Ordered to ground at gunpoint for open carrying by cleveland heights ohio police

[cabrera]

LT
My intention was not to be ridiculous but to express my opinion. I appreciate that you are able to keep the discussion civilized & and an intelligent level. The reason of why OC carry has been frowned upon extensively was brought to the podium hence my response. Personally, I don't care if someone open carries, but depending on the environment I am vigilant about the person who is.

Your say deterrence, yes but that same the "act or process of discouraging actions or preventing occurrences by instilling fear or doubt or anxiety" is instilling fear or doubt or anxiety in many people as to the intention of the carrier. Yes a BG may move on or wait until the OC has left but, if your BG were to proceed with his plan the OC would be his 1st, premeditated target. Someone CC would have a tactical advantage if warranted.
I agree with you that I would rather deter the crime from happening to me in the first place than to defend myself after the criminal act has begun, but unfortunately most of the general population has trust issues with someone with a gun... especially since background searches are not required for private sales.

Concealed carry, is the compromise to carrying your weapon without freaking out the general public. We on this forum all know that the gun itself is not evil but the user may be and that is what makes the general public uneasy.

I wasn't aware that I was "bashing" someone who open carries. I was expressing my opinion on the why in this day & age it is not worth it to OC. It reminds me of a similar debate on smoking, and the person who liked smoking in a restaurant which then had no smoking restrictions. So where are we with that? We can't smoke in restaurants which do not offer a "smoking section" if any. Some places you can't smoke in bars & now you can't even smoke at an outdoor stadium at a football game.

You ask a good question, "How do you propose to change that attitude if the only image the public gets of guns is what is presented to them by the anti-gun groups and the anti-gun media?"
I'm sure that many will not like the answer. Licensing, registration, extensive background checks & severe penalties. If the public feels an individual is qualified to have a weapon and that the owner has been certified both capable of possessing one, the general consensus might change. Yes the issue of how would the general public know unless they wear their ID on their chest still exists but then penalties would have to be in place to deter unlicensed carriers.

I do not like the idea of having to pay the government for the government's permission in order to exercise the right to self protection. I wasn't happy having to pay for my CCW. Being ex Navy I avoided having to pay more money for a firearms safety course. I also hated paying to register my car, having to take a driving test to get licensed, paying the RIDICULOUS annual "personal property tax" on a car I paid cash for. I hate the fact that I have to pay all sorts of taxes just to have a central station monitored alarm system on my house. They charge for water ( a minimum usage even if you use none) They charge you transfer taxes when you sell your house, and the list goes on.
Bottom line in this world the government is so far up our butts, it's impossible not to expect to pay them for everything!

No I do not feel a state should prohibit more people than the Federal government already does from carrying a firearm I had enough of that in NYC, but then the federal gov is lax if they do not feel someone who can't make the proper judgment regarding driving & drinking be permitted a deadly weapon.

I read the below statement and I hope you are just being facetious.
My feeling is that if the government feels a person is unsafe to carry a firearm in public because they have committed a criminal act, than the government should not allow that person to walk around in public at all. A gun is only a tool. A person is either a criminal or not. If they are too dangerous to carry a gun, then they should be too dangerous to be walking around freely in public.

So, to sum it up back to the original question, Why are people afraid of other people that open carry?
Because they don't carry, can't carry, and because they are scared of the guy carrying because he could have bought his gun at a flea market with 0 background checks & then may or may not be a maniac who open fires at a Walmart not because he's robbing the place, but because he feels like it. Or both!

 

[NavyLCDR]

I wasn't aware that I was "bashing" someone who open carries.

The first sentence in your post called me nuts and insane.

i have to say. oc is simply nuts. i know it is your right, but it is insane to do so.

Anyway.... maybe you didn't mean it to sound that way.

As a person who open carries every day and who has open carried across several states, and in such liberal slanted places as Seattle and Vancouver, WA, I can tell you what my universal experience has been.

