Excessive or Justified?

[Deleted]

would you suspect someone wearing running shoes of being a thief who's going to steal your shit and run off?

What a stupid thing to say.

So if this guy had turned out to be wanted and thats why he wasn't telling them his I.D and they let him on his way then he went on to fuck some shit up with his gun they wouldn't be to blame right?

They were fine in what they did.

[Clevername]

Except the latter would not constitute "reasonable suspicion" in my mind. Because the officer would have made the first observation, not the caller and recognized that Ohio allows him to carry a weapon.

The distinction is really that someone called the police. That constitutes reasonable suspicion and they were obliged to respond in the manner in which they did. The carrier was obligated to show ID also per Ohio law.

So if I see a strange man walking around in my neighborhood and I call 911, they respond, they should be allowed to question and detain him based on my assessment?

[rhandric]

3.6 million dollars? For being detained when you were not cooperating with police and claim you didn't have your ID? What in the actual fuck?

Seriously, police have every right to ask for your ID if there is reason. Carrying a gun is reason, just as if you're driving they can pull you over if they suspect you're not even wearing your seatbelt.

The guy is a complete idiot. And anyone who spouts off about the second amendment for carrying a gun, when you don't even have your permit on hand, needs to have their head examined.

Christ, the sad thing about this is that I could see the guy actually getting his money. The legal system when it comes to lawsuits is horrendously bullshit. I could stub my toe while walking into a building and get hundreds of thousands of dollars for "medical" and "emotional" damages. Hopefully this guy is just made a laughingstock and it's dropped.

Well. Police can ask you anything they want, any time they want. They can only charge you with a violation of the stop and identify law if they have reasonable suspicion that you have, are, or are about to commit a crime, or have witnessed a crime. Carrying a gun is not reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, particularly in Ohio where you don't need a CCW permit.

[Asmekiel]

Again, carrying a gun is not suspicious, regardless of what your average citizen thinks. It's the responding officer's responsibility to watch him, and decide if there is sufficient suspicion that he is, has, or is about to commit a crime.

Lets drop the whole gun thing. A person enters a store, apparently in a not so normal way. Someone reports that person for suspicious behavior. Cops check it out and find a person that matches the description. They have no clue what happened in between the moment they got the call and the moment they arrived, he could've done anything. If you then refuse to cooperate to resolve the situation, suspicion grows, even more so given the circumstances (middle of the night at a place where robberies are fairly common, while behaving suspicious). Of course the cops will then detain you until they find out who you are.
If he had just shown his ID and told the cops he was getting some milk, he would've been off within the minute with a "goodbye" and "be safe".

[Clevername]

What a stupid thing to say.

actually it's perfectly legitimate being as he was completely within the state's laws.

[Tradewind]

So if I see a strange man walking around in my neighborhood and I call 911, they respond, they should be allowed to question and detain him based on my assessment?

Why is that unreasonable? Back in March I saw a dude walking around my neighborhood at about 2am, looked suspicious and was pulling on car door handles. I phoned the police. They arrived on my block, he apparently ran from them and was picked up. I later had to give a statement as he had been charged with theft. Dude was stealing from unlocked vehicles.

Had they ignored my call and not stopped him. Could have got away with it. This guy didn't even have a weapon on him.

[rhandric]

To be fair. They tried that and he refused.

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

Why? Should they wait until he levels the gun the cashier? How many other signs of potential robbery are there?

So carrying a gun into a store automatically means you're a potential robber? Thanks for the heads up.

Except the latter would not constitute "reasonable suspicion" in my mind. Because the officer would have made the first observation, not the caller and recognized that Ohio allows him to carry a weapon.

The distinction is really that someone called the police. That constitutes reasonable suspicion and they were obligated to respond in the manner in which they did. The carrier was obligated to show ID also per Ohio law.

Sure, someone called the police. That doesn't provide reasonable suspicion in and of itself; they called because the person was armed, which is perfectly legal.

[Clevername]

Why is that unreasonable? Back in March I saw a dude walking around my neighborhood at about 2am, looked suspicious and was pulling on car door handles. I phoned the police. They arrived on my block, he apparently ran from them and was picked up. I later had to give a statement as he had been charged with theft. Dude was stealing from unlocked vehicles.

Because I, like many American's, don't like the idea of police being able to detain us for no good reason.

Pulling on door handles and buying a sport's drink aren't exactly equal are they?

[rhandric]

Lets drop the whole gun thing. A person enters a store, apparently in a not so normal way. Someone reports that person for suspicious behavior. Cops check it out and find a person that matches the description. They have no clue what happened in between the moment they got the call and the moment they arrived, he could've done anything. If you then refuse to cooperate to resolve the situation, suspicion grows, even more so given the circumstances (middle of the night at a place where robberies are fairly common, while behaving suspicious). Of course the cops will then detain you until they find out who you are.
If he had just shown his ID and told the cops he was getting some milk, he would've been off within the minute with a "goodbye" and "be safe".

The call was about a guy who was carrying a weapon. Not a guy acting suspicious, nothing else. Simply for carrying a weapon. That, in and of itself, is not reasonable suspicion of a crime having been, being, or about to be committed.

