Ohio Police Encounter - Notification

Status
Not open for further replies.
The above is reasonable and I think fits what many here are saying.



What I don't find reasonable is the above notion to proactively disarm someone simply because it's possible that he could get mad over a ticket the officer intends to write. I don't think that fits - "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual." If that were the case, then it goes back to my original question to you:

If safety is the overriding factor, then everyone stopped or encountering a police officer should be handcuffed and frisked, right? Otherwise, how is the officer to know that you don't have a concealed weapon, perhaps more than one, to use on him if you get mad or for any reason?

It is a fair question and deserves a fair answer.

First it is in the law to allow disarming a suspect. The same takes place in a domestic house call. The residents are removed from access to weapons. If one looks at the stats for officer injury or death, they will find traffic stops and domestic calls cause most problems for LEO. In fact, google officer shot during traffic stop and you will get more than a quarter million hits. Allowing for multiple stories, we can narrow it down to about 25,000 instances. I have a web site showing every officer killed in the line of duty and there are many, many that died in a routine traffic stop.

As to handcuffing, it is not as threatening when a person is unarmed than when they are armed. True enough there are those that will fight with an officer but officers are trained to handle personal attacks and do so far better than handling a shooting. People are cuffed when there are safety reasons involved. A law abiding citizen will not generally attack an officer during a traffic stop but if they do and if they have a firearm, the potential for harm increases. Cuffing someone for temprary detainment also raises the anger level for the citizen. It is best to make a decision to cuff only following the likelyhood of a pending arrest.

FWIW: Back about 1969 during training, we were shown posed photos during traffic stops. A full size semi auto was placed on top of the console of a vehicle with floor shift. The first vehicle driver was a well built lady with a low cut top. The next vehicle driver was a male that needed a shave. Almost all the trainees noticed the gun with the male driver but only a very few noticed the gun with the female driver. Same car, same gun but different drivers. Each stop is different but all are potentially dangerous.

I was visiting an attorney's office for a deposition a few years ago and was armed. There was a man at the table also being deposed in the criminal proceedings. Nobody was paying any attention to him but he suddenly reached into his front pocket and pulled a derringer handgun. I was maybe ten feet away but was able to reach him and disarm the man before he could do harm to anyone. An arresting officer arrived and was escorting him out of the office on the way to jail. The man began a fight as they entered the lobby and he knocked the officer to the ground and was trying to reach the officers sidearm. Again, I tackled the man and all ended well. You never know what may happen with an armed person. This man was there only for a deposition and was not threatened or at risk for anything yet he pulled a gun over something that was said he did not like.

I should also mention that the worst thing that would have happened the man was he could have gotten six months in jail yet he was willing to up the stakes.

With the increase seen in all areas and economic levels of drug and alcohol use, we may be dealing with those wo are not in a normal mental state and lack rational thought process.

Now I ask you, do you want to be alone, on the side of a roadway talking about possible traffic violations or worse when you do not know the person you are speaking with, do not know the history of that person or what they may have ingested but them be armed? I can deal with an old fashioned fist fight but I hate being shot. BTW: I got the worst whipping of my life by a lady that was maybe 5'5" and weighed about 140 pounds. She took me to the ground and beat the snot out of me before she got tired of whipping on me.
 
Last edited:
Oldman45,

Not sure I understood your answer. Sometimes it helps with yes or no questions.

Situation: An officer intends to write a ticket to a "nice and gentle" person.

Question: Since it is possible that any "nice and gentle" person could get angry, do you think that alone is enough for an officer to reasonably believe it is necessary to disarm the "nice and gentle" person for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. Yes or No?
 
Last edited:
Oldman45,

Not sure I understood your answer. Sometimes it helps with yes or no questions.

Situation: An officer intends to write a ticket to a "nice and gentle" person.

Question: Since it is possible that any "nice and gentle" person could get angry, do you think that alone is enough for an officer to reasonably believe it is necessary to disarm the "nice and gentle" person for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. Yes or No?

Yes. Wihtout a doubt.
 
You've posted other anti-cop actions in the past on this forum. For one living in a nice suburb, I'm surprised you have so many issues with the police...

Two sides to every story. Except if one has an anti-cop attitude I suppose.

Interesting logic here. I have not read every post Cmort666 has made, but when I do see him taking LEOs to task, he always seems to be on pretty firm ground. And I don't see where he lives as having much to do with his views on the police. Whether you live in a mansion or cardboard box, I think it the most American of traits to recoil against wickedness and oppressive behavior by anyone in a position of public trust. It appears his posts are taken as "anti-cop," where I see them more as anti-bad-cop.

Really, can anyone watch that video and give even the tiniest justification for the behavior of that officer? I know it is probably unreasonable to expect every cop to always behave with perfect composure and to never make a mistake, but the behavior of that officer was beyond the pale. Ditto for his partner, for that matter. One officer was behaving as if completely out of control and a danger to everyone around him, and the other did nothing to diffuse the situation. Brand me "anti-cop" if you must (it is not true), but I agree completely with the idea that I wouldn't feel safe around that officer under any circumstances, armed or otherwise. That man is unfit to be a police officer.

But back to the subject, I normally find the posts of Oldman45 to be interesting and usually on the money, but I think the idea of disarming everyone you come into contact with just because you have that power under law is not the best idea. Any officer approaching someone had better assume that person is armed and act accordingly, so this "notify" stuff seems mindless to me. I don't see that it is helpful to the officer (in fact, it is needlessly confusing for him) and I do see that there is a certain danger to the license holder that should be avoided - for the safety of all.
 
Yes. Wihtout a doubt.

Wow!!

Not in Georgia, thank God!

I have always heard that government in Louisiana was dysfunctional at all levels. Now I think I understand. Whether you mean it that way or not, your attitude comes across as "citizens just can't be trusted." I don't believe that is any more true than the blanket attitude that "police officers just can't be trusted."

Once again, I'm glad to live in a relatively free state where a driver doesn't shed his 4th and 5th amendment rights if he/she is doing 45 in a 35mph zone.

In GA the Weapons License is not referenced to the tag number or DL, there is no duty to inform, and, as per State v Jones, an officer may not disarm a driver without reasonable articulable suspicion, and 'mere possession' of a firearm does not equate to reasonable suspicion.

Caselaw on GeorgiaPacking.org, THE STATE v. JONES, 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008)

In short, most of the regulations you quoted from Texas and Louisiana are not included in the Georgia law. Thank God.


And once again, all those scenarios you rambled about are training issues, having absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. An officer staring at cleavage rather than the surroundings is a training issue, not a reason to deny rights to citizens. It sounds like somebody screwed up badly in the deposition story, but again, that has squat to do with you demanding I turn over my legal weapon during a routine traffic stop. Also, a domestic house call has absolutely no bearing on a traffic stop for speeding, etc.

I am not convinced, and I know you aren't. I'll leave it be now.
 
You've posted other anti-cop actions in the past on this forum. For one living in a nice suburb, I'm surprised you have so many issues with the police.

If I may...

cmort and I have disagreed on some things, and have agreed on others. I don't happen to think cmort has an anti-cop attitude. I think he has an anti-BAD-cop attitude. And I won't go into details about what I know of his personal background because it's not my place. What I know I know because he told me. If you want to know, ask him. BUT, he didn't always live in "a nice suburb", and his issues with bad cops are well founded. If you will notice, he always has his facts straight. And while we all may wish that officers such as Alvin Weems or Bobby Cutts Jr didn't exist, the fact is that they do. Don't blame cmort for reminding us of that fact.
 
Now I ask you, do you want to be alone, on the side of a roadway talking about possible traffic violations or worse when you do not know the person you are speaking with, do not know the history of that person or what they may have ingested but them be armed? I can deal with an old fashioned fist fight but I hate being shot. BTW: I got the worst whipping of my life by a lady that was maybe 5'5" and weighed about 140 pounds. She took me to the ground and beat the snot out of me before she got tired of whipping on me.

If I wanted to be a police officer then yes I would accept those terms and risks. Otherwise, I would be forced to cuff and frisk everyone I intended to write a ticket because there would be no other way to know that they didn't have a weapon.

I understand your position that the safety of the officer is paramount. I share that position when there is reasonable cause to be concerned for safety. I think this is why the law that you cited was written the way it was: "may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual." Otherwise, the law could have been streamlined to read "may disarm a license holder at any time".
 
We don't have a notification requirement in Wyoming though the fact that you have a permit will come up with the driver's license check. My experience here is that, even though he knows if you have a permit, most officers don't ask if you have a firearm on you (assuming you are behaving politely), and most citizens don't say. Seems to work just fine that way.
 