95 to 99% of the public don't even notice. Of the 1 to 5% remaining the do notice:

About 75% are either completely supportive and will let you know they support you or are at least curious and will ask about it. The curious folks that ask about it tend, by vast majority, to go away with a positive education experience. "Wow, I didn't know that! Cool!"

The remaining 25% of the 1 to 5% that notice the gun in the first place are visibly and/or verbally against the gun. Of those, only 1 or 2 will call 911.

People are against a lot of things. Some are against jews. Some are against black people. Myself, I happen to be against the loud thumping music from the car behind me at the stoplight. None of us feels comfortable in our environment 100% of the time. Yes, sometimes the "offensive" person can change their behavior - the guy with the music can turn it down. Sometimes the "offensive" person cannot simply change their religion or change the color of their skin. The fact is I don't feel the need to change the way that I carry my gun (which I believe is not only the most effective way to protect myself and family from crime and also is a way which is more likely to deter crime rather than introduce a gunfight into a crime being committed) because the sight of an inanimate object carried in a holster on a belt scares a minority of the people out there. In addition, the black people did not obtain the equality they deserve and now enjoy simply by compromising and sitting in the back of the bus. Their actions initially disturbed a lot of people.

This theory of being targeted in a crime first because of the gun has NEVER proven itself to be true. The people who have been singled out of a crowd and shot during a crime who have been carrying guns also have been wearing uniforms. They have been cops (Lakewood police shooting at the coffee shop) or armored car security guards (Wal Mart, somewhere here in Washington). There has never been a case reported where an armed civilian not wearing a uniform has been shot first in a convenience store, bank, etc. (Except now, maybe they guy in COSTCO in Nevada - he was shot by police, but we don't know the circumstances behind that and it was not during a crime being committed.)

Studies have been done where felons have been interviewed, and the majority of felons themselves admit that it is just not worth it to tangle with an armed citizen. It's too easy to go down the block or wait a couple minutes for an unarmed(at least visibly) citizen to come along. It is also much easier and safer for the criminal to obtain their guns in a sale or to snatch an unattended gun than it is to take one from the holster of an armed citizen.

 

[mappow]

+1 LT, very eloquent and to the point. NOW if we could only get our SC Legislators to agree and pass/amend our State Statute to allow OC anytime/anywhere.

 

[cabrera]

LT
My intention was not to come off as insulting, I suppose that in reading back it a can be interpreted that way, my apologies..
Like I said, personally I have no objection to OC, my response was to answer why people are so against it.
I choose to CC to avoid the BS. I do open carry in rural areas where I know people accept the sight of my sidearm as easily as carrying my Ipod.
In the more urban/suburban areas I do not want to deal with a "concerned citizen" who calls 911 and an overreacting LEO with an itchy trigger.
That said, You make a good argument. Unfortunately the sheep in the more urban areas of the country will never accept it.

I have had handguns since I was 21. I trained my wife & now my son to shoot. My wife was dead against carrying. She said she didn't need to carry since I did. I explained that there may be a time when I either won't be there or am incapable of protecting her & now she carries. When I lived in NJ a buddy of mind applied for a CCW. He was then 25, clean record, honorable military discharge, squeaky clean not even a traffic ticket. He was denied, he appealed twice. Still denied. The reasoning was they saw no reason for him to carry a weapon. It's funny how the same politicians who pass laws restricting all have CCW!
Open carry argument would never fly there. That is why there is such a high crime rate in areas that restrict guns - but they just don't get it!

People are against a lot of things. But in your circumstance by your own admission the amount of people against OC where you are is minimal. So changing the way that you carry your gun would not benefit you greatly. Would you feel the same if you were consistently being detained by LEOs who are called everywhere you go?

BTW don't kid yourself, I moved down south a few years ago and although on legally & on paper black people have obtained the equality they have a right to. In reality it isn't so. I have seen stuff down here that just "ain't right"! But that's for another forum.

It seems that in urban areas, there will always be the offended group who will never accept an armed citizen. They are frightened sheep who expect the police to protect them. Which we all know is an impossibility.

