Guest Hal Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Good job, you actually cited the whole code. Now, look up at my post where I highlighted the relevant section and maybe you'll understand better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im faster Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Okay its all about articulation here.. What i am saying is you CAN make an arrest for it. will it stick in court. most likely not. however.. will it change this little pricks attitude. probably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoostedAce Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 EXACTLY... To Make it stick.. However all im saying is the arrest would not be considered a bad arrest. but if its raising alarm.. if multiple people are calling in about it. i can see an arrest being made.. of course there are exceptions to everything. Then what if the guy was not causing trouble and the cop raises the alarm? Then he can just play bad cop and take his ass in cuffs cause everyone left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im faster Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 If he isnt not raising alarm then there is probably NO problem.. if they had multiple calls he was likely doing something wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 .. However all im saying is the arrest would not be considered a bad arrest. but if its raising alarm.. if multiple people are calling in about it. i can see an arrest being made.. It. would be considered a bad arrest if all he was doing was carrying an open carry firearm, and not actually doing anything illegal. People can get nervous and call the cops all they want. Their actions or really improper reactions don't make what he was doing illegal. Only he can do that and open carrying is not illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 What this guy did here is be as much of a dick as the law allows him to. I don't really think his actions were appropriate, and it could of been over a lot quicker by being more compliant with the officers request. Who knows, the officer may have been a supporter of CCW and this guy just went full dick on him. What we don't know is if this guy has previously had some other police encounter gone horribly wrong (remember the video of the officer somewhere in ohio saying he would blow the guys fucking brains out?) Regardless, the guy started things off with a bad attitude, but the cop kept his cool pretty well. I know I personally wouldn't take my time to look up and study each bit of case law and code recited by the guy, so for him to just keep throwing it in my face would aggravate me a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M0nk3y Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 2917.31 Inducing panic. (A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm If people are getting scared because he is walking around with a gun it IS a justifiable arrest. If you're legal to do so, then it is not a justifiable arrest. Many cops like to threaten OCers with that charge. Ill pull up documents later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Okay its all about articulation here.. What i am saying is you CAN make an arrest for it. will it stick in court. most likely not. however.. will it change this little pricks attitude. probably. You said it would be a "good" arrest and tried to spin the law to fit your view, that's simply incorrect. BTW, how would a charge of inducing panic, which would be thrown out, change this guy's attitude? He already believes he is 100% right, that would just push it further with an abuse of LEO powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M0nk3y Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 You should probably read the whole law on inducing panic. Tell me where in the law it says that legally carrying a gun constitutes inducing panic. BTW nice chop on the law to make it look like you're right. 2917.31 Inducing panic. (A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following: (1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false; (2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence; (3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm. (B) Division (A)(1) of this section does not apply to any person conducting an authorized fire or emergency drill. ©(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inducing panic. (2) Except as otherwise provided in division ©(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (8) of this section, inducing panic is a misdemeanor of the first degree. (3) Except as otherwise provided in division ©(4), (5), (6), (7), or (8) of this section, if a violation of this section results in physical harm to any person, inducing panic is a felony of the fourth degree. (4) Except as otherwise provided in division ©(5), (6), (7), or (8) of this section, if a violation of this section results in economic harm, the penalty shall be determined as follows: (a) If the violation results in economic harm of one thousand dollars or more but less than seven thousand five hundred dollars and if division ©(3) of this section does not apply, inducing panic is a felony of the fifth degree. (b) If the violation results in economic harm of seven thousand five hundred dollars or more but less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars, inducing panic is a felony of the fourth degree. © If the violation results in economic harm of one hundred fifty thousand dollars or more, inducing panic is a felony of the third degree. (5) If the public place involved in a violation of division (A)(1) of this section is a school or an institution of higher education, inducing panic is a felony of the second degree. (6) If the violation pertains to a purported, threatened, or actual use of a weapon of mass destruction, and except as otherwise provided in division ©(5), (7), or (8) of this section, inducing panic is a felony of the fourth degree. (7) If the violation pertains to a purported, threatened, or actual use of a weapon of mass destruction, and except as otherwise provided in division ©(5) of this section, if a violation of this section results in physical harm to any person, inducing panic is a felony of the third degree. (8) If the violation pertains to a purported, threatened, or actual use of a weapon of mass destruction, and except as otherwise provided in division ©(5) of this section, if a violation of this