Canton Ohio Wants To revoke CCW permits


PDA






the_skunk
July 30, 2011, 10:26 PM
A Canton Ohio cop has threatened to kill civilians in two seperate instances. CNN news carried the story. A Canton city councilman defended the rogue LEO, and wants the CCW law revoked.

http://media.trb.com/media/thumbnails/story/2011-07/63414502-21153319-187105.jpg


Today, OFCC calls on Allen Schulman and Daniel Harless to immediately resign from their positions as president of the Canton City Council, and member of the Canton Police Department, respectively. Their recent conduct demonstrates that they are no longer worthy of the public trust.


http://www.timesreporter.com/archive/x23521925/g12c000000000000000c9ed3518952fdfcb11048b463750825352d0e0b1.jpg

Schulman told Fox 8, "We've received hundreds of e-mails, all from out of town, not only out of town but out of state, Texas, Arizona, places that seem to love people carrying concealed weapons."

Schulman said the case illustrates the inherent dangers of Ohio's concealed weapon law, which he calls, "crazy "I believe in people's right to bear arms, but I believe in rational, reasonable gun laws, and these concealed weapons are going to create a lot of problems", said Schulman. "And my biggest concern is, it's going to end up killing people."



Canton Cop Unleashes On Driver -- WJW (http://www.fox8.com/videobeta/?watchId=1e5ce33d-0507-4055-a82a-a03b04161495) .... Video


2nd Video of Angry Canton Cop -- WJW (http://www.fox8.com/videobeta/314f65d3-8920-4f00-ab54-ee581040f81c/News/2nd-Video-of-Angry-Canton-Cop) ...video



Driver Says Right Were Violated By Canton Police Officer - WJW (http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-canton-man-says-right-violated,0,4929482.story) ...VIDEO

If you enjoyed reading about "Canton Ohio Wants To revoke CCW permits" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SleazyRider
July 30, 2011, 10:38 PM
Schulman apparently feels that out-of-towners have no business commenting on Canton's internal affairs. I say baloney. As long as we have the right to enter Canton, it not only becomes our business, but it becomes incumbent upon all citizens---regardless of residence---to provide commentary and pressure to right a wrong.

I am writing to the Canton City Council tonight at:

Cynthia Timberlake
218 Cleveland Avenue SW
Canton, Ohio 44702

armoredman
July 30, 2011, 10:40 PM
Another out of touch elite liberal politician. Hopefully the voters turn him out soon. Doubly hope lawsuits prevail against the city and the officer, triply hope the officer can be prosecuted for the terristic threats and actions done under color of law.

the_skunk
July 30, 2011, 10:44 PM
The CCW laws are here to protect honest citizens. This jerk should resign. This was all over Fox News on national TV tonight.

Snowbandit
July 30, 2011, 11:07 PM
He's right about one thing, someone's going to get seriously hurt or killed. Their officer Harlass appears to be a loose cannon and either he's going to shoot someone or someone is going to have to shoot him in self defense. They better deal with this issue now, before something really bad happens.

Mike1234567
July 30, 2011, 11:17 PM
Like I posted in one of the closed threads... the fault lies not just with Officer Harless but with all Officers who witnessed his behavior, Harless' supervisors, his Chief, and... at the time I wrote "perhaps" up to the Mayor. Well.....

bushmaster1313
July 31, 2011, 12:59 AM
"I believe in people's right to bear arms, but I believe in rational, reasonable gun laws, and these concealed weapons are going to create a lot of problems", said Schulman. "And my biggest concern is, it's going to end up killing people."



Would he rather people exercise their right to bear arms by open carry? :rolleyes:

MICHAEL T
July 31, 2011, 01:03 AM
Bet they got a union thats why he still on the force. He has had several complaints and still their . That to me says union or a total corrupt police force.

hso
July 31, 2011, 01:07 AM
Rants and FYI's don't meet the requirement for Activism threads. Without a plan to actually try to accomplish something there's not much that this thread can contribute so I'm moving it to General.

El Mariachi
July 31, 2011, 09:40 AM
This should be a no-brainer-----how many of us private business owners here would continue to employ this Harless idjit, knowing that he has already proven himself as to be borderline psychopathic? Holy-crapola, the possible legal ramifications alone are enough to make the hair on my neck rise.....

