LEO GUNPOINT

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you guys in Ohio don't start up a "Sleep in your car armed" program and absolutely hound these leos with "man with a gun" reports then there is nothing more I can do for you.

They used to say that the best way to get rid of a boil was to.......

Squeeze it.
 
Here is the letter from the supposed "victim" of this police abuse case....

1). Having spent several years as a qualified law enforcement officer, both while
serving in the U. S. Air Force, and with 2 civilian departments, I appreciate, understand,
and SUPPORT the actions of your officers. Although I was not happy about being held at
gunpoint, and handcuffed and made to stand in the rain, I fully understand why this was.
It is my definite opinion that, due to their obviously high levels of professionalism,
dedication, training, and intelligence, your officers demonstrated the most desirable
qualities of dedicated public servants. Under the extreme stress of the situation, I could
not approve of their action more. Had I been in their shoes, I believe I would have
responded and acted in the same fashion.

Case closed.
 
Vex,

Your assertion that the gun provides justification for the seizure also fails the reasonableness test as well. It requires the asssumption by officers that the person in a car that was not reported stolen was not the registered owner. The officers observed no suspicious activity, stupid maybe, but stupidity is not a crime. You are asking us to believe that every vehicle on every roadway be subject to seizure because the person(s) in it may be unlawfully possessing it. Hogwash.

This is not to say that the officers are prevented entirely from making contact with him, but it would be consentual in nature and the officers would not have the authority to demand compliance or take steps to disarm him or draw their weapons under the guise of officer safety. Those protections are not afforded to them outside the auspices of Terry.


I.C.
 
You are asking us to believe that every vehicle on every roadway be subject to seizure because the person(s) in it may be unlawfully possessing it. Hogwash.

Not the vehicle. I never said that, you're putting words in my mouth. What I said was that this guy was in posession of a firearm while in a vehicle. Due to Ohio law, there are special considerations that must be met before this is permitted, such as the CCW holder being in posession of the license, and the weapon in plain view. Well, the weapon was in plain view, but the police were required BY LAW and SWORN DUTY to investigate the matter. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the police holding this guy at gunpoint isn't the problem. It's the law that's the problem. In essence, you're killing the messenger..... the House and Senate make the law, the Governor signs it, the police enact it.... and your problem is with the police?

I think you need to rethink who your enemies are in this one.

This is not to say that the officers are prevented entirely from making contact with him, but it would be consentual in nature and the officers would not have the authority to demand compliance or take steps to disarm him or draw their weapons under the guise of officer safety. Those protections are not afforded to them outside the auspices of Terry.

What is with your obsession with Terry on this one? It seriously has little to do with the situation, if anything at all. The guy had a gun in plain view while he was sleeping in his car and was trespassing on private property. His own stupidity got him into the situation.
 
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.

He did. He was headed to Columbus to testify in front of the committee about the reform for a law that actually allowed "concealed" concealed carry. His testimony carried a lot of weight and opened a lot of legislator's eyes. They finally saw that the "plain sight" provision had the potential to cause a very ugly and perhaps deadly situation.

The House passed the bill easily and the senate committee may vote this Wednesday to give it to the full senate for a vote the same day.

Gov. Shaft has promised to veto it. He has no political standing anymore.
 
Vex we're fighting a losing battle, this is a painful reminder why I haven't posted on this board in over a year. A lot of people want to live in a theoretical world where everything is guided by caselaw and a neat little diagram for how you respond to each and every scenario. Things don't work like that in the real world as you and I know. We have both explained numerous times that Terry V. Ohio is not valid here but they do not wish to believe that.

I.C. you keep insisting that there is no "gun exemption". I never claimed there was a "gun exemption" but seeing a firearm in plain sight equals reasonable suspicion to stop someone whether you wish to believe it or not. This will be my last post on the subject as it is clear that you will not listen to what I'm trying to explain to you and already have your mind made up, even though you have never been in a similar situation or possess any law enforcement training.
 
It is a sad world when having a firearm in plain sight is sufficent reason to be detained and questioned at gunpoint. Even if it is the world we live in, it is tragic and certainly doesn't mean I have to agree with or openly tolerate it. You're making firearms ownership in our country akin to homosexuality in the military. I am no more ashamed of being a gun owner than I am a heterosexual and I refuse to keep either a closely guarded secret.
 
