DaveS

Show me where I said that? You can't Robert! This is about asking a man his name, to determine if he is legaly able to carry a gun. I have said that over and over!!!   Dave S

So if I respond to a call for MWAG, I just drop my investigation of the complaint because the guy refuses to give me his name so I can clarify this whole matter, or forget it ever happened? Not likely Bro! And I get it just fine! I don't beleive in trumped up charges, and never have. I have said it over and over.   You have said a hundred times (maybe more, maybe less) that you carry a hundgun. How do "I" know you are legal in doing so, if "I" don't ask? What do you want me to do, if you refuse to answer me? Forget about it? Not likely to happen!   Dave S       Dave S

If he is a serious hunter, he should know what license is required of him no matter where he goes. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I could tell ya'll stories that would blow your mind!   "A man has got to know his limitations." Clint Eastwood.   Dave S

Actually Robertnashville, I never said the police was right in what they did other than ask him his name. He could have, let me repeat, COULD HAVE CLEARED THIS WHOLE MATTER WITHIN A MINUTE OR TWO BY GIVING THEM HIS NAME!!!! HE REFUSED!! In my OPINION...he has NO right to sue!! Sorry...just my OPINION!!!   Dave S

Go back and reread my posts. I said the police acted like azzhats as well as Call. I also said, they had all legal right to ask him his name while investigating a complaint. I also said he was not committing a crime by carrying a gun if was legally able too.   More words get put into peoples mouths than a ventiliquist!   Charging him with obstruction would have been cool with me!   And by the way, I don't appreciate the personal attacks by the "know-it-alls" here for what should have been a decent adult discussion. Know body ask to be called a "bootjack", Stormtrooper or anything else!   Later (as in # 3)   Have a nice one!   Dave S

Looks more like a termite to me. The wings are equal length and the antenae are not quite "ant like". Ants wings are different. Where did you find it? It may be worth calling a bug guy.   Dave S

  There was a COMPLAINT FILED by a citizen. The responding Officers were OBLIGATED to INVESTIGATE this COMPLAINT. As a part of that investigation the officers had to ask the man his name. If ya'll don't like that I'm sorry.   We as gun owners take on a great deal of responsibility every day we step out of the house with our handguns. A small part of that responsilbility as a LAW ABIDING citizen is to cooperate with the authorities if they are investigating a complaint of MWAG. If this cannot happen with some of ya'll, leave your handguns at home you don't need them!   By the way; I fought and bled for this country, I put my life on the line as a FF/EMT every single day until I retired and got back into some more work "protecting the rights" of people. I do not take kindly being refered to, or called a "STORM TROOPER". If you don't want to be questioned  by the nazi's, LEAVE YOUR GUN AT HOME!!!   If I'm given a job to do, I'm going to do everything within my limits and power to do that job. Even if it means asking you for "your papers".   At the end of the day, I can look my boss in the eyes and say "I did my job today". How many of you people look your boss (no matter what job you have) in the eyes at the end of the day and say; "I didn't do my job today because I didn't think I had to, because there was no reason too."   Good day, have fun, be safe!   Dave S

Carrying a gun and a complaint is filed is "REASONABLE SUSPICION" until it can be verified that you in fact are LEGALY able to carry. Question? Have you ever or do you currently work in LE? It sure don't sound like you've ever had to deal with an armed person before. Are you a Lawyer?   I'm turning blue from lack of oxygen explaining all this again to you armchair lawyers.   Later..."As in #1"   Dave S

Ohio CCW said that. When and where in the video does LEO say he was arrested? I missed that part and the Police Chief didn't even mention it. He was detained yes. An arrest would have been followed by his miranda rights, in which he continued to half way answer questions. So was his rights read to him?   Dave S

As far as I know the guy wasn't arrested.   Dave S

Based upon the information the responding officer's had, they had a "duty to act", and investigate a complaint received via 911 "man with a gun". Since they did not know Roy Call and know whether or not he could legaly possess a handgun, they had full right to ask his name. Ohio law says you don't have to tell a cop your name "EXCEPT, if you are in a public area and you may be committing a crime". It's a crime in Ohio to openly carry a handgun (or even possess one) if you have been convicted of certain crimes, on probation, out on bail ect ect. The cops had no way of knowing any of this until they ran his name in which he refused to give them.   Most departments have a policy that their officers seperate a suspect from his/her weapon for the safety of all those concerned. He was cuffed and placed in the back of the car out of protocal until his idenity could be established and determine if he was in legal possession of his fire arm.   All parties acted like buttheads, but he will likely not get his 3 mil.   Dave S

