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

[rayven]

One of the first things he said was "You're on camera". So basically, he knew there was to be a confrontation. I don't get pissy if I've done nothing wrong.

I would have done the same if I had a camera. Actually, if I'm holding a camera and there is even the slightest chance of a police encounter, it gets switched on and I start filming. So far, I'm lucky to not need the "evidence".

And I didn't see him being pissy -- he was just videotaping the police, which is well within his rights.

But your core argument of "What made the cops come in the first place?" is a very valid question. If they were there simply because he was carrying a weapon, the cops were extremely out of line and should be reprimanded and the guy in the video should launch a lawsuit. However, there may have been a call about a recent armed robbery, attempted murder, etc., and a man with a gun would then warrant an action like this.

It doesn't seem the case in this particular incident, and in any question regarding rights violation, no information = siding with the citizen instead of the government.

 

[utimmer43]

However, there may have been a call about a recent armed robbery, attempted murder, etc., and a man with a gun would then warrant an action like this.

It doesn't seem the case in this particular incident, and in any question regarding rights violation, no information = siding with the citizen instead of the government.

Even if there had been a recent robbery/ attempted murder/ etc., if the guy is just walking down the street, and doesn't fit a description given by the robbery victim, the police have no standing to question him. OC is not reasonable suspicion to connect someone to an incident. And realistically, (not that this has any legal standing, it's just common sense) how many robbers OC?

To me, the fact that he wasn't charged with anything and was given back his gun is all the evidence I need to believe that there were not any variables beforehand (unknown to us) that would have justified the detainment.

 

[rayven]

Even if there had been a recent robbery/ attempted murder/ etc., if the guy is just walking down the street, and doesn't fit a description given by the robbery victim, the police have no standing to question him. OC is not reasonable suspicion to connect someone to an incident. And realistically, (not that this has any legal standing, it's just common sense) how many robbers OC?

To me, the fact that he wasn't charged with anything and was given back his gun is all the evidence I need to believe that there were not any variables beforehand (unknown to us) that would have justified the
detainment.

Actually, if there were a recent armed robbery or whatever, and a man with a gun is walking down the street, I can completely understand why the police would want to question him. If it had been me, I wouldn't have had a problem being stopped. In cases like that, it is much better for the police to err on the side of caution.

But being thrown on the ground like that was a bit of an overkill. Stop him with their hands on their service weapons, sure, just in case. Question him as to his involvement, no problem. But that was over the line.

You are right though: not too many people who just committed armed robbery want to advertise that they have a gun. If I just robbed/shot someone at gunpoint, I'm going to try to blend in the crowd and avoid any suspicion at all.

 

[XD-Fender]

Hmmm... Let's see:

1. Armed man is walking down the street doing nothing illegal whatsoever, in complete compliance with the law.

2. Paranoid, prejudiced "citizen" calls police about a suspicious armed man but with no articulable suspicion of any crime being committed.

3. Police stop the law-abiding armed man, put him on the ground, detain him, disarm him, etc.

I guess I don't see what the debate is. Consider this slight change in the story:

1. Black man is walking down the street doing nothing illegal whatsoever, in complete compliance with the law.

2. Paranoid, prejudiced "citizen" calls police about a suspicious black man but with no articulable suspicion of any crime being committed.

3. Police stop the law-abiding black man, put him on the ground, detain him, disarm him, etc.

Wow--seems a little different now, doesn't it...

Why is detaining a law-abiding citizen because s/he is exercising his/her constitutionally-protected RKBA any more okay than detaining a law-abiding black man simply for walking down the street? Because of some other "citizen's" prejudicial "fear" or "suspicion"?

Whether the OP was seeking the confrontation or not is completely beside the point--so were the marchers in Selma. So were the black people who sat down at the dime-store lunch counters in the South. So was Rosa Parks. And you know what people said about them? "They're just seeking a confrontation." "They just pushing buttons to make trouble." "They're causing the problems themselves." "They're just uppity."

