monkeylizard

My wife is a teacher. Some co-workers swear there was a girl at a summer camp one year named Vaginal Delight. The best part is that her initials would be V.D.

wow...isn't that what I, a mere non-LEO mortal, said about 10 posts ago?   Thanks for finding case law to back that up. :up:

Good point about the vehicle search. Taken together with the Chief's comments, I'm finding myself more and more in the camp of "I hope he wins". $3.6m is a bit excessive, but a win of any kind would be nice to see.

Well, yes, but only with reasonable suspicion.

No, I'm not LE. No I'm not a lawyer. No, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.   I do however know there's a difference between what the law says and what it doesn't say. LEOs are exactly that: "law enforcement officers." If it's not in the law, they don't get to make it up to make their jobs easier. Yes, I think the wording of many of these laws make it harder than it needs to be, but that's the job.   I suppose i could take the same tact and say I'm turning blue from explaining again that in Ohio, the default stance is that it is in fact legal to open carry. Mr. Call doesn't have to prove anything, under Ohio law. Unless some other factors are in play to give the LEO reasonable suspicion that a crime was, is, or will be commited, being armed openly in and of itself in Ohio is not enough.   If a call + legal activity = reasonable suspicion, then we're all screwed. Otherwise someone can call 911 and say "monkeylizard is walking on a sidewalk. Don't you think you ought to do something about that?!?!?!?"  Carrying openly or walking on a sidewalk are exactly the same in the eyes of Ohio state law. Some other factor needs to come into play to create reasonable suspicion of a criminal act by Mr. Carr. I can understand Chief Reiss' opinion that being armed in a convenience store at an early morning hour creates reasonable suspicion. The time and location are those needed additional factors in his mind. I don't necessarily agree, but I can understand it and I can see how a judge might side with him on that. However, given the perspective he displayed in his last quote, I think he'd make up something for "reasonable suspicion" if this happened at 2:00 in the afternoon at Kroger on Aisle 7 when the "suspect" was reading the nutrition label on a box of Wheaties.

  No, Ohio law says you don't have to give your name except when in public and there is reasonable suspicion you have/are/will be commiting a crime. I ask again, where is the reasonable suspicion for this case, in your opinion?   Going by the logic you laid out, it would be OK to force anyone within X yards of a school to provide their ID. A LEO doesn't know all of the people within X yards of said school, and doesn't know they aren't sex offenders and not allowed to be there. Or why not stop every couple and demand ID? One person may have an OP or RO against the other that's being violated.

Dave, I'd like to know your opinion on the "reasonable suspicion" part. Do you think that the responding LEO had reasonable suspicion to think that Mr. Call had, is, or will commit a crime and Mr. Call was therefore unjustified in refusing to povide his identity? If so, what factors create that reasonable suspicion given the fact that open carry in Ohio is not a crime?

From DaveS' linked article:         I maintain that Ohio law says Mr. Call did not have to provide his information unless the LEO had reasonable belief that a crime was, is, or is about to be commited or one was witnessed by the questionee. The question then is does the legal act of openly carrying a firearm, under the circumstances of this call (time and location) warrant a reasonable suspicion that a crime is/was/going to be commited? Chief Reiss (as did the LEO on site) seems to think so. I disagree, but can understand it. This would seem to be the sticky point that I suppose we'll get cleared up by a judge.         First, there's no reason for Chief Reiss to not-so-subtly insult Mr. Call by suggesting he is irresponsible, especially with pending litigation.   Second, his final thought recorded in the article bothers me. It smacks of "do what I tell you or we're going for a ride." It could be argued that a responsible person is one who is knowledgabe of their rights, knows their Constitutional, federal, and state laws, and won't roll over for anyone trying to take that from them. That a responsible person is one who recognizes that a lot of good men and women have died to establish and maintain those rights and that being coerced into giving those up to make things easier on themselves is wrong.   To be clear, this was not a run-in with the Gestapo as some people would seem to think it is. However, the attitude expressed by Chief Reiss in his last paragraph, when it becomes pervasive in a law enforcement community, can be seen as a step in that direction. It's a direction I'd like to think that none of want to travel down.   I'm not saying what Mr. Call did was the right choice. This could have played out several different ways and this ended up being one of the worst outcomes for all parties short of someone getting shot. Mr. Call was being a first rate asshat. But I believe that it's his right to be a first rate asshat in this case. I guess we'll see what a judge thinks.

Dave, what am I missing then? You and I are obviously able to read, and we're reading the same Ohio law. How are we coming to different conclusions about what it says? Here's where my logic is taking me: Ohio law allows open carry without a permit. Ohio law requires disclosure of name, address and DOB to a LEO when the LEO reasonably suspects the citizen is either committing, commited, or about to commit a crime or witnessed the same. Since open carry is legal without a permit, no crime is being, been, or about to be commited by Mr. Call. Therefore, Mr. Call has no legal duty to give the LEO his identifying information. Quite simply, where do you and I disagree on this? Is it #3? Do you see the carrying of a firearm by Mr. Call in a manner that violates no Ohio laws whatsoever as a reasonable suspicion that he is, has, or will commit a criminal act?

