement not dischargeable in bankruptcy...

t165
July 30, 2009, 09:10 PM
I wish to state that I do not want anyone on this thread to take anything I say as legal advice. My comments are based on past employment experience and law classes taught to me years ago. And I was a student/cadet during these classes. Current police officers are required to take a certain amout of hours every year to refresh and learn about new or modified law. But the courses are condensed. I have never met a police officer who knows all the laws verbatim. Police officers have different interpretattions of law. Just like citizens, lawyers, and judges have different interpretations of law. Citizens get on these internet forums and argue their interpretations. Lawyers argue in court with each other. Trial court judges chooses which arguments he believes to be correct at the trial level. Appellate court judges overturn trial court judges decisions if they believe errors were made. And then in some rare cases the SCOTUS renders their decision. But even the decisions of SCOTUS can be whittled away or overturned after new appointments are made to that supreme body. The law is everchanging.

Back in the late 90's IIRC Indiana law enforcement officers were running quite a few DWI roadblocks/checkpoints. Hundreds of individuals had been arrested and the cases were making their way through the courts. Then the Indiana Supreme Court issued a court ruling on the requirements/legality of DWI roadblocks/checkpoints. With a stroke of a pen hundreds of previously arrested DWI suspects were immune from prosecution. Again, IIRC the high court changed the notification requirements which had to posted in the local newspapers prior to setting up a DWI checkpoint. The law and case law simply change all the time.

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 09:23 PM
I have never met a police officer who knows all the laws verbatim.
The police officer doesn't need to know all the laws verbatim.

He needs to know the law he's enforcing, RIGHT NOW.

If he can't be bothered to reach a bar THAT low, and falsely arrests me, I GUARANTEE you that my lawyer will KNOW the applicable law under which that officer is being sued, forwards and backwards.

If you falsely arrest me because you're too lazy to know your job, the bugle's going to blow the deguello. No quarter asked, none given.

clarence222
July 30, 2009, 09:33 PM
JCisHE,
The problem is the officers did not know where he had been nor did they know what had been going on. If I recall correctly they did not see the weapons or magazines until they searched his car. Nor did they know what he had been doing all day. He never says what he did before the argument. He very well could have been to the range all day with his GF then spent the evening with her before going home. They could have very spent the evening at an indoor range and been at her house just an hour or two.

I have not spent time researching the 1st event. I'm only commenting on this event. What I don know about the first event is that he was stopped for simply OCing which is perfectly legal in his jurisdiction. So why was he stopped. Because the cops didn't know the law, had they there wouldn't have been a first event. Had the first officer spent any time at all speaking with the OP there wouldn't have been a second event. All he had to do was wait for backup, when they arrived speak to his GF and that should have been the end of the story. However it was not the end because they screwed up. They did not do their job correctly.

IMHO I think what you are getting at is that yeah we have a right to carry, just make sure you don't exercise that right.

How about making sure that the police know what the law says about firearms laws, and quit acting like a bunch of paramilitary wanna bes.

That last comment was not directed at all law enforcement officers, I respect people who do that job. But we all know that there are several out there who have no business what so ever beeing allowed to carry a badge or a gun.

t165
July 30, 2009, 09:42 PM
Deanimator...Officers are taught that if there is any doubt to not make an arrest. And I also carried a current copy of the Indiana Code with me for reference. Still, mistakes have and will happen. Officers know this and the remedy for a bad arrest lies in the court system. Police officers live under threat of lawsuit all the time. They are not frightened by it. If laws were not broken and mistakes never happened there would be no need for the criminal and civil court system. You must of had some really bad experience with the justice system in the past. I never met you in my life and I can feel the hate from you emiting from the screen of my computer because I'm an ex-LEO. I'm not flaming you...I honestly believe you hate law enforcement with a passion.

Now, if the economy does not improve and my car business goes under I might have to take the county sheriff up on his offer when he invited me out to discuss possible employment for me. If I become a LEO again will you still discuss topics with me?

clarence222
July 30, 2009, 09:51 PM
t165,

I have never met Deanimator before either, however I agree with most of his post. If you take a job and get a salary for it you should know your job. We don't tolerate this from our doctors nor should we tolerate from our law enforcement. If this situation occurred to me the first thing I would do is file suit against a officers involved.