SaxonPig
July 31, 2011, 09:57 AM
I lived in Ohio for several years (1992-1996) and I was shocked at the anti-gun attitude by elected office holders. The big cities had horrendous gun laws and the cops were overzealous to say the least in enforcing them.

As soon as someone uses the word "reasonable" in the debate the speaker has identified himself as being dedicated to destroying the 2nd Amd. See the moron... I mean councilman's comments. The fact that he would defend this cop's actions is unimaginable.

BTW- Mr. Schulman has made his contact info public so I assume he appreciates hearing from concerned citizens who wish to politely express their opinions.

Allen Schulman. Address: 3519 Culver DR NW Canton, OH 44709. Home: 330 492-5409

spelsh
July 31, 2011, 09:59 AM
There has been a lot of NE Ohio news coverage on this issue. OFCC has been following this very closely. There has been talk of a meet and greet in Canton, but I am under the impression that they are going to be patient and wait to see how this all unfolds before organizing.

Letters and emails have been flowing in to Canton City Council and to the Police Chief!!

TexasBill
July 31, 2011, 10:06 AM
Allen Schulman is the president of the Canton City Council. When he's not being a public embarrassment to the city, he's a personal injury lawyer.

Ms. Chris Smith, who has a doctorate in cosmetology (really!), is the chairperson of the Canton City Council's public safety committee. That committee would have direct oversight the Canton Police Department.

William J. Healy is the mayor of Canton and a former Ohio state representative. His contact information is as follows:

The Honorable William J. Healy II
Mayor, City of Canton
P.O. Box 24218
Canton, OH 44701
(330) 438-4307

Dean L. McKimm is Chief of Police, to contact him, write or call:

Dean L. McKimm, Chief
Canton Police Department
221 Third Street S.W.
Canton, OH 44702
(330) 489-3111

I am not going to post the specific links here, but you can get the City Council contact information at the City of Canton website City Council Member Directory (http://www.cantonohio.gov/council/?pg=members).

Should you choose to contact any of these people, please be high road. Be courteous, don't foam at the mouth, use racial or ethnic slurs, or say or write anything that could come back to haunt you (Schulman's an ambulance chaser, but he's also an attorney). Above all, while the council members' home phones are listed, do not call those numbers. Schulman has already shown he is capable of being totally irrational; don't fan the flames or give him ammuntion. Besides, their families have nothing to do with this and do not deserve to be upset or bothered.

If you write a letter, keep it short, ideally no more than three paragraphs and never more than a single page. Be to the point and check your spelling and punctuation. We want to come across as intelligent and being literate is a very good way to communicate that.

El Mariachi
July 31, 2011, 10:12 AM
As far as I'm concerned, if an elected official posts his contact info for all the public to see, then it's open season. E-mail blasts, post cards, letters and phone calls stating your opinions regarding this fiasco are all legit means to get the word out that the people running Canton are borderline Un-Americans. Thanks to a very popular AM radio station here in Hell-A hosted by 'Normal Californians', this technique has proven to be very effective for exposing our insane politicians who want California to be more like England. I for one derive great enjoyment utilizing the telephone.......:D

TexasBill
July 31, 2011, 10:29 AM
As far as I'm concerned, if an elected official posts his contact info for all the public to see, then it's open season. E-mail blasts, post cards, letters and phone calls stating your opinions regarding this fiasco are all legit means to get the word out that the people running Canton are borderline Un-Americans. Thanks to a very popular AM radio station here in Hell-A hosted by 'Normal Californians', this technique has proven to be very effective for exposing our insane politicians who want California to be more like England. I for one derive great enjoyment utilizing the telephone.......:D

Canton isn't La-La-Land. Anything you say can and will be used against us in the court of public opinion in Ohio, potentially putting Ohioans' gun rights at risk. At the moment, public and media opinion seems to be in our favor but rants, e-mail blasts and such can be made out to be harassment, especially coming from out of state. Don't make Schulman's case for him; he and Daniel Harless went over the line and we don't need to give them any rope they can use as a lifeline (or to hang us).

paramedic70002
July 31, 2011, 01:37 PM
Are there any tourist spots in Canton? Perhaps a polite note to them expressing your reluctance to visit while these ***** and policies are still in power would get the ball rolling.

