Open carry lawsuit out of Dayton.

[KZ900]

And once again you just don't get it' date=' so let me say it slowly and clearly for you....

I D-O-N-T C-A-R-E I-F T-H-E-Y W-A-N-T T-O C-H-E-C-K M-Y F-U-C-K-I-N-G I-D.

So how about you quit calling me names, and quit running your mouth

about something that isn't going to change my mind anyway.

This is all a moot point because I don't open carry anyway, I didn't take

the CCW course to open carry [/quote']

I think you might suffer from this common condition:

Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they no longer become a threat

[mango_sv]

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.

I wish I could rep from my phone. Cheers to you sir. :beer:

No matter if Open Carry is to draw attention or not, it is his RIGHT in Ohio.

Sent from the Crapper via Tapatalk

[conn-e-rot]

If you guys want to be sheep and let Big Brother walk all over your rights then go right ahead but remember if it wasn't for people like this guy rallying and fighting for your rights in Columbus you would not have that CHL in your wallet. I fully support all of our officers they have a rough shitty job but I do not support officers on a power trip. Whether you agree with what he did or not the fact is he was 100% within his rights and if none of the officers knew that then shame on that department.

[SWing'R]

I think you might suffer from this common condition:

Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they no longer become a threat

LOL. Whatever, smh.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

Day 2 is upon us.

And I'am still outta rep

[C-bus]

If you guys want to be sheep and let Big Brother walk all over your rights then go right ahead but remember if it wasn't for people like this guy rallying and fighting for your rights in Columbus you would not have that CHL in your wallet. I fully support all of our officers they have a rough shitty job but I do not support officers on a power trip. Whether you agree with what he did or not the fact is he was 100% within his rights and if none of the officers knew that then shame on that department.

Yes. This.

95% of us would comply to avoid a $$costly battle. But the fact remains that police cannot question you if there is not reasonable suspicion that an infraction/violation/crime has been committed by you. The police officer and his boss are wrong. OC at this store is akin to walking your poodle on a leash. Would anyone defend someone being detained for walking their poodle? In the eyes of Ohio law, both are perfectly legal.

Edited May 13, 2013 by C-bus

[grapesmuggler27]

If you guys want to be sheep and let Big Brother walk all over your rights then go right ahead but remember if it wasn't for people like this guy rallying and fighting for your rights in Columbus you would not have that CHL in your wallet. I fully support all of our officers they have a rough shitty job but I do not support officers on a power trip. Whether you agree with what he did or not the fact is he was 100% within his rights and if none of the officers knew that then shame on that department.

I ♥ you

[BadTrainDriver]

I'll admit I didn't read all 300 posts on this thread.

I started to, but quickly realized most posts were back and forth bitching...

The WHOLE POINT of why this is wrong, and how this is just another example of our rights slowly eroding away, is in the last paragraph of the provided link.

Chief 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.”

It is LEGAL to open carry, this we all know.

It is ILLEGAL for police to stop, question, and detain you without proper cause.

A phone call to 911 saying someone is walking around with a gun on their hip is the same as someone calling 911 and saying someone is walking down the street with their hands in their pockets. It's LEGAL!!

Point #2, and remember, this is the Chief of Police talking, so this is what is being taught to the lower level officers.

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.

That is a God damn big NEGATIVE!

What "probable cause" did the officers have to stop, question, and detain Mr.Call OUTSIDE of the initial phone call and report? Did the officers WITNESS Mr.Call doing something suspicious(besides walking around with his gun on his hip, which is perfectly legal)? It sure doesn't sound like it to me.

Lastly, the final quote from the Chief of Police.

“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.”

Another big ass NEGATIVE, and another way the lower level police officers are being taught incorrectly.

Time of day, location, the fact that it was a gas station...it doesn't fucking matter!

Same as it doesn't matter if it's raining outside, or if the man was African American...none of that is a reason for probable cause for a stop, question, and detain.

Personally, you may not agree with what I'm saying, and personally, maybe you'd never open carry...so this won't apply to you, and that's fine...you have that choice...

BUT WHAT YOU NEED TO REALIZE, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, IS THAT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER RIGHT THAT'S BEING TAKEN AWAY, AND BEING TAUGHT TO BE TAKEN AWAY, FROM THE VERY TOP OF THE POLICE CHAIN OF COMMAND! IF NO ONE STANDS UP FOR OUR RIGHTS, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WILL BE GONE BEFORE WE KNOW IT!

There is nothing more to argue or debate, that's it.

Those are the facts as we know it.

I hope Mr.Call get's paid big time, and I hope several officers get fired.

[r1crusher]

The problem is only partially with the police. The real problem is Suzie Q. Freakout and John D. Mind-your-own-business.

