LEO: "I support the 2A, but..." (Video of open carry stop)

[BB62]

...Last night, I reminded my friend about the Fourth Amendment. Lots. He is a stop and frisk proponent. Conversely, I am not.

He doesn't believe in Terry either?

He understands Terry, but not like I understand it. He supports stop and frisk, while I believe the answer is, rather, always more...more cops, prosecutors, judges, jails, etc.

How can one "understand" Terry but support stop and frisk? His threshold for reasonable, articulable suspicion must be pretty low. Can he (or his department) cite precedence for his beliefs?

[Tweed Ring]

He's a retired police administrator and he will not cite jack. He has an opinion - I have an opinion. We agree to disagree on the topic. I know what the Bill of Right says - he disagrees with my interpretation. We also disagree on the matter of the DWI check points. I see those as yet another violation of the Bill of Rights, no matter what Ohio courts have ruled in the matter. He supports them.

We are in agreement regarding showing one's ID so the officer can move along and catch criminals. We also agree open carry gives away a tactical advantage. We seem to agree on more than we disagree.

[robkjv]

That says a great deal about the strength of your beliefs (and understanding of the law), whether you choose to recognize it or not.

Wow, I almost felt like I was talking with one of the liberal sheeple out there. As soon as someone disagrees with you, the name calling and belittling begins. My mistake, thought this was an adult forum.

[BB62]

That says a great deal about the strength of your beliefs (and understanding of the law), whether you choose to recognize it or not.

Wow, I almost felt like I was talking with one of the liberal sheeple out there. As soon as someone disagrees with you, the name calling and belittling begins. My mistake, thought this was an adult forum.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Who or what was harmed except someone's delicate sensitivities?

Might the same be said of the officer's comments, which you find offensive, but which were not direct threats?

Or do you only see these issues from one perspective?

I am capable of seeing both sides. I understand that the LEO is trained to take command of the situation. In that, he did quite well.

Doesn't mean I have to like it.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I know it is a slippery slope indeed, but the officer does make an intelligent point. In this day of crazy active shooters - "checking" someone out, taking 5 to 10 minutes out of their life, carrying on a polite conversation - just doesn't seem that harmful to me.

If you are okay with them "checking you out" for one legal activity, are you okay with them "checking you out" for doing other legal activities?

If so, which ones?

If not, or if only certain activities, why?

We often "what if and what you do" on this board. So, "what if" it was on video that these two cops passed the gentlemen with the long gun and in the police camera and audio we find that the cop said "Oh well, he's carrying a long gun. Strange, but it is his right." Then, just minutes later, at the intersection, he unloads the long into your car, killing everyone in your family but you. Would you not harbor any ill feelings toward the officers, or would you boldly state: "Well, at least no ones delicate sensitivities got hurt."

Trying the ol' emotional argument, huh? How about this:

Me: OH MY GOD! MY FAMILY IS DEAD! OFFICER, WHY DIDN'T YOU TAKE THAT GUY'S GUN?

Cop: He was carrying it legally.

Me: OH! OKAY!

Do you get it? Why would you fear the long gun and not the potentially 300,000 or more concealed handguns?

The cop in this scenario didn't do anything wrong.

Law is the law, and I think all of us on this board are extremely pro gun. However, there has to be a line of common sense safety that is involved and invoked as well. The sticky part of the matter is: who decides what is common sense.

Actually, we need to agree on the safety part.

I'll ask again.

Who got hurt?

[robkjv]

My point exactly, no one got hurt. The cause for 2A "could" be hurt, though, when we go about things looking for confrontation. There may well come a time when this type of display is accurately needed..I would imagine we disagree on the when.

[curmudgeon3]

A slung rifle or a holstered/mexican-carried handgun by a LAC in public is legal, and should be treated as such; now, if some inconsiderate person chooses to walk around in the general public carrying either of them in their hand, and naively expects those people around them to read their mind or assume their intentions are harmless with the gun in their hand, they should expect to get their thinking adjusted.

[Werz]

Who or what was harmed except someone's delicate sensitivities?

Might the same be said of the officer's comments, which you find offensive, but which were not direct threats?

Or do you only see these issues from one perspective?

I am capable of seeing both sides. I understand that the LEO is trained to take command of the situation. In that, he did quite well.

Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Yep. And carrying a slung black rifle down the public streets, without more, is lawful. Doesn't mean the cops have to like it.

I once heard a domestic relations magistrate say that, in a contested divorce, if he issued a decision that made neither party happy, he was probably doing his job right.

[schmieg]

I once heard a domestic relations magistrate say that, in a contested divorce, if he issued a decision that made neither party happy, he was probably doing his job right.

Must be a line they are taught in magistrate school, considering how many times I've heard it.

