Ohio Police Encounter - Notification

[walnutred]

Just like criminals do when they see a gun free zone sign. They should put cams on those signs so we can lol at all the criminals running away in fear after seeing the sign.

Criminals can be so confusing. It's almost like they do not want to live within the norms of conventional society. For a while the Criminal Protection Zone signs seemed an inside joke in Columbus. Whenever the morning news did a story on an armed robbery the camera man positioned the reporter so the No Guns sign was visible over the reporters shoulder.

 

[oldman45]

And you feel that if the LEO had asked for their firearms up front the shooter would have politely handed them over?

The criminals may not have but most law abiding citizens would. When a firearm is found suddenly, it gets immediate attention.

A long time acquaintance of mine, a lawyer, was recently shot to death in an unusual incident by a deputy sheriff. The lawyer was armed with two guns and the sheriff claims he pulled a gun on him so he was shot. The man was a law abiding supporter of the law. I do not see it happening as the deputy claims but I could see the lawyer getting crazy when asked for his guns and getting himself shot.

People let their tempers flare occasionally when dealing with LEO. These are not bad people but they do bad things in a moment of rage. Eliminate the weapon for a while and nobody gets hurt. If I will give up my weapon, then anyone else should. It does not mean the gun is gone forever.

 

[hatt]

The criminals may not have but most law abiding citizens would. When a firearm is found suddenly, it gets immediate attention.

A long time acquaintance of mine, a lawyer, was recently shot to death in an unusual incident by a deputy sheriff. The lawyer was armed with two guns and the sheriff claims he pulled a gun on him so he was shot. The man was a law abiding supporter of the law. I do not see it happening as the deputy claims but I could see the lawyer getting crazy when asked for his guns and getting himself shot.

People let their tempers flare occasionally when dealing with LEO. These are not bad people but they do bad things in a moment of rage. Eliminate the weapon for a while and nobody gets hurt. If I will give up my weapon, then anyone else should. It does not mean the gun is gone forever.

So you don't think your buddy pulled his gun, just got mad. I didn't know getting mad was a capital offense.

 

[kennyb]

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. Regarding this particular individual, unless you were there during the stop in question, how do you know the facts of the case? Do you believe everything written on the internet? Why get so upset. It was allegedly posted by the persons defense attorney. The attorney wasn't even there. He has to argue and justify the statements made by his paying client. Two sides to every story. Except if one has an anti-cop attitude I suppose.

james...even a mild search will illustrate that this guy has spent lots and lots of time with his anti-cop banter here on this forum...he has been called down,reined in and yet his seeting hatred continues...if you want to avoid him...simply go to an area of the forum where members are sending sympathy for an officer killed or injured in the line of duty...you can be very certain you will not find him there!

 

[oldman45]

So you don't think your buddy pulled his gun, just got mad. I didn't know getting mad was a capital offense.

It is when you pull a gun that is in an attempt to be taken away. There has been people get very mad when getting a ticket and attacks an officer.

I found it strange my friend was fatally shot by a rifle being used by a deputy wearing camo clothing just a few feet off the wooded proerty belonging to the friend. It is one of those situations where I was not there, did not talk with those that were but learned of the background of the shooting.

 

[oldman45]

BTW: I did some research and found the same two officers in Canton OH were also involved in another large court case about 8 yrs ago pertaining to their actions in a similar stop.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Forum Rules: (This includes video content)

1. We ask that you conduct yourselves as ladies and gentlemen. Civil Discourse and Courteous Behavior shall be the norm.
Do NOT post nudes here.
Do NOT post "girly" pics here or use them for avatars.
Obscene, vulgar, lewd, or 'just plain crude' language or images will not be tolerated. Images in the same vein or displaying such language will not be tolerated. If you cannot use it politely in mixed company or around YOUNGSTERS, please don't use it here.
"Cre@t!ve sp&!!ing" of the words which the filter traps is forbidden.
Homophobia and gratuitous sexual references will NOT be tolerated.

 

[redlevel]

People let their tempers flare occasionally when dealing with LEO. These are not bad people but they do bad things in a moment of rage. Eliminate the weapon for a while and nobody gets hurt. If I will give up my weapon, then anyone else should. It does not mean the gun is gone forever.

You are basically saying that the average citizen just can't be trusted with a gun. Do you realize that many of the arguments you have used are stock-in-trade for the anti-gun crowd?

Just so you and others won't think I'm one of the anti-cop crowd, and that I have a completely closed mind about this, I remind you of this thread:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...ers-encounter-two-coastal-ga-le-agencies.html

I wonder why those officers felt perfectly at ease with my daughter sitting in the back of their patrol units with a handgun available to her?

 

[Springfeildkid585]

Simple question now. Why are some here unwilling to give up their gun for a few minutes when it is for their own safety? Are you so in fear for your life that you feel someone will come after you as the officer handles a routine stop? Are you afraid the officer will shoot you? If so, you are more apt to be shot when he sees you reach for a gun.

Maybe you think the officer is going to steal your gun?

Spend a few days in the shoes of an officer and see if you feel the same.