 

[NavyLCDR]

People are against a lot of things. But in your circumstance by your own admission the amount of people against OC where you are is minimal. So changing the way that you carry your gun would not benefit you greatly. Would you feel the same if you were consistently being detained by LEOs who are called everywhere you go?

I would feel even more strongly for open carrying. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC. I have been threatened with arrest by the police. Their illegal actions won't deter me. If we don't stand up for our rights, we will all find ourselves living in "New Jersey".

 

[maybejim]

I think Navy LT has said it all. Excellent answer. Strong Constitutional and Gun supporter. I salute you!:thank_you2:

 

[Oldgrunt]

Well fellows (and gals), I have read some very good arguments throughout this thread for the merits of OC or CC, or both. It is difficult to tell someone they are wrong. Personal preference should be what dictates whatever method you choose (within your state's current laws.) I think we should have the right, nationwide, to do either. It is going to be up to us to convince our government to allow us to do so. I am an old fart with barely enough strength to defend myself against some of these young toughs. I carry my weapon(s) for just that reason. I read a line somewhere that said, "Don't start a fight with an old man who can no longer fight. He will kill you!" I may not kill him but he will damn sure be hurting! As for being confrontational with the police, no, I will not do that. I have already talked to our Sheriff about OC and don't forsee any problems. I will try to handle things in a civilized manner. As for OC, if I see you OCing, I will walk over and shake your hand and have a conversation with you. I will not be afraid to do so. I dare say others would probably join the conversation. I have learned some valuable things by reading this thread. Some of the comments are emotionally charged, some are carefully thought out and presented well. Others, I am not sure the writers even know what they were trying to say but at least they had the privilege of doing so. I'm looking forward to reading more comments!:biggrin:

 

[jsimmons]

Seems to me that alot of open carry people try to bait the police...Why else would you carry a video camera?

I carry a camera with me, but only because it's on my cell phone.It takes pics and video.

 

[Nightmare45]

In an earlier post on this thread, I mentioned a traffic stop in CA as well as a Border Patrol check point and a second stop in TX. Point one if you are confrontational you can expect problems, LEO's have a difficult job, when they receive a call it is usually a note of a problem, they have to investigate safely and all officers wish to go home to their familys at night. A man with a gun call is just that, even in OC states, again it is knowledge that protects both them and us. Any LEO who receives a call of a man with a gun would be remiss not to investigate at a minimum. The recent Madison town call of men with guns was not taken care of in a professional manner, OC state, folks sitting minding there own business caller even stated they were not brandshing just sitting talking, police did overreact and individual who placed the call even stated (after being informed of OC) she did not have a problem, all charges were dropped except disorderly conduct (police chief). Even this could have been avoided had the Chief been aware of his States own laws (unless he has issues with enforcement of the law and not his personal issues). Peace, Knowledge, God Bless America and 2nd Amendment.

PS: It is innocent till proven guilty not visa versa.

 

[maybejim]

In an earlier post on this thread, I mentioned a traffic stop in CA as well as a Border Patrol check point and a second stop in TX. Point one if you are confrontational you can expect problems, LEO's have a difficult job, when they receive a call it is usually a note of a problem, they have to investigate safely and all officers wish to go home to their familys at night. A man with a gun call is just that, even in OC states, again it is knowledge that protects both them and us. Any LEO who receives a call of a man with a gun would be remiss not to investigate at a minimum. The recent Madison town call of men with guns was not taken care of in a professional manner, OC state, folks sitting minding there own business caller even stated they were not brandshing just sitting talking, police did overreact and individual who placed the call even stated (after being informed of OC) she did not have a problem, all charges were dropped except disorderly conduct (police chief). Even this could have been avoided had the Chief been aware of his States own laws (unless he has issues with enforcement of the law and not his personal issues). Peace, Knowledge, God Bless America and 2nd Amendment.

Sounds like the Chief of Police needs to be replaced, and the officers retrained or fired.