I don't have a hatred for LEO's I just think they need to know the job. If i don't know mine, or don't perform to my boss' expectations I will no longer be employed. We employ the police and we shouldn't tolerate this kind of incompetence

t165
July 30, 2009, 10:09 PM
But that is exactly my point. You, Deanimator, cops, doctors, lawyers, judges...whatever, will make mistakes. I've never met a mechanic, insurance agent, contractor, or a member of the clergy who never made a mistake in the course of their employment. Please don't tell me that you are perfect? Nobody is...and never will be. Some people may think they are correct all the time but there are very good medications for that. Again, if you have a case then take it to court. That is the remedy. But police officers are never going to be frightened from doing their jobs from the threat of a lawsuit. Thats akin to a bank robber grabbing a kid in the middle of a robbery and trying to shield himself from the law with it.

Why do some people think LEO's should be "superman with a pension plan"? I took several competitive tests both mental and physical to gain employment. I then had to pass several more tests as a new officer. Then after all that I was deemed fit enough to attend the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy. I was the first Vincennes Indiana police officer to ever graduate ILEA as an Honor Graduate. Still, I did make mistakes. Nothing major but LEO's do not have the luxury of taking their time and reading a law book in the middle of an armed robbery or trying to break up large bar fight. Criminals have this funny habit of not stopping their criminal activity. Everytime I was involved in a hairy incident I always critiqued myself how I may have handled the incident better. I owed it to the people I was policing. Still, I was far from perfect. Just like everybody else. :)

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 10:09 PM
I never met you in my life and I can feel the hate from you emiting from the screen of my computer because I'm an ex-LEO. I'm not flaming you...I honestly believe you hate law enforcement with a passion.
You don't know me.

What I get from you is a desire to get a pass for serious misconduct and for people to just roll over and take abuse. The answer is "no". You don't have to like that. Just realize there's nothing you can do about it other than to obey the law. If you can't do that, there are consequences, just as there are for anyone who willfully breaks the law.

Zoogster
July 30, 2009, 10:11 PM
....

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 10:18 PM
But that is exactly my point. You, Deanimator, cops, doctors, lawyers, judges...whatever, will make mistakes. I've never met a mechanic, insurance agent, contractor, or a member of the clergy who never made a mistake in the course of their employment.
Don't be disingenuous. We're not talking about "mistakes". We're talking about CHOICES. Those officers CHOSE to impede rDigital from obeying the Ohio CCW law, then arrest him for a delay THEY caused. That's not a mistake. It's a CHOICE. Choices have consequences. If you choose to falsely arrest me or violate my rights in some other way, I'm going to make those consequences as dire for you as humanly possible within the law.

I owe you NOTHING except to conscientiously obey the laws AS WRITTEN. You owe me the same. If you can't or won't do that, I'll move mountains to exact a price. There are people who'll take a slap across the face and meekly slink away without complaint. I'm not one of them.

numaone
July 30, 2009, 10:21 PM
What scares me is the just first came back hung. If the facts are like they seem, this is plainly easy for a 4 year old. I am scared that 12 dumb people can lock me away. Anyone on the jury who fell for the prosecution's garbage scare tactics is an absolute fool.

You know, I'm not sure who I am angrier with, the state or the jury. I expect the prosecution to be overzealous. But I am furious with my fellow Americans for being so gullible, stupid, and spine-less to fall for any of this nonsense. The elderly woman who spoke to you is an example of this. Who the F*** cares how your car looks. I don't care if you are the sole source of the ammo shortage in this country and had every single round in your car. If it's not illegal it's not relevant. I couldn't care less if you hadn't taken a shower in months. It has nothing to do with you "promptly informing the police"

Sorry if I come off angry. It's just an abomination this sort of nonsense in America. I think I'm going to have to sleep with my AR under the covers tonight to get over this story.

Deanimator
July 30, 2009, 10:22 PM
Yet you expect people with high school diplomas hired for blue collar work, who retire within 20 years, to know more than any lawyer possibly can?
Police don't need to know "the law". They need to know the law they're enforcing, RIGHT NOW. If one of them has such a lack of respect for his own profession that he can't be bothered to adhere to so lax of a standard, don't expect me to meekly take such abuse. It's just not going to happen.

clarence222
July 30, 2009, 10:23 PM
t165, Zoogster

This was not simply a mistake by just one officer but several mistakes by several officers as well as the prosecuting attorney. this should not be tolerated.