Here are the two that would draw out of town visitors:

Professional Football Hall of Fame, Canton
2121 George Halas Dr NW, Canton, OH 44708-2630
330 456 8207
No contact email noted.

National First Ladies' Library, Canton
205 Market Ave S, Canton, OH 44702-2105
330-452-0876
Patricia Krider, Executive Director, pkrider@firstladies.org

psyshack
July 31, 2011, 02:07 PM
Where is the NRA on this mess?

SharpsDressedMan
July 31, 2011, 02:15 PM
This is what the State of Ohio SHOULD do, in response to Canton and their over-the-top police officer: As the State has amended the law previously, to bring it more in line with the plethora of other states that already have fine, working CCW laws, Ohio should further amend this law to REQUIRE LEO's to immediately ASK persons being stopped if they are carrying any weapons. Along with possible physical control and close observation, this would keep the officer at the ready and get to the point immediately, instead of ignoring subjects, searching cars, and having other less important stuff on their minds. Address weapons and the issue/possibilty of weapons first (to include frisks when deemed necessary), and THEN on to other things, such as reasons for the stop, arrests, warrants, etc. I would like to see the first burden of the presence of weapons addressed by the OFFICER, since apparent procedures differ so much from one jurisdiction to another. If the officer initiates the query, and raises the issue of weapons, he either gets the right response, or THEN arrests for illegal CCW, deception (giving false information, etc), or other crimes. It would be a very fast and simple solution to a what CAN be a very serious problem.

Mike1234567
July 31, 2011, 02:23 PM
Ahh, heck. Ohio is becoming a fascist state. Lets dig it up and ship it to China.:evil:

SharpsDressedMan
July 31, 2011, 04:11 PM
Mike, Ohio just moved up on the list of GOOD CCW states from no citizen CCW about 7-8 years ago to recent legislation tht permits being armed in restaurants that serve alcohol. That is more permissive than a lot of other states, when combined with relative ease and cost of getting a CCW license. Reciprocity is growning, too. Beats hell out of CA, NY, MI, MA, PA, etc. Now if we can just train our cops to be professional......

Dnaltrop
July 31, 2011, 04:20 PM
Yes, the Councilman is absolutely right...

A CCW permit immediately turns a citizen (having just passed a criminal background check) into a slavering homicidal beast.

Baby eating goes up 10 fold, and the proliferation of human-skin furniture will be epidemic as more once "law abiding" citizens have their psyches twisted to the evil ends of walking about the public with their death devices.

We need to make sure our fine upstanding drug dealers, pimps, gang bangers, tweekers, muggers, car-jackers, and rapists are properly able to defend themselves against the constant threat of these obviously unfit citizens who have somehow managed to keep themselves out of jail... Obviously by sinister means.

Help take back the city streets, Your local councilman commands it. ;)

basicblur
July 31, 2011, 04:33 PM
Schulman said the case illustrates the inherent dangers of Ohio's concealed weapon law, which he calls, "crazy"
Perhaps Mr. Schulman should see what public figures leading the charge against Michigan's 2001 'shall issue' law say after ten years of experience.
10 years after concealed weapons law, unclear why many in state were gun-shy (http://www.freep.com/article/20110731/NEWS06/107310482/10-years-after-concealed-weapons-law-unclear-why-many-state-were-gun-shy?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

The list of original opponents now admitting the 2001 shall issue law "is a big nothing" include:
1. Michigan Prosecuting Attorney's Association (originally led the opposition)
2. Michigan Catholic Conference
3. Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police
4. Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon
5. Washtenaw County Prosecutor Brian Mackie
6. Ionia County Prosecutor Ronald Schafer

Of course, I'm sure Mr. Schulman will not let pesky facts get in the way of a good rant!

Hmmmm....still guided by his beliefs despite over 10 years of facts (which mirrors other states' experiences).
Mebbe it's time to re-define crazy? :D

SharpsDressedMan
July 31, 2011, 04:40 PM
I think this incident is good for Ohio. This will bring another fine point of a badly designed SECTION of the CCW law that will probably, ultimately, take some ground AWAY from the police. When cops abuse discretion, and tromp on well meaning and otherwise law abiding folks, they get their ears trimmed. This just might result in the requirment of notification of being armed by the citizen to be DROPPED from the law. This poor guy got tromped on by an overbearing cop, and the legislature will not like that one bit when they review the incident, AND the poorly designed section of the law that brought it about. As stated, the solution may be to drop the notification, or require the cop to ASK if the person being detained is armed (which many savvy cops already do, across the land. Ever watch a real cop show? A lot of them do this immediately on domestics, etc).

bushmaster1313
July 31, 2011, 04:41 PM
Ohio should further amend this law to REQUIRE LEO's to immediately ASK persons being stopped if they are carrying any weapons.

