FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry stop
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
- BB62
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry stop
Found on OCDO: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... terry-stop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... -fear.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"...But under the bill, he said, an officer would be limited in taking such steps because he or she would need probable cause to stop the person — meaning the person would have to do something that appeared to warrant an arrest..."
So, according to the FOP, it appears that OC is RAS.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... -fear.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"...But under the bill, he said, an officer would be limited in taking such steps because he or she would need probable cause to stop the person — meaning the person would have to do something that appeared to warrant an arrest..."
So, according to the FOP, it appears that OC is RAS.
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)
Got Freedom?
Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
Got Freedom?
Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
- Pecker
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 3:56 pm
- Location: Cuyahoga County
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
I think that provision is merely highlighting what is the status quo.
No bull excrement...it also limits the prosecution of law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.“I think it will complicate prosecution of those offenses, because you can make anything you want out of that,” he said. “It’s ammunition for a defense lawyer.”
- BB62
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
I disagree. It's putting on paper what a number of officers and departments disregard.Pecker wrote:I think that provision is merely highlighting what is the status quo...
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)
Got Freedom?
Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
Got Freedom?
Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
- deanimator
- Posts: 7863
- Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:34 pm
- Location: Rocky River
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
If the FOP is against something, it's usually a good idea.
Remember, they're the guys who think that convicted wife beaters should be able to carry guns... but only if they also carry badges.
Remember, they're the guys who think that convicted wife beaters should be able to carry guns... but only if they also carry badges.
Life comes at you fast. Be prepared to shoot it in the head when it does.
-
- Posts: 6534
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
Simple solution ..... take away their badges.
- Pecker
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 3:56 pm
- Location: Cuyahoga County
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
BB62 wrote:I disagree. It's putting on paper what a number of officers and departments disregard.Pecker wrote:I think that provision is merely highlighting what is the status quo...
I was referring more towards what is established via case law, but I see your point.
-
- Posts: 6274
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:07 pm
- Location: Warren County
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
The FOP always wheels out the same old tired arguments at every opponent testimony.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny
Mark
NRA Training Counselor-Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Reloading, Personal Protection in the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home, Home Firearms Safety, Chief RSO. NRA Endowment Life member.
Mark
NRA Training Counselor-Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Reloading, Personal Protection in the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home, Home Firearms Safety, Chief RSO. NRA Endowment Life member.
- djthomas
- Posts: 5961
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
They should really talk to the Columbus Law Department before they suppose to understand how the law currently stands today.BB62 wrote:"...But under the bill, he said, an officer would be limited in taking such steps because he or she would need probable cause to stop the person — meaning the person would have to do something that appeared to warrant an arrest..."
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:10 pm
- Location: Dublin, OH
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
I admit confusion ref:
Is that not the definition of a Terry Stop, and not legal? Am I misunderstanding something, or is he wrong in this article?Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.
Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”
- JediSkipdogg
- Posts: 10257
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
- Location: Batavia
- Contact:
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
He's wrong. The police have to "reasonably suspect the person is involved in criminal activity." So under his example, he can't stop and question that person.Karock wrote:I admit confusion ref:Is that not the definition of a Terry Stop, and not legal? Am I misunderstanding something, or is he wrong in this article?Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.
Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers
Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:10 pm
- Location: Dublin, OH
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
Ok. That was my understanding. Wanted to be sure, or at least as sure as I can be from the interwebs.JediSkipdogg wrote:He's wrong. The police have to "reasonably suspect the person is involved in criminal activity." So under his example, he can't stop and question that person.Karock wrote:I admit confusion ref:Is that not the definition of a Terry Stop, and not legal? Am I misunderstanding something, or is he wrong in this article?Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.
Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”
- Werz
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 5506
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
In terms of the description given, I believe you are probably right. Nevertheless, there are lawful activities, when combined, which are sufficiently suspicious and disturbing to others that they will constitute a reasonable, articulable suspicion sufficient to detain. The infamous Leonard Embody established that.JediSkipdogg wrote:He's wrong. The police have to "reasonably suspect the person is involved in criminal activity." So under his example, he can't stop and question that person.Karock wrote:I admit confusion ref:Is that not the definition of a Terry Stop, and not legal? Am I misunderstanding something, or is he wrong in this article?Under current law, for example, if a person carrying a gun is seen pacing in front of a store or a park playground, an officer can stop and question that person, said Mike Weinman, a retired Columbus police officer and now a lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.
Such a stop can help establish why the person is there and whether he or she is carrying the weapon legally, he said. “It could be as simple as a quick ID check and walking away.”
Naturally, there are those who will vehemently disagree with that proposal. But they do not have the legal authority to interpret the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals does.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
- dsk
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 1408
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:06 am
- Location: central ohio
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
Right, even the part of town in which the stop occurs can be part of the Terry analysis IIRC, such as a high-crime neighborhod.
Pay your dues.
-
- Posts: 1383
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:43 am
- Location: Middletown, Ohio
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
This what I don't get.....Granted, he done what he done. But that whole do not talk to law enforcement can work very much against you....They took him into custody because of not knowing if gun or silencer is legal or not.....Tell them the facts only, if innocent......Werz wrote: In terms of the description given, I believe you are probably right. Nevertheless, there are lawful activities, when combined, which are sufficiently suspicious and disturbing to others that they will constitute a reasonable, articulable suspicion sufficient to detain. The infamous Leonard Embody established that.
If I am in my backyard late at night and someone calls PD for whatever reason.....Then I decide not to speak to them, or identify myself when they arrive ya think they will just let me be.......?
There is pushing the sides of box and then there is BrainDead.....
"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
- MyWifeSaidYes
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
- Contact:
Re: FOP complains about HB 203 removing OC as RAS for Terry
This is exactly right. And THAT is why it is exactly wrong.Splat!! wrote:...They took him into custody because of not knowing if gun or silencer is legal or not...
I'm not trying to defend Mr. Embody, but...
In Ohio, a law enforcement officer cannot stop me just to see if I have a valid driver license.
They have to have RAS of criminal activity.
Driving a car is not a crime, if you follow the law.
Owning a gun is not a crime, if you follow the law.
Carrying a gun is not a crime, if you follow the law.
Putting a suppressor on a gun is not a crime, if you follow the law.
There has to be RAS that you have BROKEN THE LAW before they can stop you!
They can NOT stop you and THEN check and see if you are breaking the law!
MyWifeSaidYes