 

[wuzfuz]

re: Ordered to Ground

I was a deputy sheriff in Arizona, and checked out a number of people carrying openly. Not once did I have to draw my weapon or prone somoeone out on the sidewalk. We just had a case in Pierce County, here in Washington state. Washington is an open carry state that also issues concealed pistol licenses. Starbuck's has supported the Second Amendment, and invites people to feel free to carry in their stores. A gentleman in Pierce County had been going to his local Starbuck's every day to get his latte, with his 9 mm on his hip, with no problem. This one morning, a Pierce County deputy entered the store and approached the customer and demanded to see his ID. The gentleman got his back up and refused to show the deputy his ID, as he was violating no law. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and transport him to jail. When the public was made aware of this abuse of police authority. Detective Ed Troyer, Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman stated the man was in the wrong, as the police HAD THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ANY POSSIBLE THREAT (emphasis mine). How does a citizen exercizing his constitutional rights constitute a threat? The deputy was armed as well, was HE posing a threat? In this instance, yes, as he was exceeding his authority,m harassing a citizen for nothing more than peacefully going about his business while exercizing his Second Amendment rights. What part of 'Shall Not Be Infringed ' do they fail to understand? Normally, I support the police, as I know how hard the job is, but I will not back a cowboy who has his badge tattooed on his chest.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I was a deputy sheriff in Arizona, and checked out a number of people carrying openly. Not once did I have to draw my weapon or prone somoeone out on the sidewalk. We just had a case in Pierce County, here in Washington state. Washington is an open carry state that also issues concealed pistol licenses. Starbuck's has supported the Second Amendment, and invites people to feel free to carry in their stores. A gentleman in Pierce County had been going to his local Starbuck's every day to get his latte, with his 9 mm on his hip, with no problem. This one morning, a Pierce County deputy entered the store and approached the customer and demanded to see his ID. The gentleman got his back up and refused to show the deputy his ID, as he was violating no law. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and transport him to jail. When the public was made aware of this abuse of police authority. Detective Ed Troyer, Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman stated the man was in the wrong, as the police HAD THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ANY POSSIBLE THREAT (emphasis mine). How does a citizen exercizing his constitutional rights constitute a threat? The deputy was armed as well, was HE posing a threat? In this instance, yes, as he was exceeding his authority,m harassing a citizen for nothing more than peacefully going about his business while exercizing his Second Amendment rights. What part of 'Shall Not Be Infringed ' do they fail to understand? Normally, I support the police, as I know how hard the job is, but I will not back a cowboy who has his badge tattooed on his chest.

wuzfuz,

Your details of the incident are a bit in error, even though your final point about the case is 100% accurate. The man, Tom Brewster, and the situation leading up to the incident were as you described. He had gone to the same Starbucks many times, LAWFULLY carrying his firearm. This particular time, one Sheriff deputy standing in line - NOT in response to any 911 call - asked Tom Brewster to show him identification because he was openly carrying a firearm - an act for which NO license or permit is required to do in Washington.

Tom refused to show ID and asked if the deputy was detaining him. The deputy replied no, he was not being detained, so Tom stated that this conversation was over. The deputy then left the store and called THREE more deputies. Tom, in the meantime, started a voice recorder that he carries with him. The four deputies returned and asked Tom to leave the store with them. Tom refused. What happened next was 6 or 8 (I don't remember which) full minutes of 4 deputies harassing Tom to show them identification even though no offense was being committed. Also note that during this entire incident, none of the deputies felt that Tom was enough of a threat to anyone to disarm him. He remained in possession of his firearm at all times.

Finally, seeing no other alternative to end the harassment, Tom showed the deputies his identification and the deputies left. Tom was never arrested nor charged with anything. In Washington there is no legal requirement to produce an identification document to law enforcement, and there is no statute that permits law enforcement to ask a person for identification without there being a cause to issue a citation to that person. The US Supreme Court has ruled that in the absence of state law, such as in Washington, that police may only require verbal identification of a subject IF they have reasonable and articulable suspicion that person has committed, is committing or about to commit a crime. The sheriff's deputies in this incident clearly and blatantly violated Tom's 4th Amendment rights.