section results in economic harm of one hundred thousand dollars or more, inducing panic is a felony of the third degree. (D)(1) It is not a defense to a charge under this section that pertains to a purported or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction that the offender did not possess or have the ability to use a weapon of mass destruction or that what was represented to be a weapon of mass destruction was not a weapon of mass destruction. (2) Any act that is a violation of this section and any other section of the Revised Code may be prosecuted under this section, the other section, or both sections. (E) As used in this section: (1) “Economic harm” means any of the following: (a) All direct, incidental, and consequential pecuniary harm suffered by a victim as a result of criminal conduct. “Economic harm” as described in this division includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (i) All wages, salaries, or other compensation lost as a result of the criminal conduct; (ii) The cost of all wages, salaries, or other compensation paid to employees for time those employees are prevented from working as a result of the criminal conduct; (iii) The overhead costs incurred for the time that a business is shut down as a result of the criminal conduct; (iv) The loss of value to tangible or intangible property that was damaged as a result of the criminal conduct. (b) All costs incurred by the state or any political subdivision as a result of, or in making any response to, the criminal conduct that constituted the violation of this section or section 2917.32 of the Revised Code, including, but not limited to, all costs so incurred by any law enforcement officers, firefighters, rescue personnel, or emergency medical services personnel of the state or the political subdivision. (2) “School” means any school operated by a board of education or any school for which the state board of education prescribes minimum standards under section 3301.07 of the Revised Code, whether or not any instruction, extracurricular activities, or training provided by the school is being conducted at the time a violation of this section is committed. (3) “Weapon of mass destruction” means any of the following: (a) Any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious physical harm through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; (b) Any weapon involving a disease organism or biological agent; © Any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; (d) Any of the following, except to the extent that the item or device in question is expressly excepted from the definition of “destructive device” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4) and regulations issued under that section: (i) Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or similar device; (ii) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any item or device into any item or device described in division (E)(3)(d)(i) of this section and from which an item or device described in that division may be readily assembled. (4) “Biological agent” has the same meaning as in section 2917.33 of the Revised Code. (5) “Emergency medical services personnel” has the same meaning as in section 2133.21 of the Revised Code. (6) “Institution of higher education” means any of the following: (a) A state university or college as defined in division (A)(1) of section 3345.12 of the Revised Code, community college, state community college, university branch, or technical college; (b) A private, nonprofit college, university or other post-secondary institution located in this state that possesses a certificate of authorization issued by the Ohio board of regents pursuant to Chapter 1713. of the Revised Code; © A post-secondary institution with a certificate of registration issued by the state board of career colleges and schools under Chapter 3332. of the Revised Code. Amended by 129th General Assembly File No. 29, HB 86, § 1, eff. 9/30/2011. Effective Date: 09-27-2002; 2007 HB142 03-24-2008 See 129th General Assembly File No. 29, HB 86, §4. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evan9381 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Why is this thread titled "ccw encounter" when he wasnt ccw'ing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 I usually find myself using this argument for the first amendment, but i find it works well for this as well. Exercising your right simply because you are free to do so is an abuse of the system. It's entirely masturbatory. Just because you have the right to [speak freely, carry a gun, etc], doesn't make it right to do so. When you do it without trying to benefit anyone else (and don't feed me this "raising awareness" or "education" crap) its entirely selfish and while, yes you are free to be as selfish as you want, you are simply draining society of something because you feel you need to make a point. In this case, this jackass went out not with the purpose of defending himself, but with the purpose of instigating some sort of confrontation with police that he could catch on video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
criitter7 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 I don't see a problem with asking a guy openly carrying a gun for a permit? Is it really that big of a deal to people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M0nk3y Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 I don't see a problem with asking a guy openly carrying a gun for a permit? Is it really that big of a deal to people? You dont need a permit to open carry. By law, you do not have to produce anything unless you're involved in a crime, witness a crime...etc. If it was me, id just give him my CHL and go about my day, i have nothing to hide. To others, it's about principle, but i never understood that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 You dont need a permit to open carry. By law, you do not have to produce anything unless you're involved in a crime, witness a crime...etc. If it was me, id just give him my CHL and go about my day, i have nothing to hide. To others, it's about principle, but i never understood that Again, a generalization. In some places you do need a permit to open carry. Further, you must, in many states, produce ID when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a criminal activity is taking or has taken place. Watch out for generalizations in law, they can fuck up