I think this fails under the right against self incrimination.
It only works under the Constitution if the person stopped is legally carrying!

Cop can only inspect car or person for what is readily accessible to the stoppee.

SharpsDressedMan
July 31, 2011, 04:45 PM
In the case of an officer ASKING about weapons, any good officer will still treat the subject as armed, but be able to charge them with false report, CCW, or some other offense if the subject was found in a lie, etc. A licensed CCW carrier will simply respond, "Yes, I have a CCW license and a gun", etc. How much simpler can it be for the cop or the armed citizen?

Mike1234567
July 31, 2011, 04:46 PM
Mike, Ohio just moved up on the list of GOOD CCW states from no citizen CCW about 7-8 years ago to recent legislation tht permits being armed in restaurants that serve alcohol. That is more permissive than a lot of other states, when combined with relative ease and cost of getting a CCW license. Reciprocity is growning, too. Beats hell out of CA, NY, MI, MA, PA, etc. Now if we can just train our cops to be professional......

Okay, then we'll limit expulsion to just the city of Canton.:D

Blakenzy
July 31, 2011, 05:15 PM
Yes, the Councilman is absolutely right...

A CCW permit immediately turns a citizen (having just passed a criminal background check) into a slavering homicidal beast.

It's more like: "A Police badge immediately turns a citizen (having just passed a criminal background check) into a slavering homicidal beast."

From the officer in the dashcam video: " I should have [...], pulled my Glock 40 and just put ten bullets in your ass"

And as we all know very well the police are the only ones "profeshunal enough" to carry Glock 40s... exemplary.

Millwright
July 31, 2011, 08:00 PM
I don't think you can make a blanket accusation of every Canton, OH cop ! Like in any other endeavor - particularly politics - some folks get drunk on authority.

No doubt the esteemed Councilman has determined taking a page out the Quartzite, AZ town council's rulebook is a good idea. Given a short length of rope he'll likely hang himself. >MW

bigfatdave
July 31, 2011, 09:16 PM
what is it about those Glock fo-tay guns, anyway?

the_skunk
July 31, 2011, 10:04 PM
Ohio should further amend this law to REQUIRE LEO's to immediately ASK persons being stopped if they are carrying any weapons. Along with possible physical control and close observation, this would keep the officer at the ready and get to the point immediately, instead of ignoring subjects, searching cars, and having other less important stuff on their minds


Good solution

FIVETWOSEVEN
August 1, 2011, 01:03 AM
what is it about those Glock fo-tay guns, anyway?

They're the guns of the professionals, obviously.

we are not amused
August 1, 2011, 02:30 AM
I don't think you can make a blanket accusation of every Canton, OH cop ! Like in any other endeavor - particularly politics - some folks get drunk on authority. >MW

Tom Gresham of Gun Talk has been on this story since it broke, and he has had some interesting discussions with various people about the incident. He has a pod cast available if you didn't hear his show.http://www.guntalk.com/site.php
Some of what he has talked about, and I agree wholeheartedly, is that other police were aware of Daniel Harless outburst, yet nobody did anything about it. In the second released tape, where he yelling death threats, there were several other officers present, yet no one told him to shut up, or apparently reported it to his superiors. Maybe the other officers didn't engage in such behavior, but their inaction indicated their acceptance of it. I don't think it inappropriate or out of line to suggest that many people who are bullies tend to be attracted to positions of power and authority. If the "good" cops don't want to be tarred by the actions of rogues like Harless, then they need to take proactive steps to eliminate the "Harless's" from their organizations.

Dnaltrop
August 1, 2011, 02:37 AM
Here in Portland, my kids ask for the scanner more than music on the radio in the car.

I've heard officers call each other out for inappropriate statements over the air more than once.

Whatever they may say about the bad apples, there ARE good officers on the force everywhere.

