LEO GUNPOINT

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

makarova

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
137
It is my understanding that pointing a gun at someone constitutes Aggravated Menacing and that a police officer needed an articulable reason for doing so. Maybe not anymore. In a recent incident in Ohio a CCW holder on his way to the State House to testify about Ohio CHL law pulled into a parking lot when he became fatigued and sleepy. As mandated by Ohio law which requires, that a CHL holder who is armed in a motor vehicle must have the firearm in a holster "In
Plain Sight" attached to their person. The CHL holder did so with his firearm in plain sight. A passerby apparently spotted him and made a "man with a gun call" The responding units ran his plates which verified the CHL status. The CHL holder was awakened by at least 8 police 0fficers at gun point. Their excuse was the usual "we wanna go home safe at the end of our shift". The CHL holder has taken no action against the officers involved. Personally I would have been looking for aggressive legal representation, with the view of charging all involved both criminally and civilly. I'm sure the local Prosecuting Attorney would have dropped the criminal charges and there is apparently not much I could do about that. But I would have filed them anyway. As for the civil suit, my attorney would have to agree that any settlement would involved the officers paycheck or were going to trial. I'm not looking for an LEO bashing fest here, but I do feel that only a lawsuit against the LEOs personally will achieve the desired effect.
 
I think it'd be a better use of time, effort, and money for everyone in Ohio if this incident were pushed up to the legislators to convince them to change the law.
 
Ah, nothing like living in a litigious society!

Dunno as how anybody in the legislature would listen, but that's one of the few places where improvement could be made.

I'd probably make an effort to talk to the chief of police and see if he and his department couldn't take a bit more mature approach to that sort of situation. If as described in the opening post, it's an incredibly childish reaction.

They knew by virtue of the CHL that he was a Certified Good Guy. He was obviously obeying the law. It takes eight guys with drawn guns to investigate? "We wanna go home safe at the end of our shift." is a normal reaction, but using that justification is not credible in this one particular situation.

"Unit 3, subject is a CHL licensee. Check and see if he needs assistance." would have been appropriate...

IF as the opening post reported.

Art
 
Why law suit.
Because some times the only thing they under stand is, $$$$$ $$$ $$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$ $$ $ $$$ $$$$$.
Money talks.
 
I think it'd be a better use of time, effort, and money for everyone in Ohio if this incident were pushed up to the legislators to convince them to change the law.
Click to expand...

They won't change it in your favor - more likely to decide to take them away from citizens so as not to scare the cops...
 
A lot of people think it is easy to sue someone for monetary damages. It isn't easy nor is it fun...ever. Have you ever been through a deposition or answered interrogatories? Trust me its no fun...the money is not easy.

First you have to show you have suffered some sort of loss because of the actions of the LEOs. What loss could this person claim arose from the actions of the LEOs? None.

Case closed.(actually never opened)

The police probably responded inappropriately. Make a complaint to internal affairs, the Chief, write a letter to the Mayor, letter to the editor, complain to the Attorney General, but a civil suit is not a viable option IMO. (I am not a lawyer nor do I play one at the Community Play House).
 
Let's see if I got this straight.

The cops respond to a "man with a gun" call with their weapons unholstered. Okay, maybe they should have locked their weapons in the trunk of their patrol cars.

The cops are mind readers and are absolutely, positively sure that the guy sleeping in the car is the owner, not some nut job who just killed the real owner and stole the car.

So far, I haven't seen anything that says the cops performed some criminal act.
 
Working on a link

Thanks guys, I'm working on a link and will post asap. As for the lawsuit, If one of us does this( pointing a gun at someone and not merely unholstering their weapons, the charge would be aggravated menacing, since it is a crime to threaten with lethal force without cause. I thought that applied to LEOs as well. I would remind everyone of the case where a swat team was sent to arrest a man on a warrant for gambling, he wasn't resisting, yet one of the officers not only drew his weapon and pointed it at him, but the weapon discharged and killed the suspect and the officer wasn't even charged or sent to a grand jury.
'
 
How do you know that this departments system shows the owner is a CHL holder just by running the license plates? My system does not show anything about the owner such as CHL, warrants, ETC.
Also as was said how do the police know that is the owner of the car? Sleeping in a parking lot with an exposed gun is enough to justify an elevated responce. I speak from experience when I say waking a man sleeping in a stolen car tends to upset them.
 
We as a society give police officers who are performing their job in a reasonable manner an umbrella to protect them from personal liability in case of an error in judgment, mistake, or accident. Since the police are human they are subject to human error. Unless that error completely exceeds the bounds of reasonable behavior, interpreted liberally, there should be no punishment beyond internally (within the PD). Without this protection there would be less police officers and less qualified candidates. Would you accept a police job if every nutjob or disgruntled subject could sue you civilly?