Vex,

Again, you are asking for assumptions to be made which aren't reasonable in nature. They knew the car's owner had a CHL. They knew that open carry in a vehicle was required to be in compliance with the CHL law. In order for it to meet your assertion that their conduct was reasonable they would be required to assume it was the the registered owner in the vehicle. Outside some other evidence, that would not be reasonable, and as I said is equivalent to asserting that EVERY vehicle is not possessed by it's rightful owner unless verified by the officer. That is not reasonable.

Right now you're probably saying that I'm splitting hairs and asking for too much from the street cop. Nonsense. Ordinary folks are expected to read the fine print everyday on any number of subjects lest they be subject to the overwhelming force weilded by John Law. The officers put themselves in a position to be brought under scrutiny by their actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for my "obsession" :rolleyes: with Terry, it is the governing case law here. The officers were investigating a "suspicious" person. Terry specifically addresses that exact situation. In this case, Terry as modified by Florida v. J.L. What you should spend more time considering is that I, an ordinary citizen completely removed from the judicial community, and many thousands like me have taken my own peresonal time to spend countless hours on the internet and at the lawschool library researching any imaginable scenario and the applicable law in order to protect myself from the police. When Joe Citizen feels that is necessary it's time for the police to take a good long look at their actions. This case, like many, many others is a prime example of the "mission creep" I spoke of. Cops investigating non-crime putting ordinary folks at severe risk of injury or death for the benefit of whom? Their egos? You tell me. Either way they were wrong in the eyes of the law. Whether or not the victim had the courage to stand up for himself.

The officers don't operate in a vaccuum. The Nuremberg defense as it were doesn't fly with me. The number of people who feel exactly as I do grows daily.


I.C.
 
God I know I said I wouldn't post again but I just can't stand seeing this....

In order for it to meet your assertion that their conduct was reasonable they would be required to assume it was the the registered owner in the vehicle. Outside some other evidence, that would not be reasonable, and as I said is equivalent to asserting that EVERY vehicle is not possessed by it's rightful owner unless verified by the officer. That is not reasonable.

I'm going to make an assumption that you meant to say "required to assume it was NOT the registered owner". Well my friend as I have said before there are PLENTY of cars being driven every single day that are not being operated by the registered owner. It is VERY reasonable for someone NOT to assume that the driver of a car is the registered owner. I have made hundreds of car stops and guess what....a very great majority of them were not being driven by the registered owner. To say that an officer MUST assume otherwise is completely ridiculous.
 
I.C. you keep insisting that there is no "gun exemption". I never claimed there was a "gun exemption" but seeing a firearm in plain sight equals reasonable suspicion to stop someone whether you wish to believe it or not. This will be my last post on the subject as it is clear that you will not listen to what I'm trying to explain to you and already have your mind made up, even though you have never been in a similar situation or possess any law enforcement training.

Dbl0Kevin,

The supreme court of the United States disagrees with you. A gun is not "reasonable suspicion" by itself where possession of a firearm is otherwise lawful. You can blame, defame, or otherwise ridicule me all you want and it won't change that one bit. Read the caselaw.

I.C.
 
The supreme court of the United States disagrees with you. A gun is not "reasonable suspicion" by itself where possession of a firearm is otherwise lawful. You can blame, defame, or otherwise ridicule me all you want and it won't change that one bit. Read the caselaw.

The only way for them to determine if it was lawful was to make contact with the driver. As I was pretty sure of and was confirmed by Vex it is illegal to carry a firearm in a vehicle in Ohio without a CCW, concealed OR open.
 
Someone was kind enough to send me a link to this in email. Just one example of an officer who was killed in the line of duty......

