Ohio: Charged with CCW violation and resulting jury trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
You lawyer types please correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's called entrapment.
It certainly goes BEYOND entrapment.

Entrapment is the authorities enticing someone to commit an illegal act which they would not otherwise have committed without the intervention of those authorities.

Example: An Ohio CHL holder is walking past a Chipotle. A cop steps out of the front door of the Chipotle and asks the CHL holder to come inside. The CHL holder "promptly" notifies the cop and declines to enter, citing Ohio law which forbids carry of a firearm into an establishment with a "Class D" license to dispense alcohol. The cop tells the CHL holder, "It's ok, you can come in." The CHL holder enters and is promptly arrested for carrying into an establishment which serves alcohol by the drink.

In rDigital's case, it's more like police arresting him for not having a front license plate after having first stopped him and then removed the plate THEMSELVES.

RDigital's case is one of those "We'll find something" situations. Sometimes all they find is a civil rights suit. That kind of thing needs to be deterred, and people losing their homes is a good way to do it.
 
They did not silence him in the begining, they had him at what he believed was gunpoint with a laser pointing at him. He could have told them he had a gun while believing he had officers pointing guns at him. It could have been a fatal move if they had been guns and it scared them during thier adrenaline rush, but he could have still done it.
If officers rush up to you with guns drawn, and you have a requirement to tell them you have a CCW permit and a gun in your state, the fact that you have officers with thier guns pointed at you and maybe fingers on the trigger does not relieve you of that requirement.

In other words, in a situation like this, rDigital or any other concealed carry licensee in Ohio, would be forced to put there life in danger in order to obey the law. Is this what you're saying too, Deanimator?
 
In other words, in a situation like this, rDigital or any other concealed carry licensee in Ohio, would be forced to put there life in danger in order to obey the law. Is this what you're saying too, Deanimator?
Sure seems that way, doesn't it?

I've heard about instances where people have literally had to shout over cops in order to "promptly" notify. And that's certainly my plan if necessary.

It would be interesting if an Ohio cop were to tase a CHL holder who, refusing to obey a command to remain silent, INSISTED upon "promptly" notifying. The cop who does that might as well hand over his car title and the deed to his home to the CHL holder before he does. A couple of those and the cops themselves would be demanding to have the requirement to notify eliminated.

If you put me in an impossible situation, I'm going to make sure you're neck deep in it with me.
 
The cop who does that might as well hand over his car title and the deed to his home to the CHL holder before he does.

I've heard about instances where people have literally had to shout over cops in order to "promptly" notify. And that's certainly my plan if necessary.

I hate to point this out:
If a cop fires at someone that actually has a loaded firearm on them, do you think they are not going to say the person appeared to be going for that gun?
Do you think they are going to accept responsibility for firing thier weapon when unnecessary, lose thier career, thier assets, and possibly face criminal charges, or are they going to say the man who really did have a loaded firearm on him appeared to be going for his weapon?

If they say you were going for your weapon, and shoot you full of holes because you are yelling at them that you have a gun (a concealed permit and firearm) and it scares them while they are pointing firearms at you, they are going to say they were in fear of thier life. Yelling at them during a tense situation makes the tension higher. You have a loaded gun on you. Any mistake they make will be legally justified because they will claim you went for it.
The facts after the fact will show you really were armed, and the decision of the officer in the field was to use lethal force against an armed threat.
 
I hate to point this out:
If a cop fires at someone that actually has a loaded firearm on them, do you think they are not going to say the person appeared to be going for that gun?
Do you think they are going to accept responsibility for firing thier weapon when unnecessary, lose thier career, and possibly face criminal charges, or are they going to say the man who really did have a loaded firearm on him appeared to be going for his weapon?


your gonna hate this more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502245.html
 
your gonna hate this more
That individual was unarmed. Different than someone who is telling the police he is armed, yelling at them to "promptly notify them" and actually is armed with a loaded firearm.
It is harder to claim the unarmed man was going for the weapon they did not have, even though people are shot with cell phones and other items when they are believed or said to have been believed to be firearms. It really can be hard to tell the difference between an electronic and a gun in poor lighting during a face paced situation, but it is also convenient if any mistakes are made.

In that story an entire team was approaching and one of thier guns discharged striking the individual. That would require an entire team of police to be crooked, when a guy not even facing officers who was not armed was shot clearly by accident not due to escalating tensions is not very comparable.

Similarly in this situation (please ignore the immature poster's title) where the officer negligently fires her weapon on accident narrowly missing the man's head, when the man was being taken into custody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSJgcpqePk
In that situation self defense would be hard and unlikely to be claimed or supported by other officer's present. Had he been standing and yelling at the officers at the time, and had a concealed firearm on him at the time things would be different.


Yet you will notice in the article:
In the nearly 39 years that Robert F. Horan Jr. has been the chief prosecutor in Fairfax, no officer has been charged with improperly shooting someone.
So no officers have ever been charged with improperly shooting anyone in at least 39 years there. That could mean they are quite outstanding, or it could mean after the fact a valid reason always exists.
In that specific situation it was probably just too clear it in no way could be anything but an accident.
Go through the records and see how many times lethal force has been used in Fairfax in 39 years. Probably a decent number, yet every single one was justified even in any questionable situations. The truth is we simply cannot know if they all were, or some needed a little fabrication to protect an officer who made a mistake after the fact.