If my doctor makes a mistake that I recover from then at the least I will quit seeing him in a sense firing him. These officers acted in what I would consider a malicious manner and should not be allowed to carry badges or guns. If I see my attorney about a legal matter and he doesn't have the expertise, or for that matter my doctor. Then they will refer me to someone that does. These officers did none of these. That is why this isnt simply a mistake. Also why it should not be tolerated. I am not perfect nor did I ever claim to be. I do try to own up to my mistakes, something these people never did. I would expect that law officers should know whats legal in such hot button issues as drugs and firearms.

HexHead
July 30, 2009, 11:13 PM
I'm not a cop, but if I were, that's exactly how I would see it. "Sir, where are you going?", "Oh, uhm, to the restaurant down the road.", "With TWO handguns, an extra mag, and 2 knives?! What are you planning to do?"


None of those questions are deserving of an answer. None of those questions are any of the officer's business. The only answer should be "why am I being stopped?" or "why am I being detained?"

mdugan
July 30, 2009, 11:32 PM
Holy Smoke, I'm glad my wife doesn't have any friends. Seriously Bryan, I'm happy for you.

t165
July 30, 2009, 11:46 PM
clarence222...you are tying me into a conversation I did not participate in. I am refering to the Willowick Ohio incident which rDigital was involved in. Not the incident which resulted in his arrest in the other Ohio town (Beachwood?). Both sides of the conversation was recorded in the Willowick incident and I sided with rDigital that absent any additional observation of suspicious activity or witness report of wrongdoing he should not have been stopped for simply OC. Deanimator will jump me for not saying articulated reasons.

And lets step into reality here. Police officers only arrest people. Prosecutors, after reviewing the case, decides whether or not to bring formal charges and prosecute the case. Then a judge or a jury of the suspects peers decide guilt or innocence. The judicial system is not always fair nor right. That little old lady and other "stupid people" of the jury could very well have returned a guilty verdict for reasons other than law. It isn't right but I have personally had a juror tell me she convicted a man of aggravated battery because he had facial tattoos more than anything else. The tatoos indicated to her the man was simply mean by nature. Absolutley nothing in this world is perfect and that includes the judicial system. And I absolutely agree it should be. It may be my butt someday in the defendants chair.

I missed what Zoogster said. It must have been pretty good to get removed that quickly!

Okay Deanimator. I was PM'd and cautioned by a moderator to not get you riled up. I should have listened. I am curious though. What did you get arrested for that has jaded you so much? Was it an incident in Chicago? You have made comments in the past like "scorched earth" "annihilation" when commenting about law enforcement. I'm just trying to understand what has made you so angry. It sounds like you are getting ready for a jihad. :)

And I'm not being disingenuous Deanimator. If a police officer acts like a criminal and knowing breaks the law then I'll not defend him/her. If someone acts like a criminal then they should be treated like a criminal. LEO's included. And I agree with you that police officers should not purposely misuse the law as a bully tool. But expecting LEO's to make perfect decisions all the time is way out there. Thats why LEO's and Federal Agents have professional liability insurance...just like every other profession.

If a LEO commits a crime, and yes, even a crime against you Deanimator, then that officer should be arrested and prosecuted. If a LEO uses his authority to mistreat you then use whatever legal remedy at your disposal to correct the abuse. I would do the exact same thing. If a LEO makes a mistake in judgement during the performance of his duties then you also have the right to seek a civil remedy through the court system. I agree with you on all of this. Where we differ is you seem to be hateful toward all LEOs. You have stated you wish to take all material possessions away from them. Is this what happened to you? I'm just trying to be friendly and understand what has made you so prejudicial towards all law enforcement.

JCisHe
July 31, 2009, 12:06 AM
Clarence,

I hope you never try to defend yourself in court.

"I have not spent time researching the 1st event. I'm only commenting on this event. What I don know about the first event is that he was stopped for simply OCing which is perfectly legal in his jurisdiction. So why was he stopped. Because the cops didn't know the law, had they there wouldn't have been a first event."

You say you have no knowledge of it and then give a false determination here about that first stop. The first stop wasn't solely because he was OC'ing nor were the officers mistaken about the law.

In the 1st few seconds a cop says, "this isn't illegal and you're not going to jail" and they also explain that they got a lot of complaints. You should try and be more factual.

Regards...

JCisHe
July 31, 2009, 12:11 AM
Hex,

There were calls against Bryan and the officers were responding to them. They had every right to ask questions as they were responding to calls and didn't know what was going on. Obviously, someone said something serious about Bryan otherwise the officer wouldn't have been able to say that he was going to charge him with creating a panic or whatever...

See, there is more there than just a random stop. That's not a good argument.

Zoogster
July 31, 2009, 12:26 AM
missed what Zoogster said. It must have been pretty good to get removed that quickly!

No I just felt it took away from the topic at hand. Rather than a back and forth on a devil's advocate position I did not even wish to take, it was easier to let the conversation continue the way it is.

JCisHe
July 31, 2009, 01:02 AM
Zoog, you should have weighed in. It would have been interesting.

My position is that while Bryan wasn't doing anything illegal he was doing something stupid each time. The 1st was having that extra weapon and the second was similar only he had with him stuff for the range on top of an extra weapon just driving around.

Those are the things that got him into trouble and I think the first officer pretty clearly pointed that out while giving him a break because of a friend while the second set of officers were on high alert and figured this guy to be dangerous because of all the extra stuff. I mean honestly, having all that stuff looks more like Klebold and Harris then it does an honest law abiding citizen.

I don't think this guy a good spokesman for 2a rights. What a person who wants to speak out for 2a should do, in my opinion, is print off some pamphlets, stop ant the police station, explain to them he is going to be OC'ing, talk with the dispatcher, drop some literature, explain his intentions, let them know where he is going and for how long, then head out and talk with folks with pamphlets. Then, if that person wants to OC in other areas fine but that's representing 2a rights not walking down the road armed to the teeth with and attitude of "I'm a citizen not a serf and you cops...". I think Bryan went looking for trouble and kept looking for trouble until he found it.

Regards...

t165
July 31, 2009, 01:07 AM
Okay Zoogster. I seemed to have broken a rule or two on this forum lately and the thread police had to correct me. I thought it might have happened to you. Oh well...live and learn. :)

harrygunner
July 31, 2009, 01:31 AM
Someone, become rich producing decision support software for field officers.

The officer enters the particulars into the computer in his unit and within minutes, recommendations or options based on state law are presented.

Deanimator
July 31, 2009, 01:36 AM
What did you get arrested for that has jaded you so much?
I've never been arrested.

That's because I'm scrupulous about knowing and obeying the law.

If somebody wants to falsely arrest me or otherwise violate my rights because I LAWFULLY have a gun or for any other reason, I have no more reason to view that act in a kindly way than a cop should view an armed robbery. My rights mean more to me than any mere physical possession.

Again, these are no more "mistakes of judgement" than a physical attack on a cop.

Deanimator
July 31, 2009, 01:48 AM
I agree with you on all of this. Where we differ is you seem to be hateful toward all LEOs. You have stated you wish to take all material possessions away from them
I don't think you'll be able to find a quote of me wanting to take all material possessions from all LEOs.

I'd cheerfully take money and possessions from a cop who commits a serious crime against me in the course of their "duties" or who intentionally violates my rights. Why would anyone do anything different? I'd go after the assets of a citizen who intentionally caused me harm contrary to the law. The alternative is to let them get away with it. That would seem like a bad thing.

t165
July 31, 2009, 01:49 AM
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the perfection issue Deanimator. Glad to hear you have never been arrested...not sure why I thought that!

Between my time as a LEO and my wife's job with the IRS we have grown to learn there is always a story behind the blanket contempt that has been directed toward us in the past for the positions we held/hold. And, sometimes, we can understand the anger. Maybe someday you will meet a LEO which can show you the good side of the occupation.

rDigital
July 31, 2009, 02:11 AM
I don't think this guy a good spokesman for 2a rights. What a person who wants to speak out for 2a should do, in my opinion, is print off some pamphlets, stop ant the police station, explain to them he is going to be OC'ing, talk with the dispatcher, drop some literature, explain his intentions, let them know where he is going and for how long, then head out and talk with folks with pamphlets. Then, if that person wants to OC in other areas fine but that's representing 2a rights not walking down the road armed to the teeth with and attitude of "I'm a citizen not a serf and you cops...". I think Bryan went looking for trouble and kept looking for trouble until he found it.