your day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 I don't see anything wrong with what he did. Was he kind of an asshole about it, sure, but almost every Open Carry forum section I've been on advised those who do partake in the activity carry a device to record police interaction for their own protection. I usually find myself using this argument for the first amendment, but i find it works well for this as well. Exercising your right simply because you are free to do so is an abuse of the system... I'm going to have to disagree with you completely. I am born, I have rights . Whether or not you agree with how one exercises that right is also within your right to choose. The confrontation/education is needed as this particular officer while quite gracious and well-intentioned in attitude, was still very much in the wrong. It is black and white. The police talking to this man are paid just as much by his tax-dollars as the people making the complaints about his firearm. Both the citizens making the complaints and the officer seem to have a misunderstanding about what constitutes a crime in their state. The citizen is more easily forgiven, the police not so much. When it is your job to uphold the law, then you should have a good grasp of the law you're enforcing. The idea that a police officer can walk up to you and start asking you your name, and what you're doing, or why you're out is just appalling. Only being eclipsed by the lackadaisical frame of mind some seem to take to instruments of the state, invading your life. Again, a generalization. In some places you do need a permit to open carry. Further, you must, in many states, produce ID when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a criminal activity is taking or has taken place. Watch out for generalizations in law, they can fuck up your day. Very true, for instance in Pennsylvania it is mostly legal to open carry without a permit, but not in Philadelphia. I am assuming in this video the man is legal to carry without a permit based on the contents within. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 The idea that a police officer can walk up to you and start asking you your name, and what you're doing, or why you're out is just appalling. Only being eclipsed by the lackadaisical frame of mind some seem to take to instruments of the state, invading your life. No, that is their right. Beyond that it is your right, in certain circumstances, to deny them access to information. It's a tool to catch stupid people, sad but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 No, that is their right. Beyond that it is your right, in certain circumstances, to deny them access to information. It's a tool to catch stupid people, sad but true. I didn't say it wasn't, I said it was appalling, and I stand by that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 I didn't say it wasn't, I said it was appalling, and I stand by that. But they are asserting their rights, and you are for that? :gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 But they are asserting their rights, and you are for that? :gabe: :fuuuu: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Rights that aren't exercised are rights lost. Now more than ever we need to be exercising ALL of our rights. Police are nothing more than customer service reps. The customers they are serving are the people. If I, as a customer service rep, were to be rude and harassing to my customers, I would be fired. Why is this not also the case for police? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 I usually find myself using this argument for the first amendment, but i find it works well for this as well. Exercising your right simply because you are free to do so is an abuse of the system. It's entirely masturbatory. Just because you have the right to [speak freely, carry a gun, etc], doesn't make it right to do so. When you do it without trying to benefit anyone else (and don't feed me this "raising awareness" or "education" crap) its entirely selfish and while, yes you are free to be as selfish as you want, you are simply draining society of something because you feel you need to make a point. In this case, this jackass went out not with the purpose of defending himself, but with the purpose of instigating some sort of confrontation with police that he could catch on video. Bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Rights that aren't exercised are rights lost. Now more than ever we need to be exercising ALL of our rights. Police are nothing more than customer service reps. The customers they are serving are the people. If I, as a customer service rep, were to be rude and harassing to my customers, I would be fired. Why is this not also the case for police? While I do agree with you, I think it would also be a prime opportunity to dish out some education. That officer walked away from that situation having learned nothing besides 'open carry folks are assholes'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 While I do agree with you, I think it would also be a prime opportunity to dish out some education. That officer walked away from that situation having learned nothing besides 'open carry folks are assholes'. Exactly. I would say this guy was abusing his right rather than exercising it. The goal is not to create enemies, but to create educated allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 While I do agree with you, I think it would also be a prime opportunity to dish out some education. That officer walked away from that situation having learned nothing besides 'open carry folks are assholes'. unfortunate but true which leads to the question of how do you educate the police without putting yourself in harms way? I believe I've read that Buckeye Firearms has pushed for department heads to instruct their officers to not confront open carriers simply for carrying. Of course, the cars in that video were labelled Portland so I'm guessing that didn't occur in Ohio. I'm also reasonably sure that part of the CCW legislation here includes language stating that officers can get in trouble for citing someone with inciting panic for carrying, but I'd have to dig into that to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Correct, there is provision in the code for fines to departments illegally charging people. This occurred recently near toledo. 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.