Well, maybe it's about time a few more of us who believe in the RKBA and the protections of the 2A get a little "uppity" too!

 

[MikieTaps]

OK. so originially, I hadnt listened to the whole thing all the way through... after listening to it, I think you are in the right.

The first time, I listened to the first minute or so, and thought you were just out looking for trouble. I figure as long as you weren't doing anything illegal, or trying to intimidate anyone, keep up the good work exercising your right, and OC when you can.

 

[firebasecrosby]

Ok, first post, but I have to weigh in on this.

First, your entire tone is confrontational. Yes, OC is legal. However, how many people OC where you are? Is this a common practice? The female officer-- although certainly not enlightened by any means-- does have a point. Everyone CAN'T have a weapon. There are nutcases out there, and felons. That's why you are carrying your gun, open or concealed, and since it sounds like OC isn't commonly practiced where you-- though legal-- perhaps you need to consider WHY you chose to OC.

The marchers in Selma and this guy don't have a lot in common. They were protesting, en masse, their complete and utter disenfranchisement from the American institutions that most of us take for granted. The guy in the video was carrying a firearm in an area where it is obviously not practiced, and comparing his actions-- which achieve nothing-- to those in Selma is a bit of a stretch.

Lots of mention of our founding fathers on here. One question the founders asked about many of their laws and policies in their debates was, "To what end?" As in: So you proved to the officers that OC is legal. Great. Those two officers probably won't stop YOU again, but if they choose to detain and question another citizen with a gun-- in broad daylight, on a city street-- I can't say I blame them. So the question to ask about this is, "Okay, you were right. They read page 19 of the Attorney' General handbook from your back pocket, and you were right. Great. To what end?"

I like to remember that these "jack-booted Gestapo" are people just like you and me. They get up in the morning, put on their uniform, and go to work. They have the same ambitions as you and me. They want to stop bad things from happening in their community-- bad things like a nutjob with a gun going on a killcrazy rampage. So they ordered an armed man to the ground, checked his papers, and perhaps took a tone with him that suggested, "Ok, the OC is legal. But WHY are you frightening your fellow citizens by doing so when you can carry concealed legally and frighten/alarm no one?" Have you had previous run-ins with law enforcement in your town? Is that the agenda?

Remember that the Gestapo played a big part in the Nazis rounding up six million people and sending them to their deaths. They did not ask for gun ownership paperwork, and they certainly didn't have meaningful discussions about the niceties of German law with those they detained. Your analogy loses its emphasis when it delves into melodrama; an eight-minute detention by two police officers is not Dachau.

Oh, and before the flame-fest starts: I'm in the Army. Active duty. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I'm a combat wounded vet. And yes, I think the gradual erosion of our rights is troubling. But I do not think these cops have that as their agenda. If more people carried openly, and it was the custom to do so in the town/city where this was filmed, I doubt this would have occurred.

Perhaps there is something to be learned in a comparison with the marchers in Selma. If this guy had fifty of his friends, carrying openly, threatening no one, would the cops have responded the same way? If they did, he'd have the beginnings of a class-action lawsuit, and furthermore, it would deters these officers from thinking they had stopped one random nutjob with a gun and an agenda.

A previous poster said it best: the anti-gunners are looking for ways to take our guns. Most of America does not think like we do. If we give the antigunners more to work with, they will use it against us. Your confrontation with the police definitely errs on the side of giving them something to work with.

 

[ecocks]

I agree this guy was looking for a confrontation. And, in a way, I don't have a problem with that. OC groups stage OC events around the country and often someone is taping just in case. If this had been in a parking lot or public area, it might have served a purpose for educating people about OC or even making a point to the PD.

However, this guy seems to be trying for a lwwsuit and wants to suck us into it. There is no educational project or social function which would make a point to the department or even the public at large. His purpse seems to be to force a confrontation.

The officer over-reacts and that is a shame but this is poorly staged and could have had a disastrous ending.

