LEO GUNPOINT

[Dbl0Kevin]

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'm going to try one last time.

We are NOT talking about a case where "no crime was alleged".

In the state of Ohio having a firearm without a permit = CRIME!

Unless police are expected to be psychics there is no way for them to know if a person has a permit by simply looking at them. I know you think that there is never anyone but the registered owner of a car that drives it but I'm telling you that is not the case.

If you had to approach an armed person that you did not know and were not cautious about it then you are a fool. If everyone is so trustworthy and good why do you feel the need to have and carry a gun at all? Surely just show everyone some respect and courtesy and you'll never have a problem. Isn't that what the anti's say too?

 

[MTMilitiaman]

You'd rather see a police officer shot or killed than someone be inconvenienced or heaven forbid frightened.

It's only frightening until some rookie cop touches off a service auto at the wrong time. It's only frightening if you're not the one looking down a barrel at a very tense finger poised on what you can only hope is a much tenser trigger.

This was quoted by Vex and seems to be the most authoritative ruling on whether the responding officer would have any knowledge of the subject's status as a CCW holder.

Yeah, when you run the on LEADS, you get the owner's name, address, past criminal history, CHL status, and if you have a mobile data terminal no older than a few month, you can get the driver's license picture.

Once verified, the officers had no evidence of a crime being commited and thus no reason to investigate further.

The whole point here is that no one had to have a gun pointed at them. The LEOs could have summarized the scene, concluded there was no obvious illegal activity (assuming parking lot was not posted), and left. Guy finishes nap. Cops go home. Everybody's happy. No one has to look down a barrel. Win-win.

Finally, I am not so convinced that even having sufficent evidence to investigate, it had to be done with guns drawn. My family and I have been stopped on numerous occassions and even when the officer realized we were armed, we were not held at gunpoint. Forest Service LEOs encounter armed people more often than not, especially during hunting season, yet I have only had a single encounter with one where they drew their weapon.

I think IC is right on here. More and more people I see are increasingly turned off by para-military police organizations breaking down doors, and by behavior like this. In fact, I think only a former LEO could have this happen to them and not be out raged by it.

 

[gezzer]

Maybe because this was called in by a citizen and the police have a duty and obligation to investigate calls placed to them.

Good try. Supreme Court has differed with this statement many a time to cover your cop's asses.

Can't have it both way guy's some of us are not that stupid to swallow that line:banghead:

 

[makarova]

Has anyone considered?

Put yourself in the shoes of the victim. You're driving to the State House from work and overcome with fatigue. You dont have to be DUI to have a fatal accident, falling asleep at the wheel will do nicely. You pull over at the first available parking lot and fall asleep in full compliance with the law. I don't know about this man's financial situation, but I frequently am on the way home with insufficient funds to rent a hotel room after working a double shift. So the man goes to sleep and and is abruptly awakened with a gun pointed at him. How likely is that he will be startled and jerk reflexively. LEO's mistake this natural reaction for "HE's GOING FOR HIS GUN!!!. BANG! BANG! BANG! UH we thought he was going for his gun, so we hadda shoot him. Will the officers even be charged ? Probably not. Thats okay, the officers are safe, the taxpayers can handle the financial stuff, were going home safe at the end of our shift. An even better example of this groupthink was the beltway sniper case. At virtually every one of those stops, when they couldn't even decide what kind of vehicle was involved, I saw picture after picture of SWAT officers holding people at gun point, illegally in my opinion. And oh yeah, they were practicing racial profiling too. Funny I don't remember anybody being charged with either aggravated menacing or racial profiling. Anybody wonder why I conclude that a lawsuit is the only answer?

 

[gezzer]

In the state of Ohio having a firearm without a permit = CRIME!

Gee, I was taught in the commie state of MA that just because someone is carrying a firearm it is NOT probable cause or reasonal suspicion to stop them as they may be a permit holder.

MA has had permits way before the paranoid OH cops ever thought about them.

My traing is unless it was a felony I would be committing a Feloney to point my firearm at someone. Glad I am retired now as could not take the new breed at all.

8 cops for 1 guy sleeping while wearing a gun? Overkill IMHO

 

[carebear]

Kevin,

We are NOT talking about a case where "no crime was alleged".

In the state of Ohio having a firearm without a permit = CRIME!

Sure we are. There was no evidence he DIDN'T have a permit, so there was no crime to allege. Unless you think all people carrying openly should be stopped and checked for permits, "Just in case."

