monkeylizard

Lisa Patton on News 2 just said that it went from sunny skies to that in 30 minutes. That's all it took for the super cell to develop and spawn that beast.

I thought they made them with 3D printers.

I lived in Moore as a kid. Awful stuff.

  No, you drop your investigation of an MWAG call when you have no reasonable suspicion that a crime has/is/will be committed. In Ohio, being armed openly is not a crime. Period. There is no amount of suspicion of someone being openly armed (it's right there in the open...it's not really "suspicion") to warrant any forcing of compliance because there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, because it's not a crime.   Does the LEO have reasonable suspicion that a criminal act has, is, or will occur? It's that simple.   It's reasonable to think that an actual crime (armed robbery in this case) may be about to occur given the time and location. That would not be true at say 2:00 in the afternoon when the "suspect" is seen pushing his kid down a residential street in a stroller. Either the officer on scene suspected armed robbery based on the facts at hand or he didn't. The Chief making that up as a "morning after" idea is just bull. If the LEO on scene had said as much to Mr. Call then Ohio 2912.29 clearly says that Call has to give his name, address, and DOB. I suspect Call would have complied then but I don't know that. If he would have, great it's all over. If he wouldn't have, cuff and stuff and charge him with violating Ohio 2912.29        You keep bringing up "how do I know you're not a criminal" and don't seem to understand that in Ohio, a person OC'ing is exactly the same as a person with a green shirt. You don't look at a person with a green shirt and wonder if he's legally allowed to wear that green shirt. Ridiculous, right? Opinions aside, the law in Ohio says a green shirt and an OC gun are the exact same thing. Don't like it? Tough. That's the way the law works in Ohio. Period. End of story. Chucktshoes showed case law back on post #110 that "he might be a criminal" is not enough reason to force compliance from a person who is carrying in a legal manner in a state where such carrying is legal. To force compliance in that case has been upheld to be a violation of the person's 4th ammendment rights.   In TN, it's not the same. We don't have carry laws like Ohio's OC law. I am breaking the law in TN when I carry a gun. A LEO has reasonable suspicion to think I'm breaking the law if he/she sees my gun because I am, in fact, breaking the law in TN. Our HCP system provides a defense to the crime of carrying. That means a stop to verify ID when a gun is seen is all perfectly legal here. It is not the same in Ohio for OC.   In the end, yes...in Ohio or any other place with 'Constitutional Carry' type laws, if the LEO has no reasonable suspicion of an actual crime being committed by a person who is carrying within the provisions of the law of that state and the "suspect" chooses not to provide requested information (whether done on a nice way or by telling the officer to FOAD), I expect the LEO to be a professional, forget about it, and go on about his day. He does so because his investigation is finished. It's finished, not becaause the suspect didn't comply, but because there's no reasonable suspicion of a crime to investigate. Anything else is a violation of the 4th amendment. I have a strong suspicion that the court will agree in this case, and if not, then the appellate court probably will.

I understand that's your opinion (and I for one have not resorted to name calling). It just happens that your opinion and the law are not the same in this case.   Yes, Call had the ability to end this quickly by giving his name. What you don't seem to get is that that was not the only option here to end it quickly. The officer could have ended it quickly by stopping when Call refused to give his name, or by informing Call he had reasonable suspicion (and saying why) to have Call comply with the request for his name. Still no compliance? Stuff and cuff and let the court decide if the suspicion was "reasonable" or not. Instead, the officer chose to threaten a citizen with trumped up charges to get compliance.

I don't have a problem with the officer investigating a complaint from a citizen. He should have done that. I don't have a problem with the officer asking for his name. That's a pretty normal thing to do, but that doesn't make him entitled to an answer. Once it was evident that there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is, or is about to be commited, what was there to investigate?  In an ideal world, this whole thing should have gone something like this:    Clerk: "Officer, there's a guy with a gun in my store." Officer: "That guy over there by himself getting a Gatorade?" Clerk: "Yeah, that's him" Officer: "Did he threaten anyone" Clerk: "no...but he has a gun on his side!" Officer: "OK, sir. I'll check him out." <<walks over to Mr. Call while saying whatever it is that officers say on their radio>> Officer: "Sir, do you you have a permit for that firearm?" Call: "Sir, in Ohio I don't need a permit to openly carry a handgun." Officer: "What's your name, sir?" Call: "I don't want to give you my name and by Ohio code 2921.29  I am not required to do so unless you have reasonable suspicion that I have, am, or will commit a crime. Do you have that suspicion, and if so, what crime?" Officer: <<realizing he's being baited by a class-A douche, whose body language doesn't suggest a person who is about to knock off the Stop-N-Rob>> "No sir. Your gun made the clerk nervous. Seeing as how this is a convenience store at 4:30 am, surely you can see how that might make a clerk nervous. If you don't have a CCW permit, you may want to look into it for times and places like this. It will mean less hassle for you and we'll get less calls about stuff like this. Have a nice day." Officer to Clerk: "Sir, that gentleman is breaking no laws because openly carrying a firearm is legal in Ohio. I'll hang around here until he finishes his shopping. By the way, how fresh is that coffee?"   If the officer did indeed feel he had reasonable suspicion due to location and time of day, He should have said so to Call and said: "Sir, I do have reasonable suspicion that a person with a gun at this time of day in a convenience store may be planning to commit armed robbery. 2921.29 requires that you give me your name so I can run it. Now, what's your name, sir?"   After that, if Call's still being a giant douche, cuff him and stuff him.     What actually happened was that we had a pissing match in the parking lot between a baiting douche who stayed within the letter of the law and an officer who got all butt-hurt because there wasn't immediate acquiesence to his authora-tay. I hope Call wins the case so there are grounds for refresher training for the officers when dealing with OC in Ohio (and more case law to support his position) but that the jury awards him $1 to show their disdain for his trolling.

Maybe this is what Mayor Ray Nagin meant by rebuilding "a chocolate New Orleans".

But we had tinted windows, so they couldn't see our cameras.       No, it does not show on Google Street View. They'll take those camera cars out in the boonies, but Morgan Co. off a main highway is too much even for those guys.  :)

I don't think the department is arguing "he could have been a felon" but that's been DaveS' argument for several pages now. I don't think the gun puts him in some special protected class. I've been arguing that it absolutely does not. I've been saying the presence of the OC gun should be, by the way I've read Ohio law, irrelevant unless it in some way is a contributing factor for the LEO on scene developing reasonable suspicion. I agree about the "in the commission" part. 101, your wrong about that. LEOs need reasonable suspicion that a person has is or will commit a crime. They dont have to catch them in the act. At least that's how it is according to Ohio law.

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.