Ohio: Charged with CCW violation and resulting jury trial

[HexHead]

I stand by my original statement regarding the OP and the way he was treated by the cops. When he got out of the car, he should have closed the door and locked it behind him.

Here's an interesting article on police behavior. Yeah I know, a couple of bad apples...

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jul/29/girls-say-cops-showed-them-bondage-porn-supplied-a/

 

[jerkface11]

Clarence, I think you should learn from the Op's experience and be a little more careful about how you look in the eyes of law enforcement. It may not be illegal but it may be perceived as inappropriate and suspicious. Let's wait to hear what t165 says. I'm interested to get an officers opinion.

So we should walk on eggshells because some cop may not know the law? How about they learn how to do their job the right way or lose it?

 

[Deanimator]

So we should walk on eggshells because some cop may not know the law? How about they learn how to do their job the right way or lose it?

YOU have a duty to know and obey the laws concerning owning and carrying a firearm, no excuses of ignorance accepted. Police should be held to exactly the same standard.

I have a LEGAL DUTY to know that carrying into a "Class D" establishment in Ohio is forbidden, and to NOT do it. Any claim of "ignorance" will fly like Rosie O'Donnell off the top of the Chrysler Building. Any similar claim that "he didn't know" the law on concealed carry, open carry or anything else by a cop should be treated with equal scorn and contempt.

Know the law. Obey the law. Don't whine if your laziness or arrogance in not knowing or ignoring the law comes back to bite you, citizen or cop.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I hope you sue the city and the PD. What a group of gun haters.

 

[Deanimator]

I hope you sue the city and the PD. What a group of gun haters.

"Hating" guns isn't the problem. Hating the LAW and acting as though they had no duty to obey it is the problem.

Those cops have an ABSOLUTE right to hate guns, gun owners, or anything and anyone else. What they DON'T have a right to do is to unlawfully ACT on that hatred, which is precisely what they did.

 

[clarence222]

Clarence, I think you should learn from the Op's experience and be a little more careful about how you look in the eyes of law enforcement. It may not be illegal but it may be perceived as inappropriate and suspicious. Let's wait to hear what t165 says. I'm interested to get an officers opinion.[

So lets assume I'm on my way home from a large purchase of ammo, some loose some boxed. Does that mean that I should be detained and even arrested. No as long as I am doing nothing illegal there should be no problem.

I am not concerned about how an office might or might perceive me, if they take the time to properly investigate the matter they will find out that I have done nothing wrong. I can understand an officer wanting to breifly detain someone while they investigate, and although I wouldn't like it would not be the end of the world.

The problem here is that the officers involved did not take the time to properly investigate the matter. They jumped to conclusions and then dreamed up some charges.
That they thought might work.

 

[HexHead]

I have a LEGAL DUTY to know that carrying into a "Class D" establishment in Ohio is forbidden, and to NOT do it. Any claim of "ignorance" will fly like Rosie O'Donnell off the top of the Chrysler Building. Any similar claim that "he didn't know" the law on concealed carry, open carry or anything else by a cop should be treated with equal scorn and contempt.

No, they should be held to a much higher standard of accountability. It's their job to know the law before they go around arresting people for what they think the law is or should be.

The poor shlub they just arrested is going to spend big bucks defending himself from an improper arrest, what does it cost the cop? In most cases nothing as his superior will probably say he was following departmental procedures. We see that nonsense all the time. Just like that OK state trooper who got 5 days suspension for pulling over an ambulance (with a patient in the back) for failing to yield to him and put the driver in a choke hold.

 

[Deanimator]

No, they should be held to a much higher standard of accountability. It's their job to know the law before they go around arresting people for what they think the law is or should be.

You'll certainly have a BETTER society if they're held to a HIGHER standard, but you'll at least have a tolerable society if they're held to the same standard of abiding by the law.

 

[JCisHe]

Clarence, the situations are completely different. Nobody would fault you for coming home from a gun shop but driving from home to a restaurant an officer would probably be suspicious of you.

Hex, wow man. Just wow!

 

[GEM]

Presenting the guns to the jury throughout the trial is a classic example of trying to prime aggressive ideation towards the defendant and is right out of the jury simulation research literature. I reviewed this for the folks at the NTI and Polite Society. Mas mentioned it on his blog.

Defense attorneys should know this stuff, IMHO.

 

[kilo729]

2923.126 Duties of licensed individual.

...

