Excessive or Justified?

[Clevername]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/breaki...-and-charged/#

Man sues local cops after being detained. Read the article further (it's short) and toss in your 2 cents.

Here is a more detailed write up for those interested.
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/new...un-case/nXmjL/

[Deathpath]

I would say 600,000 is a little over excessive.

[Adam Jensen]

Is what excessive? The cops' arrest or the amount the man is suing for?

The cops were in the wrong, the man did nothing illegal and there was no need to detain the man. But on the other hand "emotional trauma" is so often bullshit.

[Clevername]

Is what excessive? The cops' arrest or the amount the man is suing for?

The cops were in the wrong, the man did nothing illegal and there was no need to detain the man. But on the other hand "emotional trauma" is so often bullshit.

Read poll question (amount suing for)

[Adam Jensen]

Read poll question (amount suing for)

Got it, didn't see that.

[Deleted]

Excessive, the guys clearly an top grade dickbag. Just say 'Hi Mister cop, this is who I am and I am allowed to carry this gun. Thanks, bye'. All this bullshit like 'I don't have to identify myself. Why be a dick? If you reply 'FREEEDOOOOM', you are also a gomp. Peace.

[Gemini Sunrise]

I'd say it's excessive.

They realized their mistake, and he got off without spending jail time.

[vrsick]

lol, guns save lives blog. The guy sounds like an idiot gun nut trying to make a point. Doesn't identify himself why? Because he can? Well that is a stupid reason to do anything. The article you linked doesn't provide facts, the author gives his opinion on the search of the truck. Why is he implying his truck was searched illegally? If the guy didn't act like a pretentious a-hole about it and understood that some people get alarmed when they see people open carrying, he would have been on his way.

[Clevername]

Excessive, the guys clearly an top grade dickbag. Just say 'Hi Mister cop, this is who I am and I am allowed to carry this gun. Thanks, bye'. All this bullshit like 'I don't have to identify myself. Why be a dick? If you reply 'FREEEDOOOOM', you are also a gomp. Peace.

You realize that's an open carry state, that he is not required to have a CCP right?

[Tore]

Excessive.

Carrying a visible gun into a convenience store at 4:30 AM, while legal in his state, isn't smart. The context of the situation matters in determining a course of action, and the context of this situation reeked of a robbery. He was detained for a short time while the police made sure he wasn't doing anything shady. That's what the police are supposed to do. And then he went on his merry way before the cops slapped him on the wrist for fighting them.

The law suit is just typical American over-litigation. He sniffed an opportunity to make money and clog the courts with another useless law suit.

[Clevername]

Excessive.

Carrying a visible gun into a convenience store at 4:30 AM, while legal in his state, isn't smart. The context of the situation matters in determining a course of action, and the context of this situation reeked of a robbery. He was detained for a short time while the police made sure he wasn't doing anything shady. That's what the police are supposed to do. And then he went on his merry way before the cops slapped him on the wrist for fighting them.

So by that rationale doing anything out of the ordinary is grounds for cops stopping and detaining someone right? Black / Hispanic male in an affluent neighborhood after dark... stop, detain and question him?

[Tradewind]

I chose "Excessive" because there was an absence of "Stupid" for a choice. Article needs less bias, Ohio has stop and identify laws under probable cause. If someone reported a man walking around with a gun and called the police, would constitute reason enough to at least ask the guy for his ID. He doesn't need to provide anything more to them. But failure to is against Ohio code.

[Gemini Sunrise]

I chose "Excessive" because there was an absence of "Stupid" for a choice. Article needs less bias, Ohio has stop and identify laws under probable cause. If someone reported a man walking around with a gun and called the police, would constitute reason enough to at least ask the guy for his ID. He doesn't need to provide anything more to them. But failure to is against Ohio code.

Well, there is that, but even ignoring it, this guy got it pretty light as to what could have happened.

Just put it behind you and learn from it, you know?

[Porcell]

He can sue for whatever amount he wants. It comes down to the judge to how much (if anything) he'll be awarded.

I'll put it this way. If he DID get $3.6 Million, you better believe that the police might stop illegal detainment.