An mp3 file of the voice recorder is posted in this thread:
Link Removed!

There will probably be a lawsuit filed against the Peirce County Sheriff for violating the 4th Amendment, ESPECIALLY in light of the public statement made by Ed Troyer on television that it was perfectly acceptable for law enforcement to stop whomever they desired in order to "investigate" irregardless of if that person was breaking no laws and posing no threat.

 

[AmericanWolf]

Whoops, Posted something in the wrong forum.

 

[maybejim]

Seems to me that alot of open carry people try to bait the police...Why else would you carry a video camera? Yes you were right and they were wrong but in thier response they have to detain you and check you out in the course of a radio call, think of the liability if they had not...of course you probably already knew that. Carrying a video camera and taping the police and carring the law with you. And your probably the type to try to sue over it and waste more taxpayers money. JMHO

knighted4

The police have no liability to provide protection to anyone. There have been a number of cases supporting that. It seems to me it was only a couple of years ago where some women called 911 said someone had threatened that they were coming over to kill them. The police didn't show up for an hour or so and the women were dead. Court said police had no liability.

 

[m1gunr]

The police didn't show up for an hour or so and the women were dead. Court said police had no liability.

Warren v District of Columbia
DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.

 

[AmericanWolf]

Probable Cause is enought to stop someone

Having been a police officer and a sheriff's deputy I agree that police need probable cause to stop and question someone. That is of course, unless they have received a call about someone acting suspiciously or so oddly as to be a potential threat to themselves or others. However, the video you show as your evidence actually speaks volumes about you. For you example, 1) had you not been walking with the camera on your phone already recoding during your "stroll"; and 2) had you not already been giving your opening dialog BEFORE the police car even got to you; and 3) had you not had the attorney general's ruling in your pocket and 4) had you not repeatedly "warned" you officer that he was on camera then I would have agreed that you had a potential grievance with the officer. However, you did all those things which gives me probably cause to believe you were looking for provoke an incident. This would naturally lead me to wonder what else you did before began recording your walk. Based purely on your actions I suspect you did something that probably resulting in someone calling the police and reporting a suspicious person with a weapon. And, that my friend, would absolutely give the police the right stop and question you even when open carry is legal in your state as it is in my (Virginia.)

 

[antietam]

In your opinion as a former LEO, is probable cause easy to invent? Isn't the concept so broad and ambiguous that nearly anything can be contrived as probable cause especially when it's the LEO word against the citizen.

 

[Nightmare45]

Part of the problem with anti gun folks is they believe the police are there to protect "them", the laws every state in the union prevent this, they are in place after the fact to arrest and prosecute the person who killed you, speeding ticket is good example they can't issue one before the fact only after you speed. This concept fails when someone is intent on harming or robbing you, unless the officer happens to be standing next to you when this happens.

 

[PaxMentis]

Having been a police officer and a sheriff's deputy I agree that police need probable cause to stop and question someone. That is of course, unless they have received a call about someone acting suspiciously or so oddly as to be a potential threat to themselves or others. However, the video you show as your evidence actually speaks volumes about you. For you example, 1) had you not been walking with the camera on your phone already recoding during your "stroll"; and 2) had you not already been giving your opening dialog BEFORE the police car even got to you; and 3) had you not had the attorney general's ruling in your pocket and 4) had you not repeatedly "warned" you officer that he was on camera then I would have agreed that you had a potential grievance with the officer. However, you did all those things which gives me probably cause to believe you were looking for provoke an incident. This would naturally lead me to wonder what else you did before began recording your walk. Based purely on your actions I suspect you did something that probably resulting in someone calling the police and reporting a suspicious person with a weapon. And, that my friend, would absolutely give the police the right stop and question you even when open carry is legal in your state as it is in my (Virginia.)

If the call included information that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime likely has been or is being committed, you are correct. However, a call stating that a person is walking down the street with a gun on his or her hip does not meet that standard. The "factors" that you list as far as what would cause you to suspect a crime was committed also do not reach the standard of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.