Ohio Man Illegally Arrested For Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit

[RC K9]

Scroll down page for video/audio.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/video-ohio-man-illegally-arrested-open-carry-sparks-3m-lawsuit

[Not Brian]

I hope he wins every penny of it. No he doesn't deserve millions of dollars, but that's enough to hopefully teach police a lesson.

[AngryBMW]

I just read this on FB.

 

Although I see where the police are coming from and that the guy could have avoided all of this by cooperating, but I also see his point that he was not required to.

 

Do I feel that he is owed $3.6m? Hell no. My hope is that this will cause local police to pay more attention to our own laws and not harrass anyone else. Wishful thinking, I know.

 

Oh well; I'm sure this guy will collect a check and an apology for being a bit of an asshole. Only in 'merica.

-Marc

[greg1647545532]

$600,000 for emotional trauma? Did the cops search his vagina or something?

[1fast5gp]

I just read this on FB.

 

Although I see where the police are coming from and that the guy could have avoided all of this by cooperating, but I also see his point that he was not required to.

 

Do I feel that he is owed $3.6m? Hell no. My hope is that this will cause local police to pay more attention to our own laws and not harrass anyone else. Wishful thinking, I know.

 

Oh well; I'm sure this guy will collect a check and an apology for being a bit of an asshole. Only in 'merica.

-Marc

 

Yeah, if the police stop harassing law abiding citizens, this would not happen. Things like this happens constantly and people just do what the LEO tells them. Someone has to set an example so cops don't think they are above the law. But yeah, the guy was an asshole about it, but he has the right. The cops on the other hand doesn't.

[sol740]

How dare we expect the police to understand the laws they're paid tax dollars to enforce, that's just ludicrous. As far as the ridiculous amount of money he is suing for, mock it if you will, but the police have demonstrated, in this and many similar videos, a complete and total lack of understanding when it comes to open-carry, and even concealed-carry laws, or basic identification laws. Even beyond that, just how you get to treat a citizen who has committed no fucking crime. Only through this type of action will they re-learn the things they're already suppose to know.

[Drewhop]

How dare we expect the police to understand the laws they're paid tax dollars to enforce, that's just ludicrous. As far as the ridiculous amount of money he is suing for, mock it if you will, but the police have demonstrated, in this and many similar videos, a complete and total lack of understanding when it comes to open-carry, and even concealed-carry laws, or basic identification laws. Even beyond that, just how you get to treat a citizen who has committed no fucking crime. Only through this type of action will they re-learn the things they're already suppose to know.

 

Get out of my head.

[2011SVT]

I'm sure the Justice Department will jump in with a federal lawsuit against the officers for violating this individual's civil rights.

[coltboostin]

So not only was he not arrested, but he was not charged with anything?

 

 

 

I don’t see the problem here, not feel bad for the little dweeb.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Didn't watch video, but 2 important things need to be addressed;

 

Did the store have a clearly posted no firearms policy? Even if they didn't did they ask him to remove his firearm from the premesis? Or did they ask him to leave the premesis? As a business, they have the right to refuse service and demand that he leave. If he was asked to leave and didn't, or didn't remove the firearm from the premesis, then the police ABSOLUTELY have the right to detain and question him, as there is reasonable suspicion that he was trespassing. Even if he wasn't, it's the police's job to find out if he was and to do that they need to identify him.

 

If this happened on public property, I am 100% supportive of the lawsuit, but private property changes everything.

[sol740]

So not only was he not arrested, but he was not charged with anything?

 

 

 

I don’t see the problem here, not feel bad for the little dweeb.

 

He was charged with obstruction, and it was dropped, likely because they realized it would probably be tossed. The "problem" is the police cannot detain you without suspicion of a crime. You are under no legal obligation to identify yourself without that suspicion. Open-carry of a firearm is not a crime in Ohio if you obey the federal limitations, and private property laws. You cannot be charged with "Disorderly Conduct" without committing some kind of crime. Since carrying a firearm on your person in the open is generally not a crime, the officers citing of the ORC is incorrect. As such the officer has no authority to detain Mr. Call against his will, and proceeds to do just that.

 

Didn't watch video, but 2 important things need to be addressed;

 

Did the store have a clearly posted no firearms policy? Even if they didn't did they ask him to remove his firearm from the premesis? Or did they ask him to leave the premesis? As a business, they have the right to refuse service and demand that he leave. If he was asked to leave and didn't, or didn't remove the firearm from the premesis, then the police ABSOLUTELY have the right to detain and question him, as there is reasonable suspicion that he was trespassing. Even if he wasn't, it's the police's job to find out if he was and to do that they need to identify him.

 

If this happened on public property, I am 100% supportive of the lawsuit, but private property changes everything.