Officer Ronald Michael Ryan Jr.
St. Paul Police Department
Minnesota
End of Watch: Friday, August 26, 1994

Biographical Info
Age: 26
Tour of Duty: 1 year, 6 months
Badge Number: 313

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Friday, August 26, 1994
Weapon Used: Gun; Unknown type
Suspect Info: Sentenced to life

Officer Ryan was shot and killed at 0700 hours after approaching a car with a man sleeping in it. As Officer Ryan was returning to his patrol car to check the suspect's identification he was shot from behind. The suspect then took Officer Ryan's gun and shot him several more times. He succumbed to his wounds in surgery later that day. The suspect later ambushed and killed Officer Tim Jones and his canine, Laser. The suspect pled guilty to murdering both Officer Ryan and Officer Jones was sentenced to life without parole.

Officer Ryan had been with the agency for 19 months and was survived by his wife and parents. Only five months earlier Officer Ryan was awarded the Medal of Merit for rescuing three children from a house fire
 
Mr. IC.

I am just a dumb a$$ed citizen and it has become apparant to me that the "gun exemption" is that..........

Leos should have guns........Everything else is an exemption.

I just can't make it any clearer.

They are gun grabbers.
 
Dbl0Kevin,

The trouble with what you and Vex are saying is that it requires an assumption of guilt. The registration to a CHL holder coupled with the open carry should make any reasonable person assume the person was the vehicles owner acting in accordance with the law as he is required to do in that situation. To do otherwise assumes that not only is it not the car's owner, but that people in general do not comply with the law. I believe people generally try to comply with the law. If the car had not come back to a CHL holder then maybe, MAYBE, a case could be made for the felony car stop thuggery they engaged in. As it stands I don't see that as the case.

Why don't we let a grand jury decide. If the officers weren't doing anything wrong they have nothing to fear and this is no more, no less scrutiny than I or any other citizen would be subject to. LEOs are losing the confidence and respect of the average joe precisely because of heavy handed tactics like these. Like it or not.

I.C.
 
Cops investigating non-crime putting ordinary folks at severe risk of injury or death for the benefit of whom? Their egos? You tell me. Either way they were wrong in the eyes of the law. Whether or not the victim had the courage to stand up for himself.

He was committing a crime. He was trespassing on private property. The Denny's he stopped at to rest was abandoned. Therefore, it was closed to the public use.

How do you ignore the fact that he was, indeed, committing criminal trespassing? It's seems pretty clear to me. Are you saying the rights of the company that own the property that the abandoned Denny's sits don't count? Did they give him specific permission to use the parking lot to sleep in his car?

Why don't we let a grand jury decide.

Only if you pay for the attorneys and court fees. I don't want my tax dollars being spent for something that is so clear cut and obvious.

Once again, do I need to remind you that you weren't present, and it's evident though your posts that you don't know all the facts of the case? You're submitting the officers and their "ego" of officer safety :rolleyes: to be burned at the stake without any first hand knowledge of the incident.... what is this, some sort of Spanish Inquisition?

*Insert Monty Python sketch here*
 
I.C.

There is a difference between an assumption of guilt and being properly cautious when dealing with an unknown subject. If the officers did what they did and the person checked out fine then he is let go and sent on his way unharmed. If, on the other hand, the officer casually walked up to the subject who happened to be a dangerous criminal he could be seriously hurt or killed. That seems like a very simple scenario to me.

As for the gun grabber comments, it is remarks such as those that really get me angry. When have I ever stated that LEO's are the only people that should have firearms? I urge you to find any time I have made such an assertion. The fact of the matter is you have to look at the whole picture and not just focus on "stop bothering the guy with a gun". These officers were not out of line, there were not out looking to harass gunowners, they did not go to a gunshow and shake everybody down, nor were they sitting outside a gunstore pulling over all the cars leaving the parking lot. They were dispatched to a call of a man UNCONCIOUS in a vehicle with a visible firearm. That is not normal behavior and if you pretend that it is then I'm sorry we just disagree. I do not make it a habit to harass gunowners at all and in fact I go out of my way to be accomidating to them so I take great offense at the "gun grabber" charge. It's talk like that nonsense that gets so many people against firearm enthusiasts and earns a lot of us the label of "gun nuts".
 
Mr. Dbl0Kevin, I am withdrawing from this string.

Mr. Insidious Calm has cleaned your clocks and I am unable to assist and most likely have been a hindrance to him.

It's about time for the terrible terminator of terlingua to roll in anyway.