He is just as likely to shoot me as I am him:not much of a chance at all. My gun will remain in my holster unless I have reason to draw or he's handcuffing me. I plan on involveing myself in federal law enforcment, which will obviously start with local expiriance. I swear on my honor that I won't disaem anyone who hasn't given me probable cause to beleive he's going to hurt me or someone else.(Being armed is not probable cause)

 

[oldman45]

You are basically saying that the average citizen just can't be trusted with a gun. Do you realize that many of the arguments you have used are stock-in-trade for the anti-gun crowd?

Just so you and others won't think I'm one of the anti-cop crowd, and that I have a completely closed mind about this, I remind you of this thread:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...ers-encounter-two-coastal-ga-le-agencies.html

I wonder why those officers felt perfectly at ease with my daughter sitting in the back of their patrol units with a handgun available to her?

Many officers trust a lady with a gun moreseo than men. I cannot second guess why anyone does anything.

As to gun recovery, I am on the side of the law and safety for all. There is not an anti gun bone in my body. If the officer that stopped the man just before the man shot Congresslady Giffords had asked about a gun, the shooting may not have taken place. One officer shooting I knew personally took place after the officer allowed the traffic offender to keep possession of his gun.

If letting a person keep his firearm during processing was safe, then why are pro gun states either allowing or requiring officers to take possession of the gun? Why does any state require notification? Simply put, it is potentially a dangerous situation to either public or officer safety.

 

[27145]

He is just as likely to shoot me as I am him:not much of a chance at all. My gun will remain in my holster unless I have reason to draw or he's handcuffing me. I plan on involveing myself in federal law enforcment, which will obviously start with local expiriance. I swear on my honor that I won't disaem anyone who hasn't given me probable cause to beleive he's going to hurt me or someone else.(Being armed is not probable cause)

Can you give us an example of when probable cause would kick in when someone is conceal carrying? While you are at it, can you explain probable cause? Thanks buddy.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

People let their tempers flare occasionally when dealing with LEO. These are not bad people but they do bad things in a moment of rage. Eliminate the weapon for a while and nobody gets hurt. If I will give up my weapon, then anyone else should. It does not mean the gun is gone forever.

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?

 

[27145]

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?

I think what oldman is trying to convey is that disarming someone is done on a case by case basis. In all cases the Cop can remove the gun for safety, but it is not always done.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I think what oldman is trying to convey is that disarming someone is done on a case by case basis. In all cases the Cop can remove the gun for safety, but it is not always done.

It is in the interest of the officer's safety if a gun is turned over voluntarily but not if it remains hidden?

Example: Guy is open carrying. Cop asks for the gun to be turned over. Why is the person not cuffed and frisked immediately? If the gun showing needs to be turned over, then why not any weapons that might not be showing?

 

[27145]

I was thinking of someone in an agitated state, like screaming at another motorist after an accident.

Generally as a PO I would not disarm a law abiding citizen, except under exigent circumstances.

 

[NKJ nut]

If all we are concerned about is officer safety then citizens shouldn't have guns at all.

Sorry, but the idea that a citizen with a carry permit has given up his rights just because he was speeding, or committed another minor offense; doesn't get much traction with me.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I was thinking of someone in an agitated state, like screaming at another motorist after an accident.

Generally as a PO I would not disarm a law abiding citizen, except under exigent circumstances.

I understand that. .

I didn't understand that OldMan45 was only talking about people who were already displaying berserk behavior should have any weapons taken away. Since he was talking about himself handing over a gun, I figured we were discussing people displaying no threatening behavior being asked to hand over their gun.

 

[blujax01]

I agree that if the citizen is acting in an obviously threatening manner, or has displayed behavior that a reasonable Officer may consider threatening, or drunk or some such then disarming is to be expected.
Oldman45, is it your contention that you would disarm citizens as a matter of course, even if no threatening behavior is displayed? Sorry Man, I generally support LEO's everywhere but that ain't right.

 

[27145]

No law abiding citizen should be disarmed as a matter of course.

 

[slumpy]

Just as I thought - unbalanced and unprofessional and soon to unemployed. The city's legal beagles well know the liability they now have because of these officers actions both criminally and civil. The Risk Management attorneys have to be bouncing off the walls. Time to batten down the hatches Canton Ohio.

Who wants to bet this gets national media coverage?

They wont be unemployed if they hire Casey Anthony's lawyer! They would receive medals.

 

[Springfeildkid585]

Can you give us an example of when probable cause would kick in when someone is conceal carrying? While you are at it, can you explain probable cause? Thanks buddy.

Brandishing the weapon, threatening, makeing sudden movements when aproached, or obviously after proforming an arrestable offense. Basicly disarmorment should only come if followed by being placed in cuffs or a body bag(Maybe during serving a warrant). My statment was more so to state that guns should not be turned over simply as a part of the stop, and unlike oldman45, I will never allow my fear of being on equal footing to infringe upon another man's rights.

 

[cmort666]

You've posted other anti-cop actions in the past on this forum.

The victim in this case was a citizen. That makes it an "anti-CITIZEN" action.
Clearly you haven't seen the video... or the statement by the Chief of police on the Canton PD Facebook page.

