duty to inform case dash cam video

[Scruit]

^ why the hell would you get out of the car to argue with him? youre lucky he didnt taze you or something

In england it is considered disrespectful to make the officer walk all the way up to your car. I always got out and met them halfway. It was not considered a threat by the officers I was pulled over by. Times may have changed in the last 15-20years though.

[Steve Butters]

In england it is considered disrespectful to make the officer walk all the way up to your car. I always got out and met them halfway. It was not considered a threat by the officers I was pulled over by. Times may have changed in the last 15-20years though.

this aint england, ol' chap.

[2talltim]

^ why the hell would you get out of the car to argue with him? youre lucky he didnt taze you or something

Iv been pulled over maybe 15 times in my life and all but once I've gotten out(it was raining that time..lol)...don't know why, just what I do, guess I don't like someone looking down on me, only twice was a ask to get back into my car

[2talltim]

Notifying when NOT carrying seemed to be a big problem for some officers who weren't clear on the letter of the law. Having said that, arguing by the roadside rarely helps - tell him you will notify next time, then send a letter to his chief asking for the law to be explained to him again.

Arguing with a cop is never a good idea. Their mindset is to remain in control of the situation at all costs and they won't welcome having the law explained to them during a traffic stop.

I guess argue isn't the correct term here..I was trying to get him to see my point of view on the road conditions and that the center line was not visible..I was guessing where the line was then brushed the snow away with my foot to prove that you could not tell for sure where it was

[fox_racing_guy]

Canton City Council President Allen Schulman comments.

http://www.cantonrep.com/carousel/x410262827/Schulman-defends-Cantons-reputation-after-police-video-backlash

[chevysoldier]

The 2A might be subjective' date=' but open carry legality isn't. "Jeremy" should not have been approached by any officer, so long as he wasn't breaking any laws. It appears in his video that he was being questioned for the gun. That's an unlawful stop. (at least it is in Ohio)[/quote']

I have only skimmed over this thread, didn't read a whole lot since I haven't had the time to. Anyways, he was well within his rights to talk to the guy. Not once was this a seizure and Jeremy could have walked away. Was not a Terry Stop. If the officer got a "man with a gun" call, then he did the right thing by having a voluntary encounter. If he didn't have a MWAG call, who know why he did what he did. Community policing, just checking in, helping the to OC'er feel comfortable? I dunno. Anything FZRMatt has said is spot on and in line with everything currently taught IAW OPOTA training curriculum.

[Steve Butters]

whats the point of open carry if youre not allowed to have it loaded? (that CA video)

that guy is lucky he found a nice cop that knows the laws....i bet most cops would have beaten and arrested that guy and probably broke his camera

Edited July 26, 2011 by Steve Butters

[Uncle Punk]

(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are

authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on

any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer

to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

This is California law; it gives law enforcement the right to hassle its subjects unless they want to question them about their citizenship.

In Ohio it would be a dick move for law enforcement to have stopped "Jeremy" but not in the foreign land of California.

[Steve Butters]

I know its their law - but I mean I wonder why they even bothered having an open carry law if they also require the gun to be unloaded...doesnt make too much sense...i wonder if youre allowed to carry a loaded magazine as long as its not in the gun?

[chevysoldier]

I know its their law - but I mean I wonder why they even bothered having an open carry law if they also require the gun to be unloaded...doesnt make too much sense...i wonder if youre allowed to carry a loaded magazine as long as its not in the gun?

I think you can carry a loaded mag. It's cali's way of trying to get around the 2nd.

[conn-e-rot]

OFCC Calls for Resignation of Schulman and Harless Written by Philip Mulivor Thursday, 28 July 2011 07:24 July 28, 2011

MEDIA INQUIRIES PLEASE CONTACT:

UNITED STATES and CANADA: 1-216-202-0860

INTERNATIONAL: pmulivor@ohioccw.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Founded in 1999, Ohioans for Concealed Carry is one of the largest civil rights organizations in Ohio, serving the state's 210,000 concealed carry licensees. We have worked successfully with Ohio's legislators and governors for more than 10 years to ensure that all Ohioans are able to safely and lawfully protect themselves and their families.

Today, OFCC calls on Allen Schulman and Daniel Harless to immediately resign from their positions as president of the Canton City Council, and member of the Canton Police Department, respectively. Their recent conduct demonstrates that they are no longer worthy of the public trust.

● Schulman recently refused to denounce the unlawful behavior of police officer Daniel Harless, who threatened an unarmed, handcuffed citizen with execution (video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc). Harless also threatened to "blast [the citizen] in the mouth," "cave in [the citizen's] head," and "step back and put 10 rounds in [the citizen]." By remaining silent during one of the worst cases of police abuse in recent U.S. history, Schulman has given the unmistakable impression of protecting – and even condoning – his employee's behavior. Moreover, Schulman's arrogant silence during this tragedy has set off a chaotic loss of public confidence in Canton's police force – a dangerous scenario and threat to public safety.

