Heads-Up If You CCW in Ohio - Video Is Up!

[rooter]

Funny how folks feel they have to take sides.

I guess it is a bad idea to be patronizing a prostitute. I guess it is also a bad idea to not tell the contacting officer you are carrying. The driver had ample opportunity to tell the officer who had his head inside the vehicle and chose not to do so. He needs to be prosecuted and his permit revoked for 1 year, there is no question about that. If you think this person did nothing wrong, you are sorely mistaken.

Now on to the officer. His behavior was disgraceful and he definitely appears overbearing. IF he violated the law, he should be prosecuted. Prosecuted, not persecuted. He is entitled to due process, a fair trial, etc. regardless of what most of you seem to think. He deserves to be on paid leave until this matter is adjudicated because HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

The offending officer has 16 complaints filed against him since 2000.

This is a funny quote Mr. Police Basher.....
Suppose he had 16 unfounded complaints. The burden of proof in an IA is "a proponderence of the evidence" (it is more likely true than not true). It is pretty easy to be found guilty of something you didn't do in the first place, so even 16 founded complaints don't mean squat in my book.

 

[HOOfan_1]

He deserves to be on paid leave until this matter is adjudicated because HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Umm...that doesn't and never has applied to employment...

The way you are arguing, being employed once you become a police officer is a right...it isn't. It is a job just like any other, and they should be canned just as easily as people in any other profession.

 

[rooter]

Umm...that doesn't and never has applied to employment...

Umm....you don't know what you are talking about.

The way you are arguing, being employed once you become a police officer is a right...it isn't.

It is a right...a contractual right. How complaints and other matters are handled are clearly spelled out. Violate the labor agreement and you face an uphill battle getting anything done.

It is a job just like any other, and they should be canned just as easily as people in any other profession.

Not quite. Again, you have much to learn.

 

[WinThePennant]

The driver had ample opportunity to tell the officer who had his head inside the vehicle and chose not to do so. He needs to be prosecuted and his permit revoked for 1 year, there is no question about that. If you think this person did nothing wrong, you are sorely mistaken.

You mean the officer who was performing an illegal search? You mean the officer performing an illegal search who never addressed the driver (CCW carrier) in the car?

 

[Deanimator]

The driver had ample opportunity to tell the officer who had his head inside the vehicle and chose not to do so.

You mean the cop who ALSO refused to let him notify?

You can always try to defend the indefensible, but it only ends up looking foolish.

And do I REALLY need to point out that you refuse to "judge" the cops, but literally WALLOW in judgment of the victim?

Cheerleading of police criminality only lowers the reputation of the police and their supporters.

 

[rooter]

You mean the officer who was performing an illegal search? You mean the officer performing an illegal search who never addressed the driver (CCW carrier) in the car?

Were you there? How did you determine it was an illegal search? Oh....you probably read it on the www.

Well, I guess for starters it doesn't matter whether the search was lawful. Although there are numerous reasons it could have been. I can articulate potential furtive movement even with the poor angle of the camera. Whether or not the second officer addressed the motorist also has no bearing on the matter. If you have contact with a LEO, you have a duty to inform. The motorist has ample opportunity to talk about cleaning trucks, guess he should have used that time more wisely.

You mean the cop who ALSO refused to let him notify?

The motorist could have informed, PERIOD! THERE IS NO DEFENSE TO THIS.

You can always try to defend the indefensible, but it only ends up looking foolish.

Exactly. This is why it is humorous that ANYONE defends the motorist.

And do I REALLY need to point out that you refuse to "judge" the cops, but literally WALLOW in judgment of the victim?

I guess saying "His (officers) behavior was disgraceful and he definitely appears overbearing." is more true. Both sides did something wrong here. I am one of a few who recognize this. One doesn't overshadow the other.

 

[Deanimator]

If you have contact with a LEO, you have a duty to inform.

If you're a cop and a citizen tries to inform, you have a duty to LET him.