[Tradewind]

Sure, someone called the police. That doesn't provide reasonable suspicion in and of itself; they called because the person was armed, which is perfectly legal.

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.

[Tradewind]

Because I, like many American's, don't like the idea of police being able to detain us for no good reason.

Pulling on door handles and buying a sport's drink aren't exactly equal are they?

But they're only operating based on what I tell them. Also that's inaccurate because nobody's going to report him for buying a beverage. He was reported for having a weapon in plain view.

So what you should have said: "Pulling on door handles and having a weapon at 4am in a convenience store with a history of robberies aren't exactly equal are they?" In which case, you're right. The latter is far more suspicious.

[rhandric]

But they're only operating based on what I tell them. Also that's inaccurate because nobody's going to report him for buying a beverage. He was reported for having a weapon in plain view.

So what you should have said: "Pulling on door handles and having a weapon at 4am in a convenience store with a history of robberies aren't exactly equal are they?" In which case, you're right. The latter is far more suspicious.

I'd argue pulling on random car door handles (or every car door on the street) is much more suspicious. Chances are much higher that if you're going to rob a store, you'd be acting far more suspicious than simply carrying a gun (looking over your shoulder...or, I dunno, being masked?)

[Shockzilla]

Except the latter would not constitute "reasonable suspicion" in my mind. Because the officer would have made the first observation, not the caller and recognized that Ohio allows him to carry a weapon.

Police officers are trained about the law, it's not guess work for them. They broke the law.

The distinction is really that someone called the police. That constitutes reasonable suspicion and they were obligated to respond in the manner in which they did. The carrier was obligated to show ID also per Ohio law.

I disagree just because someone that does not know the law and calls the cops and makes a complaint does not meet reasonable suspicion. Also could you share a link where it is required to have, carry, show ID in Ohio please.

If the cops stop the man for a valid reason and Ohio law says that it is leagel to carry openly, what right do they have to search his person or vehical?

I didnt vote because I' not sure what you are asking about.

[skitzin]

Well if someone walks into my shop with gun out I will call the cops. Given the situation you have every reason to expect the worse when someone walks into a shop at 4:30 am with a gun visible.

And if I got shot because of being all PC about it, then it would be me suing the police for failure to respond to my call. People are very quick to condemn police with their powers of hindsight yet those same people will condemn them if something does happen.

[Tradewind]

I disagree just because someone that does not know the law and calls the cops and makes a complaint does not meet reasonable suspicion. Also could you share a link where it is required to have, carry, show ID in Ohio please.

If the cops stop the man for a valid reason and Ohio law says that it is leagel to carry openly, what right do they have to search his person or vehical?

It's on like the first second and third page.

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 12:40 PM ----------

I'd argue pulling on random car door handles (or every car door on the street) is much more suspicious. Chances are much higher that if you're going to rob a store, you'd be acting far more suspicious than simply carrying a gun (looking over your shoulder...or, I dunno, being masked?)

I guess that's the real argument here then...what you don't find suspicious I find it to be incredibly suspicious. Apparently so did the caller and the officers.

[rhandric]

Well if someone walks into my shop with gun out I will call the cops. Given the situation you have every reason to expect the worse when someone walks into a shop at 4:30 am with a gun visible.

And if I got shot because of being all PC about it, then it would be me suing the police for failure to respond to my call. People are very quick to condemn police with their powers of hindsight yet those same people will condemn them if something does happen.

Hey, I'd fully expect the police to show up and observe the situation. Hell, I would expect them to talk to the guy, too...but they'd better know full well that he's legally not required to answer anything they ask.

[skitzin]

I'd argue pulling on random car door handles (or every car door on the street) is much more suspicious. Chances are much higher that if you're going to rob a store, you'd be acting far more suspicious than simply carrying a gun (looking over your shoulder...or, I dunno, being masked?)

Now you're assuming that their is a set behaviour for their actions. After all what does acting suspicious with a gun in a shop at 4:30am look like? How does it differ from not acting suspicious with a gun at 4:30 am in a shop?

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 02:43 AM ----------

Hey, I'd fully expect the police to show up and observe the situation. Hell, I would expect them to talk to the guy, too...but they'd better know full well that he's legally not required to answer anything they ask.

Right but they could watch him only to have him still shot me, rob the joint and bolt. Sure they'd likely catch him but I'd still be shot.

[rhandric]

It's on like the first second and third page.

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 12:40 PM ----------



I guess that's the real argument here then...what you don't find suspicious I find it to be incredibly suspicious.

You find carrying a gun suspicious?

[Sunseeker]

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.

[rhandric]

Now you're assuming that their is a set behaviour for their actions. After all what does acting suspicious with a gun in a shop at 4:30am look like? How does it differ from not acting suspicious with a gun at 4:30 am in a shop?

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 02:43 AM ----------



Right but they could watch him only to have him still shot me, rob the joint and bolt. Sure they'd likely catch him but I'd still be shot.

No, I'm saying that simply carrying a gun, regardless of the time of day, is not suspicious, in and of itself. Which gives the police no expectation of being answered in a stop and identify situation.