Chucktshoes

The same can be said about a lot of the trash coming here from third world cesspools. You mean like California and New York?

[1] I'd agree with you that the potential for more harm than good is there, but I would say not always the likelihood as that depends on a multitude of factors like manner and personality of activist and quality of legal representation. [2]Agreed, 100%. [3] Yes and no. Luckily they didn't change the laws, but the pulling of the permit did set a bad precedent that may have far reaching, negative consequences for permit holders. [4] Agreed, 100%.

DaveTN, After re-reading through the thread, it appears that I unfairly conflated your position with DaveS. I apologize for that. As to the question of whether or not there were other unmentioned factors that would have provided PC/RAS for his detainment by the officers that night I would venture to guess that would be unlikely for one seemingly obvious, but overlooked reason. Mr. Call seems to be an OC activist and is active on a large OC oriented forum where there is even a thread devoted to this incident. While activists of this nature are seldom persons of high regard amongst most folks here due to their provocative nature and activities, they almost universally conduct those activities in strict adherence to the letter of the law. Odds are high Mr. Call was trolling for contact and found a couple of fish more that willing to take the bait and in doing so they seem to have stepped across the line of proper behavior. As an aside- with the rise of provocative, confrontational, OC activist types across the country, it would seem prudent to me that LE agencies devote at least some training hours to ensure their officers are fully informed on how to deal with these folks so as to avoid costly lawsuits and possible court awarded payouts.

You continue to claim that folks are claiming his OCing made him part of a special group when the opposite is the case. You and DaveS are the ones using his possession of a firearm as a reason to single him out. The OCing of a gun doesn't legally make him any different than any other customer in the store that night or anyone else on the street. The open wearing of a gun in Ohio is a legal activity and the courts have ruled multiple times in multiple circuits that where the wearing of a gun is legal, it is not PC in and of itself to detain a citizen. The articles never say that there were any other factors that provided PC/RAS to the officers. If the gun was the only thing the officers had to go on (as it appears from the information we have) then their actions were incorrect. If they had other evidence that provided PC/RAS that Call was either about to engage in or had already committed a crime then they acted correctly, however the presence of the gun did not confer any special status upon Mr. Call either for immunity from questioning or as a reason to detain/question him.

I can all but guarantee that mine (Shelby County) wouldn't.

Is the department making the argument that the guy could have been a felon? I would think the circumstances dictated the Officers’ actions up to the point where he refused to ID. A citizen outside the store contacted the cops about a suspicious person and they approached him; I’m okay with that and would have done the same. By approaching him they stopped the obvious threat of him robbing the store, if that was the citizens concern. My question is what happens when he refuses to identify himself? What if he didn’t have a gun and was just your normal run of the mill suspicious person that citizens call the Police about all the time. Can he legally refuse to identify himself under Ohio law? Or is an argument being made that because he was open carrying a gun he is part of a protected class that the run of the mill suspicious person doesn’t qualify for? I have never heard that you have to wait until someone is in the commission of a crime to approach them. I thought the idea of District Patrol was to be proactive not reactive. I'd say that question was already answered with this post-> http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/index.php?/topic/65602-Ohio-man-files-$3M-lawsuit-after-being-harrassed-for-legally-OCing/page__view__findpost__p__971215 Unless they had RAS to suspect he was either party to or a witness of a crime, he had every right to not identify himself. You don't have to wait for a person to commit a crime to approach them, but you do have to have RAS that they were/are involved in criminal activity to detain them or compel them to engage in any conversation that is not 100% voluntary on their part.

That isn't the only court decision that agrees with you on the subject either.

That and a squadron of B-1s loaded with napalm...can you say Dresden?

I wonder if that was the same Mike Hunt I was stationed at Cannon AFB with, LOL.

The 4th circuit had a ruling on the issue of OC and PC recently. http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-law-updates/784-fourth-circuit-finds-that-carrying-a-firearm-in-an-open-carry-state-does-not-create-reasonable-suspicion-and-provides-thorough-analysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

I've been to 3rd world countries, live in Memphis and even toured a waste treatment plant when I was a kid (don't ask me whose bright idea that field trip was) and I stand by my assessment that it smells like raw sewage.

Got mine yesterday. Thanks!

Yeah, every mag's worth of ammo makes a difference when practicing and that $150 is like 3 mags worth.

My money is on #2.

:lol:

Robbery gone bad? I would say that was a robbery gone right!

The Onion sometimes nails the absurdity of life by posting nothing but the truth as it exactly is. I do believe this is almost the exact argument actually being used by the administration. :lol:

How about, "how do I know he's NOT a criminal?" Wow. Just wow.

I disagree 100%!!! Probable cause came when a complaint was recorded on the 911 system of a man with a gun! The store clerk (or whoever called 911) had no idea if that man was legal in his actions. The responding officers had no idea either, until they questioned him. Mr. Call chose to play hardball with the cops. The ball is in his court now. I hope the Judge goes easy on him. Most likely he paid his attorney in advance! Dave S In that disagreement you would be 100% wrong under the laws of Ohio. In TN where the carrying of a gun is a crime you would be correct. That is not the case in Ohio where OC is a perfectly legal activity and as such, the presence of a gun does not in and of itself rise to the level of PC for the officers to initiate a stop and detain the citizen.

Who is he? What's his background? Can he legaly have that gun on him? Questions I would want answers to if I was the responding officer. And it has nothing to do with a "Police State". It has everything to do with what is expected of me and what the tax payers pay me to do. Put yourselves in those cops shoes. What would you have done? Dave S Who is he? What is his background? Can he legally have that gun? Without PC that he either has or is committing a crime, that information is all of the citizen's and none of the officer's business.

So your answer is to treat the average citizen as if they are a criminal because somebody might do something bad with a gun? This is the same argument that Bloomberg and his ilk use in their fight to disarm us.

Just because life would have been easier if he had complied with police orders that he was under no obligation to comply with is immaterial. You are basically arguing for the "papers please" style of policing where the citizen is under obligation to prove his/her innocence as opposed to the police having to show a reasonable and probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed. These types of incidents are the beginning of the slippery slopes that justify a militarized tactical squad cordoning of an entire neighborhood and pulling folks out of their homes at gunpoint sans a warrant. Does putting the onus on LE to justify their actions when questioning or detaining citizens make their job more difficult? Absolutely. That is as it should be in a nation whose founding documents places liberty as a primary right such as ours do. You can live in a police state or a free state, you choose.

His actions (regardless of whether you agree with them or not) were not reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. In a state where unlicensed OC is legal, the courts have rules that the open carrying of a gun does not meet the level needed for a Terry Stop and as such, he was under no obligation to identify himself and the detainment by the officers was arguably illegal and a violation of his civil rights.

The Quarter does stink like raw sewage, and since I developed a shellfish allergy, I no longer have any reason to bother with that place.

No issue here with mine.