Unfortunately, just as we Responsible gun owners know, We could link hands across the nation and sing "I want to give the world a Coke" (RC for me, don't like that vanilla taste... ) and the story of the night would focus on the one Idiot who spewed the worst stereotypical garbage, and we'd all be tarred with the same brush.

The worst examples always outstrip the efforts of the best of us to make progress.

Blakenzy
August 1, 2011, 12:49 PM
Maybe the other officers didn't engage in such behavior, but their inaction indicated their acceptance of it.

This.^^

It is true that most cops are probably not like this Harless character, but I would bet good money that most know of such behavior and allow it to be carried out in front of them repeatedly and do nothing about it. For all practical purposes they are complicit in allowing and enabling injustice and criminal behavior to occur. Is that what a "good" cop does? It's like they hold no loyalty to the law or community, only to their little group, or gang.

Ambushing and stopping people on the street, forcefully pulling out occupants of vehicles, holding people at gun point, putting hands on a person and ruffling through personal belongings, forceful entry into people's homes, taking away personal property, ordering people into submissive positions under threat of death, general threats of violence all around, tying up people, wiretapping galore.... these are all behaviors proper of a thug and are understandably criminal by default. Police get a special pass to do these things by law and more importantly by society's consent because, supposedly, their intent is honest and moral: to actually protect people and property from those that do not respect people nor property. But what happens when the police are the ones that do not respect people and property? I think that a lot of times police forget that their authority and legitimacy actually comes from their intent to do good for the people who live under their watch. Authority and legitimacy do not come from a blue costume, a hostile attitude and flashy lights all over your car.

M-Cameron
August 1, 2011, 01:04 PM
Authority and legitimacy do not come from a blue costume, a hostile attitude and flashy lights all over your car.


you would be surprised how much authority one can gain from an "official" looking uniform.

if you have never heard of the Stanford prison experiment......the results are actually quite terrifying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment


heck, with nothing more than a clipboard and a hardhat........i would have no trouble at all convincing people that a certain road was closed......that they needed to evacuate a certain building.......ect.


you wonder why many police depts are going with a "military" style uniform........its not for "tactical efficiency".......its because to most people......that style is more intimidating....and commands more respect.....and thus more cooperation.

its also the same reason you see mall cops in "police" garb.......no one is going to listen to a guy in a polo and khakis...........but put on a nice crisp uniform, a shiny badge, a duty belt full of stuff they legally cant use......people are more apt to follow his orders.

Dnaltrop
August 1, 2011, 03:39 PM
"its also the same reason you see mall cops in "police" garb.......no one is going to listen to a guy in a polo and khakis...........but put on a nice crisp uniform, a shiny badge, a duty belt full of stuff they legally cant use......people are more apt to follow his orders"

Damn straight M-Cam. Appearances are not everything, but they sure as heck make a difference.

Way back in the 90's, one of my first jobs was in a Radioshack, selling communications equipment, scanners, $4000 IBMs (100 mhz, 32 mb of ram and a 100 mb hard drive, it'll last you for a decade!!!) and components to HAMmers and guys trying to build "companion" (shudder) robots.

Oh the power of the variable resistor...

One of the fun parts of the job, even at my size( 6'5") was dealing with the shoplifters... the battery thieves weren't so bad, but the guys coming in to steal butane torches for smoking crack were a problem.

Dealing with them in suit and tie got one reaction... sometimes violent.

At the time I rode a motorcycle ALL weather( including snow) and it was my habit to enter the mall, and my workplace in full head to toe leathers, often not even removing my helmet... with my suit beneath.

Snapping the magnetic tag to the lapel of my Jacket, It was a WORLD of difference the reaction I'd get when looming out of nowhere to snag the torch out of their pocket. (I"M SORRY I"M SORRY I"M SORRY I"M SORRY!!!!!!)

I used to zip-tie them to the balcony outside of the store and let security pick them up, at least till the Sherrif's office in the mall quietly let me know I was risking a Kidnapping charge each time I did this. They of course knew me well from dealing with the Loss prevention side.

bushmaster1313
August 1, 2011, 11:43 PM
In the case of an officer ASKING about weapons, any good officer will still treat the subject as armed, but be able to charge them with false report, CCW, or some other offense if the subject was found in a lie, etc. A licensed CCW carrier will simply respond, "Yes, I have a CCW license and a gun", etc. How much simpler can it be for the cop or the armed citizen?


