Excessive or Justified?

[Tradewind]

You find carrying a gun suspicious?

Not in itself not really. I would however find it suspicious in the situation the article describes. Late evening/early morning, in a store prone to robberies and a bad neighborhood.

[rhandric]

Man with gun refuses to identify self.

Yeah, I can't see that going wrong at all.

I don't get why people have to get so uppity with cops when they ask simple questions. "Taking your word for it" is nice in a happy world of rainbows and gumdrops where bad things never happen....BUT THAT'S NOT REAL LIFE!

They asked for identification. WTF is so horrid about showing them your ID? They just do a quick run, make sure you really are who you say you are, and then they let you go on your merry way. The cops aren't there to assume the best, they're there to be prepared for the worst.

Sure, identifying himself would have been the fastest and easiest way out of the situation, if he knew the police would violate the law. But without reasonable suspicion, he was within his rights to refuse, and he did so. Not saying he made the best decision, but he made a legal decision.

[Orange Joe]

Did they observe him and decide that, or merely approach based on a phone call? And what was their reasonable suspicion?

We don't know. They might or might not have observed him. We do know they asked for information which he refused to give.

[Tradewind]

Sure, identifying himself would have been the fastest and easiest way out of the situation, if he knew the police would violate the law. But without reasonable suspicion, he was within his rights to refuse, and he did so. Not saying he made the best decision, but he made a legal decision.

Well this is going in circles so I'm going to end this with I believe you are incorrect in your defense of this dude and your interpretation of the stop and ID law.

[rhandric]

Not in itself not really. I would however find it suspicious in the situation the article describes. Late evening/early morning, in a store prone to robberies and a bad neighborhood.

Sure, I'd see that as suspicious, to the owner. Which is fine, and I don't blame him (or whoever it was) for calling the police. But is circumstantial "evidence" reasonable suspicion wrt stop and identify? I don't think so.

[Orange Joe]

How many other people have had legal firearms and committed a crime with them? Again the police are responding to a report of a man walking around at 4 in the morning with a gun. They have a duty to respond and they are trained for the worst case scenario.

That kind of a stupid argument. How many millions legally own guns that DON'T commit crimes with them?

[DEATHETERNAL]

Excessive and needless. Not only did they not beat him and break his fingers or something that might actually cause damage reasonably requiring compensation, I think what they did is legal in Ohio as reasonable suspicion was present.

On the subject of damages, emotional trauma is not quantifiable and therefore should never be a reason to award damages anyway.

Also, 95% of the police problems people make threads about here (including this one) can be solved by following one simple rule. Don't act obnoxious, obstinate, and/or pointlessly confrontational with cops (DUH).

[rhandric]

Well this is going in circles so I'm going to end this with I believe you are incorrect in your defense of this dude and your interpretation of the stop and ID law.

I know, you think authority figures are always in the right

[Tradewind]

I know, you think authority figures are always in the right

Fuck sake man. Trying to just agree to disagree because this bullshit is going nowhere. Up to a judge anyway.

I'm curious what the end result will be.

[Sunseeker]

Sure, identifying himself would have been the fastest and easiest way out of the situation, if he knew the police would violate the law. But without reasonable suspicion, he was within his rights to refuse, and he did so. Not saying he made the best decision, but he made a legal decision.

I'm not arguing that his decision was illegal. But on that note, neither were the actions of the police. No crimes were committed on either side. Saying "no I refuse to identify myself" doesn't mean the cops are just going to be shrug and walk away. It means they're now suspicious and they're going to do what they can on their end to identify this guy. Unless the cop who shows up is your best buddy, the cops DONT KNOW YOU, they don't know where you live, that you're a great guy, or that you're a legal gun owner.

He refused to ID himself, so the cops had to do that work themselves, which is annoying, wastes time and serves no purpose other than for some idiot to scream "DUR GUBBERMENT IS TAKIN MY RITES!"