Please read all articles before commenting. If only you read just a little further you'd see the fallacies in your statements. Your logic is frightening. Please take the time to do your research before you go off throwing rocks at glass houses. You have misquoted facts and taken things out of context to fit "your" views. You make arguments and then try to make the facts fit your prejudice. You're being pretty judgmental... especially so without knowing all facts. Please, go back and read what you missed.

Your argument is the same as blaming a woman who got raped for dressing too provocatively. "She was asking for it dressed like that....." Was I asking for it? Dressed like that?

No, I was scared to death and did everything I could to stay calm with a LEO pointing a Glock at my head. I didn't deserve that. I wasn't "asking for it"

The only person who called the police on me in Willowick was another cop. I walked everywhere around town that summer open carrying. To my knowledge no one has EVER had a problem with it, not ever to this very day. Most people were friendly and talked shop with me about guns and our rights. Every business I frequented greeted me with a smile and appreciated my business (especially the spaghetti place I was headed to :)).

We, OFCC, did the FOIA request and got all of the FACTS straight. I received an apology from the Chief of Police, the sergeant who stopped me, the law director and a city councilman. They were out of line so they fessed up and made nice with myself and OFCC. With the audio we had a "color of law" federal lawsuit that was airtight.

However, I didn't sue anyone. I was unhappy and disgusted by how I was treated, but I didn't want the attention, nor did I want to raid the piggy banks of Willowick's Finest. With a "color of law" case the individual officers are personally liable as well as the city.

I never open carried to draw attention. It's what I did before I had my CCW and when I am comfortable doing so, I still do it to this day.

I always wanted everyone to be OK with open carry and one of the by-products of my police stop in Willowick is that nearly every LEO in Lake County KNOWS with absolute certainty that open carry is legal.

In fact, I just got home from a 6 mile walk open carrying through Eastlake, Willowick and Willoughby. Nobody gives a damn! Oh my! and I was carrying an SAK and a maglite too! I had extra magazines in my back pocket and a Sig P229 on my right hip. I would have brought my 20mm with me, but I didn't have a wheelbarrow on hand. ;)

I don't care if I have 7 pistols in my left shoe, it's still legal and that part is beyond debate. RKBA is not granted by the authorities or even the 2nd Amendment. RKBA is inalienable and should be embraced by CITIZENS everywhere.

Open carry is a RIGHT, CC requires a license which involves jumping through many hoops. It's kind of like a poll tax or Jim Crow laws.

The police are there to enforce the laws and not someone's opinion. This is a republic, not a democracy. We live under rule of law, not mob rule.

Deanimator
July 31, 2009, 02:27 AM
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the perfection issue Deanimator. Glad to hear you have never been arrested...not sure why I thought that!
I've never fled from the police, much less taken a swing or a gunshot at them. Does that make me "perfect"? No, it makes me a relatively law abiding person. I'm puzzled as to why it should require "perfection" for a cop to similarly not commit serious crimes. I know it's unlawful to commit the previously noted acts, not to mention carrying a firearm in my pocket in a vehicle without a holster, or entering a "Class D" establishment while in possession of a firearm. Why were those Beachwood cops unable to know that intentional false arrest is a crime and a civil tort? Does it REALLY take "perfection" not to commit a serious infraction of that sort? Should they be allowed to do such things without serious punishment in the criminal and civil courts? Is it an unreasonable expectation of "perfection" to demand that I not flee from or fight with the police... or to have a loaded magazine and a firearm in my vehicle without a CHL?


Between my time as a LEO and my wife's job with the IRS we have grown to learn there is always a story behind the blanket contempt that has been directed toward us in the past for the positions we held/hold. And, sometimes, we can understand the anger. Maybe someday you will meet a LEO which can show you the good side of the occupation.
I've met good cops. For what reason would I seek their administrative punishment, prosecution or a civil judgement? You need a cause of action to sue somebody. Courts don't generally treat "I hate cops" as a claim for which one can seek relief. Intentional false arrest, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.

I have a very FOCUSED contempt for cops who misuse their positions to commit serious crimes and civil torts against innocent people. Why SHOULDN'T I? To be sure there are people who think you should always let such things go. I'm not one of them.

t165
July 31, 2009, 03:36 AM
Okay Deanimator, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but I do not understand where the fleeing police and swinging and/or taking shots at them came from? I don't remember reading that anywhere on this thread. If you are referring to the incident in Beachwood, Ohio experienced by rDigital then my comments should not be applied to that situation.