But there's always somebody eager to defend the indefensible. Heck, Joe McCarthy defended the SS murderers who committed the Malmedy massacre.

 

[CelticSire]

[link deleted]
Apparently he has been on admin leave since June, under an IA, and is now on sick leave.

And the Canton PD Facebook page has apparently been shut down.

 

[cmort666]

[link deleted]

Apparently he has been on admin leave since June, under an IA, and is now on sick leave.

And the Canton PD Facebook page has apparently been shut down.[/QUOTE]
I've seen speculation from other LEOs that he's angling to lessen the damage by claiming work related mental disability a la Mark Fuhrman.

 

[27145]

I've seen speculation from other LEOs that he's angling to lessen the damage by claiming work related mental disability a la Mark Fuhrman.

What disability has Mark Fuhrman ever requested?

 

[CelticSire]

Fuhrman applied for a stress-related disability retirement from LAP in 1981. It was denied.

 

[27145]

Never knew that, that was long before the OJ case.

 

[oldman45]

What about disarming someone during a stop because it is the LAW?

I have had cases where people went nuts after being pulled over. They started out nice and gentle but when they saw they were being ticketed, they lashed out with a vengence. This is especially correct when the permitee had a drink or two with dinner.

Here is Lousiana law on the subject and it either followed the wording of other states or other states followed it's wording.

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:

1.Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;

2.Submit to a pat down;

3.Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.

A permittee may not carry and conceal a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) as defined in R.S. 40:961 and 964. For purposes of the concealed handgun law, a permittee is considered under the influence of alcohol when a blood alcohol reading of .05% or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood is obtained, or a blood or urine test shows any confirmed presence of a CDS.

The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall be revoked by the deputy secretary when the permittee is carrying and concealing a handgun under any of the following circumstances:

1.The blood alcohol reading of the permittee is .05% or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood;

2.The permittee's blood test or urine test shows the confirmed presence of a CDS as defined in R.S. 40:961 and 964;

3.The permittee refuses to submit to a department certified chemical test when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer.

So keeping a weapon after a stop would be illegal. Do not get mad at me, get mad at the law.

Here is what Texas law says:

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A
peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official
duties 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. The peace officer shall return the
handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder
from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a
threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the
license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or
committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license
holder.

Now for AZ law

D. A law enforcement officer shall not confiscate or forfeit a weapon that is otherwise lawfully possessed by a permittee whose permit is suspended pursuant to subsection C of this section, except that a law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of a firearm during an investigatory stop of the permittee.

The list can go on through most every state. It is the law and failure to comply with the law results in fines and or suspension. The reason it it the law in most states is that there is a danger when LEO encounters armed individuals. Certainly not in every stop but things can go south faster and more often than one thinks.

 

[The Big D]

Very good info, oldman45.

With tongue in cheek, it appears there are some who believe an arrestee should be allowed to CCW/OC.

Be safe.

What about disarming someone during a stop because it is the LAW?

I have had cases where people went nuts after being pulled over. They started out nice and gentle but when they saw they were being ticketed, they lashed out with a vengence. This is especially correct when the permitee had a drink or two with dinner.

Here is Lousiana law on the subject and it either followed the wording of other states or other states followed it's wording.

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:

1.Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;

2.Submit to a pat down;

3.Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.

A permittee may not carry and conceal a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) as defined in R.S. 40:961 and 964. For purposes of the concealed handgun law, a permittee is considered under the influence of alcohol when a blood alcohol reading of .05% or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood is obtained, or a blood or urine test shows any confirmed presence of a CDS.

The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall be revoked by the deputy secretary when the permittee is carrying and concealing a handgun under any of the following circumstances:

1.The blood alcohol reading of the permittee is .05% or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood;

2.The permittee's blood test or urine test shows the confirmed presence of a CDS as defined in R.S. 40:961 and 964;

3.The permittee refuses to submit to a department certified chemical test when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer.

So keeping a weapon after a stop would be illegal. Do not get mad at me, get mad at the law.

Here is what Texas law says:

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A
peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official
duties 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. The peace officer shall return the
handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder
from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a
threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the
license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or
committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license
holder.

Now for AZ law

D. A law enforcement officer shall not confiscate or forfeit a weapon that is otherwise lawfully possessed by a permittee whose permit is suspended pursuant to subsection C of this section, except that a law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of a firearm during an investigatory stop of the permittee.

The list can go on through most every state. It is the law and failure to comply with the law results in fines and or suspension. The reason it it the law in most states is that there is a danger when LEO encounters armed individuals. Certainly not in every stop but things can go south faster and more often than one thinks.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

What about disarming someone during a stop because it is the LAW?


GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A
peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official
duties

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. The peace officer shall return the
handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder
from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a
threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual

and if the
license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or
committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license
holder.

The above is reasonable and I think fits what many here are saying.

I have have had cases where people went nuts after being pulled over. They started out nice and gentle but when they saw they were being ticketed, they lashed out with a vengence.

What I don't find reasonable is the above notion to proactively disarm someone who is not displaying threatening behavior ("nice and gentle") 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 in post# 102