But I doubt he'll get anywhere near that amount. In my city there was an open carry incident where a man was taken to the ground with guns drawn on him just because he was walking down the street open carrying.

http://www.dailytribune.com/article/...warren-settled

"Haman, 54, sued Warren last year in U.S. District Court and initially sought a $100,000 judgment and $500,000 in punitive or exemplary damages. He recently agreed to accept $5,000. More importantly, he said, the city’s police officers will undergo training about “open carry” practices."

Too many officers don't actually care what the law says. Police can go ahead and respond to a call, but when they get there and see a man acting lawfully, the police need to go away. When they ask for ID and the man saying "I'm doing nothing wrong, I don't have to identify myself, and I wish to be free and on my way." then the police need to back down and let him go. The presence of a gun alone is NOT probable cause or RAS of a crime.

On the refusal to ID; don't give me "Why's he being a hardass" or "Why's he making it difficult" or "He should just tell them." No, how about the police accept the lawful answer of "Fuck off, I don't have to tell you who I am." Because -THAT- is the law. It's like if cops showed up at your house and said "Hey, let us in and look around" or stopped you on the street and said "Hey, let me look through your purse and tell me who you are." No, you don't have to submit to the police.

I just wish Police would not infringe on the rights of citizens, and I wish they would be punished when they do.

[Tore]

So by that rationale doing anything out of the ordinary is grounds for cops stopping and detaining someone right? Black / Hispanic male in an affluent neighborhood after dark... stop, detain and question him?

I'm saying this as a hispanic male.

Yes. Question him. There's nothing wrong with asking someone a damn question. It's when people start going "You can't do this to me, I know the law, I demand yadda yadda!!" that shit goes south.

Cops are there to do their job. The guy at the convenience store felt unsafe. Reasonably, I'd say. The cops wanted to ask questions. The guy didn't want to answer them. So he got hit with obstruction of justice. It's very straight forward.

[Tradewind]

Police can go ahead and respond to a call, but when they get there and see a man acting lawfully, the police need to go away. When they ask for ID and the man saying "I'm doing nothing wrong, I don't have to identify myself, and I wish to be free and on my way." then the police need to back down and let him go.

Except you know, when there are laws that make public identification to an officer mandatory.

[rhandric]

I'm saying this as a hispanic male.

Yes. Question him. There's nothing wrong with asking someone a damn question. It's when people start going "You can't do this to me, I know the law, I demand yadda yadda!!" that shit goes south.

So, profiling is okay?

[Porcell]

Except you know, when there are laws that make public identification to an officer mandatory.

Which there aren't in this case.

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 05:41 PM ----------

I'm saying this as a hispanic male.

Yes. Question him. There's nothing wrong with asking someone a damn question. It's when people start going "You can't do this to me, I know the law, I demand yadda yadda!!" that shit goes south.

The cop can question him. They did question him. The "suspect" legally said to fuck off. The "suspect" was not committing a crime and thus doesn't have to comply with the police trying to ID him.

Legally carrying a gun is no different than legally wearing a red shirt. If someone calls hysterically saying "A man just walked in my store wearing a red shirt" and you respond and see a guy buying a Red Bull wearing a red shirt, they can stop him and say "Hey, I see you are wearing a red shirt. What's your name? What are you doing?" And the red shirt guy can look at them funny and say "Um, why are you talking to me, I don't have anything to say to you and wish to be on my way."

WEARING A GUN IS LEGAL. IT IS NOT RAS OR PC THAT A CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED. THIS IS THE LAW. <---- That's the point.

[Tradewind]

So, profiling is okay?

It's not profiling when they receive a call from another citizen. Even if that citizen was misinformed that there are open carry laws. The police have an obligation to respond to a call about a man carrying a firearm.

What should have happened is the police shows up...asked for the dude's ID...he gives it to them...probably ask what he's up to...and they would have just left.

But I'm putting money on the fact the guy shit his pants and pulled out the "I know my rights!1!" bullshit.

Which there aren't in this case.

In Ohio, yes there is. Same goes for about 15 other states.

[Deleted]

Ahhh Lawsuit culture, how ridiculous it is.

Inflicted by a minor inconvenience? Not in the wrong? SUE EM FOR AN UNJUSTIFIED QUANTITY OF MONEY!