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

[neginfluence04]

Nonsense.

50K no knock raids are executed per year. Since 2001, there have been over 100+ "wrong address" raids where no one died, and an additional 12+ that resulted in the death of the innocent person that was wrongly raided.

I wonder out of those 100+ that were wrong addressed sued for mental distress?

 

[Gideon]

The problem isn't that these officers tried to ascertain this man's identity. The problem is that they threatened to make up charges and lie about what he was doing in order to strong arm him into giving up.

Too many police officers want to take the easy way out instead of using their actual rights and powers to solve the problem. Why would we figure out another way of dealing with the situation when we can just threaten his life, right?

 

[vvvvvvv]

I wonder out of those 100+ that were wrong addressed sued for mental distress?

I'll bet quite a few.

Most often, you don't need to be public about it. Municipalities with decent insurance and relatively small egos (keyword: relatively) have no problem settling out of court, gagged and sealed.

These public multimillion dollar suits come about one two ways: someone wants to make a statement, or the municipality can't or won't settle.

This is like the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit: there are clear rules, regulations, and industry standards that were crossed.

 

[Dave70968]

I thought it was interesting that they could verify he had a CCW. I understood that OK police have no access to the CCW list which is one of the reasons we have to have it on us when carrying.

I know from personal experience that OK LEOs can find out about a permit. I was stopped once for speeding, and had forgotten my wallet. I wasn't carrying at the time, so I didn't mention it to the officer; when he came back from his car, he mentioned that dispatch told him I have a permit.

 

[RickN]

I agree with RickN. I figure most of the time the best thing to do is comply with the LEO's request for ID. Most of the time a LEO's primary goal is to eliminate threat. I'm no Abbie Hoffman. I just want to get things taken care of so I can be on my way and the LEO can get on to other more important things. And in the real world I bet 90% of the people reading this thread would do the same thing.

To my mind, if the police are called they have to respond and make sure there is not a problem. This guy was being an a$$ and it did not work for him. Now because the police did their job he wants to sue?

Fall down come on.lose some teeth, please.come on now.dont give leos a hard time be mature gun owners.

Seems to be fewer of those and it will backfire. Folks show a little common sense and curtsy. I bet the LEOs will respond in kind. They always have for me.

 

[doctorjj]

To my mind, if the police are called they have to respond and make sure there is not a problem. This guy was being an a$$ and it did not work for him. Now because the police did their job he wants to sue?

Explain to me again why the police have to respond to this? It would be like saying "someone called in about a guy mowing his yard. Guess we gotta go check that out." No, they don't have to go check it out.

But there's this guy MOWING HIS YARD!

Uh, yeah, that's legal. We're not sending anyone out. Have a good day.

 

[Gideon]

Let's break this down again, because everyone seems to be missing the point...

1.Police show up on scene, doing their jobs, we all agree this is good.
2.Man refuses to identify himself, which he has the right to do even though many of us might consider it to be rude and a bad idea.
3.The police THREATEN TO LIE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON TO PUT HIM IN JAIL IF HE DOESN'T GIVE UP HIS RIGHTS.

Obviously, if any LEO wants my ID, he can have it, because I generally trust my local police agencies.
That said, if I chose not to, I can't imagine my local sheriff's deputies threatening to frame me. They would just find another way to convince me.

To my mind, if the police are called they have to respond and make sure there is not a problem. This guy was being an a$$ and it did not work for him. Now because the police did their job he wants to sue?

The police showing up isn't the problem, it's their attempt to strong-arm someone into giving up their rights that's the problem. You literally posted the except from the law which states that the police cannot arrest him simply for not providing identification, yet they tried their best to trick him into it.

 

[RickN]

Explain to me again why the police have to respond to this? It would be like saying "someone called in about a guy mowing his yard. Guess we gotta go check that out." No, they don't have to go check it out.

But there's this guy MOWING HIS YARD!

Uh, yeah, that's legal. We're not sending anyone out. Have a good day.

Because the guy carrying might or might not be legal. He could be a convicted felon for all the cops know. That is why they asked his name because he could be breaking the law.

Let's break this down again, because everyone seems to be missing the point...

1.Police show up on scene, doing their jobs, we all agree this is good.
2.Man refuses to identify himself, which he has the right to do even though many of us might consider it to be rude and a bad idea.
3.The police THREATEN TO LIE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON TO PUT HIM IN JAIL IF HE DOESN'T GIVE UP HIS RIGHTS.

Obviously, if any LEO wants my ID, he can have it, because I generally trust my local police agencies.
That said, if I chose not to, I can't imagine my local sheriff's deputies threatening to frame me. They would just find another way to convince me.



The police showing up isn't the problem, it's their attempt to strong-arm someone into giving up their rights that's the problem. You literally posted the except from the law which states that the police cannot arrest him simply for not providing identification, yet they tried their best to trick him into it.

See above.

 

[Gideon]

Because the guy carrying might or might not be legal. He could be a convicted felon for all the cops know. That is why they asked his name because he could be breaking the law.

Once again, you quoted the law which stated that he doesn't have to. They ASKED, and when he said 'sorry, I would prefer to not do that', they told him they were going to frame him. It is irrelevant whether he's a felon or carrying illegally, their law does not require even legal carriers to identify themselves as such. The law is poorly written, and obviously doesn't take officer safety into account, since it doesn't grant them the power to demand that identification.

IMO, they should change their law. I'm fine with Oklahoma's stance on it, I trade my right to carry a firearm for the government's right to demand that I identify myself as a legal carrier.

 

[excat]

I've seen this mentioned a few times on here now, I didn't notice anything about that in the OP?