[slidelock]

I was discussing this with a coworker a former cop. He said that in that situation if he had asked those two for ID and they refused he would have put them on the ground and arrested them. He even said he had done just that and been sued and the case was dropped. I said I thought Ohio law said you had to have RAS before detaining someone or requiring ID. He was adamant that wasn't the case. He does say that he informs his opinion from reading the ORC asked me for a cite on that. "Werz"? anybody got the actual citation?

[95oRANGEcRUSH]

I was discussing this with a coworker a former cop. He said that in that situation if he had asked those two for ID and they refused he would have put them on the ground and arrested them. He even said he had done just that and been sued and the case was dropped. I said I thought Ohio law said you had to have RAS before detaining someone or requiring ID. He was adamant that wasn't the case. He does say that he informs his opinion from reading the ORC asked me for a cite on that. "Werz"? anybody got the actual citation?

Need more details. They can ask for ID but there are stipulations as provided in 2921.29 of the O.R.C. Now, had he asked for ID and the people said "NO!" and then he asked for name & DOB or name & address and the people said "NO!", well, now they just earned arrests as well as M4s.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

Effective Date: 04-14-2006

[BB62]

I was discussing this with a coworker a former cop. He said that in that situation if he had asked those two for ID and they refused he would have put them on the ground and arrested them. He even said he had done just that and been sued and the case was dropped. I said I thought Ohio law said you had to have RAS before detaining someone or requiring ID. He was adamant that wasn't the case. He does say that he informs his opinion from reading the ORC asked me for a cite on that. "Werz"? anybody got the actual citation?

Need more details. They can ask for ID but there are stipulations as provided in 2921.29 of the O.R.C. Now, had he asked for ID and the people said "NO!" and then he asked for name & DOB or name & address and the people said "NO!", well, now they just earned arrests as well as M4s...

So you need more details, but without caveats you state that failure to provide name & DOB/address after refusal to provide ID is an M4? Uh huh.

And for the casual reader, those "stipulations" he mentioned are RAS.

[95oRANGEcRUSH]

I was discussing this with a coworker a former cop. He said that in that situation if he had asked those two for ID and they refused he would have put them on the ground and arrested them. He even said he had done just that and been sued and the case was dropped. I said I thought Ohio law said you had to have RAS before detaining someone or requiring ID. He was adamant that wasn't the case. He does say that he informs his opinion from reading the ORC asked me for a cite on that. "Werz"? anybody got the actual citation?

Need more details. They can ask for ID but there are stipulations as provided in 2921.29 of the O.R.C. Now, had he asked for ID and the people said "NO!" and then he asked for name & DOB or name & address and the people said "NO!", well, now they just earned arrests as well as M4s...

So you need more details, but without caveats you state that failure to provide name & DOB/address after refusal to provide ID is an M4? Uh huh.

And for the casual reader, those "stipulations" he mentioned are RAS.

Simmer down. I wanted more details in regards to this statement: "I was discussing this with a coworker a former cop. He said that in that situation if he had asked those two for ID and they refused he would have put them on the ground and arrested them. He even said he had done just that and been sued and the case was dropped." Specifically, I want to know if this went down exactly as described where ID was requested, people refused, and slidelock's cop-friend arrested them.

Obviously, the officer needs RAS and we all know that. I suppose I took for granted that quoting the O.R.C. and using the word stipulations in lieu of RAS was too much for the "casual reader" to put together. Thank you for correcting me, though.

[BB62]

Need more details. They can ask for ID but there are stipulations as provided in 2921.29 of the O.R.C. Now, had he asked for ID and the people said "NO!" and then he asked for name & DOB or name & address and the people said "NO!", well, now they just earned arrests as well as M4s...

So you need more details, but without caveats you state that failure to provide name & DOB/address after refusal to provide ID is an M4? Uh huh.

And for the casual reader, those "stipulations" he mentioned are RAS.

Simmer down. I wanted more details in regards to this statement: "I was discussing this with a coworker a former cop. He said that in that situation if he had asked those two for ID and they refused he would have put them on the ground and arrested them. He even said he had done just that and been sued and the case was dropped." Specifically, I want to know if this went down exactly as described where ID was requested, people refused, and slidelock's cop-friend arrested them.

Obviously, the officer needs RAS and we all know that. I suppose I took for granted that quoting the O.R.C. and using the word stipulations in lieu of RAS was too much for the "casual reader" to put together. Thank you for correcting me, though.

And yet, in a separate sentence and without any caveats, you make an unsupportable claim that an M4 may have been in the offing.

But of course you just "wanted more details" - the lack of which makes your statement no more accurate.

Here's a thought - maybe you should endeavor to find out the details FIRST before making legal pronouncements?