 

I can only speculate, but if they had been posted, than he could have been, and given the situation, would have been charged. Same applies if he is asked to leave the property and he refuses. Since he was not charged for either, we can only assume that the scenarios would not apply.

[El Karacho1647545492]

I can only speculate, but if they had been posted, than he could have been, and given the situation, would have been charged. Same applies if he is asked to leave the property and he refuses. Since he was not charged for either, we can only assume that the scenarios would not apply.

 

Here's how I see how the argument against him will go:

 

-Man legally carries firearm openly on private property.

-Property owners want police to make sure the guy is exercising his rights legally; he could, after all, be a felon for all they know.

-Police arrive, and in effort to fulfill property owners' wishes, try to identify the man and ensure that he's not doing anything illegal.

-Man doesn't comply with demands to identify himself. I don't think this would be a problem if he was on public property.

 

Again, I didn't watch the video, but I think the above is a pretty reasonable summary of what MAY have happened. I'm all for open carry, but those who do have to be prepared and respect private property owners' wishes.

[greg1647545532]

You cannot be charged with "Disorderly Conduct" without committing some kind of crime.

 

He wasn't charged with disorderly conduct, though, was he? The officer was merely responding to a 911 call, and I'd say that the officer had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed -- that crime was disorderly conduct, and the suspicion was based on the testimony of the gas station employees.

 

Reasonable suspicion as a legal term has less of a standard of proof than probable cause, and permits the officer to detain someone and frisk them for weapons.

 

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief.

 

The detention was brief by all accounts, and the officer had reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. This is going to get thrown out.

[sol740]

What crime did he commit to warrant reasonable suspicion?

[greg1647545532]

What crime did he commit to warrant reasonable suspicion?

 

A crime doesn't have to be committed for an officer to have reasonable suspicion that one was.

 

If your girlfriend calls the cops and says that you hit her, they can detain you until they ascertain that she's lying. Totally legal, no crime was committed.

[sol740]

A crime doesn't have to be committed for an officer to have reasonable suspicion that one was.

 

If your girlfriend calls the cops and says that you hit her, they can detain you until they ascertain that she's lying. Totally legal, no crime was committed.

 

The crime in your example is assault, or suspicion of. What is the crime here?

[greg1647545532]

The crime in your example is assault, or suspicion of. What is the crime here?

 

Disorderly conduct, or suspicion of. The cop specifies in the video unless I missed something.

 

eta: I also feel like I'm repeating myself.

[coltboostin]

He was charged with obstruction, and it was dropped, likely because they realized it would probably be tossed. The "problem" is the police cannot detain you without suspicion of a crime. You are under no legal obligation to identify yourself without that suspicion. Open-carry of a firearm is not a crime in Ohio if you obey the federal limitations, and private property laws. You cannot be charged with "Disorderly Conduct" without committing some kind of crime. Since carrying a firearm on your person in the open is generally not a crime, the officers citing of the ORC is incorrect. As such the officer has no authority to detain Mr. Call against his will, and proceeds to do just that.

 

 

 

I can only speculate, but if they had been posted, than he could have been, and given the situation, would have been charged. Same applies if he is asked to leave the property and he refuses. Since he was not charged for either, we can only assume that the scenarios would not apply.

 

 

A few things make seem like a waste of a thread-

 

1) The link to a Super right wing "news" site, that proclaims "MAN ARRESTED" when he was never arrested at all.

 

2)When you look for more information, you can Google Ray Call, Raymond Call, Ray Call CCW, Ray Call Arrest.....the list goes on-and NOTHIGN comes up. Huh.

 

3) Reasonable suspicion as a legal term has less of a standard of proof than probable cause, and permits the officer to detain someone and frisk them for weapons. This is the set, match, and win here. Since no more info is available-we can’t determine whether he was in a private establishment or not (from the story, I would infer he was) but if a guy with a gun is asked to identify himself for the purposes of confirming whether or not he has a CCW, and he chooses not to just to be some internet hero-douche, then I am 100% happy the cops gave him the business.

[sol740]

A few things make seem like a waste of a thread-

 

1) The link to a Super right wing "news" site, that proclaims "MAN ARRESTED" when he was never arrested at all.

 

2)When you look for more information, you can Google Ray Call, Raymond Call, Ray Call CCW, Ray Call Arrest.....the list goes on-and NOTHIGN comes up. Huh.

 

3) Reasonable suspicion as a legal term has less of a standard of proof than probable cause, and permits the officer to detain someone and frisk them for weapons. This is the set, match, and win here. Since no more info is available-we can’t determine whether he was in a private establishment or not (from the story, I would infer he was) but if a guy with a gun is asked to identify himself for the purposes of confirming whether or not he has a CCW, and he chooses not to just to be some internet hero-douche, then I am 100% happy the cops gave him the business.