Wouldn't work in Arizona nor up here in Alaska nor in VA or a lot of other states. Open carry (in Ohio with a permit) is flat legal and the only reason to stop someone carrying a gun is if there's evidence they are committing a crime with it. Without something other than mere possession you must, to follow the letter and spirit of the law (and our Constitutional / common law heritage) assume that the citizen is innocent of any crime.

Not presume he's guilty until proven otherwise.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Sure we are. There was no evidence he DIDN'T have a permit, so there was no crime to allege. Unless you think all people carrying openly should be stopped and checked for permits, "Just in case."

Wouldn't work in Arizona nor up here in Alaska nor in VA or a lot of other states. Open carry (in Ohio with a permit) is flat legal and the only reason to stop someone carrying a gun is if there's evidence they are committing a crime with it. Without something other than mere possession you must, to follow the letter and spirit of the law (and our Constitutional / common law heritage) assume that the citizen is innocent of any crime.

Again you are failing to consider the totality of the circumstances and look at the whole picture. This person was not simply walking down the street or driving down the highway in his car. He was called in as a suspicious person, who was unconcious, in a car, in a deserted parking lot. That is not a normal activity.

I know you may find this hard to believe but I spent a summer in Arizona when I was 19 and openly carried my 1911 on my hip nearly the whole time. I have not said that everyone with a gun should be stopped and frisked BUT you must consider ALL of the facts and in this instance there was more than enough reason to see what was going on.

 

[Shield529]

I tend to see people quote Terry many times because it is the only caselaw they know and it kinda sorta suits the situation. Is these people chose to educate themselves on the law they would see many other laws, caselaws, and policy issues that come into play. Is Terry relavent here? Yes in some ways. Terry, Hibel, and several other cases have points that would apply to this case, and some caselaw is contrary to what is requiered of the police.
In the Hibel dicition it was stated by All nine Justices that agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show identification. This would lead me to believe that he could also not be detained.
The Terry test in this case would be; does sleeping in a vehicle in a praking lot with a gun exposed provided a articulable suspicion of criminality. Seeing that it is requiered by law to expose the gun and sleeping in a vehicle is not a crime, it seems this case would not pass that test. I also do not see where reasonable suspicion of a crime would be possible.
So speaking only from popular caselaw this detention was improper.

Now the flip side of the coin. The police are requiered to respond to any call for service from a citizen no matter how trival.
An officer responds to a call of a male with an exposed gun sleeping. The responding officers first off do not know if he is sleeping, drunk, or possibly ill and in need of medical attention. These facts demand the officers make contact or face civil and internal penalty's should this man awaken and go on a shooting spree, or die of a heart attack in the lot due to their lack of action. Officer's arrive and confirm presence of man and gun. Officers first thought, (and I believe any reasonble person), would believe that something is very wrong. People do not sleep in vehicles with and unsecured weapon very often, and the fact a "reasonable person" would feel unsafe is a standard by which the officers behavior can be measured. Officers remove at gunpoint, secure, find all is well, and release. Would any reasonable officer have done the same? I believe yes and based of that alone the action can be justifed if the detention ended as soon as possible.

The point of this post is to show that officers cannot look at one little case and let that guide all of thier actions. There are many law and requirements of officers, and many are contridictory. Would I have done the same thing? I cannot say I was not there and neither were any of you.
Cropcirclewalker, you need to calm down and take off the foil hat. Most cop are not gun grabbers and not the bad guy. You may be at war with your police but we are not at war with you, despite your protests to the contrary.

 

[bruss01]

Seeing a man driving a car is no basis for assuming the car is stolen and the driver a felon. A call by a concerned citizen of a "man with a car" should not result in tire spikes and a roadblock "just to be sure".

The person in question had a gun. Seeing a man with a gun is no basis for assuming the gun is illegally posessed or carried. A call by a concerned citizen of a "man with a gun" should not result in a man who is innocent of any wrongdoing waking up to red & blue lights and seeing the business end of eight muzzles with twitchy trigger fingers attached to the other end.

I believe this is an intimidation tactic by police who are anti-CCW, who leave the scene laughing among themselves that "he won't try that again anytime soon!" Even absent any malice or political agenda, this practice needs to be put a stop to. Pursuing financial incentive on local PD's to get the practice stopped is the logical step to take. Maybe after a few firings the laughing and intimidation of citizens legally exercising their constitutional rights would stop. What else can gun owners do to ensure this kind of intimidation stops? This is about two steps short of finding a burning cross on your lawn, done under color and guise of law.