I am commenting on the Willowick, Ohio incident rDigital was involved in. He wasn't arrested that time. I think the only questions I ever asked about the Beachwood incident is if rDigital had, through discovery, obtained a transcript of the original phone call which led the authorites to the Beachwood incident and how much time has to elapse before an individual can be arrested in Ohio for not notifying the police you possess a handgun. Perhaps this is the misunderstanding between us. While I haven't read the reports of the police officers I do have a problem with the prompt notification requirement in Ohio's criminal code. Far too much room for abuse on that one. I believe rDigital was arrested for a violation of the prompt notification statute in the Beachwood incident. I would have been angry to be arrested for something as chickens*** as that also. And I'm glad he was aquitted for that. It's a bad and unnecessary law. I wonder if a individual who possessed a handgun illegally in Ohio who was stopped by the police could be charged with this "failure to disclose" handgun violation? Wouldn't that be the imposition of "self incrimination" by the state of Ohio? Perhaps I'm reaching now? If a police officer in Ohio has adequate reason to believe his safety is in jeopardy then he can perform a "Terry Stop and Frisk". I do not understand the requirement for disclosure for a legal act which comes attatched with a vague time limit or it becomes illegal. I don't get it. Heck, Terry V Ohio originated in Ohio.

And you will never find anywhere me saying LEOs should go unpunished for crimes. Again, perhaps we are confusing incidents. In the Willowick incident rDigital was not arrested and certainly not assaulted. I seriously doubt grounds for a successful civil suit could ever be achieved from it. Additional training for at least one of the responding officers seems to be in order regarding Ohio firearm laws, but that is as far as I'm going to go. Although some departments do restrict their officers from using profanity.

When I speak of perfection I referring to harmless mistakes. Wrong date on a traffic ticket. The spelling of a name or transposed numbers on a police report. Nothing which would purposely inflict injury on an individual. One of the officers in the Willowick incident made mention that rDigital's OC triggered a disorderly conduct charge. He was wrong of course but it was a harmless error. Now, if rDigital had been arrested for disorderly conduct then harmless error goes right out the window.

I know of several LEOs who have been sued over the years. I do not know of any who have ever had to pay out of their pocket. I have heard of LEOs who have but I never met them.

Two thugs got into a shoving match one night and a big thug backed a little thug down. Made him take water in front of a crowd of people. The little thug drove to his grandparents house and stole a shotgun out of their closet. A little later I pulled the little thug over because his license plate was obstructed. The truck he was driving had a temporary paper plate taped in the back window but I could not see it. He was 2 blocks away from where the big thug lived when I stopped him. The police department received no reports about the shoving incident. The little thug never mentioned the shoving incident to me during the traffic stop. Neither the VPD or I knew anything about the theft of the shotgun. I did not see the shotgun in the truck at the time of the traffic stop. The little thug moved the obstruction and I cut him loose. Two hours later he shot the big thug in the stomach with the stolen shotgun outside the big thug's house. The big thug lived. The little thug went to prison. The little thug's grandparents and I, along with the city of Vincennes, were sued by the big thug. I had to give 3 different depositions over several months. I had no reason to believe whatsoever the little thug was hunting the big thug at the time of the traffic stop. I'm not a mind reader. I did nothing wrong. Neither did the grandparents but we were still sued. The grandparents were sued because the shotgun was their responsibility and it was not secured from theft properly. The city's liability insurance carrier's attorney offered the big thug $25,000.00 because he said it would be cheaper than defending the case in court. IIRC the big thug countered back with a $300,000.00 request. Last I heard the big thug accepted the $25,000.00 even though he didn't deserve it. The point I'm trying to make is you don't have to do anything wrong to be sued either. Even a Police Officer!

Deanimator
July 31, 2009, 05:52 AM
Okay Deanimator, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but I do not understand where the fleeing police and swinging and/or taking shots at them came from? I don't remember reading that anywhere on this thread. If you are referring to the incident in Beachwood, Ohio experienced by rDigital then my comments should not be applied to that situation.
I gave examples of things which the police should (and do) know to be serious crimes or civil torts. I gave examples of things which citizens should (and do) know to be serious crimes. My point is not doing those things isn't an example of "perfection", but instead of the very minimum acceptable standard of common sense.

Throughout I have referred SPECIFICALLY to the incident about which this thread pertains.

