Open Carry Advocate wants $3.6 Million

[Vermiform]

Much as I hate to say it; in this specific case and set of circumstances, and with the information I can see so far, I agree with SVT.

I possibly would too in this case if were not for this:

history of initiating confrontations with police officers and recording the incidents.

This makes me very suspicious. Its possible the guy pulled a MEM and started purposely acting suspicious. It is also possible he didn't do anything other than open carry and be polite the whole time. I'd like to see if this guy has a youtube channel and a history before I start agreeing with anyone.

 

[Jack]

We should be able to defend ourselves no matter the time of day or place (as long as it is a lawful place of course). Now with that in mind, the courts have established that the lawful carry of a gun is not RS/PC. If it is lawful to OC at this gas station, we should not be subject to questions and should not have to "show our papers" for lawful activity. Just bc criminals rob gas stations, does not mean everyone should be treated as a criminal for a lawful activity. Just bc criminals rob gas stations should not be RS/PC that everyone might rob that gas station.

It is also legal to have a valentine and wash dishes, but if you look like Tyrone biggums and are buying 3 boxes of chore boys and glass tubes with roses in them expect questions. It is legal to carry a gun, it is also legal for an officer with reasonable suspicion to stop you. The carrying of the gun alone does not provide that suspicion, the time, place, and other circumstances all weigh in.

 

[Neil09]

I possibly would too in this case if were not for this:



This makes me very suspicious. Its possible the guy pulled a MEM and started purposely acting suspicious. It is also possible he didn't do anything other than open carry and be polite the whole time. I'd like to see if this guy has a youtube channel and a history before I start agreeing with anyone.

This

 

[thed]

...

 

[SVT]

I possibly would too in this case if were not for this:

This makes me very suspicious. Its possible the guy pulled a MEM and started purposely acting suspicious. It is also possible he didn't do anything other than open carry and be polite the whole time. I'd like to see if this guy has a youtube channel and a history before I start agreeing with anyone.

I'm suspicious of this as well. Perhaps we will see the video from the gas station released?

It is also legal to have a valentine and wash dishes, but if you look like Tyrone biggums and are buying 3 boxes of chore boys and glass tubes with roses in them expect questions.

The leo can ask questions all he wants, but imo, just buying those products does not equal reasonable suspicion that I am committing a crime, have committed a crime, or am about to commit a crime. If I buy a crap load of fertilizer, does that mean I am a terrorist about to commit a crime? If I buy 5,000 rounds of 223, 500 rounds of 12 GA, and 1,000 rounds of .45, does that mean I am gonna go James Homles on a place and shoot up some people? No. Just buying things that "could" be used to commit a crime, should not be RS/PC that I am about to commit a crime, and therefore I should not be subject to le questions/detainment/searches/siezers.

It is legal to carry a gun, it is also legal for an officer with reasonable suspicion to stop you.

I completely agree

The carrying of the gun alone does not provide that suspicion, the time, place, and other circumstances all weigh in.

The only way I would agree with your immediate statement above, is if you had said the other circumstance MUST be present. What I mean is, just b/c I'm walking past a bank (legal), while open carrying (legal), at midnight (legal), does not give a leo the right to detain/search/seize/arrest me. Now, here's where the "other circumstances" comes into play. If the officer sees me walking around the building a few times, peeking in windows, etc, then I would say yes, that leo has RS.

 

[Jack]

So can you find me a case where reasonable suspicion is required to have someone peaking in windows or pacing around? Your opinion(and mine) of how things should be done are pretty much irrelevant to how they are done.

 

[sandman7925]

In this situation you are wrong(IMO). Man walks into a gas station with a gun at 4:30 in the morning is enough for reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur(again IMO). By refusing to answer questions relating to his identity he violated this statute.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

IMO No big deal. Allot or most blue collar guys are on the road by 4:30am. It's not that late, just a little early.

 

[SVT]

So can you find me a case where reasonable suspicion is required to have someone peaking in windows or pacing around? Your opinion(and mine) of how things should be done are pretty much irrelevant to how they are done.

My larger point is if I'm legally carrying a gun, and am legally buying something at a gas station (assuming there's nothing else going on with my activity, i'm not making threats, brandishing, or acting suspiciously), leos can suck on my 2ndA & 4thA Rights and leave me alone. I should not be suspected of criminal activity for legal activity that is in no way suspicious, which the courts agree OC-ing does not equal suspicion.

As far as your question, I do believe there was a case regarding a Terry Stop where the courts ruled it was justified b/c the guy was "casing out" a jewelry store (iirc), the guy was walking around peeking in on multiple occasions. Not sure that I can find it again though.