I would add that LEOs carry firearms under a different set of rules than a CCW. Police are often required to use their weapons while performing an offensive action, i.e. breaking down the door of a suspected criminal or fugitive. It would be silly to expect police to perform offensive actions without arms drawn in the ready.
 
Yo, Mr. Shield 529. yer a fine feller, but I gotta ask,

If Ohio Law requires that a citizen keeps his firearm visable while he sleeps in a roadside rest, then what is the problem?

Yes, we may agree that the OHIO legislature is seriously screwed up by requring that screwed up law,

Yes, I agree, a screwed up law.

So, what is the problem?

What they ask for, yet they receive.

..................8 to go
 
The law is not the brightest piece of work I have ever seen. I have no issue with anything the man was doing, as he was within the law and his rights. In this situation I also have no issue with what the officers did.
This situation is a d##n is you di d#$med if you don't issue created by a stupid law.
The officers are requiered to respond to a call such as this and check. Officers approch the vehicle and observe sleeping man with a gun, just as the caller stated. Issue becomes this: is the sleeping man just an innocent CHL holder complying with the law and tired or a bad guy?
Senario 1. Officers draw guns and safely remove male and secure him while confirming that he is not bad guy. Turns out he is lawful citizen and we have just pointed guns at, created a very bad relationship,( and may get sued, complaints, ETC), with a good person. Despite some people opinion this is not fun for the officers involved as most of us do not want to disturb a good citizen. This is a bad option.
Senario 2. Officers respond and observe same ad above. This time officers figure this guy is ok and just knock on window to check his well being. This time the guy is a car thief, or a drunk, and takes poorly to being disturbed. He draws and fires killing an officer before other officers react.

No good options thanks to Ohio state .Gov. Thank them for this incident.
 
from my point of view, I really do not see anything the cops did wrong.

Did they scare the guy ?
ok that happens. but from the cops point of view, I really do not have a issue with thier behavior in the circumstances listed.

Citizen called in "man with a gun" As far as we know that is all they said plus the location.

Cops have visual of a guy sleeping in a car with a gun on, they back off and call for back up, common practice.

Cops have at this time only info of man asleep in car who has a gun.
lets look at scenarios running thru Cops heads.

#1 Worst case scenario, convicted armed felon on run from somewhere so tired and stressed he pulls in and sleeps in rest area with no thought to presence of the gun, He had decided that he can not go on anymore and will not go back to jail. Has injested chemicals and or drugs to alter his last night. plans on taking all he can with him.

#2 drunk out driving, has a gun, has drank enough to put him way over legal limit,

#3 stolen car, License comes up as peacable guy, but in reality is maniac.

#4 legitimate guy trying meet the constraints of silly law.


As a cop, #4 is the least likely scenario in your mind. so you as tho #1 and #3 ARE going to happen, then sigh heavily and go home happy when #4 turns out to be true...


Now if this is not the way it went down and i am missing vital aspects ok, i retract it. but seriously, I feel if he was asleep on a road side rest area and some made a similar call and i would have to face it, I would act the same.
 
pipoman
I would add that LEOs carry firearms under a different set of rules than a CCW. Police are often required to use their weapons while performing an offensive action, i.e. breaking down the door of a suspected criminal or fugitive. It would be silly to expect police to perform offensive actions without arms drawn in the ready.
Click to expand...
Even while performing an offensive action as described, the same principles and the laws covering the use of deadly force apply - when it is actually applied. Peace officers are not above the laws of the State on any count.

The issue here is where does pointing a firearm directly at a person fall in the State penal code. Here in Texas it constitutes what is known as "deadly conduct". The act of pointing a firearm at a person is not an offense if the actual application of deadly force can be justified, even if no shots are actually fired. But to do it otherwise is a crime.

-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
CHL is in Ohio LEADS

Sheild529, if you have an Ohio CCW permit, it is entered into leads. As for pointing the weapons at the guy (I'll assume for a moment this went down exactly as stated) they had no call to. The man is in his car, LEADS shows CCW, weapon is visible. He's menaced nobody and is complying with the law. I personally wouldn't have parked in such a conspicious place as to be noticed by a casual observer, so fault can be found on both sides.
 
Hypothetical: Let's say that I am the supervisor or detective assigned to investigate this particular incident.

First of all, HOW did the officer awaken the CHL permitee "at gunpoint"? Was the officer actually AIMING a handgun or shotgun at the permitee, or was the officer holding a handgun in the "at the ready" position?

Did the officer have 100% knowledge that the person in the vehicle was the owner of the vehicle?

What time of day or night did this incident happen? If it was in the daytime, it is somewhat rare for a person to sleep in their passenger vehicle.

Did the officer, perhaps, have the belief that the person "sleeping" in the vehicle was possibly drunk or under the influence of drugs? Sleeping and being "passed out" from consuming some sort of substance are two different things.

How was the person in the vehicle situated? The term "menacing" has been brought up, so it's possible that the CHL permitee in the vehicle was positioned in a somewhat "menacing" or "threatening" fashion, even while asleep.