If a licensee is the driver or an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped as the result of a traffic stop or a stop for another law enforcement purpose and if the licensee is transporting or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle at that time, the licensee shall promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the licensee has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the licensee currently possesses or has a loaded handgun; the licensee shall not knowingly disregard or fail to comply with lawful orders of a law enforcement officer given while the motor vehicle is stopped, knowingly fail to remain in the motor vehicle while stopped, or knowingly fail to keep the licensee’s hands in plain sight after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves, unless directed otherwise by a law enforcement officer; and the licensee shall not knowingly remove, attempt to remove, grasp, or hold the loaded handgun or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun by touching it with the licensee’s hands or fingers, in any manner in violation of division (E) of section 2923.16 of the Revised Code, after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves. Additionally, if a licensee is the driver or an occupant of a commercial motor vehicle that is stopped by an employee of the motor carrier enforcement unit for the purposes defined in section 5503.04 of the Revised Code and if the licensee is transporting or has a loaded handgun in the commercial motor vehicle at that time, the licensee shall promptly inform the employee of the unit who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the licensee has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the licensee currently possesses or has a loaded handgun.

If a licensee is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and if the licensee is carrying a concealed handgun at the time the officer approaches, the licensee shall promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the licensee while stopped that the licensee has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the licensee currently is carrying a concealed handgun; the licensee shall not knowingly disregard or fail to comply with lawful orders of a law enforcement officer given while the licensee is stopped or knowingly fail to keep the licensee’s hands in plain sight after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves, unless directed otherwise by a law enforcement officer; and the licensee shall not knowingly remove, attempt to remove, grasp, or hold the loaded handgun or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun by touching it with the licensee’s hands or fingers, in any manner in violation of division (B) of section 2923.12 of the Revised Code, after any law enforcement officer begins approaching the licensee while stopped and before the officer leaves.

Source.

Talk about learning the hard way. I'm glad you were found not guilty, what a horrible waste of time and money. A word of advice, keep your non-CCW pieces locked up and unloaded when transporting them in a vehicle.

Any claim of "ignorance" will fly like Rosie O'Donnell off the top of the Chrysler Building.

The mental image of this sent me into a fit of giggles.

Just goes to show, cops are a bunch of thugs not worthy of respect or cooperation.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[clarence222]

Clarence, the situations are completely different. Nobody would fault you for coming home from a gun shop but driving from home to a restaurant an officer would probably be suspicious of you

The problem with that thinking is one the officer in this case had not figured out where he had been or where he was going. What if I didn't buy the ammo from a gunstore I have bought several thousands rounds of ammo from individauls before. What if I left the gunstore and stopped to eat on my way home.

The best gunstore in my area is about 30 miles from my house. It is not unusual for me and the family to go to town visit the gunstore the mall and anywhere else we need to go then stop and eat supper before going home.

Your logic is flawed, if its legal for me to own them why should it look bad for me to have them in the car.

 

[JCisHe]

No Clarence, you're creating instances that don't apply to the OP's situation which was what I was addressing.

He was leaving his girlfriends house, late at night, with range gear in his car and the officers could plainly see that and were also called for a domestic disturbance which automatically raises the threat level. In the 1st instance he was armed to the teeth walking to a restaurant and Bryan told them that. It's not my logic that's flawed friend.

Beside, the premise stands that driving around for other than transporting, to and from a destination, for storage, large amounts of ammunition and a few firearms will make that person seem sketchy.

I'm not a cop, but if I were, that's exactly how I would see it. "Sir, where are you going?", "Oh, uhm, to the restaurant down the road.", "With TWO handguns, an extra mag, and 2 knives?! What are you planning to do?"

That's the obvious line of questioning and that's exactly what the cop did in the recording. In fact, the officer was pro 2a and gave the dude good advice about having so much hardware on him. Later, he got mad and said some stuff he shouldn't have but in all reality there is reason in that as well.

If you can CCW and people are complaining it's probably best to avoid any trouble and just CC.I can understand that line of reasoning. The officer in the 1st recording was being a little jerky but if Bryan would have taken the hint from him this second event wouldn't have happened. I'll add again though just so there is no misunderstanding that the second set of officers were clearly wrong and gunning for this guy without any legal means to do so. But like I said, my guess is that they think that Bryan is dangerous because of the hardware and whatnot. So, you take from that what you want but if I were Bryan I'd be a little more prudent.