Not that I advocate this, but what about the illegally armed citizen who has a right against unreasonable search and siezure?

Does the CCW holder have to tell the officer that he has a gun but the non-CCW holder can keep his mouth shut?

SharpsDressedMan
August 2, 2011, 02:43 PM
In the case of an illegally armed person, unless he is a bona fide SUSPECT, the officer may ask him questions without a Miranda advisory. If the subject BECOMES a suspect in a crime, THEN the officer must cease questioning, or advise the suspect of his rights. In the case of a non-licensed person carrying a gun, and being asked by a police officer if he is armed, the officer has no probable cause to believe a cirme is being committed until he becomes aware thath the subject IS armed (by way of observation, an affirmative answer, or a protective "frisk" (allowed for the officer's safety). At this point, if the subject answered that he did have a gun, the next question is "do you have a license?" If no, the officer now has a crime to deal with. If the officer asks if the subject has a gun, and the answer is "No", and is later found (by way of the protective "frisk" or observation reveals signs of a gun, or bulge, etc), then the officer has the crime of illegal CCW, giving false information, etc. Pretty simple stuff: Terry & Miranda. A person carrying an illegal gun does not have immunity to being frisked for the officer's protection, should he come into contact with an officer, and the officer deem it necessary to frisk. NOT an illegal seach (lots of case law).

paramedic70002
August 3, 2011, 02:54 PM
There was a SCOTUS case a few years ago, that I can not cite unfortunately, that says someone with an illegal gun does not have to (declare it, register it, something like that), as that would be a violation of their right to not incriminate themselves.

SharpsDressedMan
August 3, 2011, 04:32 PM
As stated, there are procedures and case laws establishing exactly how and when a person stops being a SUBJECT being interviewed, and a SUSPECT, requiring advising of one's rights. "Confessions" made by non-suspects CAN be used against them, as long as they are not truly SUSPECTS before the acquired statement. Until a person being contacted by a police officer becomes a suspect, he is not the focus of an investigation, and may make culpable statements that can be used against him. It would follow that a person illegally carrying a weapon is not going to be found innocent of such a charge just becuase he blurted it out to a nearby police officer. "Officer, I am illegally carrying a gun!" "OK, since you told me, the Supreme Court says you can go without being arrested. Thanks for telling me."

DNS
August 3, 2011, 05:51 PM
NANNY STATE/JACKBOOT alert :scrutiny:

Used to live in the Canton area ten years back. Stark County has to many issues with both county and city leo's so this doesn't surprise me. Cleveland and Akron aren't any better.
I'd imagine this tough guy will eat his own bullet if he gets fired.

Steve CT
August 3, 2011, 10:13 PM
In CT, two cities good sized cities have ordinances that prohibit CCW, neither one is considered to be enforceable

seed
August 3, 2011, 10:35 PM
Chalk me up as another witness to unanimous back-up of irrational cops by their nearby brethren. I know a lot of cool people who happen to be cops (nature of my job), but in every experience of which I have personally dealt with the irrational minority of punks with badges who were waaaaay out of line, or seen others have the similar misfortune, the other cops have NEVER put the punks in check...even if they outranked them in rank, years, experience, etc. To me, it is their sworn duty to uphold the law, especially when it involves out of line cops. I have almost begged the cool cops to at least keep an eye on these psychos. If they do, they certainly have never told me they would.

SharpsDressedMan
August 3, 2011, 10:51 PM
I once threatened to arrest one of my co-worker cops when he tried to bully his way into an incident that I was handling. You should have seen the look on his face........because he could see I wasn't kidding. There were numerous other times that I quietly stepped in to stop a few things, and often chided guys for unprofessonal treatment of people, but the nose to nose warning of arrest was priceless. Personally, I worked too hard to treat people fairly to have a co-worker turning the public against the police. I wasn't the most popular guy at the PD, but then, that wasn't what I was getting paid to do. :evil:

easy
August 3, 2011, 11:32 PM
I'd imagine this tough guy will eat his own bullet if he gets fired.