Whether you let him or not, you have a duty to NOT unlawfully threaten to murder him, or to threaten to unlawfully beat third parties.

 

[rooter]

I have a ccw permit and a concealed gun. 9 words

"I have never had to do this yet...I was looking for reliable" 13 words (and this is only a partial quote) of what the driver instead chose to say.

Sounds like he had ample time to inform....

Go ahead and try to refute what is irrefutable Deanimator. You have no argument.

 

[Deanimator]

Sounds like he had ample time to inform....

Sounds like he was prevented... several times.

The guy was scared... as was perfectly appropriate in the presence of a violent psychopath and his ventriloquist's dummy of a partner.

But as I said, some people feel compelled to defend the indefensible. Heck, I've seen more than a few people defend Officer Anthony Abbate's savage beating of Karolina Obrycka.

 

[answerguy]

Rooter, assuming you are/were a LEO what do you feel about the officers search of the back seat without removing the driver?

 

[WinThePennant]

I have a ccw permit and a concealed gun. 9 words

"I have never had to do this yet...I was looking for reliable" 13 words (and this is only a partial quote) of what the driver instead chose to say.

Sounds like he had ample time to inform....

Go ahead and try to refute what is irrefutable Deanimator. You have no argument.

He was attempting to inform the officer. He was then told to shut up.

Please explain where it says in the Ohio Revised Code that you must use specific words? The driver was trying to inform the officer of his CCW status in his own words, and was shouted down mid-sentence.

And, without a search warrant or asking the driver of the car for permission or having probable cause, a police officer is not allowed to search your car. Period. I didn't see anything in the video that suggested that the officers had a warrant, probable cause, or had asked the driver for permission.

 

[rooter]

But as I said, some people feel compelled to defend the indefensible.

You keep trying to cloud the fact that this motorist failed to inform the officers. He was able to utter word after word. Many, many more than the 9 it took to comply with the law. You also keep trying to drag irrelevant info into the argument.

I'll ask you two simple, direct questions that you may answer with a yes or a no.

1. Was the motorist able to utter a minimum of 9 words?
2. Did the motorist use those words to inform police he was packing?

There is no argument. The motorist failed to inform as required by law.

I challenge you to quote anything I said that defends the actions of the police officer. You cannot. The officer was overbearing, clearly.

The actions of the officer are mutually exclusive of the actions of the motorist. Whatever he did after the motorist violated the law does not cancel out the fact that the motorist violated the law.

He was attempting to inform the officer. He was then told to shut up.

Yet he still continued to speak about sweeper trucks and other irrelevant things.

Please explain where it says in the Ohio Revised Code that you must use specific words?

You don't. It was an example. You could say "CCW permit and gun." 4 words. The motorist certainly had ample time to say that. You want to argue that he did not utter enough words, whether interrupted or not, to communicate such? You have no argument, you just refuse to be rational because you have passed judgement.

The driver was trying to inform the officer of his CCW status in his own words, and was shouted down mid-sentence.

See above.

And, without a search warrant or asking the driver of the car for permission or having probable cause, a police officer is not allowed to search your car. Period. I didn't see anything in the video that suggested that the officers had a warrant, probable cause, or had asked the driver for permission.

You passed judgement based on a crappy angled video. You already deemed the search "illegal." I'm looking at what is likely furtive movement by the black guy, but I cannot see enough from the camera angle. If so, it is more than enough for a search. Unlike you, I am not going to jump to a judgement and determine whether the search is legal or not. You were simply clouding the real issue anyway; the legality of the search had no bearing on the duty to inform.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Umm....you don't know what you are talking about.

It is a right...a contractual right. How complaints and other matters are handled are clearly spelled out. Violate the labor agreement and you face an uphill battle getting anything done.

Not quite. Again, you have much to learn.

Wow...you defend the officer's "right" not to be terminated without due process and vilify those of us aghast at this situation...then proceed to proclaim what should happen to the driver of the car. Utter hypocrisy.

You certainly are not doing the reputation of the police any justice with your interjection into this thread.