 

[Shield529]

To quote Bruss01
"I believe this is an intimidation tactic by police who are anti-CCW, who leave the scene laughing among themselves that "he won't try that again anytime soon!"
Baseless and obvious anti-police BS. Do you have any proof that this has ever been done by any officer?

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I'm done. I can see this is going nowhere. The jig is up guys....they have all us cops figured out. We're gonna have to figure out another way to get rid of all their guns.

 

[carebear]

Kevin,

As I alluded in my "Officer Friendly" comment earlier, I don't think in this case they were way out of line to contact him.

But again, the presumption of innocence, especially considering the overt legality (if not wisdom) of his situation, should have led to a far less intrusive response than a multi-officer gunpoint takedown.

In this case the totality of the circumstances should have led to a "customer service, are you okay sir" response vice a "shootout in the making, cover 'im boys" roll-out.

It is both possible and desirable to balance officer safety with citizen convenience with the emphasis (except in very limited circumstances like high-risk warrant service for instance) ALWAYS tending toward the latter.

I think the police as a group would be surprised at the result of such a simple mentality shift on their part.

 

[bruss01]

Shield -

I don't want to cop-bash. That is not my intention. I do not think all cops are bad or have an agenda. I AM NOT A COP-HATER nor a paranoid delusional. Most cops are good cops and do a fine job. There, said it.

You said "Baseless and obvious anti-police BS. Do you have any proof that this has ever been done by any officer?"

You've got to be kidding, right? You've heard about the "Riders", saw the Rodney King tape, and you have to know about the LEO abuses of civil rights that took place all over the country, especially the deep south within the last 50 years. That's not an argument that any rational person would make, it's like saying the Holocaust never happened.

On a more personal level, I have relatives in the LEO community who do laugh about situations that have happened where the officer caused a citizen to basically wet himself due to the officer's actions, so pushing of political/social agendas by LEO's and LEO's laughing about trauma they induced on citizens is not something foreign to my knowledge and experience. I was not there, but in Ohio especially a pattern is emerging if the accounts we see in the media are any indication. Who knows how many of these incidents go unreported?

Being a cop is not my idea of a good time. That's why I'm not one. If safety is a person's number one concern, they don't go into a career as a street cop or a firefighter or any other high-risk job. Personally, I think if an individual has a problem with treating citizens like citizens instead of suspects, for his own personal "warm fuzzy" feeling, he ought not to have become a cop. I'm thankful there are people who are willing to do that job, because I'm not. It sounds to me like there are 8 people in Ohio who need a refresher on that principle.

CareBear - You nailed it exactly. "Protect and Serve" not "Manage and Intimidate".

 

[jashobeam]

In Ohio, you must have a CCW license and have it on your person to be in a vehicle with a loaded handgun. open carry does not apply to vehicles. There was reason to detain this guy and ensure he has his CCW on him, that it was valid, and that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

"Show me your papez!" Should cops pull over every driver to make sure that they all have their driver's licenses on them? If you pulled up behind a car and, for no specific reason, ran the plates, would you, if the dispatcher told you the plates came back clean (no warrants), pull the driver over anyway just to make sure he had his driver's license on his person? This sounds like you are advocating nothing other than harassment.

BTW, this thread isn't so much about detaining the man, nor about the LEOs drawing their guns, but about the LEOs pointing their guns at the man. What about the four rules of gun safety? Never point a gun at anything you would not want to destroy. I can understand being at the ready, but pointing a gun at, and risking killing, a potentially innocent person should not be considered acceptable. Is this what the LE community really wishes to communicate to the average citizen?

I say they need to put a provision to the law that states if you fall asleep while carrying a gun, you should be charged with negligence! How responsible is this guy, sleeping in his car, gun out in the open? A part of me wishes this guy got shot so I could see his name on the Darwin Award website....

What if he had had food poisoning? You think an innocent man should be shot because he fell asleep with his gun exposed? He is required by law to have his gun exposed. If someone had said, "A part of me wishes this guy would have awakened with lightening reflexes and shot all those cops," I'm sure you'd be screaming he was a cop-hater. What then does this make you? Talk about a double standard. Reminds me of a black man I know who suspects all white people of being racist. He is, consequently, the biggest racist I know.