 

[Deanimator]

But like I said, my guess is that they think that Bryan is dangerous because of the hardware and whatnot.

Now he'll just be "dangerous" to their financial futures.

It must be tough to have to choose between food, the mortgage, and required payments to rDigital. Of course if you miss a required payment, that usually calls the entire amount due IMMEDIATELY.

The only thing worse than having to sit hungry with your wife and kids on your couch thinking about why it's wrong to violate people's rights, is having to sit hungry with your wife and kids on the floor thinking about why it's wrong to violate people's rights because the Sheriff came to get your couch because you were late on a payment from a settlement not dischargeable in bankruptcy...

 

[t165]

I wish to state that I do not want anyone on this thread to take anything I say as legal advice. My comments are based on past employment experience and law classes taught to me years ago. And I was a student/cadet during these classes. Current police officers are required to take a certain amout of hours every year to refresh and learn about new or modified law. But the courses are condensed. I have never met a police officer who knows all the laws verbatim. Police officers have different interpretattions of law. Just like citizens, lawyers, and judges have different interpretations of law. Citizens get on these internet forums and argue their interpretations. Lawyers argue in court with each other. Trial court judges chooses which arguments he believes to be correct at the trial level. Appellate court judges overturn trial court judges decisions if they believe errors were made. And then in some rare cases the SCOTUS renders their decision. But even the decisions of SCOTUS can be whittled away or overturned after new appointments are made to that supreme body. The law is everchanging.

Back in the late 90's IIRC Indiana law enforcement officers were running quite a few DWI roadblocks/checkpoints. Hundreds of individuals had been arrested and the cases were making their way through the courts. Then the Indiana Supreme Court issued a court ruling on the requirements/legality of DWI roadblocks/checkpoints. With a stroke of a pen hundreds of previously arrested DWI suspects were immune from prosecution. Again, IIRC the high court changed the notification requirements which had to posted in the local newspapers prior to setting up a DWI checkpoint. The law and case law simply change all the time.

 

[Deanimator]

I have never met a police officer who knows all the laws verbatim.

The police officer doesn't need to know all the laws verbatim.

He needs to know the law he's enforcing, RIGHT NOW.

If he can't be bothered to reach a bar THAT low, and falsely arrests me, I GUARANTEE you that my lawyer will KNOW the applicable law under which that officer is being sued, forwards and backwards.

If you falsely arrest me because you're too lazy to know your job, the bugle's going to blow the deguello. No quarter asked, none given.

 

[clarence222]

JCisHE,
The problem is the officers did not know where he had been nor did they know what had been going on. If I recall correctly they did not see the weapons or magazines until they searched his car. Nor did they know what he had been doing all day. He never says what he did before the argument. He very well could have been to the range all day with his GF then spent the evening with her before going home. They could have very spent the evening at an indoor range and been at her house just an hour or two.

I have not spent time researching the 1st event. I'm only commenting on this event. What I don know about the first event is that he was stopped for simply OCing which is perfectly legal in his jurisdiction. So why was he stopped. Because the cops didn't know the law, had they there wouldn't have been a first event. Had the first officer spent any time at all speaking with the OP there wouldn't have been a second event. All he had to do was wait for backup, when they arrived speak to his GF and that should have been the end of the story. However it was not the end because they screwed up. They did not do their job correctly.

IMHO I think what you are getting at is that yeah we have a right to carry, just make sure you don't exercise that right.

How about making sure that the police know what the law says about firearms laws, and quit acting like a bunch of paramilitary wanna bes.

That last comment was not directed at all law enforcement officers, I respect people who do that job. But we all know that there are several out there who have no business what so ever beeing allowed to carry a badge or a gun.

 

[t165]

Deanimator...Officers are taught that if there is any doubt to not make an arrest. And I also carried a current copy of the Indiana Code with me for reference. Still, mistakes have and will happen. Officers know this and the remedy for a bad arrest lies in the court system. Police officers live under threat of lawsuit all the time. They are not frightened by it. If laws were not broken and mistakes never happened there would be no need for the criminal and civil court system. You must of had some really bad experience with the justice system in the past. I never met you in my life and I can feel the hate from you emiting from the screen of my computer because I'm an ex-LEO. I'm not flaming you...I honestly believe you hate law enforcement with a passion.

Now, if the economy does not improve and my car business goes under I might have to take the county sheriff up on his offer when he invited me out to discuss possible employment for me. If I become a LEO again will you still discuss topics with me?