Aw, bummer.

sv51macross
August 4, 2011, 12:30 AM
Chalk me up as another witness to unanimous back-up of irrational cops by their nearby brethren. I know a lot of cool people who happen to be cops (nature of my job), but in every experience of which I have personally dealt with the irrational minority of punks with badges who were waaaaay out of line, or seen others have the similar misfortune, the other cops have NEVER put the punks in check...even if they outranked them in rank, years, experience, etc. To me, it is their sworn duty to uphold the law, especially when it involves out of line cops. I have almost begged the cool cops to at least keep an eye on these psychos. If they do, they certainly have never told me they would.


I thought about the police as a career (the local CC has the police academy as part of an associates CJ program). But then I realized I'd have to tow the 'blue wall' or I'd get treated worse than an IAB investigator.

SARDiver
August 4, 2011, 12:33 AM
they're the guns of the professionals, obviously.
rotflmao!

SARDiver
August 4, 2011, 12:36 AM
There was a SCOTUS case a few years ago, that I can not cite unfortunately, that says someone with an illegal gun does not have to (declare it, register it, something like that), as that would be a violation of their right to not incriminate themselves.
I would love to know more about that. Not sure how to search for that, though.

SARDiver
August 4, 2011, 12:43 AM
Where is the NRA on this mess?
Ya know, I'm a life member of the NRA, but they're rather disappointing on this. Their position that "humanoid" targets are only suitable for LEOs and military is telling, and I think that attitude is keeping them from saying anything that would alienate LEOs.

basicblur
August 4, 2011, 01:02 AM
I would love to know more about that. Not sure how to search for that, though.
I remember hearing about it-Tom Gresham has laughingly (guess it was that or cry) mentioned it a few times on his Podcast.
So...as Mr. law abiding citizen, when I'm pulled over in a duty to inform state, I have to.
But Mr. Felon does not have to as it would amount to self-incrimination?

I think that's basically how it goes? I'd love to know the case or ? folks were talking 'bout from a few years back.

eazyrider
August 4, 2011, 04:51 AM
Isn't threatening someones life viewed as a "terrorist threat"? I thought it was a crime. If I had done that on camera I would think that at the very least I would have a court date. It amazes me how much cops get away with. Hell just watch the show. Seems to me that every time a cop uses excessive force he justifies it by saying that it's a dangerous job and he wants to go home. Well hell if your that scared quit. You don't have a contract, like the military, there is no such thing as AWOL, like the military. I know there are good cops and I respect that, but I just don't hear them calling out the bad ones enough.

I guess I am just one of those kind of guys who think the cops have way too much power.

foghornl
August 4, 2011, 06:25 AM
In the first video released, the citizen has his CCW permit IN HIS HAND while being berated by Harless.

Bad officer, even worse for the other officers that showed up and did NOTHING about Harless.

seed
August 4, 2011, 05:29 PM
I agree that cops have waaaay too much power, especially when you consider that it is a lot more likely for them to get away with abusing it (and trampling the rights of non-cops) and or receive far less severe punishment than a non-cop would, in the unlikely event that they got caught on video...which is the ONLY way cops ever get caught for said abuses. This is why it is extremely important that they screen out the obvious bad apples and then make it more common for the ones who slipped through to lose their jobs. Good cops need to step up on this one.

If I were hiring cops and came across a candidate who was super gung-ho about becoming a cop, had no record of any sort, had few jobs because they were young, did not heavily participate in social and extracurricular activities such as sports, had few school friends who participated in social activities, etc...it would set up an immediate gigantic red flag and it would be an almost virtual lock that I would not hire them. I want cops who are interested in going after actual criminals and not those who are set on inflicting their pain of social torment on noncriminals. Social retards (not being vulgar here...that is the proper word to use) have no place in a police department. Fortunately they make up the minority of cops. Unfortunately, they make up the majority of cop encounters with non-criminals which go bad, most often unnecessarily. Their existence is felt very heavily by upstanding citizens by the sheer volume of unnecessary encounters and the disporpotionate mass of pain they enjoy inflicting on citizenry during these encounters.

xfyrfiter
August 4, 2011, 06:33 PM
with 20 years as a firefighter under my belt, I have met, and had professional association with many LEO, most are good, but there are always a few bad apples in the barrel. The bad apples need to be removed or they will spoil all. It does seem that the bad ones get to be on adminastrative leave much too long, with pay no less and full bennies . Good union reps?

paramedic70002
August 5, 2011, 12:02 PM
The case is Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88, 88 S.Ct. 722, 725 (1968).