Have you no respect for human life? We are talking about a real human being getting shot because he exercised poor judgment while attempting to comply with the law.

The "Good Guy" CHL holder, who was negligently sleeping while displaying a loaded firearm, should be charged with Disorderly Conduct and with Inducing Panic... and his CHL revoked for failure to use common sense while posessing a firearm in a public place.

I hope you are being sarcastic here. If not, then THIS is exactly the kind of imaginative reasoning that frightens me.

 

[Vex]

I'm going to point it out the facts of the case....

- The guy was trespassing on private property, and had no legal right to be there. Under Ohio law, there are only two types of trespassing... Criminal Trespassing and Aggravated Trespass. The latter involves some culpability that could not be proven here, but Criminal Trespas is another story....

A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:

(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;

(2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;

The location was an abandoned restaurant parking lot. It is obvious to a reasonable person that the restaurant is abandoned, and that the parking lot is no longer usable by the public.

- There was no way to confirm the identity of the guy without waking him up. We would need to check his ID and his CCW license to confirm he was in compliance with the law, and to enter the vehicle while the guy was sleeping to get these would be illegal under the 4th Amendment.

- It would be unsafe to approach an unknown guy, who's motives and threat level are also completely unknown, while he's in posession of a gun unless I had mine ready to go first. It is against officer training, procedure, policy, and common sense.

- The irresponsible handling of the firearm, although not illegal in this particular case, adds certain elements of the case which, when one examines the totality of the circumstances, turns out is enough to charge with Disorderly Conduct, and with Inducing Panic.



Everyone, this is an event which happens daily. The only real reason we heard about it is because the subject in this case in a valued member of ohioccw.org, the Ohioans for Concealed Carry, and they easily jump the gun when their civil rights are being threatened.... very similar to what happens on this forum as well.

What I'm trying to say is that when you examine the totality of the circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion minus any bias toward the police is that the police followed policy, and everyone went home safe.

In this case the totality of the circumstances should have led to a "customer service, are you okay sir" response vice a "shootout in the making, cover 'im boys" roll-out.

That's easy to say now that we know the outcome and motives of everyone involved, but you couldn't possibly say this same thing about a situation in the future. It's wreckless disregard for the safety of public officials, and we can't turn back the clock to make this situation go away. If anything, this should be a lesson to anyone who has a CCW license and wants to go to sleep in an abandoned parking lot.... this should not be about changing the policy of a particular police department.

8 cops for 1 guy sleeping while wearing a gun? Overkill IMHO

No no no no no. It was one cop at first approach, then eventually two more showed up for backup, which is proper procedure. Not 8 cops in SWAT gear with machine guns. Get the facts straight.

Now the flip side of the coin. The police are requiered to respond to any call for service from a citizen no matter how trival.
An officer responds to a call of a male with an exposed gun sleeping. The responding officers first off do not know if he is sleeping, drunk, or possibly ill and in need of medical attention. These facts demand the officers make contact or face civil and internal penalty's should this man awaken and go on a shooting spree, or die of a heart attack in the lot due to their lack of action. Officer's arrive and confirm presence of man and gun. Officers first thought, (and I believe any reasonble person), would believe that something is very wrong. People do not sleep in vehicles with and unsecured weapon very often, and the fact a "reasonable person" would feel unsafe is a standard by which the officers behavior can be measured. Officers remove at gunpoint, secure, find all is well, and release. Would any reasonable officer have done the same? I believe yes and based of that alone the action can be justifed if the detention ended as soon as possible.

Exactly! The entire situation was suspicious. How many of you go to sleep in your car in the middle of the day in an abandoned parking lot when you're 200 miles away from home with an exposed gun?

Sure we are. There was no evidence he DIDN'T have a permit, so there was no crime to allege. Unless you think all people carrying openly should be stopped and checked for permits, "Just in case."

Under Ohio law, the citizen has to prove he's complying with the CCW law. This is fact. Until proven otherwise, in regard to CCW, the citizen is presumed guilty until he can submit an affirmative defense.

CareBear - You nailed it exactly. "Protect and Serve" not "Manage and Intimidate".

Protect and serve, right? Well, there's a guy with a gun in an abandoned parking lot. He's sleeping in the middle of the day in his car. He's 200 miles from home. He's suspicious. The cops were protecting their community and the person who called in the original complaint.