You are not a "gun nut", you are a "gun not".
 
Cropcirclewalker,

Nothing like resorting to personal attacks when you can't argue on the facts. Seems.....oh i dunno.....an awful lot like gun phobic anti's. :rolleyes:
 
Kevin, don't worry about him. His signature pretty much clarifies his position on any article involving the police....
 
Yeah I know Vex, I'd actually feel better if certain people just came out and flatly admitted they do not like the police and would rather there were none. At least it would be honest instead of this "well i'm not trying to bash the police but..." nonsense. *sigh*
 
Vex,

I will concede that IF the lot was posted it would have been simple trespass. Criminal trespass usually requires refusing to leave when asked. Admittedly I haven't researched Ohio laws on trespass. That was not part of the original post and really doesn't justify the felony car stop. That really is the crux of the situation. You and other leos apparently feel quite comfortable putting me or anyone else at risk of death at the whim of some blissninny sheeple. I'm not comfortable with that, and a surprising amount of people agree with me. Like it or not, believe it or not, the growing undercurrent of lack of faith in and distrust of leos is precipitated by exactly this type of action.

I didn't want to have to become a virtual law clerk, but the leos have necessitated it. The average citizen has been resigned to fearing the police.


Dbl0Kevin,

Being a police officer is not without risk. It's not even one of the riskiest jobs as a matter of fact, but that's OT for this thread. If officers are not willing to accept a reasonable amount of risk then they should choose a different profession. My rights are more important than their safety. I doubt any leo will agree with that, but again a surprising amount of "ordinary" folks do. That is why the SC set guidelines for when an officer can place his safety above the citizens rights. Even though I may believe that standard is to low, I don't believe even it was met in this case, Vex's assertion of trespass not withstanding.

I'll leave you and Vex with this thought; a little trust and respect goes a long way. If the officers felt compelled to investigate the car they could have done so in a less threatening and disrespectful manner. The police are losing the public relations war in large part because of an appearance of heavy handedness. Officer safety will not improve with a continuing loss of respect for police. It will only get worse.

I.C.
 
You and other leos apparently feel quite comfortable putting me or anyone else at risk of death at the whim of some blissninny sheeple

My rights are more important than their safety.

And you apparently feel quite comfortable in doing the same thing. That second quote sums it up quite nicely. You'd rather see a police officer shot or killed than someone be inconvenienced or heaven forbid frightened.
 
This country was founded on the universal skeptism of state sponsered authority. It was also founded on the belief that all men are innocent until proven guilty. Yet the police automatically assume this man, who is sleeping in his car with a gun but doing no one, including himself, any obvious harm, is guilty of something, even if they don't know what. That seems like a pretty authoritative guesture out of context with the founding values of this country and fully deserving of scrutiny by others.

Maybe if you accepted that some people become skeptical of law enforcement because of incidents like this, and quit trying to defend them, law enforcement could achieve a better reputation. Maybe some people, even most, who harbor these feelings have had enough of law enforcement pestering, badgering, and snobbery (is that a word?) and actually have good reason through personal experience to maintain a pessemestic outlook on law enforcement in general. Instead you have apparently decided that as critics of law enforcement, our opinion is more biased than yours as a former LEO, and the experiences that shape them, far less significant.

*sigh*
 
Well Dbl0Kevin, I guess your response sorta solidifies what I've been saying. I believe that America is a country founded on the principal the the citizen's rights are paramount. Most people do. It seems you want to make officer safety paramount in all cases, after all everyone is guilty of something right? :rolleyes: Yes my rights are more important than officer safety, and unless the requirements of Terry have been met or surpassed the supreme court agrees with me. I don't wish any officer harm or malice. I just want to be left alone to be an honest productive member of society without having to look over my shoulder for a billy club or a jack boot.

When the standard becomes "hold at gunpoint until we feel safe" I think most people agree that's going to far. We are talking about cases where no crime was alleged. Just a suspicious person report. It's over the line IMO. I guess I'll resign myself to accepting that you and Vex don't care what the law says. I belive I've stated my case well, and with supporting facts. They apparently don't outweigh emotions. /shrug


I.C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top