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

[MoBoost]

Because according to the law as posted and what I have looked up, if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime having been, is being, or will be committed, they are allowed to ask for ID which is a very broad opening. Taking the word of a guy trying to sue for 3.6 million or his lawyer is not a possibility to a rational mind.

No reasonable human being (aka jury) will agree that Mr. Call was involved in disorderly conduct in violation of 2917.11(a) - the ONLY crime the police officers are accusing him off, especially after being ILLEGALLY detained, ILLEGALLY disarmed and ILLEGALLY demanded an ID. This case is so air tight I can't believe there is a discussion. As far as amount goes - that's for the lawyers and judges to decide; wrongful arrests settle for $500k on regular basis.

I see you keep reaching out for "open carry in the car" - but it's all in your mind: it's not mentioned in the video, article, charges filed by the police, or the lawsuit; jaywalking is a more likely crime - maybe you should try that angle.

 

[yukonjack]

No reasonable human being (aka jury) will agree that Mr. Call was involved in disorderly conduct in violation of 2917.11(a) - the ONLY crime the police officers are accusing him off, especially after being ILLEGALLY detained, ILLEGALLY disarmed and ILLEGALLY demanded an ID. This case is so air tight I can't believe there is a discussion. As far as amount goes - that's for the lawyers and judges to decide; wrongful arrests settle for $500k on regular basis.I see you keep reaching out for "open carry in the car" - but it's all in your mind: it's not mentioned in the video, article, charges filed by the police, or the lawsuit; jaywalking is a more likely crime - maybe you should try that angle.

You watch way too much TV. There aren't 500K of damages here. Not anywhere close. If anything they'll settle this outta court for under 25K.

 

[RickN]

No reasonable human being (aka jury) will agree that Mr. Call was involved in disorderly conduct in violation of 2917.11(a) - the ONLY crime the police officers are accusing him off, especially after being ILLEGALLY detained, ILLEGALLY disarmed and ILLEGALLY demanded an ID. This case is so air tight I can't believe there is a discussion. As far as amount goes - that's for the lawyers and judges to decide; wrongful arrests settle for $500k on regular basis.

I see you keep reaching out for "open carry in the car" - but it's all in your mind: it's not mentioned in the video, article, charges filed by the police, or the lawsuit; jaywalking is a more likely crime - maybe you should try that angle.

And maybe you should stop and think a minute. Why just let him go once they found out he does have a CCW? You do not need one to open carry in Ohio. You only need one if you are carrying concealed or opening carrying in a car. Yet as soon as they found out he had one he was turned lose.

 

[MoBoost]

You watch way too much TV. There aren't 500K of damages here. Not anywhere close. If anything they'll settle this outta court for under 25K.

You are correct sir. According to dude's lawyer there is 3600K worth of damages.

And maybe you should stop and think a minute. Why just let him go once they found out he does have a CCW? You do not need one to open carry in Ohio. You only need one if you are carrying concealed or opening carrying in a car. Yet as soon as they found out he had one he was turned lose.

It had nothing to do with CCW. "Clean record" from dispatch what broke the deal - cops were rolling dice with fake charges and intimidation, and rolled out snake eyes. They gambled and they lost - time to pay up.

 

[RickN]

You are correct sir. According to dude's lawyer there is 3600K worth of damages.




It had nothing to do with CCW. "Clean record" from dispatch what broke the deal - cops were rolling dice with fake charges and intimidation, and rolled out snake eyes. They gambled and they lost - time to pay up.

According to the video the dispatcher told the LEOs that he did have a CCW and was clear. Also if you pay really close attention to the video, they get his name off his ID. This is where this part comes in,

You should never lie to a law enforcement officer, however. If you do, you can get into trouble for “obstructing official business.”

The young man screwed up not the cops.

 

[TedKennedy]

Stupid. All you're gonna do is bring down a heap load of crap on your head. They'll make you RESPECT their AUTHORITY. On the side of the road or in front of 7-11 is never a good place to try and hold court with the police. Show them your permit, save yourself some grief, and then if your still feel violated and inflamed hire an attorney and sue.

Now that really hurts my feelings. Good plan, though. I hope it works well for you.

 

[doctorjj]

Your position requires more conjecture than Ricks. 90% of the posters on this sight think every yahoo with a gun is a patriot, gentleman and a scholar and every LEO is an A-hole and that is just not the case. Members here and LEO's both have a similar good dude to A-hole ratio as the rest of the population.

I'm simply going by the story and by the video. I'm not the one making up some probable cause out of thin air. Like MoBoost said, might as well claim jaywalking as probable cause. That is just as likely.

 

[tntrex]

where do you work at?
none of your g-damn business officer

 

[doctorjj]

What part about the cops broke the law do you not get? Whether you agree with the law or not, of you or I broke the law we would be held accountable, why shouldn't the cops be as well?

This!

 

[NikatKimber]

My dislike of his tactics or lack there of is based on the simple fact that the LEOs were investigating a call and I believe they had the right to want to see his ID or at least get his name to be sure he was allowed to carry. If he had just been walking down the road and a cop saw him and stopped him it would be a different story. I will not give a dime to support what I see is stupidity on his part.

Then you are wrong. Plain and simple. The police have no "Right" to anything; only the authority the law gives them (and by extension, we the citizen give the law). And in this case, they were not given that authority. And this:

Fortunately, what you believe and what is actually the law are not the same.

I don't think they should have that authority to just blindly require proof of innocence just because someone's feelers got hurt.

And no, they were NOT investigating a crime at that point. The investigation ended when they showed up, and the person under suspicion was going about his business with a legally open carried gun. At that point they had no more authority to require ID than you or I would.