If I may...

cmort and I have disagreed on some things, and have agreed on others. I don't happen to think cmort has an anti-cop attitude. I think he has an anti-BAD-cop attitude. And I won't go into details about what I know of his personal background because it's not my place. What I know I know because he told me. If you want to know, ask him. BUT, he didn't always live in "a nice suburb", and his issues with bad cops are well founded. If you will notice, he always has his facts straight. And while we all may wish that officers such as Alvin Weems or Bobby Cutts Jr didn't exist, the fact is that they do. Don't blame cmort for reminding us of that fact.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the reaction by LEOs that I've seen so far. I'm told that there were some cheerleaders on officer.com, but there always are, just as there always are in ANY incident of police committing criminal acts, just as there are cheerleaders of people who murder cops.

What I think bothers the hardcore cheerleaders the most is DOCUMENTATION. If you just say ALL cops are "pigs" or "killers" or whatever, they can just laugh that off. When you cite SPECIFICS, and worse, specific remedies, that makes them MAD because that CAN'T be laughed off.

There's another forum that shall go nameless where one of the moderators is a Cincinnati area cop. He is actively censoring this topic there to leave little more than support for the two cops and attacks on the victim. His contribution was an attack on Ohioans for Concealed Carry. Of course this same moderator once openly posted a virtual ENDORSEMENT of unlawful racial profiling, couched in terms that could have come straight from the Stormfront website. Strangely, that post (and criticisms that quoted it) was scrubbed from the website... but not from people's hard drives. It's nice that we don't see that kind of thing here.
 
Wow!!

Not in Georgia, thank God!

I have always heard that government in Louisiana was dysfunctional at all levels. Now I think I understand. Whether you mean it that way or not, your attitude comes across as "citizens just can't be trusted." I don't believe that is any more true than the blanket attitude that "police officers just can't be trusted."

Once again, I'm glad to live in a relatively free state where a driver doesn't shed his 4th and 5th amendment rights if he/she is doing 45 in a 35mph zone.

In GA the Weapons License is not referenced to the tag number or DL, there is no duty to inform, and, as per State v Jones, an officer may not disarm a driver without reasonable articulable suspicion, and 'mere possession' of a firearm does not equate to reasonable suspicion.

Caselaw on GeorgiaPacking.org, THE STATE v. JONES, 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008)

In short, most of the regulations you quoted from Texas and Louisiana are not included in the Georgia law. Thank God.


And once again, all those scenarios you rambled about are training issues, having absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. An officer staring at cleavage rather than the surroundings is a training issue, not a reason to deny rights to citizens. It sounds like somebody screwed up badly in the deposition story, but again, that has squat to do with you demanding I turn over my legal weapon during a routine traffic stop. Also, a domestic house call has absolutely no bearing on a traffic stop for speeding, etc.

I am not convinced, and I know you aren't. I'll leave it be now.

Long version:

First it must be understood that a GA permitee is under the law of what other state he/she may be in. Most states require notification and allow temporary disarming. So what is good for GA is only good in that state.

Next, a domestic call is no different from a traffic stop. There is no way of knowing what is on a person's mind at any time. The traffic stop could be the best citizen there is that just happened to have lost their job, family or whatever and anything might set them off. It has happened and will happen again. Many times officers have been shot by someone without a record or a mark on their background. People have bad days and some feel it is the end of their life anyway. The traffic ticket may be what pushes them over the edge. Being momentarily disarmed is better than mentally losing it and causing a lifetime of regret.

Then ask yourself what harm comes from being safe on either side.

As to staring at cleavage, the woman that is failed to be disarmed may be the one person that kills you.
 
Mike, is there a source for that information other than looking it up individually.

I looked up LA, TX and GA.

I did a search last week that provided a hard link, but just did it again and all I found was a couple forums where the number 10 was mentioned.
Even dopey NY does not require notification so I'm guessing the majority of states also do not.
 
I did a search last week that provided a hard link, but just did it again and all I found was a couple forums where the number 10 was mentioned.
Even dopey NY does not require notification so I'm guessing the majority of states also do not.
Removing the notification requirement is a hot topic on Ohioans for Concealed Carry. I may have seen it mentioned there.
 
I did a search last week that provided a hard link, but just did it again and all I found was a couple forums where the number 10 was mentioned.
Even dopey NY does not require notification so I'm guessing the majority of states also do not.

I just found that OK requires notification and allows disarming. Out of the four states I have read the law on, three of them require notification and allow disarming.

Now add AK to the list allowing.

Now add CO to the list.
 
Last edited:
I just found that OK requires notification and allows disarming. Out of the four states I have read the law on, three of them require notification and allow disarming.

No official link to this.. but here is the list of 10 states that I see on different sites. AR, AK,LA,MI,NE,NC,OH,OK,SC,TX

Have you found one that isn't on this list?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top