Well put. There are 3 azzhats in the article, we'll let the judge and jury sort it out.   Dave S

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

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information. (A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following: (1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense. (2) The person witnessed any of the following: (a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state; ( B) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property; (c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or ( B) of this section; (d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or ( B) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed. ( B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. (C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed. (D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing. Effective Date: 04-14-2006 Again; The police was anwsering a complaint file by a citizen. Unfortunately, part of that investigation required the police to ask the man his NAME in order to determine that he was legaly carrying a sidearm. If he was on probation and/or a convicted felon, He could not LEGALY carry a firearm. And, in order to determine that...again; they had to ask his name. Agreed, the cops acted like little jerks, but Mr. Call could have quickly ended this by simply stating his name. I think alot of ya'll are missunderstanding the Ohio law on this matter. The cops have that right as part of their investigating. I AM DONE TRYING TO GET THIS POINT ACROSS!!!! BRB Dave S

Later Dave S

As per Ohio Law....No never ever trust a cop!!! Per the State of Ohio... Document last updated 3/28/2013. What are my rights and responsibilities . . . • If the police approach me and ask me questions? Suppose you are outside your home or in a public place when the police arrive and begin asking questions. Law enforcement officers have a duty to protect the community they serve, its citizens and their property. The law gives police certain powers to help them perform that duty. Police have the power to approach persons and ask them questions. Simply because you are approached and questioned by the police does not mean you are suspected of having committed a crime. All citizens are encouraged to cooperate with the police so those who break the law can be brought to justice, but, with one exception, discussed below, you have no legal duty to answer any question, and you may refuse to answer. This is called the right of silence. You should never lie to a law enforcement officer, however. If you do, you can get into trouble for “obstructing official business.” • If the police “stop” me and ask me questions? You have the right, if you are stopped, to refuse to answer any questions for any reason or no reason. You can invoke your right to silence by saying, "I refuse to answer any questions" or "I want to speak to a lawyer" or "I wish to remain silent." If you do not clearly invoke your right to silence with such a statement, you may subject yourself to continued questioning by police. There is one exception to your right to silence: According to Ohio law since April 2006, if you are in a public place and under certain circumstances, you must give your name, address and date of birth to an officer. If you fail to provide this information under such circumstances, you will be committing a fourth-degree misdemeanor and may be arrested. I find that law quite interesting.... Dave S

I like how the guy walks up to the punk and kicks his gun away from him!

This whole deal is about a complaint filed by a citizen, in which the police HAD to act upon. Part of acting upon that complaint was asking the guy his name. He refused as which was his right. Cops went wrong...he fessed up his name and also produced a CCW in which he was quickly released with all charges dropped (except one I would have put on him). All of this could have been avoided by telling his name from the get go which was against his rights and would make him feel like a little wuss for telling his name. As a Ohio tax payer, it is BS that this guy is suing over something that HE HIMSELF could have prevented and cost me my tax dollars. Get the cops fired later if you have to. I'm going outside for a bit... Later Dave S

Dang...just dang! I'm a fan of his!!! WOW...I don't know what to say.... Dave S

Try this link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBUG2sP9mlw

I'll see if I can find another source. Dave S

For your reading pleasrure...The relevant Supreme Court cases are Terry v. Ohio and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. In Terry, the court said that law enforcement can stop a person and conduct a frisk if the officer has a reasonable suspicion (which is less than probable cause) that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” This may extend to asking you to identify yourself as it is a kind of investigation. I don't understand..... As LEO, how would I know if he is legal or not unless I ask him? All these cops did (as all cops do) is ask him his name. He got hard azz, then LEO struck back. Cut and dry. But to sue is outragious! Dave S

That's not the issue. The issue is the man was seen carrying a handgun. The cops asked him his name and he refused. It has nothing to do with driving.... Sir..... Dave S

May I have your name Sir? Just because a guy is carrying tells me very little!   Dave S