Excessive or Justified?

[darkwarrior42]

The police were in the wrong, but the amount is still excessive.

The guy is an arrogant jerk, but he didn't do anything illegal.

[Brodeo]

Its also pretty sickening that officers that were clearly not trying to abuse their authority or harass anyone are being tossed in the same boat as those who do. Lawful or not, these officers were clearly not trying to hurt anyone and situations like this really make it difficult for officers who actually mean well.

[Mormolyce]

The police were in the wrong,

Doing what? They asked him who he was. Police have a right to question people. Particularly if they are acting suspicious, for example walking around with a gun and refusing to identify themselves when asked.

Would you like to live in a community where the police don't respond to citizens alerting them to people walking around with guns? At least to ask them who they are and what they're doing?

[lockedout]

I'd say it's excessive.

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

Just violated his rights.
What if they called him racist names?
Then there would be a problem right?
It's the same thing.

"Chief [of Police Mark] Reiss added: “With carrying a firearm openly, there also comes responsibility with that. People should realize that they may, given a certain set of circumstances, draw the attention of law enforcement. A responsible person would just identify themselves if there’s a brief check to be done and then they would be on their way.”

A responsible person would just indentify themselves since they are guilty until proven innocent I guess. Submit to a brief but illegal check and be on their way. Maybe in north korea not america.

[Kulanae]

Techinically they were correct in their detention on the grounds that he did not identify himself. Here is the OH law on supplying identification to the police:

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.




(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.

I think it could be argued that the police had reasonable suspicion that the man was about to commit a criminal offense considering he was openly displaying a firearm at 4:30am in a convienence store after receiving a citizen complaint. Therefore when he refused to identify himself he was guilty of obstruction.

[Echelonl]

Doing what? They asked him who he was. Police have a right to question people. Particularly if they are acting suspicious, for example walking around with a gun and refusing to identify themselves when asked.

Would you like to live in a community where the police don't respond to citizens alerting them to people walking around with guns? At least to ask them who they are and what they're doing?

But legally walking around with an open carry gun is not suspicious behavior at all where he lived, and neither is refusing to speak to an officer. Police don't have the right to press charges/arrest someone refusing to be questioned if they have done nothing wrong. Same goes for having an open carry gun. It would be like questioning someone because they are dressed in "thug-like" attire and thus may be about to commit a crime.

What has happened is people are ignorant of the law and thus call the police thinking that anyone with a gun on their hip is automatically going to go into a shooting frenzy.


Now I haven't read fully on this story, but if he was wielding his weapon, then that's completely different.

Techinically they were correct in their detention on the grounds that he did not identify himself. Here is the OH law on supplying identification to the police:

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.




(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.

I think it could be argued that the police had reasonable suspicion that the man was about to commit a criminal offense considering he was openly displaying a firearm at 4:30am in a convienence store after receiving a citizen complaint. Therefore when he refused to identify himself he was guilty of obstruction.

The issue with this would be that its perfectly legal for him to open carry at 4:30 am where he lived, so that cannot legally be deemed as suspicious behavior.

[Sand Person]

only 3.6? fuck that shit! i'd sue for more. teach those fuckers a lesson. pigs breaking the law like that.

[Deleted]

The fun is that this is excessive everywhere, except in America.. In Holland, they also have checks sometimes. They will just ask for your ID, they check it, that's it.. it takes 1 minute. Why make a huge deal about it? Why allways throw everything on "We have the freedom no to do it"? Why just don't be a dick, show your id for a second, and you're done. The officers are there to make sure the people can live safely. If they ask for your ID, they must have some reason for it. They won't ask it just all out of the blue. Even if you have the right to say "no", why would you?

Same bullshit everytime. I get the feeling that the word "freedom" in the USA means, that they can do whatever the f*ck they want. Except when it involves nudity, then everyone is a saint.

[Tackhisis]

He refused to prove that he had a licensed gun. The case should be dismissed as frivolous, and the plaintiff fined for obstruction.

[Nuvuk]

It is excessive. I dont like police but when you resist the police you incriminate yourself and it might not have lasted nearly as long as it did but at the same time I seriously doubt he lost 3.6 mil in time and problems during the whole ordeal. They asked for his ID and he said no, maybe they where playing antagonist to get him to do something stupid like police sometimes do but they didnt even arrest him and they dropped the charges about a month later. So he saw no consequence just an inconvenience that he created, now he wants 3.6 mil.

[Shockzilla]

Its also pretty sickening that officers that were clearly not trying to abuse their authority or harass anyone are being tossed in the same boat as those who do. Lawful or not, these officers were clearly not trying to hurt anyone and situations like this really make it difficult for officers who actually mean well.

The police officers asked questions of which the man had no reason to answer. Then the officers detained the man illegally, and searched his vehicle Illegally.

God don’t you people get it, the cops broke the law.

[Tackhisis]

The issue with this would be that its perfectly legal for him to open carry at 4:30 am where he lived, so that cannot legally be deemed as suspicious behavior.

He could as well be committing a crime of possessing an illegal weapon.

[ItachiZaku]

lol, guns save lives blog.

"How many people have you killed? 50? 100? how many have you saved." "Half a million, the population of Kings Landing." Oh...

Clearly excessive, but... welcome to 'Murica.

[Hyve]

Nothing wrong with the way the police were handling the situation. You've been told someone is flashing a fun in public, you find a man doing such a thing, who refuses to co-operate with any form of investigation.

I assure you, if this was the man in question, and the police didn't take this course of action, people would be furious at the police. You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't!

[Tinykong]

He could as well be committing a crime of possessing an illegal weapon.

This point is the problem I have with the logic behind the open carry law. It's essentially just a shield for criminals. Carrying a gun shouldn't be considered suspicious, but carrying a gun in an unusual location/time and refusing to identify yourself should be considered suspicious.

IMO, the law is too vague.

[Roxinius]

He could as well be committing a crime of possessing an illegal weapon.

too bad the law is that just having a gun and open carrying is not ground for probable cause the cops were wrong i hope this guy wins maybe then cops will learn the laws they are supposed to uphold

[StayTuned]

At least in Germany you are required to identify you when asked to do so by the police (read: always).

Now, this happened in Ohio. Laws are different. However, I don't see the big deal here, that warrants a multi million dollar case. I am especially not buying his emotional trauma bullshit. The officers used zero force according to OP and merely denied him walking away verbally.

He was in the right to complain, but this is just too much.

[Skippy88]

Excessive. Both sides did stupid things and are partially at fault. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

[Adam Jensen]

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.

Because he refused to cooperate though, he escalated the situation and therefore should be awarded jack and shit in his lawsuit.

The cops maybe had no cause to talk to him, but the man had no cause to freak out either.

[Moadar]

He is in the right. Gun never left its holster, he never did anything that looked like a robbery. The officer detained and disarmed him without cause.