 

[Jack]

My larger point is if I'm legally carrying a gun, and am legally buying something at a gas station (assuming there's nothing else going on with my activity, i'm not making threats, brandishing, or acting suspiciously), leos can suck on my 2ndA & 4thA Rights and leave me alone. I should not be suspected of criminal activity for legal activity that is in no way suspicious, which the courts agree OC-ing does not equal suspicion.

As far as your question, I do believe there was a case regarding a Terry Stop where the courts ruled it was justified b/c the guy was "casing out" a jewelry store (iirc), the guy was walking around peeking in on multiple occasions. Not sure that I can find it again though.

I understand your point, however I think the combination of circumstances are what the officer or caller considered to be suspicious. Your view of reasonable is different from mine, which is different from the officer, which is different from the caller, etc. I think that the circumstances satisfy the requirement of reasonable suspicion. It is a pretty subjective term though, so I can understand where you and I might see this differently.

 

[SVT]

I understand your point, however I think the combination of circumstances are what the officer or caller considered to be suspicious. Your view of reasonable is different from mine, which is different from the officer, which is different from the caller, etc. I think that the circumstances satisfy the requirement of reasonable suspicion. It is a pretty subjective term though, so I can understand where you and I might see this differently.

fair enough.

 

[Vermiform]

You left out the word "falsely" that was included in the story. By doing that, you have completely changed the topic, discussion, and point of his argument. By doing so, you have completely negated your own argument. I mean no offense, but that is simply misleading as any politician would do to push his/her own agenda.
I have no opinion on this issue but your post did strike me as misleading.

Actually, if you read the whole thread you will see that I quoted the word falsely in my first post and my opinion on that matter. I reiterated it in my second post for emphasis. Try reading the whole thread before you render anyone's argument invalid. Context is everything. If you'll notice, I also allowed for the possibility that he is completely innocent in the post you just quoted.

 

[thed]

...

 

[Vermiform]

Not actually looking for an answer from you, just explaining my post.

Works for me.

 

[AustinBR]

I would like to throw an idea out there. How long do y'all spend in a gas station buying a few items? I personally spend less than three minutes. Someone should not have been able to call and complain about a guy with a gun and him still be there by the time the cops show up. Seriously...unless the cop was outside already, the guy should have been long gone before a cop could have gotten there. Without knowing anything besides what is in the post, it seems like he might have been trying to make himself noticed.

I have open carried a gun a few times in public places lately and no one even seems to notice. Yesterday I got my car washed and didn't want to leave a gun in the car and I walked around the car wash for a good 10 minutes chatting with people and no one even seemed to notice it or care. Had I been touching it or waving it around or anything else I could see how that could be a problem, but being in a dress shirt and slacks with a gun on a dress belt, people don't seem to mind you. Tank top and cut up shorts while OCing it might be different though...

 

[SVT]

I would like to throw an idea out there. How long do y'all spend in a gas station buying a few items? I personally spend less than three minutes. Someone should not have been able to call and complain about a guy with a gun and him still be there by the time the cops show up. Seriously...unless the cop was outside already, the guy should have been long gone before a cop could have gotten there. Without knowing anything besides what is in the post, it seems like he might have been trying to make himself noticed.

There are MANY times that I pump gas first, then go into the store for something (10 mins or so to complete everything and leave). Completely logical to think he did the same, and to think police could respond in that amount of time.

 

[po verde]

911 dispatchers are not allowed to make determinations about whether a crime is occurring. They just pass information on. A call of a guy carrying a gun was probably reported as "a man with a gun by this description". Officers showed up, saw he did in fact have a gun, and were required to provide a response to a citizen complaint. So they walked up and said (my supposition) "you breaking the law with that gun? We got a call about a man with a gun". Instead of saying "no, just buying a coke, my ids in the car if you care to see it" he became difficult. Add all that together and the officer was acting in good faith. Just because other citizens are idiots, doesnt mean the cops can shirk their job of investigating complaints. That is why we pay them, after all.

And about Tyrone....thats profiling and will get a cop thrown in jail. If you have a holster, and a cop doesnt talk to you because you look like a law abiding citizen, thats profiling too. "I didnt question the man with the gun because he was white and dressed nice. Those people dont shoot up places." Wrong answer.

 

[geoney]

There are MANY times that I pump gas first, then go into the store for something (10 mins or so to complete everything and leave). Completely logical to think he did the same, and to think police could respond in that amount of time.

You move your vehicle first from in front of the pump though right?

 

[SVT]

You move your vehicle first from in front of the pump though right?

Only if its busy

 

[Mojo Rider]

Here is the dash cam video and audio of the incident



http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6235201-Ohio-man-sues-town-police-in-open-carry-case/

 

[SVT]

wow. +1 for the citizen on this one.