conn-e-rot Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I'm sure mental anguish will be high on the list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Nothing will be on the list - it will be settled out of court nowhere near a courtroom with no admission of guilt and the dept will train it's officers better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conn-e-rot Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Nothing will be on the list - it will be settled out of court nowhere near a courtroom with no admission of guilt and the dept will train it's officers better.I doubt it will settle out of court too much publicity already I think they will go for blood and make an example out of this cop and the department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idodishez Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 I doubt it will settle out of court too much publicity already I think they will go for blood and make an example out of this cop and the department.Let's hope soSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 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.Here is what he is going to sue for:Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.I don't want to take sides, because what was done was just plain wrong. However, I understand how the interaction happened. When it is found that the officers actions were improper in court, the charges against the "suspect" will be dropped. When that happens, it will be wide open for a violation of his 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. I don't know that there is a more serious offense in this country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j0j0 Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 I read someplace the cop was already fired. I'm a CCW instructor and from what I saw in the video, the cop did NOT give the guy a chance to state he had his CCW until he got him out of the vehicle. If you notice in the video, he didn't even ask him for his license and registration. Just my $.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siacono Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 Man, We have sooo many issues here in canton regarding cops it is pathetic...I have lived in canton area all my life and it is always nothing but drama... I have been thrown in jail over the weekend for an unpaid traffic fine warrant that the fine was paid in full 3yrs prior and it was in the COC computer system with a photo copy of the check..... Judge released me with no apologies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 FZRMatt... you hit the nail on the head. That officer never asked permission to search that vehicle.The bigger issue is the seizure of his person/body. The officer had full legal right to stop them, and a case can be made for searching the back seat. However, he seized his body and slated him for what will be argued as unjust cause. I think the driver has a better than average chance of coming out on top and with a fat pocket to boot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggO Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Heard on the news tonight that there is now a second video from the same office a few years back, acting in a similar manner!!! Now the OFCC is asking that the officer be fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 I have seen that second video and I don't have a problem with it. I think he should have his teeth kicked in for the first one but the second one is not very damning. It's probably not the way I would handle a stop but it works for him. If I had only seen the older video without the newer one I would have wanted him on my team, probably not the spokesperson for the team more like the grunt to do the heavy lifting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 In the second video he was dealing was an ILLEGAL gun and he knew it. In the first video he was dealing with a LEGAL gun, and he knew it.I'm not losing too much sleep over the second video. However there's no excuse for the way he treated the CCW guy and ESPECIALLY the way he falsified his report to show that the gun was first discovered unexpectedly during a pat-down rather than finding out about it when the guy handed his CHL over.Of all the things he did wrong in the CCW video, the one I think seals his fate is the falsification of the police report that created a crime where none happened. If I was a defense lawyer then I'd use that falsification to create reasonable doubt in any case I defended where he was the officer. In fact, in any case where canton PD are involved, as I would argue that them "not firing the officer means they appear to condone his actions." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 This case actually went to trial. Today the prosecution finished presenting it's case that the driver failed to inform. The defense made a motion to dismiss. The judge granted that motion and the case is dismissed. That is all the details I have right now, more later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 So they were convinced this guy wasn't given the chance to inform basically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 w00t!!You know the charge was a bag of crap when the judge dismisses it before the defense even puts it case on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 So they were convinced this guy wasn't given the chance to inform basically?It's common for the defense to request that a case be dismissed as soon as the prosecution rests it's case-in-chief on the grounds of "insufficient evidence" or similar. Like a big fat ugly drunk guy asking a hot chick to go home with him. It's a long shot but there's nothing to lose so why not give it a try. It'll get rejected almsot every time.In this case the judge agreed - the prosecutor failed to make his case, failed to even make the judge think "This guy could be guilty, but let's hear his side first..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 So they were convinced this guy wasn't given the chance to inform basically?The judge was convinced the prosecution did not prove it's case. That is the legal answer to your question.But when all the details of the questioning of the second police officer are out we will have a better idea what happened. It appears that the video clearly showed the officers filled an untruthful police report on what happened and the police officer admitted that on the stand and yes, the guy tried to inform several times. In the video you can clearly hear once very early 'I have a carry'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 For more detail, start here and work forward.http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=56449&start=75#p4040002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 This case actually went to trial. Today the prosecution finished presenting it's case that the driver failed to inform. The defense made a motion to dismiss. The judge granted that motion and the case is dismissed. That is all the details I have right now, more later.I heard it was thrown out because the officer didn't even show up. Could have heard wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 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...Sorry, I missed this when it originally posted. The reason he didn't go to the driver first is because tactically you never turn your back to a threat. You always address the rear seat first. Once the officer is comfortable that there are no threats in the rear seat, they will address the driver. In this case, the officer had previous encounters with both the front and rear seat passengers and knew them to be criminals (rear-pimp, front-prostitute). Once the rear seat passenger was removed/detained the officer should have turned his attention back to the driver. The officer should have NEVER searched the vehicle with the driver still inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 I heard it was thrown out because the officer didn't even show up. Could have heard wrong though.Well, one officer is off on sick leave. The one that went nuts. He is claiming PTSS. The other officer was there and testified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Ptss? He looked awful white for that? http://www.joydegruy.com/ptss/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedytriple Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Sorry, I missed this when it originally posted. The reason he didn't go to the driver first is because tactically you never turn your back to a threat. You always address the rear seat first. Once the officer is comfortable that there are no threats in the rear seat, they will address the driver. In this case, the officer had previous encounters with both the front and rear seat passengers and knew them to be criminals (rear-pimp, front-prostitute). Once the rear seat passenger was removed/detained the officer should have turned his attention back to the driver. The officer should have NEVER searched the vehicle with the driver still inside.Ok so then when he removed the other two known criminals he should have let the driver state he had a chl instead of flipping out on him. Either way he was definitely playing the bad cop role in the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Ok so then when he removed the other two known criminals he should have let the driver state he had a chl instead of flipping out on him. Either way he was definitely playing the bad cop role in the video.You are correct. He should have removed the people in question (back seat passenger minimum) then addressed the driver. He should have taked to the driver as if it was a regular traffic stop which would have given the driver a chance to inform the officer about his CCW permit. I don't know what had taken place earlier in the night. It may explain his actions, it may not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Or he could have just been a real asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FZRMatt Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Or he could have just been a real asshole.Always a possibility. 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.