Wikipedia:

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.

Read the case:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13743174728606423450&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

NRA-ILA topic:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=22&issue=006

basicblur
August 5, 2011, 12:34 PM
The case is Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88, 88 S.Ct. 722, 725 (1968).
I knew it was based on an older SCOTUS ruling (no doubt the one referenced above), but I thought the matter discussed by Gresham et al. was based on a more recent case. The above case covers felons registering, but I was thinking maybe the recent discussions (from about two years ago?) covered a felon (not?) notifying-maybe a local case in which the outcome was based on the 1968 ruling?

Mebbe I'm wrong and the discussions I heard from a few years back were simply folks discussing theoretical situations based on the ruling?

IANAL, but I noticed this on Wikipedia's page (assuming it's accurate?):
As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration. The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes and the new registration provision was upheld in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).

Since we have no gun registration, and it references the NFA, I assume the felon in the '68 case had an automatic weapon etc covered under the NFA (which does require registering automatic weapons etc)?
Does the NFA being amended after Haynes mean felons do now have to register (inform), etc?

splithoof
August 5, 2011, 04:13 PM
SharpsDressedMan:
Thank you. Your replies are very rational. There are plenty of other states that don't have it nearly as good as Ohio.

cambeul41
August 5, 2011, 04:48 PM
SARDiver asked --
I would love to know more about that. Not sure how to search for that, though.

So I Googled ["fifth amendment" gun carry] and got a bunch of responses including
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

SARDiver
August 5, 2011, 08:12 PM
Thank you all for the responses! I had had a long day and I just wasn't thinking hard enough to grab what I needed (and what has been provided).

the_skunk
August 5, 2011, 10:32 PM
http://obrag.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/officer-frank-white-300x222.jpg

A San Diego cop gets into a road rage incident and shoots 5 bullets into a windshield of a car, hitting a mother and her 8 yr old child.

http://obrag.org/?p=42058

M-Cameron
August 5, 2011, 10:42 PM
A San Diego cop gets into a road rage incident and shoots 5 bullets into a windshield of a car, hitting a mother and her 8 yr old child.
fixed

hermannr
August 5, 2011, 11:44 PM
If you are stopped for a simple traffic violation, there is no reasonable purpose gained by informing, or even for the officer to even ask. Your having a firearm on you has absolutely nothing to do with why you failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or that you were going 5 mph over the posted limit. That cell phone you were talking on is a lot more dangerous to the public than a proper carry.

If you are committing a property crime, that is a different matter, in which case it would be to your advantage to keep your mouth shut and let the lawyers do the talking.

Here in WA when they run your drivers license, your CPL comes up anyway. Doesn't mean you are carrying, just that you have a CPL. I personally have never been asked if I was armed, (most likely because I OC) and have never brought it up as we are not required to volunteer that info.

I would think if an officer were to stop someone for a petty traffic stop, and saw the person had a license, it should put him at ease because they don't give permits to criminals? (except for maybe in Chicago and NYS) do they?

SharpsDressedMan
August 6, 2011, 12:58 AM
Don't try to apply logic to this section of the Ohio law on CCW. The legislators drafted it with requested help from some Ohio law enforcment reps, who had never had any experience with licensed CCW carriers (they thought it would be a good thing if the person carrying had to tell the police that he was armed). Had they talked to LE from other states, they might have drafted a better law, but being that we had been denied CCW for so long (previously no permit or legal licensed CCW), we kind of accepted the law they pushed through, and crossed our fingers that the governor wouldn't veto it. They have made some changes and improvements over the last 6 years, but it still needs this secton to be dropped or amended. We'll see what happens. For the moment, we are stuck with the "advisement to police" requirement.

SleazyRider
August 6, 2011, 06:51 AM
I would think if an officer were to stop someone for a petty traffic stop, and saw the person had a license, it should put him at ease because they don't give permits to criminals? (except for maybe in Chicago and NYS) do they?

Now that, sir, is an excellent point! I can't speak for Chicago, but I csn assure you that NYS does not issue permits to criminals. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Canton Ohio Wants To revoke CCW permits" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!