"Show me your papez!" Should cops pull over every driver to make sure that they all have their driver's licenses on them? If you pulled up behind a car and, for no specific reason, ran the plates, would you, if the dispatcher told you the plates came back clean (no warrants), pull the driver over anyway just to make sure he had his driver's license on his person? This sounds like you are advocating nothing other than harassment.

I was wondering where the obligatory "Papieren Bitte" post was... well, here it is!

Try this: Google "Ohio Revised Code" and research our CCW law. The citizen has to prove he's in compliance. This does not happen with licensed drivers. But it does happen with CCW. If someone has a gun, and it's reported to the police as suspicious, then the police have a LEGAL DUTY to investigate the matter. If not, they are failing to do their job.

I hope you are being sarcastic here. If not, then THIS is exactly the kind of imaginative reasoning that frightens me.

I was half joking, yes. However, this is a real outcome that could have happened if he had met some real butthole cops. But it didn't happen. These cops let the guy off the hook. They understood his peril.... sleepy guy with a gun... and they're still getting flamed over wanting to be safe and conduct themselves in a professional manner. They treat this guy like anyone else with a gun, but because this guy is associated with ohioccw.org and he has a CCW license, every libertarian extremist jumps to defend himself from the jack booted nazi thugs that are the Springfield Police Department.

BTW, this thread isn't so much about detaining the man, nor about the LEOs drawing their guns, but about the LEOs pointing their guns at the man. What about the four rules of gun safety? Never point a gun at anything you would not want to destroy. I can understand being at the ready, but pointing a gun at, and risking killing, a potentially innocent person should not be considered acceptable. Is this what the LE community really wishes to communicate to the average citizen?

Me, personally... I probably would have had my gun out, at the window, hidden just behind the B-Pillar. Pull the trigger and the rounds go through the window, through the seat, into the suspect's melon. I've been trained how to draw and fire accurately and rapidly in this manner. It's not unreasonable. However, what if the cop wanted to scare the crap out of the guy so he wouldn't go directly for his gun? Having the gun ready is a very valuable deterrent against people getting stupid and making sudden moves that could be mistaken for aggressive actions. Believe it or not, this is taught in Ohio police academies as a deterrant.... if you see a gun pointed at you, would you make sudden moves? Probably not. And if you don't make sudden moves, there's less of a chance that I will mistake your actions to be aggressive. Yes, this deterrant saves lives.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

So what if the situation was reversed? What if the guy found an officer sleeping in his car in midday on an abandoned stretch of highway or a remote alley? What if he then decided to see if the officer was okay, but for his own protection drew his CCW and pointed it at the officer when he woke him? After all, the police officer has a gun. You're rolling your eyes right now because it is different to you. Somehow having a badge makes your life so much more worth protecting that you can just point guns at suspecious people. But I don't see the difference. All I see is assumption of guilt at gunpoint until proven otherwise and this is simply wrong. It is out of character in America. Police officers should be held to the same standards of discipline as everyone else. This means not pointing a gun at every suspicious person you see. Certain elements of this case might have arose suspecion, but unless the parking lot was posted, nothing in particular is really illegal and nothing this sleeping man did deserves gun point. Such a casual attitude about pointing a weapon at someone is appaling and frightening.
And how could he be charged with Disorderly Conduct if he was obeying the law? Open carry is apparently legal in that state so the only deciding factor was him being in a vehicle. The law required open exposure of his weapon which he did. To then charge this man for anything would be ludicrous, assinine, and retarded. That is exactly the kind of imposed force of authority that turns many people, me in particular, off of law enforcement. Mr. Billy Bad*** with a badge tried that on me too, when he was desperate for something but knew he couldn't charge me with anything else. He threatened Disorderly Conduct. When he saw I was unamused and had called his bluff, he just told me to get lost. This because in MT, I have the benefit of knowing that in order for me to get charged with Disorderly Conduct with a firearm, it has to be discharged within city limits. I don't know how it is in Ohio, but if this man had been charged with anything, it would strike me as somewhat resembling the behavior of a certain law enforcement agency during a certain 1930s and 40s fascist regime. But o wait, I am just a stupid cop hater because I don't automatically assume benevolance projects from the end of a gun barrel. Whatever. Then you wonder how people could possible hold law enforcement in contempt or disdain...

 

[jashobeam]

Vex,

I appreciate you keeping your cool during this thread. I enjoy reading, and very much value, the opinions of the members here.