So I don't think that story should make you think anything different.
If you are shot by an officer while you possess a concealed and deadly weapon, and it even sounds or looks like you are being uncooperative or argumentative because you are yelling over the noise and tense situation and police yelling commands to inform them as legally required as in Deanimator example...
If you are shot they will likely claim self defense. You are after all armed. If you are shot and survive or are tasered they may even need to follow through with charges to support thier story rather than face charges themselves. Which would make you just another criminal shot by police.
 
could you show an example of
If a cop fires at someone that actually has a loaded firearm on them, do you think they are not going to say the person appeared to be going for that gun?
 
could you show an example of
Take any case where a cop shot somebody and said they were going for their gun. It could possibly be any of those. If there were easy examples to find it wouldn't be a good tactic.
 
Read your story/blog, sorry to hear about what you went through.

I just have one question....did you beat the **** out of your GF's roomie?
 
If a cop fires at someone that actually has a loaded firearm on them, do you think they are not going to say the person appeared to be going for that gun?
A cop shot a guy and claimed he tried to grab his gun. Too bad he forgot about the video cameras. He's under a portion of a $12.5 million judgement. I'm sure he'd appreciate any help you could give him.

Yeah, I'll bet your scenario would make excellent dash-cam video...
 
A cop shot a guy and claimed he tried to grab his gun. Too bad he forgot about the video cameras. He's under a portion of a $12.5 million judgement. I'm sure he'd appreciate any help you could give him.

Yeah, I'll bet your scenario would make excellent dash-cam video...

That was in a train station with high quality cameras everywhere. You sitting in your car are hidden from the view of most dash cams. On foot you will usually be outside of view. Even in view during a tense situation with a lot of movement someone in the situation may feel in danger. You can find several on camera shootings where if you pause the video it is a cell phone or another object, or they may have been reaching for thier wallet for ID (or even your CCW card.)
Look at almost any video of a cop pulling someone over, or shooting someone in a vehicle during a traffic stop. You cannot really see what the driver is doing, maybe some movement sometimes. You can often only see the officers' reaction, and must trust that he made the right call in the field, especially if there really is a firearm on the suspect or within reach.
If the suspect really did have a weapon, then it lends credibility to what the officer says put him in fear for his life.

Officers tend to stick together. It is a culture of having eachother's backs, where nobody but them understand what they go through, and all they got is eachother in a a job the public at large will criticize. All they have when things get tough is eachother. So there is often a code of silence. A "snitching" or unloyal officer may find themselves with slow backup when they need it most.
A culture where letting thier partner go down for something like an accident is something many won't let happen if there is any way to avoid it.
That is if they are decent, and only slightly...dishonest.


Police have a very tough job, and making mistakes in those situations happens. If they can spin the situation and stay out of prison and keep thier freedom, or lose everything and go to prison for an accident, which one do you think they choose? You can find many situations where they do a lot worse than lie over an accident.
I lived in some corrupt areas. I could tell you many stories of corruption where I lived.
I even remember the police used to regularly pick up enemy gang members from one neighborhood and force them out of the car in enemy neighborhoods where I once lived (bad area) before driving off. The results could be quite violent.
Or local punks that thought they were too slick, who found out they could never be too slick because even if were "too slick" to get caught, the police framed them to take them off the streets. "Finding" evidence like drugs they didn't really even have.
Reach in the car, pretend to be searching around with some palmed drugs and...viola look what officer clean up the streets found. Same thing during a pat down, look what fell from mr scumbag's clothing...
Other criminals would have actual drugs or weapons they really did have taken, with no arrest or official mention...Which is likely where the stuff to plant came from.
Some were known to even carry guns confiscated from other criminals to plant on anyone unarmed who was shot.
These are just minor examples, there was far worse, and it was common and normal.
This was before the Rampart Scandal made the news in areas of LA, and while that received a lot of news attention, I can assure you it was not even the tip of the iceberg.
Things just as bad or worse happened daily. If they wanted someone they couldn't pin a crime on, evidence was created. If they made a mistake, evidence was created. Not just at Rampart, but in several surrounding areas.

Today that area is not as bad, and I fortunately do not live near there, but there is others that are known for corruption today.
Chicago and a few other large PDs are known to be rather corrupt, not to mention some small towns that are not big enough to be noticed when they are corrupt.

Now I know those are extremes and many areas are not so bad.
However it is unlikely officers would allow themselves or thier partner to go down in that culture for an accident if there was any other way to paint the situation differently.
 
Last edited:
That was in a train station with high quality cameras everywhere. You sitting in your car are hidden from the view of most dash cams. On foot you will usually be outside of view.
Risk takers frequently lose. If the cop wants to bet his life on that, hey roll those dice.

Look at almost any video of a cop pulling someone over, or shooting someone in a vehicle during a traffic stop.
You mean the EDITED video, with the actual shootings taken out?