There is a world of difference between transposed numbers on a traffic ticket and INTENTIONAL false arrest, or threats to KNOWINGLY violate the law because a cop doesn't like open carry, or concealed carry, or the color of your t-shirt.

I recently had a problem with a local cop who stepped beyond a reasonable investigation of whether I had a CHL to blatant ignorance of state law, reinforced by a pathetic self-appeal to authority. When you don't know the law, blurting out "I'm a cop!" doesn't make you more right than the Attorney General of the State of Ohio. It just makes you look like a five year old. I suspect that somebody on the radio told him he was being a child and to just shut up and give me back my gun and CHL. Too bad he chose to make himself look like a petulant child beforehand. I didn't sue him. I didn't even file a formal complaint. I did write the chief of police a letter giving his name and badge number and suggesting that he PROPERLY train his people before something really bad happened. Either he will or he won't. If he doesn't, I've got a voice recorder and a good lawyer.

t165
July 31, 2009, 06:07 AM
Okay Deanimator! So you admit you have mistakenly applied my comments about the Willowick incident toward the Beachwood incident. Takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. Thanks! :) And everyone says you can be unreasonable...this should prove them wrong!

clarence222
July 31, 2009, 11:26 AM
I hope you never try to defend yourself in court

JCisHE,

I will never try to defend myself in a court of law, there is no need to. I have several lawyers in the family plus a personal lawyer who is not related.

I guess I should have clarified my statement, I hae seen what I thought at the time to be the video of the first event. I did pay alot of attention to it nor have I done any further research on it.

That being said he was initially questioned by the police because he was OCing, which is perfectly legal. Maybe the office did just say he was being stupid for doing it or not very smart. However that is as far as the incident should have got. There should have been no further officers involved. I also remember a female officer telling him he couldn't open carry.

The fact remains he was stopped for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Moon Doggie
July 31, 2009, 12:14 PM
JCisHE
I am so glad you are not a Cop because if you were with your attitude towards LEGAL things, well, I think you would be broke from being sued.
I have had 1 Pistol in my Holster and 1 in a zippered case and one in my console, all loaded and all having extra magazines, which is lawful and you say I would be suspicious in your eyes and that then, you would find something wrong with me?
If you asked me WHY I had so many Guns and Mags, I would tell you because I am allowed.
Then what would you say and do to that JCisHE ?

rDigital
July 31, 2009, 12:23 PM
I guess I should have clarified my statement, I hae seen what I thought at the time to be the video of the first event. I did pay alot of attention to it nor have I done any further research on it.

That being said he was initially questioned by the police because he was OCing, which is perfectly legal. Maybe the office did just say he was being stupid for doing it or not very smart. However that is as far as the incident should have got. There should have been no further officers involved. I also remember a female officer telling him he couldn't open carry.

That is Joseph Ponikvar. My situation was quite different.

I was forced by by the LEOs to "cover up" my P229, which is deprivation of rights. There was no usable video from the dash cams in Willowick and I didn't make any video myself.

In fact, I lucked out in even being able to record the whole thing. I didn't have a dedicated voice recorder. I really wasn't worried about it. I was about to listen to music on my iPhone as I was approached from behind by the Willowick PD. I opened up the "voice notes" app hit record and hoped for the best.

JCisHe
July 31, 2009, 03:04 PM
Bryan, the added information does shed more light on the situation but I think your comments, "I'm not a serf but a citizen" and the range gear, etc... are more your problem than the cops. They are just being careful and applying their own personalities just like you. That comment is mildly offensive and like it or not, law contains the opinions of people too. That's reality. This is far from the case of a rape victim. The cops aren't rapists who do it for their own pleasure, that which is wrong, and know it; they are people who train to uphold the law and took an oath to uphold the law and do their best to do what is right. You are no rape victim who was victimized against your will by a hateful and evil person either. You know that there is some issue with OC for some people and you took that chance. Taking that chance and having a CCW is what opened you up to these encounters (both your choices). So yeah, it is your fault. The problem though is that it appeared to those officers that you had unreasonable amounts of hardware. You might just consider what I'm saying and ask Matthew, the old lady, and the first officer that spoke with you if that's what they saw. Perhaps, my assumption is right? Until you can see something like that being a possibility I hold my original position that you're not a very good 2a spokesman. I hope you don't make that comparison of you as a rape victim and the police as the rapist, in any capacity, again. That was pretty terrible. And just for the record, the police were wrong, but you sort of set yourself up.