 

[clarence222]

t165,

I have never met Deanimator before either, however I agree with most of his post. If you take a job and get a salary for it you should know your job. We don't tolerate this from our doctors nor should we tolerate from our law enforcement. If this situation occurred to me the first thing I would do is file suit against a officers involved.

I don't have a hatred for LEO's I just think they need to know the job. If i don't know mine, or don't perform to my boss' expectations I will no longer be employed. We employ the police and we shouldn't tolerate this kind of incompetence

 

[t165]

But that is exactly my point. You, Deanimator, cops, doctors, lawyers, judges...whatever, will make mistakes. I've never met a mechanic, insurance agent, contractor, or a member of the clergy who never made a mistake in the course of their employment. Please don't tell me that you are perfect? Nobody is...and never will be. Some people may think they are correct all the time but there are very good medications for that. Again, if you have a case then take it to court. That is the remedy. But police officers are never going to be frightened from doing their jobs from the threat of a lawsuit. Thats akin to a bank robber grabbing a kid in the middle of a robbery and trying to shield himself from the law with it.

Why do some people think LEO's should be "superman with a pension plan"? I took several competitive tests both mental and physical to gain employment. I then had to pass several more tests as a new officer. Then after all that I was deemed fit enough to attend the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy. I was the first Vincennes Indiana police officer to ever graduate ILEA as an Honor Graduate. Still, I did make mistakes. Nothing major but LEO's do not have the luxury of taking their time and reading a law book in the middle of an armed robbery or trying to break up large bar fight. Criminals have this funny habit of not stopping their criminal activity. Everytime I was involved in a hairy incident I always critiqued myself how I may have handled the incident better. I owed it to the people I was policing. Still, I was far from perfect. Just like everybody else.

 

[Deanimator]

I never met you in my life and I can feel the hate from you emiting from the screen of my computer because I'm an ex-LEO. I'm not flaming you...I honestly believe you hate law enforcement with a passion.

You don't know me.

What I get from you is a desire to get a pass for serious misconduct and for people to just roll over and take abuse. The answer is "no". You don't have to like that. Just realize there's nothing you can do about it other than to obey the law. If you can't do that, there are consequences, just as there are for anyone who willfully breaks the law.

 

[Zoogster]

....

 

[Deanimator]

But that is exactly my point. You, Deanimator, cops, doctors, lawyers, judges...whatever, will make mistakes. I've never met a mechanic, insurance agent, contractor, or a member of the clergy who never made a mistake in the course of their employment.

Don't be disingenuous. We're not talking about "mistakes". We're talking about CHOICES. Those officers CHOSE to impede rDigital from obeying the Ohio CCW law, then arrest him for a delay THEY caused. That's not a mistake. It's a CHOICE. Choices have consequences. If you choose to falsely arrest me or violate my rights in some other way, I'm going to make those consequences as dire for you as humanly possible within the law.

I owe you NOTHING except to conscientiously obey the laws AS WRITTEN. You owe me the same. If you can't or won't do that, I'll move mountains to exact a price. There are people who'll take a slap across the face and meekly slink away without complaint. I'm not one of them.

 

[numaone]

What scares me is the just first came back hung. If the facts are like they seem, this is plainly easy for a 4 year old. I am scared that 12 dumb people can lock me away. Anyone on the jury who fell for the prosecution's garbage scare tactics is an absolute fool.

You know, I'm not sure who I am angrier with, the state or the jury. I expect the prosecution to be overzealous. But I am furious with my fellow Americans for being so gullible, stupid, and spine-less to fall for any of this nonsense. The elderly woman who spoke to you is an example of this. Who the F*** cares how your car looks. I don't care if you are the sole source of the ammo shortage in this country and had every single round in your car. If it's not illegal it's not relevant. I couldn't care less if you hadn't taken a shower in months. It has nothing to do with you "promptly informing the police"

Sorry if I come off angry. It's just an abomination this sort of nonsense in America. I think I'm going to have to sleep with my AR under the covers tonight to get over this story.

 

[Deanimator]

Yet you expect people with high school diplomas hired for blue collar work, who retire within 20 years, to know more than any lawyer possibly can?

Police don't need to know "the law". They need to know the law they're enforcing, RIGHT NOW. If one of them has such a lack of respect for his own profession that he can't be bothered to adhere to so lax of a standard, don't expect me to meekly take such abuse. It's just not going to happen.