● In remarks to WHLO News (audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00), Schulman announced his contempt for Ohio state law that guarantees the basic human right of self-defense. Firearm laws that allow licensed, law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families in dangerous locations are "not acceptable in our society," he said. We believe that his contempt for the right of self-defense is morally identical to a hatred of the free practice of religion, or an attack on the right of journalists to report news and opinion at will. All these activities are Constitutionally enumerated rights; an elected official who discloses their contempt of a basic human right is unfit for public office in the United States and should be removed forthwith.

Over the past several days, the behavior of Harless has been roundly condemned by civil rights leaders, attorneys, law enforcement officers and administrators, law professors, news commentators, and ordinary citizens across the country; Schulman, too, has frequently been named. We are dismayed that City of Canton leaders have not responded to this crisis with the urgency it demands, and that organizations like ours have to call for decisions to be made.

Schulman and Harless should resign immediately. We hope that these changes will at once bring renewed stability, and accountability, to the City of Canton.

[idodishez]

Would be awesome if that really happened. Not sure how much "pull" OFCC has.

[John]

i read somewhere yesterday the city was trying to get the guy to sign something saying he would not sue and they would drop the bullshit charges against him.

i can't find it again today though... but if true, that's some bullshit.

[conn-e-rot]

From what I read they did that right away and he and his attorney refused their offer

[Scruit]

i read somewhere yesterday the city was trying to get the guy to sign something saying he would not sue and they would drop the bullshit charges against him.

i can't find it again today though... but if true, that's some bullshit.

I had read that the "please sign this waiver" happened pretty early - ie the city/pd knew that has messed up bad rigth from the beginning.

I also heard the victim has a lawyer - I'm sure OFCC are going to make sure the victim is well represented because the outcome of this case will affect all who CCW.

If the police/gubment *insist* on notification of some form then the manner of notification should be something much more subtle and non-threatening... for example, if you are asked for your Driver's license and you are carrying then give your CHL at the same time. No nervous shouts of "I have a gun" scaring the officer... or getting told to shut up while trying to notify then getting charged with not notifying.

[conn-e-rot]

His attorney is an OFCC member

[conn-e-rot]

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53994

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=54153&start=0&hilit=canton+canton+pd

[speedytriple]

I still don't understand why they did not go to the drivers window when they walked up on the car? Why would they go to the back door first? they messed up on many accounts on this one. the officer should be fired...

[Scruit]

i read somewhere yesterday the city was trying to get the guy to sign something saying he would not sue and they would drop the bullshit charges against him.

i can't find it again today though... but if true, that's some bullshit.

Here you go:

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53994#p4005179

[redkow97]

Iv been pulled over maybe 15 times in my life and all but once I've gotten out(it was raining that time..lol)...don't know why, just what I do, guess I don't like someone looking down on me, only twice was a ask to get back into my car

I'd stop that habit. I watched a real pissed-off woman in her 30's get out of her car after she was pulled over, and the highway patrolman drew his firearm and took aim.

This all happened within 3-5 seconds. I was trailing both vehicles on the highway at 60mph (they both blew by me - her speeding, him pursuing shortly thereafter), and I saw her get pulled over maybe a quarter mile up the road. As i approached, she was already getting out of the car. I had time to see her get real pissed, him draw, and her get the fucking picture and lay face down on the pavement.

As far as I'm concerned, the officer was 100% right in that situation. This lady was clearly pissed off, and he had no clue whether or not she was armed. To HER credit, she stopped dead in her tracks and started listening when he (I assume) yelled for her to stay where she was, and get down on the ground.

[redkow97]

i read somewhere yesterday the city was trying to get the guy to sign something saying he would not sue and they would drop the bullshit charges against him.

i can't find it again today though... but if true, that's some bullshit.

in the city's place, wouldn't you try the same?

No different than any other plea-bargain. Unethical, I suppose, but I don't think it's illegal.

what would the guy sue for anyway? What are his damages?

[idodishez]

what would the guy sue for anyway? What are his damages?

Are you kidding? You see no problem with what happened? People sue for much less, even with no "damages" involved.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scruit]

in the city's place, wouldn't you try the same?

No different than any other plea-bargain. Unethical, I suppose, but I don't think it's illegal.

what would the guy sue for anyway? What are his damages?

He was threatened with execution. Tough to put a dollar figure on making a law-abiding citizen think he's gonna die, but I'm sure they'll sort something out.

[conn-e-rot]

I'm sure the number will be followed by many many zeros

[redkow97]

Are you kidding? You see no problem with what happened? People sue for much less, even with no "damages" involved.

I see MANY problems with what happened, but that doesn't mean that the driver is entitled to damages.

What has he lost? How has he suffered?

Punitive damages aside, civil suits are supposed to make the victim whole again. If nothing has been taken, there is nothing to return.

If everyone is so sure this guy can sue, tell me what he's going to list in his complaint.