Clarence, I agree that the police were wrong but there was only audio of Bryan's incident.

Moon Doggie, if you get a call on you in the middle of the night for domestic abuse I suspect you're going to catch some flack.

Regards...

LaVere
July 31, 2009, 07:23 PM
In the Opencerry.org/Michigan We are generally encouraged to If you are stopped for anything record it. Get out of your car and lock it ( if they let you get out ). Say your name, Ask if you are under arrest, ask if you are free to go and I want a lawyer. Repeat ad nausium. Your mouth will get you into more trouble. Shut up


I do have to say you did extremely well. According to the recording they sure were trying to jam you up for any reason. I would take a copy of the tape to police of chief and the State police. Just to see what shakes from the tree.
Maybe they have other cases where they have done that. But the person didn't record it. Who knows who you might be helping from the past and in the future. Just don't let it lay there.

Deanimator
August 1, 2009, 09:40 AM
I would take a copy of the tape to police of chief and the State police.
For as long as this went on, and considering the quixotic farce that the prosecutor put on, if the Chief of the Beachwood PD were going to do anything meaningful to rectify this situation, he'd have done it by now. rDigital can correct me if I'm wrong, but other than to falsely arrest him and testify against him, Beachwood PD has done nothing else. I don't expect they will. The Ohio Highway Patrol is a stretch, but not LITERALLY impossible, I guess. You're probably unaware that the OHP was MILITANTLY against concealed carry and managed to get it killed off several times until former Governor Taft's veto was overridden (the first override in over 100 years).

I suspect that the only way this situation will ever be PROPERLY addressed is through civil litigation against the officers and the city. They played an obviously losing hand and bet the house on it. Payment may now be coming due...

t165
August 1, 2009, 09:51 PM
Justice fell on the side of rDigital. A jury of his peers aquitted him. I do believe Deanimator is correct stating the Beachwood officers will not be disciplined by their department or criminally charged by the prosecutors office since the PO found merit to prosecute the case.

The state police are powerless to do anything to the Beachwood police officers as far as discipline. They lack jurisdiction. If new evidence were to emerge which showed criminal conduct by the Beachwood police officers then the Beachwood PD, Sheriff's Department of the county which Beachwood resides in, or Ohio State Police could arrest the participating officers for a crime(s) but the odds are about as good as winning the lottery at this point. And even then the PO's office could refuse to prosecute regardless of what the local (state, county, city) police thought. If rDigital believes his "constitutional rights" have been violated then he could contact the federal authorities but I doubt they would touch something as minor as this. This is not a Rodney King case and even then it took an enourmous amout of political pressure for them to weigh in.

And it doesn't seem right that after winning a case the defendant still has to pay his attorney fees. I know, the state will provide a pauper attorney but you cannot pick the attorney you wish and some court appointed attorneys are simply not that competent or motivated. Heck, you could be appointed one who is a gun grabbing liberal. Yikes!

Being found "not guilty" certainly helps in a civil case but that is far from a guarantee of victory. Not to mention a judge could simply dismiss the case if he thinks it lacks merit regardless of the arrest and subsequent acquital. And I do not know of any attorney who will tell a client they are "guaranteed" to win or have an "airtight case". If you ever run across an attorney who guarantees you the outcome of a case before adjudication, or while being ajudicated, then it is time to check and make sure the attorney is a "real" attorney, or, get a new attorney because the one you are talking is violating his own code of ethics. Attorneys can be disciplined/disbarred for conducting themselves in such a manner. A client could sue an attorney for this behavior...and most attorneys like their money too much to give it away so easily.

Having said all this I do believe rDigitals best course of action for relief is through the civil courts...its just not a guarantee. The ACLU and state chapters very seldom take gun rights cases...if ever. I don't remember reading one. I'm not saying some do not exist. rDigitals best bet is to petition a gun rights organization to see if this particular case has enough merit, in their opinion, to initiate litigation. Just my 2 cents again.

bondmid003
August 2, 2009, 03:53 AM
rdigital, you should contact pullnshoot25 over at calguns.net. He has alot of experience with OC'ing and filing reports with internal affairs over violations of his rights.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ohio: Charged with CCW violation and resulting jury trial" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!