You mentioned in your last post that perhaps you would have handled it differently, saying that you might have opted to place your gun out of his view. This is more along the lines of the type of response I hope to see from the LE community in a thread such as this one. Most often, however, LEOs on THR seem to want to justify all actions of other cops. How is anyone supposed to learn anything when those who know best refuse to speak critically? Something might be justifiable yet not necessary or ideal. What would have been wrong with the officer having his gun visible in a ready position but pointed in a safe direction?

In CA, where CCW is very rare, a man with an exposed gun would definitely be considered suspicious. I would hope that in places like AZ or Ohio, where CCW and CHL are more common, the sight of a gun would not arouse a fight or flight response in local cops.

The fact that he was asleep in his car 200 miles away from his home town might make him less suspicious. Was he right off the freeway? I don't wish to confuse the issue with a bunch of "what if's", but what if he had been asleep at a rest stop? I suspect that the officer would have responded the same way. Why? Because the issue was not his location but the visibility of his gun. His gun was the only issue. To argue otherwise is foolish and weakens your argument.

I don't have time to reread the whole thread to see who said what, but I think you do well to insist that the cops had a duty to check the man's CHL permit. To shift gears midstream and go off in the direction of trespassing looks like you're grabbing at any straw that adds weight to the officer's actions. The trespassing "crime" aspect is hardly significant as regards to the threat of deadly force, is it? He wasn't drawn on because he was trespassing. He was drawn on because his gun was exposed. Period.

What if he the man had woken up startled and put his right hand on the seat in an effort to help him sit up straight? He could have been shot for "going for his gun". Justifiable? Probably, but the cop would have known or suspected deep down that he had placed himself in a position where he was forced to fire on someone who may have meant him no harm.

I used to work with a guy who later became a cop. He was shot to death while pumping gas into his patrol car. Before he was a cop he had an incident where he accidently ingested some mind-altering drug. He totally freaked out and was outside on his porch with a shotgun. The cops came. Fortunately, his friend showed up and calmed him down. I know we're talking apples and oranges here, but he could easily and justifiably have been killed by cops that day. When I heard the story I was amazed that he had not been shot. I give those responding officers huge props and much credit for exercising restraint.

Please forgive the long post.

 

[Vex]

Most often, however, LEOs on THR seem to want to justify all actions of other cops. How is anyone supposed to learn anything when those who know best refuse to speak critically?

While I may have done it differently, I still don't think what the officers did was "wrong." They obviously felt that they needed to use their gun as a deterrant to insure the safety of all parties. Until one of these officers proves to me that he's a paranoid rookie with an itchy trigger finger, I'm going to trust his judgment. Maybe I'm automatically too trusting, but that's just me.... and the badge doesn't make me trust them. I trust everyone equally until proven otherwise.

In CA, where CCW is very rare, a man with an exposed gun would definitely be considered suspicious. I would hope that in places like AZ or Ohio, where CCW and CHL are more common, the sight of a gun would not arouse a fight or flight response in local cops.

I do want to point out that Ohio has had CCW for a mere 2 years. Before this, it was a felony to posess a gun on your person in any capacity while occupying a vehicle. How long will it take before people get off the gun-fear? Who knows....

He wasn't drawn on because he was trespassing. He was drawn on because his gun was exposed. Period.

I agree with you here, completely. The real culprit in this case is a horrible law. If the guy did not have to expose his gun while in his car, the situation would have turned out much better for all parties involved. In essence, he was drawn on because he was trespassing while having a gun exposed.

During police work, sometimes grasping at small crimes will lead to the legal discovery of a larger crime. While trespassing really is a joke charge in most cases, in this case it was the key to articulate probable cause. Please note the underlined keyword.... it's very important.

What if he the man had woken up startled and put his right hand on the seat in an effort to help him sit up straight? He could have been shot for "going for his gun". Justifiable? Probably, but the cop would have known or suspected deep down that he had placed himself in a position where he was forced to fire on someone who may have meant him no harm.

This is why I think the cops could have easily been justified in removing this guy from his vehicle at gunpoint. If the officers have their guns out and ready to go, the subject sees this, and it really puts the situation into perspective.... go slow, don't make sudden moves, do exactly what the cop says. Have accidental shootings happened before? Probably. Is there a safe way to use the handgun as a deterrant? Absolutely, leave your finger off the trigger. But what I'm saying is that the sight of the gun serves as a deterrant against sudden moves which can accidentally get someone killed.

Please forgive the long post.

Ditto.