The people need to be taught that it is legal to OC. When people understand this fact, the calls will stop going to the police, the police will not harass the rest of us doing perfectly legal activities.

I would love to see a TV ad campaign aimed at simply telling people in Ohio that OC'ing is a legal activity just as concealing is.

[BadTrainDriver]

The problem is only partially with the police. The real problem is Suzie Q. Freakout and John D. Mind-your-own-business.

The people need to be taught that it is legal to OC. When people understand this fact, the calls will stop going to the police, the police will not harass the rest of us doing perfectly legal activities.

I would love to see a TV ad campaign aimed at simply telling people in Ohio that OC'ing is a legal activity just as concealing is.

I agree completely, EXCEPT, "the people" cannot stop, question, and detain you.

The 911 operator should have been the first to "educate" the caller, and if further education was needed, then the PO should get involved.

Imagine the police showing up, finding out who called 911, very politely asking the open carrying citizen to come join their conversation, and also very politely telling the 911 caller that what the person is doing is LEGAL, and is NOT grounds for a 911 call.

Then, the whole situation would end by thanking the open carrying citizen, and citing the 911 caller with a nice little $100 fine.

THAT is how this all should have played out!

[conn-e-rot]

I agree completely, EXCEPT, "the people" cannot stop, question, and detain you.

The 911 operator should have been the first to "educate" the caller, and if further education was needed, then the PO should get involved.

Imagine the police showing up, finding out who called 911, very politely asking the open carrying citizen to come join their conversation, and also very politely telling the 911 caller that what the person is doing is LEGAL, and is NOT grounds for a 911 call.

Then, the whole situation would end by thanking the open carrying citizen, and citing the 911 caller with a nice little $100 fine.

THAT is how this all should have played out!

That is exactly how it should work

[r1crusher]

I'll respectfully disagree.

First, I never said anything about people detaining, questioning, stopping the OC'ing person(s) so I'm not sure where you're coming from with that statement.

Second, it's not the job of the dispatchers to educate anyone, period. They have enough things to deal with. The job falls squarely upon the shoulders of those who wish to OC and those parties wanting to help us keep our rights intact.

The NRA has enough money at their disposal that they could easily put together a simple 30 second ad that would inform the public and reach WAY more people than a dispatcher can in your scenario.

[BadTrainDriver]

First, you said:

"The problem is only partially with the police. The real problem is Suzie Q. Freakout and John D. Mind-your-own-business.

The people need to be taught that it is legal to OC. When people understand this fact, the calls will stop going to the police, the police will not harass the rest of us doing perfectly legal activities."

Then you said:

"I would love to see a TV ad campaign aimed at simply telling people in Ohio that OC'ing is a legal activity just as concealing is.

I'll respectfully disagree.

First, I never said anything about people detaining, questioning, stopping the OC'ing person(s) so I'm not sure where you're coming from with that statement.

Second, it's not the job of the dispatchers to educate anyone, period. They have enough things to deal with. The job falls squarely upon the shoulders of those who wish to OC and those parties wanting to help us keep our rights intact.

The NRA has enough money at their disposal that they could easily put together a simple 30 second ad that would inform the public and reach WAY more people than a dispatcher can in your scenario."

To your two statements, I also respectfully disagree.

Ignorance of the law is not a reason to not abide by it.

It is not the responsibility of the law abiding citizen, or the NRA to educate ignorant people.

It is SOLELY up to the "enforcer(police)" to educate, and sometimes the best education comes at an expense(fine, ticket, verbal).

I don't give a rats ass if the 911 operator was busy.

It's their job to relay information to the police for further investigation.

If the given information didn't necessitate a further investigation, the "situation" should have ended there.

If the 911 operator didn't have the time or intelligence to realize the call didn't necessitate a further investigation, that's when the police get involved.

When the police get involved, it can be handled in several different ways, anywhere from a fine, to a warning.

This is directly from a 911 policy page on exaggerated calls.

Response to Exaggerated Emergency 911 Calls

1. Targeting education to the people responsible. It is worthwhile for 911 centers to identify people who make exaggerated emergency calls, and to inform them about the associated costs and hazards. People who live or work in areas with particularly severe crime problems, such as open-air drug or prostitution markets, sometimes make such calls out of fear and frustration, believing that a quick police response is essential. Rather than educating these callers individually, it may be more economical to do so in a group format (perhaps in a block meeting). Police should come prepared with alternative ways to address the problem(s) prompting the original 911 calls. In addition, police should monitor any future calls from the targeted group to determine if education efforts have resolved the matter, or if more coercive remedies, such as fines or other sanctions, are necessary.
   

[r1crusher]

To your two statements, I also respectfully disagree.

Ignorance of the law is not a reason to not abide by it.

