Excessive or Justified?

[rhandric]

Is there a difference between "ignoring" a police request for ID by saying "I don't have to give you that" and lying to the police and saying "I don't have any ID" ?

That might be what this entire case comes down to.

Well, he didn't have his ID on him, it was in his car. So technically he didn't lie, though he might have misrepresented the truth.

[Tradewind]

was he breaking the law? i thought open carrying was legal there?

He broke the stop and identify law.

Read Porcell's above quote, pretty much negates what you said.

Oh yeah...totally...Except for the "Reasonable suspicion" part. So aside from being completely wrong, it's sort of right I guess. Or something?

[WeaponXAnimosity]

1. Guy openly displayed his gun as he entered the store.
2. He entered the store with a gun.

Don't care if it's legal or if he doesn't need a license, I'd be a bit concerned as well if someone walked into my store with a gun in plain sight. Although everyone is bashing on cops for doing the wrong thing nowadays, it's not their fault; it's the system. The system needs to be reformed so police officers are better equipped and knowledgeable about how to handle certain situations. And the lawsuit is just one dude tryna reward his own ego. A lot of times now, people who know the law just piss cops off because they know what is legal and although they may not be breaking the law, there is no justifiable reason to be taunting the cops in such a manner. They're there to protect you. Show some damn respect.

[rhandric]

Oh, right, my bad. Still doesn't justify him refusing to say who he is when he had been reported doing suspicious things.

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.

[Zonas]

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.

[Deleted]

The conduct of the officer is excessive, but the law suit is just way too much. $600,000 for emotional trauma? Another $3 million for punitive damages?
Once again someone tries to take advantage of a misfortune and cash-in.

[Tradewind]

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.

Watch him do what exactly? For how long? You're suggesting that police should not respond with haste to any person walking around with a firearm? Especially one that has been called in to 911/dispatch/whatever as being suspicious?

[Tinykong]

Well, he didn't have his ID on him, it was in his car. So technically he didn't lie, though he might have misrepresented the truth.

That's a very slight technical distinction. Probably why the dropped the charge, that and it's a waste of time. Guy is still a D.

[rhandric]

1. Guy openly displayed his gun as he entered the store.
2. He entered the store with a gun.

Don't care if it's legal or if he doesn't need a license, I'd be a bit concerned as well if someone walked into my store with a gun in plain sight. Although everyone is bashing on cops for doing the wrong thing nowadays, it's not their fault; it's the system. The system needs to be reformed so police officers are better equipped and knowledgeable about how to handle certain situations. And the lawsuit is just one dude tryna reward his own ego. A lot of times now, people who know the law just piss cops off because they know what is legal and although they may not be breaking the law, there is no justifiable reason to be taunting the cops in such a manner. They're there to protect you. Show some damn respect.

Sure, the owner/citizen who called the police, perfectly reasonable. But it's the responding officer's job to watch the situation and decide if there's sufficient cause to warrant detaining the man.

[Tore]

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.

Carrying a gun isn't suspicious, carrying a gun in a place and at an hour that is commonly the target of gun violence is suspicious.

[Tasttey]

I'm so sick of people trying to create a police state narrative. Cops deal with human scum on a daily basis, and they get killed often enough that they should be suspicious of confrontational people.

The worst thing is that when interactions like this go smoothly because the citizen is calm, polite and willing to work with law enforcement there is never a story about it. Youtube is filled with people who are pricks and think that if they just complain about their 2nd and 4th Amendment rights that the police are going to leave them alone, but there are very few videos of people working with the cops because it doesn't make for an interesting watch.

Also, he lied to police about not having identification. Right to be there or not, that's where the obstruction charged came from. They dropped it because the entire situation is a colossal waste of everyone's time.

Next time, don't be a pushy D.

Frankly I hope the judge just looks at him and tells him to quit being a douche about it all and dismisses the case. Honestly having the obstruction charges dropped should be "reparations" enough for him.

[Orange Joe]

He broke the stop and identify law.



Oh yeah...totally...Except for the "Reasonable suspicion" part. So aside from being completely wrong, it's sort of right I guess. Or something?

I have never heard of this "stop and identify" law. Got a link?

[rhandric]

Watch him do what exactly? For how long? You're suggesting that police should not respond with haste to any person walking around with a firearm? Especially one that has been called in to 911/dispatch/whatever as being suspicious?

For however long it takes to decide, oh, the person reporting it was just jittery because he has a gun, or, oh, there might be something going on, let's approach him and get more information. You know, make an informed decision, rather than basing it solely off a call. Your average citizen might just have a dislike of guns, so automatically suspects something, especially at 4:30 am at a convenience store. The police, however, have to have reasonable suspicion.

[Jtbrig7390]

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 right up for those interested.
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/new...un-case/nXmjL/

If the guy really did break the law "and he didn't" then he would have gotten jail time.

The cops did break the law therefor they should be punished and what punishment would they rather have time in jail or sued for whatever the guy asked.

the amount is a bit much and if I was the judge I would give him like 50k at most. "The money needed to buy something like a house or pay bills off" but not the full 3.6mil.

So yes it was justified but how much he is sueing for is a bit much.

[Clevername]

Watch him do what exactly? For how long? You're suggesting that police should not respond with haste to any person walking around with a firearm? Especially one that has been called in to 911/dispatch/whatever as being suspicious?

Wouldn't the outcome have been exactly the same if they had just observed him as opposed to harassing him?

[Garnier Fructis]

The real crime here is trying to milk this for $3 mil. A few thousand I could understand, maybe. He didn't even spend time in jail, and trying to get that much money for emotional distress may as well be theft of taxpayer money.

[rhandric]

Carrying a gun isn't suspicious, carrying a gun in a place and at an hour that is commonly the target of gun violence is suspicious.

To the owner, sure; to the police, that should not be sufficient.

[Orange Joe]

For however long it takes to decide, oh, the person reporting it was just jittery because he has a gun, or, oh, there might be something going on, let's approach him and get more information. You know, make an informed decision, rather than basing it solely off a call. Your average citizen might just have a dislike of guns, so automatically suspects something, especially at 4:30 am at a convenience store. The police, however, have to have reasonable suspicion.

To be fair. They tried that and he refused.

[Tradewind]

Wouldn't the outcome have been exactly the same if they had just observed him as opposed to harassing him?

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.

[Tore]

To the owner, sure; to the police, that should not be sufficient.

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