[Tinykong]

That kind of a stupid argument. How many millions legally own guns that DON'T commit crimes with them?

Arm chair spectating.

If some guy walked into your store at 4am with a gun on his hip, are you just going to go back to reading the news paper? I would be watching him pretty farking closely. Why? Because the situation can go from zero to "I'm a dead cashier" in seconds. I'd rather be called a nervous nelly than be dead. That's just me.

[rhandric]

Arm chair spectating.

If some guy walked into your store at 4am with a gun on his hip, are you just going to go back to reading the news paper? I would be watching him pretty farking closely. Why? Because the situation can go from zero to "I'm a dead cashier" in seconds. I'd rather be called a nervous nelly than be dead. That's just me.

Right, and I'm fine with the police being called. But the police need reasonable suspicion (and neither someone carrying a gun, nor someone calling because someone is carrying a gun, is reasonable suspicion) for someone to be legally required to answer their questions in a stop and identify. By all means, call the police, let them watch the situation.

[Tinykong]

Right, and I'm fine with the police being called. But the police need reasonable suspicion (and neither someone carrying a gun, nor someone calling because someone is carrying a gun, is reasonable suspicion) for someone to be legally required to answer their questions in a stop and identify. By all means, call the police, let them watch the situation.

Call me an extremist, but, I have no problem with the police stopping and asking someone to identify themselves given the circumstances in this situation. The whole thing could have been resolved in a minute or two with some civil conversation between the police and the guy.

While I wasn't there, I would not be surprised if the cops calmly asked him for some ID, and he got confrontational and irritated and started getting assertive. At that point, I have no problem detaining him and questioning him. Reasonable people don't get belligerent with the police.

Maybe that's not how it went down, but, I won't be surprised.

[rhandric]

Call me an extremist, but, I have no problem with the police stopping and asking someone to identify themselves given the circumstances in this situation. The whole thing could have been resolved in a minute or two with some civil conversation between the police and the guy.

While I wasn't there, I would not be surprised if the cops calmly asked him for some ID, and he got confrontational and irritated and started getting assertive. At that point, I have no problem detaining him and questioning him. Reasonable people don't get belligerent with the police.

Maybe that's not how it went down, but, I won't be surprised.

Sure, it would have gone smoother (and thus, likely not made the news...) if he had, in fact, cooperated with police. But he was within his rights not to, as it was a consensual encounter.

[Deleted]

Read poll question (amount suing for)

Don't they always aim ridiculously high? It's not like they ever get those sums.

[rhandric]

Don't they always aim ridiculously high? It's not like they ever get those sums.

Shoot high, get a more reasonable amount, that's how it goes.

[marthsk]

I have to admit that this has been a well-played scheme. Don't cause ruckus when the cops investigate you, make sure all your papers are legit, pre-emptively ask if you're free to go to have a law enforcing agent compromise himself in saying no, effectively making this illegal detention, and once the "incident" concludes without an issue, sue them to hell.

This man is a genius. Sure, that would be considered wrong on may people's moral compass, but if the guy wanted to get rich (or worst-case scenario, a substantial stash of money), he did it perfectly right.

[Asmekiel]

Shoot high, get a more reasonable amount, that's how it goes.

What would you consider a reasonable amount.
A bouquet with a sorry card attached seems reasonable if he wins. He only had to sit in a policecar while they were trying to figure out who he is.

[Deleted]

3.6 million for being detained for a few minutes. Is this a joke? Americans justice is downright idiotic at times.

If the law dictates that he was unlawfully detained then sure he should maybe get a ssettlement, but millions of dollars for being detained for a few minutes, i mean come on eh? I would argue that the lack openly carried gun preventive laws is dumb, but with the whole american "guns = toys" mentality i'm not really gonna bother.

[Deleted]

How in the absolute fuck is 3,6 million justified? You can not justify such an amount on so relatively trivial matter, not by any means.