It is not the responsibility of the law abiding citizen, or the NRA to educate ignorant people.

It is SOLELY up to the "enforcer(police)" to educate, and sometimes the best education comes at an expense(fine, ticket, verbal).

I don't give a rats ass if the 911 operator was busy.

It's their job to relay information to the police for further investigation.

If the given information didn't necessitate a further investigation, the "situation" should have ended there.

If the 911 operator didn't have the time or intelligence to realize the call didn't necessitate a further investigation, that's when the police get involved.

When the police get involved, it can be handled in several different ways, anywhere from a fine, to a warning.

This is directly from a 911 policy page on exaggerated calls.

Response to Exaggerated Emergency 911 Calls

1. Targeting education to the people responsible. It is worthwhile for 911 centers to identify people who make exaggerated emergency calls, and to inform them about the associated costs and hazards. People who live or work in areas with particularly severe crime problems, such as open-air drug or prostitution markets, sometimes make such calls out of fear and frustration, believing that a quick police response is essential. Rather than educating these callers individually, it may be more economical to do so in a group format (perhaps in a block meeting). Police should come prepared with alternative ways to address the problem(s) prompting the original 911 calls. In addition, police should monitor any future calls from the targeted group to determine if education efforts have resolved the matter, or if more coercive remedies, such as fines or other sanctions, are necessary.
   

Okay, I'll partially agree with your statement now that you provided some evidence to the contrary.

But, I will point out that even in your quoted policy for 911 operators it states: "Rather than educating these callers individually, it may be more economical to do so in a group format (perhaps in a block meeting). Police should come prepared with alternative ways to address the problem(s) prompting the original 911 calls."

Again, it's not always the place for 911 operators to educate the public. How would you like it if you needed a legitimate police response for help and that call was put on hold simply because a 911 operator was trying to educate someone?

All I'm saying is there are plenty of alternative methods of informing people. We can't rely on anyone but ourselves to be informed as possible.

PS - I kind of like these civil discussions.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

ps - i kind of like these civil discussions.

fuck you d-bag

[BadTrainDriver]

I see what you're saying about mass education, r1crusher.

My main point was in the first sentence:

It is worthwhile for 911 centers to identify people who make exaggerated emergency calls, and to inform them about the associated costs and hazards.

To me, the "order of stupidity" in this case is:

#1. The person that made the 911 call. I fully believe he should have been the one questioned, educated, and cited.

#2. The Police Chief. He sounds like a complete idiot, that has zero concept of the law. He is #2 because he is the "leader", and the "leader" is ultimately responsible for the action of his troops.

#3. The responding police officers. I'm sure they were doing what they were taught, but a lot of a cops day to day activities involve split second decisions. When those decisions are incorrect, you've got to man up and pay the price.

#4. The 911 operator. See above.

[grapesmuggler27]

The 911 operator is nothing more then a dispatcher and their sole job is is to dispatch police/ems/fire nothing more. It is not their responsibility to to decide if there's a crime or not that's the officers job. Would you want to be in a life or death situation and have some operator decide if you need help or not? Most of these dispatchers have no trianing outside of answering calls.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

Fuck only repped 3 people and ran out again.

Glad that so many people here understand their rights.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

The 911 operator is nothing more then a dispatcher and their sole job is is to dispatch police/ems/fire nothing more. It is not their responsibility to to decide if there's a crime or not that's the officers job. Would you want to be in a life or death situation and have some operator decide if you need help or not? Most of these dispatchers have no trianing outside of answering calls.

Actually around half are deputies here.

[grapesmuggler27]

Actually around half are deputies here.

My daughters mom has worked for Clinton county sheriff's office and now works for warren county and neither office had deputys as dispatchers

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

My daughters mom has worked for Clinton county sheriff's office and now works for warren county and neither office had deputys as dispatchers

We is special then.

[grapesmuggler27]

We is special then.

We know little guy.

[BadTrainDriver]

The 911 operator is nothing more then a dispatcher and their sole job is is to dispatch police/ems/fire nothing more. It is not their responsibility to to decide if there's a crime or not that's the officers job. Would you want to be in a life or death situation and have some operator decide if you need help or not? Most of these dispatchers have no trianing outside of answering calls.

I could take the time and provide links to prove you wrong...but I don't have the time right now, and I really don't care if believe me or not...so I'll just leave this here:

You're wrong.

Very wrong.

[r1crusher]

fuck you d-bag

So now you want to turn it nasty you Richard Simmons nuthugger sniffing tool.

BRING IT CLETUS! BRING IT!

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

So now you want to turn it nasty you Richard Simmons nuthugger sniffing tool.

BRING IT CLETUS! BRING IT!

I will kick your ass

on xbox fool.