I support OC but pissing off the PD in a one-on-one confrontation serves no purpose.

No respect or sympathy from me for this guy.

 

[knighted4]

Please note the OP has only posted 2 times on this forum. He was virtually pushed out of another.

Gotta ask why.

knighted4

 

[PascalFleischman]

It doesn't seem the case in this particular incident, and in any question regarding rights violation, no information = siding with the citizen instead of the government.

That mentality just got B. Hussein Obama in a shitpot of trouble. The "good guys" aren't always the good guys.

 

[chudak25]

Everyone is saying that if OC was a common practice, this would not have happened! I have something for you guys to think about, if OC was common practice in some area, and the BG's know this, what is to stop them from walking around with a gun at their side? How would the police tell the difference then? I know that does not give the COPS the right to stop anyone with a gun, but if you were a COP, how would you tell the difference? Just a thought I had and wanted to see what people would say!

 

[utimmer43]

Everyone is saying that if OC was a common practice, this would not have happened! I have something for you guys to think about, if OC was common practice in some area, and the BG's know this, what is to stop them from walking around with a gun at their side? How would the police tell the difference then? I know that does not give the COPS the right to stop anyone with a gun, but if you were a COP, how would you tell the difference? Just a thought I had and wanted to see what people would say!

OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.

BTW, there are parts of the country where OC is common practice.

 

[chudak25]

OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.

BTW, there are parts of the country where OC is common practice.

I totally agree with you that we do not take away the right to OC because a BG might blend in. My only thing on that is if you are a COP that might make your job somewhat more dangerous because you obviously can't stop every person with a gun, or do profiling. I guess they would have to rely more on the description of the suspect and do it that way instead of "oh he looks like a criminal".
As for the argument that if a convict is released back into society, it does make sense that if someone thinks he/she is no longer a threat and they are released from jail, so why not allow them to carry weapons, vote and all that?! I guess if someone is afraid they would re-offend or deemed high risk, especially for gun violence type of criminals, maybe keep them locked up longer by increasing their sentences, say life time or until someone sees a difference in them and can certify that this person is no longer the same criminal that went in. Because if they are a high risk to society then why are they out in the first place, if they can't get a gun through the legal channels, there are plenty of other ways to do it! So good points, thanks for bringing those up, never really thought much about that before!

 

[utimmer43]

My only thing on that is if you are a COP that might make your job somewhat more dangerous because you obviously can't stop every person with a gun, or do profiling.

I don't think any more dangerous than his job already is. If he is simply observing and notices someone OCing, he would do well to stay alert for the possibility that the OCer is a BG who would pull his gun on the cop. Not likely, but he must stay alert non-the-less.

I guess they would have to rely more on the description of the suspect and do it that way instead of "oh he looks like a criminal".

I think that sums it up pretty well. Since OC is perfectly legal (in most states), it cannot be the sole purpose for detainment. And I would add that if someone were detained for no other reason than because he was OCing, and it was discovered that he is in fact an ex-con, I would bet money that any weapons charges would be dropped.

I am reminded of a great Jefferson quote: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

 

[Boomboy007]

OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.

I am also a believer in the restitution of normal rights to those who have paid their debt to society. If we were to eliminate the ridiculous restrictions on liberty known as "the war on drugs", we would have plenty of room for the serious, violent threats to society.

 

[chudak25]

I am also a believer in the restitution of normal rights to those who have paid their debt to society. If we were to eliminate the ridiculous restrictions on liberty known as "the war on drugs", we would have plenty of room for the serious, violent threats to society.

Another good point! I'm not sure about all the drugs, but I have been saying for a long time that we need to legalize pot and that would solve two problems, one it would be taxed by the government and therefore help pay off some of the debt we have and two, a crapload of jails would not be overcrowded and in a way help the states and government because we would not be paying for their stay! But no one listens, while everyone that does smoke weed keeps doing it anyway! By the way, I don't smoke, not pot, not even cigarettes and never have. Just don't want someone saying I'm a smoker and that is why I want it legalized.