Well stocked is anything between enough to see you through a hopefully short-term run like we're in now and enough to last you the rest of your shooting life (the stuff is only going to get more expensive). That number will change depending on how much a person shoots. I don't call it hoarding until a person has, based on their shooting volume, more than they will shoot in their lifetime.

  Later, as in "I'm busy right now but will respond when I can" or Later, as in, "The law doesn't say what I want it to say so good bye" ?

It's also against the law in Ohio for a person wih a suspended license to drive. That doesn't mean the officers can stop a driver who has broken no traffic laws to see their license to see if it was suspended.

No, with all respect, I think you are missing the point. Open carrying a firearm is NOT a crime in Ohio. The MWAG call in this case, under Ohio law, would be exactly the same as if someone had called in a "man walking down the street in a turtleneck sweater"*. It's not a crime. There is no PC that a crime has been or is going to be commited just because a call was placed.       *the fashion police may disagree.

You're right Smith. He could have made things easy in himself. But he didn't have to and chose not to. I'm not sure if I hope he wins or not, but if this played out the way it's described in the OP, he has every right to be upset, especially when the cops started threatening trumped up charges to get a law abiding citizen to consent to be treated like a criminal while being detained against his will for having commited no crime. Bad spot for everyone involved. At the very least I'd like to see the officers in that dept receive better training on how to handle this kind of call.

He could sell it on Gunbroker.   "Some light scratches on the cylinder, but hard to notice. I'd say it's 90%"

    You're making a mistake in your logic there. He was not commiting a crime in Ohio by OC'ing. They have legal OC without a permit in Ohio, as peejman said. Mr. Call believes that the police had no right to detain him and is suing because of it.   No doubt the cops will respond to an MWAG call. They should. But upon arrivng on the scene and seeing Mr. Call doing nothing more than being a normal customer, should have done nothing more than kept an eye on him until he left the store and went on his way.

I thought maybe it was a tactical zombie crayon.

Make it yourself the night before. Makes mornings move faster.

I once worked with a very nice lady named Gay Hooker.

    The things is, I don't think they are any more. S3 was all Rick vs Guv.

The only update I know of is that he no longer holds pig races and replaced the track with a large painted sign of a cross and a star of David.

Yeah, I get all that. But I can get that living vs. living drama in other TV shows. What sets TWD apart is that it has zombies. Marginalize them and the writers have marginalized what draws in new viewers and keeps old viewers interested. I mean, take away the zombies from every episode and replace them with other human survivors of EOTWAWKI and the show is just another suvival show. Cool, but not zombie cool.   I know it has its haters, but I kind of like Falling Skies. They've kept the focus on humans v. aliens. By the end of last season it was starting to get dull because it was becoming human v. human for the last 2 episodes. I hope they get away from that plot quickly for the next season.

There's something similar but far scarier in the works at the DOD called ARGUS. Instead of one camera that moves on a gimbal to point in a specific direction like UAV cameras do now (looking at one thing at a time), it has an array of digital camera sensors. Since each sensor collected its own image, an operator could "zoom in" on one or more specific spot(s) without losing the overall picture. Currently when a UAV camera zooms in, that's all the operator can see. This would allow operators to watch a very large area, but zoom in on a house, or multiple houses while keeping the big picture in place.   Each image from each sensor is stitched together in software to provide the large overall pic and be able to zoom as needed. It also added object tracking capabilities to lock on to a person or vehicle and follow it.   Same concept as in the OP, but real-time, and having both big picture and zoom (and multi-zoom at that). It would be like being able to zoom in on that crowd and see the face (or multiple faces) while still seeing the full cityscape in another monitor, and all from one camera sensor array.   Here's a write-up from the UK's Daily Mail.   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2269563/The-U-S-militarys-real-time-Google-Street-View-Airborne-spy-camera-track-entire-city-1-800MP.html

  I agree. I said something about that up the thread somewhere. During S1, we were fearful for the characters. During S2, not so much, but that's because there weren't many Zs at all. When they did show up  in S2 (Shane & Otis in town, In town when they picked up the guy from the other group, Rick and Shane at the school to get rid of the same guy, the finale) they were scary and we feared for the characters. All through S3, the Zs have been an annoyance to the group, not a threat.   If the writers want to make this show interesting again, they need to make the Zs scary again. But without doing that with hoardes of them (ie. expensive), I don't see how they can. They made them so easy to kill in S3, so that ship has sailed. There's no plausible way to go back to having to destroy the brain stem like they said at the CDC in S1. Apparently a 2" knife in the eye is enough now.       Bad news on another front: AMC has pushed back the last 8 episiodes of Breaking Bad to August 11 from an earlier reported July airing. Each episode will be followed by Talking Bad much like Talking Dead follows each episode of TWD.

  FIFY!