This may seem a bit off-topic, but I'm sure that most of you have seen the mini-series "Band of Brothers". Remember when the American paratrooper was bayonetted by a fellow paratrooper after being awakened from a sound sleep?

With the limited info regarding this incident, the eventual OUTCOME of it sounds like no one was injured. Lawsuit? Change legislation? WOW! In my opinion, the entire incident was a "non-issue", with only a SAFE and POSITIVE outcome!
 
I don't know about Ohio law but in my state a police officer pointing a gun at a person is not considered deadly force. It is merely an act to obtain compliance with an officer's directions or to help insure the officer's safety. A LEO pointing a gun at someone is allowed under various Attorney General guidelines.

We don't know what the caller told the dispatcher. We don't know what the dispatcher told the responding officers. All we have is an 'allegation' that this event happened - no link to any article or name of town.

This story could be made up and is being used as another cop bashing, JBT thread.
 
"I'm not looking for an LEO bashing fest here, but I do feel that only a lawsuit against the LEOs personally will achieve the desired effect."

Okay, I'll bite, what effect do you desire? Would you be satisified if a police officer was forbidden to draw his weapon until at least one shot had been fired at him?

John
 
I wanna know where the idear that the guy is drunk or stealing cars or a criminal or something comes from.

They run the plates. He comes up as having a CHL. He is in his car.

Where is his shootin' iron supposed to be? Plainly holstered and visable?

Ah, that's where it was!

Of course, they should draw their "weapons". This guy was doing exactly what he was supposed to do.

If he was not who he was supposed to be according to running his plates, then he would either be stealing the car or drunk or a criminal or whatever, so then naturally, he would have his gun hidden so there would have been no call in the first place.

Therefore, by natural logic it is clear to me that an unarmed person sleeping in a CHL holder's car that is not openly armed is probably the criminal. Thus, by extension, the cops should wake up the unarmed guy at gunpoint, not the armed one.

Better yet, for the sake of officer safety, they should awaken everyone at gunpoint. Get us used to it.

No, an even better idear.

Why not let sleeping drivers lye? (unknown correct spelling, but to lie to an officer might be a crime, so I purposfully misspelled it) I may have hit upon a revolutionary concept (there I went and did it again, revolutionarys might be criminals) ........

Don't bother the citizens unless there is PC or reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.

Nah, too simple.:mad:

6 to go
 
In Ohio, if you run a license plate, you get the registered owner's name and address, and a description of the vehicle the plates are registered to. Period. You don't get the CHL status of the driver. You don't get a LEADS report. So, you're a cop responding to a "man with gun" call. You run the plates and learn that the vehicle is registered to someone (quick tangent: what if the car is registered in his wife's name?) and you see someone with a gun in the car. Can you assume that the person you see is a law abiding citizen catching a quick nap? Can you assume that the person in the car is the owner? Picture these threads:

COPS IGNORE KILLER IN CAR WITH GUN TAKING A NAP
POLICE NEGLEGENTLY IGNORE CRIMINAL BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE WAS CAR OWNER
ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST THE POLICE TO PROTECT YOU

So, they do the right thing and investigate. Now, you need to talk to an unknown subject who is armed. Who among us wouldn't draw our weapon if we had to confront an unknown subject who was visibly armed with a firearm? Can we really fault the officer(s) for taking the same measure of care we would in the same position?

Before we rush out to condemn these officers, ask for them to be charged criminally, and file suit to destroy their lives as an example to other officers, think things through. Walk a mile in the boots of the officer.

And, Makarova, when you decide to tell the world that pointing a gun at someone is a crime (Aggravated Menacing), tell the enture story. It may constitute a criminal offense, given the circumstances, but the defense of self-defense applies to an Agg. Menacing charge. No different than self-defense can protect you from a Murder charge in a good shoot, it can protect you from an Agg. menacing charge in a "good point."
 
COPS IGNORE KILLER IN CAR WITH GUN TAKING A NAP
POLICE NEGLEGENTLY IGNORE CRIMINAL BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE WAS CAR OWNER
______________

How about

COPS LEAVE COMATOSE CRITICALLY ILL MAN TO DIE IN CAR WHILE THEY GO EAT LUNCH

_____________

The point being, once again, they don't know who the guy is, the condition he's in, or what he was doing when the call was made.

Should they keep the guns holstered until the first shot is fired?

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

jlr1962
  • Locked
castle doctrine & alchohol
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
A
  • Locked
Ohio: Man snagged by vehicle open-carry requirement
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
dav
D
D
  • Locked
(OH) Open Carry Leads To Felony Traffic Stop; Suspended License
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
B
  • Locked
HELP! UDF posting in OH, KY, and IN!
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
BB62
B
D
  • Locked
Legal help, texas law, Leo/former Leo welcome
Replies
13
Views
639
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top