 

[Boomboy007]

I get you, Chudak.

I, like you, do not partake of the substances which alter my perception of the world. Heck, if I have more than six or eight alcoholic drinks in a year, it would surprise the heck out of me. It is not that I have any moral or ethical issue with the intoxicant in question; I just don't like the way the few that I have tried made me feel.

That said, I am very, very careful about the restrictions that I would approve of placing on consenting adults. Take helmet laws for example: Personally, when I ride, I always wear a helmet, although my locale does not require one. Eye protection, on the other hand, is a legal necessity. This is a system that I support.

When does a helmet matter? After you have been involved in a wreck, and your head is contacting the ground or engine block or elm tree with which you have collided. Who is hurt by the decision to forgo the helmet? The legal, consenting adult who, more than likely, moved on to a better place.

When does eye protection matter? Before the horsefly hits your eyeball at forty miles an hour, causing you to lose control and slew into the eight year old standing on the adjacent sidewalk, ending her life and making a living heck of the rest of yours.

Not to beat the vehicular example to death, but another good example, in my opinion, is the seat belt law. I agree wholeheartedly with requiring motor vehicle companies to install seat belts as part of a reasonable safety system. Companies and corporations should not share the same rights as people (don't get me started on corporate person hood!).

That said, I find the idea that cognizant, consenting adults should be forced to wear the seat belt "for their own good" to be insulting and contrary to the reasonable order of the universe.

Car seat law? Fantastic! Seat belts for all under the age of majority (which is 18 here)? Great concept! These individuals are helpless and unable to consent, and I have no problem with reasonable rules to protect them. However, I am really uncomfortable with the thought of forcing any adult into acting or practicing in ways that are not of their own choosing.

 

[PascalFleischman]

If someone is too dumb not to wear a seatbelt, there's a high likelihood that they haven't protected themselves in other departments....namely, health insurance. So when they get ejected from their car and have to find the nearest Level I trauma center, guess who's footing the $500K bill??? You and I.

 

[Invisible_Dave]

I've got a crisp $20 bill that the LEO had previous encounters with the OP and those shaped this taped version.

Also an armed man "pacing the block" could be enough to trigger a suspicious activity complaint and a search depending on state law.

 

[utimmer43]

If someone is too dumb not to wear a seatbelt, there's a high likelihood that they haven't protected themselves in other departments....namely, health insurance. So when they get ejected from their car and have to find the nearest Level I trauma center, guess who's footing the $500K bill??? You and I.

We're getting a little off topic but since it is all a matter of personal freedom and choices, what the hey...

First, I know MANY people who don't wear their seatbelt, yet every one of them has health insurance. I don't believe for one minute that the likelyhood of being insured is in any way statistically related to the decision of wearing a seatbelt. Infact, one could just as easily make the case that the insured figures "screw it, I don't need a seatbelt, I'm insured."

Second, even IF they don't have health insurance, they very likely have auto insurance, which would be the first payor in an injury accident. I'm not sure how most ins. cos. work, but ours asked us if we wear our seatbelts, and would have jacked up our rates if we didn't. How they enforce it, I have no idea. But that is the kind of seatbelt policy I can agree with, one between the insurer and the insured, and no meddeling by the government.

 

[XD-Fender]

Also an armed man "pacing the block" could be enough to trigger a suspicious activity complaint and a search depending on state law.

On what justification?

Would a "black man 'pacing the block'...be enough to trigger a suspicious activity complaint and a search"?

What about a "white man 'pacing the block'"?

Or maybe a "man with an anti-abortion poster 'pacing the block'"?

What about a "woman with a 'Ron Paul for President' t-shirt 'pacing the block'"?

See the point? Why is it any more acceptable or reasonable for a law-abiding person to be stopped, searched, etc. because the right s/he is exercising is the RKBA than it is any other fundamental right?