3.6 million. I don't know what to say... So he spent a few minutes in the back of a police car because he refused to identify himself. Given the circumstances I'd say it's his own fault.
Think I'll move to where he lives, I'd love to earn that much in 10 minutes.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
.(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
.(2) The person witnessed any of the following:
..(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
..(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;
..(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;
..(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
So like I said, he was not required to identify himself. There is no reasonable suspicion that he was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime by merely wearing a firearm.
Last edited by Porcell; 2013-05-16 at 05:50 PM.
Depends. The Ohio law requires the officer to "reasonably suspect" the guy is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, or is witness to a crime.
Edit: And Porcell beat me to it.
Or you could be a civil decent human and just say, 'this is who I am' have a little chat and chill out. Your examples are not what happened here are they. I used to get stop searched a ton (young man walking through bad area, wearing a hoody). No problem officers, this is who I am, this is what I'm doing and this is where I'm going. They are just trying to be proactive and help they aren't out to get you.
I'd call being in a convenience store at 4:30 AM with a gun reasonably suspect. How many more red flags need to be present before it becomes reasonable to suspect a possible robbery?(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:
.(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.
lol "emotional trauma" biggest load of crap i heard all day
Greedy fucks all of em
PROUD TRUMP SUPPORTER, #2024Trump #MAGA
PROUD TRUMP CAMPAIGN SUPPORTER #SaveEuropeWithTrump
PROUD SUPPORTER OF THE WALL
BLUE LIVES MATTER
NO TO ALL GUNCONTROL OR BACKGROUND CHECKS IN EUROPE
/s
The police are not your friends. I know they are just doing their job, but I wish to move about the world unhindered. Would you prefer that you not stopped? Because by submitting to them, you are just authorizing them to keep doing the same thing. Citizens should resist unlawful requests.
Except to someone else it appeared suspicious. The police have an obligation to respond. He, had a legal obligation to identify himself to the officers.
It's not like the cops saw him just walking around and decided to get on his ass...
What's the other alternative? The 911 operator or the local dispatcher telling whoever reported the guy to "fuck off, this is 'Murrica." Cops are always going to go in expecting the worst case scenario. It should be obvious why.
From the article
I'd rather they ask him there so he can proof he's not planning to do any harm than that the same person would rob the place because they may not act.“Given the time of the day, the location, and the fact that convenience store/gas stations are typical targets for robberies in the middle of the night,” Reiss said. “It would seem reasonable in the eyes of a police officer to ask someone who was carrying a gun if it was legally permissible for them to do so.”
Someone else made a call, that's their skewed perception but whatever. Yes the police had an obligation to respond. NO, the "suspect" did NOT have a legal obligation to identify himself to the officer. Why don't you understand that?
And I would hope the police officer would respond to the caller and let them know that carrying a firearm is legal. That never happens though.