 

You don't have to have a CHL/CCW to open carry. You do have to be under suspicion of having committed a crime to be detained. In order to be detained for suspicion of Disorderly Conduct you'd have to meet the requirements of having committed an act of Disorderly Conduct, which he never did.

[greg1647545532]

In order to be detained for suspicion of Disorderly Conduct you'd have to meet the requirements of having committed an act of Disorderly Conduct, which he never did.

 

If your conduct results in a store employee calling the police and saying "There's someone in my store with a gun," then it's entirely reasonable for the officer on scene to suspect that you are "creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons" (from the ORC statute on disorderly conduct).

 

After a brief detention permitted by law, the officer found that no law was broken and let the guy go. Everything was by the book and legal, this is going to get thrown out.

[Geeesammy]

This is very close to where I lived at in Dayton. Maybe 10 minutes south. Actually the "supervisor" who responded is a complete dickhead, and it doesn't surprise me in the least how he acted. The department as a whole is filled with a lot of officers that don't ave a thorough understanding of the law, IIRC about two years ago a story broke in the Dayton Daily news about corruption involving the Riverside police department, including prostitution and drug trafficking. Any time I went thru Riverside I almost always got hassle for some of the most outrageous and made up things I've ever heard in my life.

 

No surprise he was carrying there, I would too, that Speedway is sketchy as hell at night, along wit the area just to the west of that. Lot of white trash and druggies down there. Stebbins high school is just across the street, and it's pretty hood as well. I hope this guy gets all he can, maybe this will put an end to right's being infringed.

[El Karacho1647545492]

No surprise he was carrying there, I would too, that Speedway is sketchy as hell at night, along wit the area just to the west of that. Lot of white trash and druggies down there.

 

So a guy walks into a store that is apparently known for a lot of crime, drug addicts, people with prior felonies. Aka people who shouldn't be carrying a gun. And he's carrying a gun. MAYBE THE STORE CLERK WAS JUSTIFIED IN CALLING THE POLICE.

 

I hope this guy gets all he can, maybe this will put an end to right's being infringed.

 

Or maybe it'll be the opposite, since a police department with less funding will have less hiring power and will be stuck with a sub-par police force.

[Geeesammy]

If your conduct results in a store employee calling the police and saying "There's someone in my store with a gun," then it's entirely reasonable for the officer on scene to suspect that you are "creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons" (from the ORC statute on disorderly conduct).

 

After a brief detention permitted by law, the officer found that no law was broken and let the guy go. Everything was by the book and legal, this is going to get thrown out.

 

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. If you want to go by this standard, I could walk out to the freeway and see cars going fast down the road, say they alarmed me, call the police and then they all would go through something similar, when in reality they all were going 65 MPH breaking no laws.

 

I never read that he was waving the gun around, taking it out of it's holster, or anything like that. Simply had it on his side and went in to shop. I'd prefer to have someone with a gun on their side who isn't a criminal shopping in that store if I was an employee at that hour. All these ideas of someone being disorderly for simply having a gun on their side is insane. My grandpa and father told me stories of taking in 22's and 12 gauges into show and tell, everyone thought it was the coolest thing ever. Now if someone cuts a piece of paper into a gun they get suspended for a week and possibly expelled

 

Our country is turning into a bunch of scared little babies. Everyone is a winner and gets a trophy in school. Last I checked everyone doesn't get that 6 figure job, everyone doesn't get accepted int that top tier college and not everyone gets the winning lotto ticket. Back in the olden days people would be stupid to travel without a gun, now we should rely on a police officer 10-15 minutes away to save us when the boogie man comes busting down our door.

[Geeesammy]

So a guy walks into a store that is apparently known for a lot of crime, drug addicts, people with prior felonies. Aka people who shouldn't be carrying a gun. And he's carrying a gun. MAYBE THE STORE CLERK WAS JUSTIFIED IN CALLING THE POLICE.

 

 

 

Or maybe it'll be the opposite, since a police department with less funding will have less hiring power and will be stuck with a sub-par police force.

 

Maybe the store clerk was a total moron and cannot see that someone with a holster on their side calmly walking around the store isn't going to harm them?

 

I've never robbed a store, but apparently the way they do it is run into the store and point the gun at someone and don't pull it out of a holster. Instead they have it tucked into their waistband.

 

I think this is how they do it...

[Geeesammy]

Not saying I wouldn't be alarmed at first if someone walked into my store with a weapon on their side. But after a few seconds I'm sure I would be able to realize if they were there to take my money and potentially kill me, or if they were exercising a right.