Crimes and civil torts are usually much simpler than they are on CSI: Ulan Bator, whether they're committed by citizens or cops. There were three Atlanta cops who rolled those dice and there weren't even any cameras. Snake eyes. If he survives, the first one should be out of prison in about seven years, I think.
 
Naw man. rdigital, if you can stomache it. Perhaps you might give Matthew a call, let him know that you can understand his situation, let him know that you learned a lesson (even though it was wrong and despite being mad about it there is always something to learn), and wish him the best. Maybe you might help that officer not be such a hothead given that although he was wrong you still respect him and let him know it.

A little forgiveness, respect, and appreciation go a long way.
 
rDigital,
I noticed that your incident is one of the hot topics on the Ohioans For Concealed Carry website and forums. I'm sure that Ohioans For Concealed carry has made it a point to take incidents like yours and similar ones and present them before the powers to be such as the OSHP who insisted upon having this notification law. As it is currently written and interpretated it is downright dangerous for citizens with carry permits especially in your experience. In your case the police disregarded discretion altogether and tried to use it against you unfairly when the law was misguidedly intended for their protection. In my opinion, if they're going to disregard discretionary use of the law for their own twisted purposes then it should be taken away from them. Just my opinion of course.
 
Maybe you might help that officer not be such a hothead given that although he was wrong you still respect him and let him know it.

A little forgiveness, respect, and appreciation go a long way.
OR, he'll think rDigital is a sucker and go back to business as usual.

The company I used to work for was almost killed by a sociopath who simply steals wherever he goes as though he's entitled to do so. He's done it at least four times before and since. In fact, I'm sure he's doing it right now. If we hadn't been the FIRST to TRY to get him criminally prosecuted, the company would be $300,000 richer, and I wouldn't be laid off.

This wasn't a mistake. It was a CHOICE, a MALICIOUS one, and not JUST by the cops.

The ONLY lesson either one is going to learn is going to come out of civil court.
 
Geezez, I'm so sorry this happened to you. I can't think of another outcome only except that Officer "Mathew" should have understood your point of view, provided your story is 100% accurate.
 
Geezez, I'm so sorry this happened to you. I can't think of another outcome only except that Officer "Mathew" should have understood your point of view, provided your story is 100% accurate.
It's not a question of "point of view". It's a question of law and acceptable behavior.

The police can't prevent or make it unreasonably difficult for somebody to obey a legal requirement, then arrest them for not obeying the requirement that they themselves encumbered the ability to obey.

If rDigital had been caught carrying into a restaurant with a liquor license, there'd be ZERO talk about "respect" or "forgiveness" for him from "Officer Matthew" OR the prosecutor.
 
Last edited:
Dean has a realistic outlook however it is a negative one. Sometimes it's better to extend a hand of kindness than it is to hold grudges and pursue the worst possible outcome for the other person.

That's the real issue here. rdigital got a person who wanted to pursue the worst possible outcome for him and I'm not sure responding in the same manner is the right thing to do. Of course it is discretionary.

I would say this, if rdigital does call the guy to talk with him a bit and express understanding and forgiveness and the guy responds with some snide remark. The cop is obviously out of control and needs to be taken to court to protect other people from him. My guess though is that the guy won't say much at all and will think hard about what he did to such a nice guy.

Regards...
 
I didn't mean to say you were shady at all. I meant to say that to the officers you appeared shady and I think even that little old woman could understand how and why it did. And I think it had to do with the loose ammo and hidden guns (not in the trunk but hidden places) and especially that large magazine.

He didn't have any loose ammunition. It was all in the glove box. The guns were not hidden. They were in his glove box and console which is appropriate carry for a CCW holder. He can carry holstered on the hip, console, glove box, or trunk.

I'm going to take from this the need to carry only the PP firearm with "enough" ammo and leave the range stuff at home. Honestly, I think that was the big problem here. I mean, carrying an Ar-15 in the trunk, after a fight, in the middle of the night... that would have definitely raised a red flag or two. Cops deal with criminals day in and day out man. You really have to give them some right to be pessimistic. THOUGH THEY WERE WRONG! They're interpretation of events matters a great deal.

??? Some reading comprehension going on here. He was not carrying an AR-15 in the trunk (which would have been legal). He mentioned in a comment that he would hate to SEE what he would have been accused of if he HAD been carrying an AR-15.
 
Dean has a realistic outlook however it is a negative one. Sometimes it's better to extend a hand of kindness than it is to hold grudges and pursue the worst possible outcome for the other person.
rDigital already got the back of this guy's hand as well as that of the prosecutor. This wasn't any moment of bad temper. It was an ORCHESTRATED attempt to violate his rights which cost him thousands of dollars to defend against.

What do you expect that cop to say that would mean ANYTHING at all, other than an offer to pay rDigital's legal fees?

Unless you're planning to reimburse rDigital, I think it's inappropriate to ask that he just eat the costs of somebody else's maliciousness.

That cop and the city wronged rDigital and I guarantee you they couldn't care less about the harm they caused him. I expect anything that cop would say to him would be a cynical attempt to dupe him into not recovering the monetary damage which he incurred. Enabling bad behavior is never "kindness".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top