Pray tell me how a police officer's job is more sacred than any other civil servant...your views are biased, slanted and hypocritical.

 

[HOOfan_1]

I challenge you to quote anything I said that defends the actions of the police officer.

How about I quote what you specifically wrote regarding the process of judging and punishing the officer

IF he violated the law, he should be prosecuted. Prosecuted, not persecuted. He is entitled to due process, a fair trial, etc. regardless of what most of you seem to think. He deserves to be on paid leave until this matter is adjudicated because HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

This is a funny quote Mr. Police Basher.....
Suppose he had 16 unfounded complaints. The burden of proof in an IA is "a proponderence of the evidence" (it is more likely true than not true). It is pretty easy to be found guilty of something you didn't do in the first place, so even 16 founded complaints don't mean squat in my book

now let me quote what you had to say about the motorists supposed "guilt"

I guess it is a bad idea to be patronizing a prostitute. I guess it is also a bad idea to not tell the contacting officer you are carrying. The driver had ample opportunity to tell the officer who had his head inside the vehicle and chose not to do so. He needs to be prosecuted and his permit revoked for 1 year, there is no question about that. If you think this person did nothing wrong, you are sorely mistaken.

Can you not see the hypocrisy, how you switched from passing judgment and determining sentence in one paragraph to preaching against speculation and judgment against the officer in the next?

 

[Deanimator]

You keep trying to cloud the fact that this motorist failed to inform the officers.

You keep trying to cloud the fact that this motorist was PREVENTED from informing by the cops.

If he had shouted over the cops to inform and as a result been beaten, tazed or indeed shot, you would of course defend THOSE actions by the cops because of the victim's "refusal to comply".

Cops intentionally intimidate a citizen, so you condemn him for BEING intimidated.

 

[rooter]

Do you intend to quote where I defended the actions of the LEO?

There is a clear cut violation of the duty to inform.

There is likely an aggravated menacing violation.

Has anyone called for the motorist to be fired, prosecuted? There is bias.

Wow...you defend the officer's "right" not to be terminated without due process and vilify those of us aghast at this situation...then proceed to proclaim what should happen to the driver of the car.

See, this is the problem. <deleted> Ohio law stipulates a 1 year revocation. This is not me passing judgement <deleted>

 

[rooter]

I'm finished now...bash away irrational police bashers.

 

[HOOfan_1]

The motorist was charged...so I don't see that there is much need to call for him to be prosecuted. If this goes to trial...the jury will decide whether there is a clear cut violation of a law.

Contract or not...security in a job still pales into comparison to security in legal rights.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm finished now...bash away irrational police bashers.

Whenever a cop unlawfully abuses a citizen, there's ALWAYS a cheerleader to blame the victim. This is no exception.

Obey police orders and they condemn the victim.
Disobey police orders and they condemn the victim.

If he'd talked over Harless and been shot in the head for his trouble, you'd blame the deceased and defend Harless to your last breath.

 

[WinThePennant]

Yet he still continued to speak about sweeper trucks and other irrelevant things.

He mentioned that because he was asked by the police officer why he was there. He was cut-off here, too.

You have no argument, you just refuse to be rational because you have passed judgement.

I'm not being judgmental. I can clearly see that the driver tried, at least twice, to inform the officer of his concealed weapon. Both times he was shouted down. But, thank you for admitting that the driver was within the letter of the law.

I'm looking at what is likely furtive movement by the black guy, but I cannot see enough from the camera angle. If so, it is more than enough for a search.

"Furtive movement" is the catch-all that allows a police officer to do whatever he wants. Now, I know that you're reaching. Ahahahahaha.... Aahahahahahahaha...

I'm as big a fan of law enforcement officers there is. But, defending Officer Harless is a total joke. Please, rooter, tell me that you're NOT a police officer. If you are, then please tell us where you work so we can AVOID the area.

 

[Sam1911]

Enough. Too much anger.

Let's wait and see what the investigations and court cases say about it all.