Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ohio Man Illegally Arrested for Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NikatKimber" data-source="post: 2200803" data-attributes="member: 423"><p>That's why I was mentioning training department. If they didn't do any new training after the law changed, willfully illegal action on the part of the individual officers would be hard to press. But at the same time, if I did something similar as a non-LEO, I'd get the book thrown at me. Hard most likely. Why? Because the other side was insisting that he was within his rights. Oh, and... "We gotz ta make an eggzample uv him!!!" If they had done training on it, or at least had been informed, then it would be open and shut to me: he willfully broke the law. No more cert for you! If the training dept. had known the law changed (it would be their job to make sure), and chose NOT to train officers - then the training dept should be facing severe penalties.</p><p></p><p>But that's kind of beside the point to me. If I'm Mr. Reasonable and Well-Intentioned Officer Bob, and I'm demanding ID, and suspect is saying "No sir! Ohio law says I don't have to. I'll show you in the law!" at what point would Mr. Reasonable be expected to come to the conclusion that all is not right??</p><p></p><p>Meh, at this point you and I may be picking at nits on this.</p><p></p><p>In short, my opinion is merely that the guy (while maybe a jerk) was in the right, the officers were in the wrong. But the penalty is debatable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NikatKimber, post: 2200803, member: 423"] That's why I was mentioning training department. If they didn't do any new training after the law changed, willfully illegal action on the part of the individual officers would be hard to press. But at the same time, if I did something similar as a non-LEO, I'd get the book thrown at me. Hard most likely. Why? Because the other side was insisting that he was within his rights. Oh, and... "We gotz ta make an eggzample uv him!!!" If they had done training on it, or at least had been informed, then it would be open and shut to me: he willfully broke the law. No more cert for you! If the training dept. had known the law changed (it would be their job to make sure), and chose NOT to train officers - then the training dept should be facing severe penalties. But that's kind of beside the point to me. If I'm Mr. Reasonable and Well-Intentioned Officer Bob, and I'm demanding ID, and suspect is saying "No sir! Ohio law says I don't have to. I'll show you in the law!" at what point would Mr. Reasonable be expected to come to the conclusion that all is not right?? Meh, at this point you and I may be picking at nits on this. In short, my opinion is merely that the guy (while maybe a jerk) was in the right, the officers were in the wrong. But the penalty is debatable. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ohio Man Illegally Arrested for Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom