4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 DAYTON — While openly carrying his Springfield XDM .40-caliber handgun, Tipp City resident Roy Call walked into a Riverside Speedway store at 4:30 a.m. Aug. 12, 2012 to buy a sports drink. That’s when — as claimed in a lawsuit against the city of Riverside, its mayor and two police officers — Call said he was illegally detained and briefly had his gun confiscated. Call is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $3.6 million in a lawsuit field in the United States District Court/Southern District of Ohio in Dayton. But Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss said his officers acted correctly and all Call had to do was cooperate. “Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two,” Reiss said. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 And this is how and why more signs will go up that say no weapons allowed.Not cooperating makes the rest of us look bad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 No, this is how you get police to understand the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohdaho Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 Sounded like guy was being a dick. Why lie about anything? If a was working the convenience store at 0430 I would have reacted the same way and called the cops had I seen a gun. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 But you have to cooperate and you should consider the area your in. The police don't mess around in riverside or Dayton, high crime area and added risk to the job. Police (on duty) have to protect themselves and the public. I just do not mess with people that out gun me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 But he was within his rights and doing nothing illegal. Why should he have his right infringed on because he is in a bad neighborhood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 This is an instance where this guy goes out of his way to initiate interactions by law enforcement for the sake of filing lawsuits. I don't condone people who do this. He is using certain court rulings to initiate and file lawsuits. I'm definitely not a fan of having my firearm seized, if they wont allow me to take their gun, then they shouldn't have to take mine. Officer safety is far from a reason to seize a weapon on a stop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 Sounded like guy was being a dick. Why lie about anything? If a was working the convenience store at 0430 I would have reacted the same way and called the cops had I seen a gun.What did he lie about?But you have to cooperate and you should consider the area your in. The police don't mess around in riverside or Dayton, high crime area and added risk to the job. Police (on duty) have to protect themselves and the public. I just do not mess with people that out gun me.You do not have to cooperate with an unlawful order. You just answer why he should be carrying a firearm. See Warren v. district of columbia. Police have no duty to protect you. But he was within his rights and doing nothing illegal. Why should he have his right infringed on because he is in a bad neighborhood?This. With out RS or PC they have nothing to question or detain him on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedytriple Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 Another attention whore trying to start shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerpaw Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 But he was within his rights and doing nothing illegal. Why should he have his right infringed on because he is in a bad neighborhood?He was looking for a confrontation...and he found one. His rights were not infringed. If he would have cooperated, we would not have heard about this at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 (edited) This is an instance where this guy goes out of his way to initiate interactions by law enforcement for the sake of filing lawsuits. I don't condone people who do this. He is using certain court rulings to initiate and file lawsuits. I'm definitely not a fan of having my firearm seized, if they wont allow me to take their gun, then they shouldn't have to take mine. Officer safety is far from a reason to seize a weapon on a stopHe didn't initiate anything in this instance. Edited May 12, 2013 by 4DAIVI PAI2K5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 All he had to do was cooperate. Its the police job to investigate, make sure laws are followed and there is no danger to others. You need to consider "what if". They don't know his intension and they must assume the worst. This is only my opinion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 (edited) He was looking for a confrontation...and he found one. His rights were not infringed. If he would have cooperated, we would not have heard about this at all.Unreasonable seizure is not an infringement? Cooperate with what, he was doing nothing illegal. Edited May 12, 2013 by 4DAIVI PAI2K5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie.harris Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 i understand people like to make things easy, but legally the cop has no right to ask for ID if he has done nothing wrong. being a dick or not its still his right to legally refuse to identify himself. if the police violate the constitutional right then they deserved to be sued, then maybe they will understand that its not ok to violate peoples rights. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 He intentionally went out to get a rise out of the cops, he has a history of doing so so yes he did initiate it. Im not saying what he did is wrong but hes going about it the wrong way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerpaw Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 Unreasonable seizure is not an infringement? Cooperate with what he was doing nothing illegal.He lied about not having identification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 This thread, so far, makes me feel embarrassed to be an American who believes in the constitution. "just cooperate and it will be okay" is an awful mind set to be in.... Fuck having rights, just cooperate. Those of you so willing to give up your rights that our founding fathers and military all fought and still fight for, should be absolutely ashamed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidgetTodd Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 I firmly believe there is no reason to open carry, other than to gain attention or get a reaction. Did he do anything illegal, probably not. Stupid, yes. Further the anti-gun agenda, yes. Make us look bad in the news, yes. No reason for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 He lied about not having identificationThey probably asked him if he had ID on him, he most likely answer no because it wasnt on him, it was in his truck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 All he had to do was cooperate. Its the police job to investigate, make sure laws are followed and there is no danger to others. You need to consider "what if". They don't know his intension and they must assume the worst. This is only my opinion...there was no crime to investigate. No their job is to enforce the laws not to become the TV show "Person of Intrest" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 He lied about not having identificationNo his ID was in his truck. It was not needed anyway. He was not driving during the interaction nor does he need to have a CCW for OC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 This is going to come down to the legality of Terry Stops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 This is going to come down to the legality of Terry Stops.But they have no RS of crime in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerpaw Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 They probably asked him if he had ID on him, he most likely answer no because it wasnt on him, it was in his truckThen his intent was to deceive.Police should prevent crimes, not just be a reactionary force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 (edited) Then his intent was to deceive.Police should prevent crimes, not just be a reactionary force.How? There is no law that says you must identify, there is no law that says you must carry Identification.edit, you must identify if you are being detained, and you can only be detained if there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Open carry of a firearm is protected by ORC 9.68 and the second amendment, therefore not a crime so detainment was in effect illegal Edited May 12, 2013 by Gunner75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.