My OHSP stop friday grrrrr

[soberbiker]

For the most part in dealing with law enforcement it's pretty obvious if someone is doing something illegal. I would not expect an officer to know every detail of every law he may be writing a citation for. We as gun enthusiasts obviously know that section very well and perhaps an education campaign may be in order.

[tbrew85]

For the most part in dealing with law enforcement it's pretty obvious if someone is doing something illegal. I would not expect an officer to know every detail of every law he may be writing a citation for. We as gun enthusiasts obviously know that section very well and perhaps an education campaign may be in order.

An "Education campaign" has been done by this organization, and others, MANY times.

I DO expect an officer to know every detail of a law he is writing a citation for. The courts expect me to know the same, and WILL hold me accountable to it. Its ludacrous to give LEO a pass on violating rights because they didnt know every detail. Ignorance is no excuse.

I was threatened with arrest for open carrying when it was 100% legal and HE was ignorant of the law. He should get a pass???

[JediSkipdogg]

For the most part in dealing with law enforcement it's pretty obvious if someone is doing something illegal. I would not expect an officer to know every detail of every law he may be writing a citation for. We as gun enthusiasts obviously know that section very well and perhaps an education campaign may be in order.

An "Education campaign" has been done by this organization, and others, MANY times.

I DO expect an officer to know every detail of a law he is writing a citation for. The courts expect me to know the same, and WILL hold me accountable to it. Its ludacrous to give LEO a pass on violating rights because they didnt know every detail. Ignorance is no excuse.

I was threatened with arrest for open carrying when it was 100% legal and HE was ignorant of the law. He should get a pass???

Here's a very good read on that topic. It talks about laws as well and that there are too many then mentions the qualified immunity police get and the absolute immunity prosecutors get for enforcing said laws, even if they were wrong to enforce it on you.

The Power Of The Prosecutor

[sxshep]

Any time I'm following someone I believe is under the influence or driving irradically, I've always been more comfortable keeping that person in front of me where I can watch their vehicle's movements and react quicker if they do something stupid. Kind of like running towards a crashing train, not away from it. If I rode a bike, it'd be even more so, because there'd be nothing between me and the drunk barreling towards me.

I DO expect an officer to know every detail of a law he is writing a citation for. The courts expect me to know the same, and WILL hold me accountable to it. Its ludacrous to give LEO a pass on violating rights because they didnt know every detail. Ignorance is no excuse

Well he didn't write the citation for any CCDW violation, so I'm not sure what rights were violated in this situation...

Also, contrary to popular belief, police officers do NOT know everything. Most don't know every aspect of the law, and I'd be inclined to believe that the OP didn't get charged with anything else because either A) the officer was flexing muscles he didn't have, or B) the officer was unsure what the law is and decided to save any research or debate for a later time and date in a safer location than the side of a highway. Or both, I wasn't there. I'm just pointing out that there are waaaaaay too many laws that an officer has to memorize to expect them to know them all when quizzed on the side of a highway, and CCDW laws sometimes get pushed to the back burner because they don't pop up as often as, say, theft, traffic, drugs, property crimes, assaults, etc.

[deanimator]

I'm just pointing out that there are waaaaaay too many laws that an officer has to memorize to expect them to know them all when quizzed on the side of a highway, and CCDW laws sometimes get pushed to the back burner because they don't pop up as often as, say, theft, traffic, drugs, property crimes, assaults, etc.

The OP didn't "quiz" the trooper. The TROOPER made an impotent threat, either through ignorance or dishonesty. HE made a threat based on a nonexistent law.

If he didn't know what the law was, he should have kept his mouth shut and not tried to play tough guy.

[tbrew85]

Any time I'm following someone I believe is under the influence or driving irradically, I've always been more comfortable keeping that person in front of me where I can watch their vehicle's movements and react quicker if they do something stupid. Kind of like running towards a crashing train, not away from it. If I rode a bike, it'd be even more so, because there'd be nothing between me and the drunk barreling towards me.

I DO expect an officer to know every detail of a law he is writing a citation for. The courts expect me to know the same, and WILL hold me accountable to it. Its ludacrous to give LEO a pass on violating rights because they didnt know every detail. Ignorance is no excuse

Well he didn't write the citation for any CCDW violation, so I'm not sure what rights were violated in this situation...



Also, contrary to popular belief, police officers do NOT know everything. Most don't know every aspect of the law, and I'd be inclined to believe that the OP didn't get charged with anything else because either A) the officer was flexing muscles he didn't have, or B) the officer was unsure what the law is and decided to save any research or debate for a later time and date in a safer location than the side of a highway. Or both, I wasn't there. I'm just pointing out that there are waaaaaay too many laws that an officer has to memorize to expect them to know them all when quizzed on the side of a highway, and CCDW laws sometimes get pushed to the back burner because they don't pop up as often as, say, theft, traffic, drugs, property crimes, assaults, etc.

I agree with your statement about erratic drivers. My biggest fear as a biker is getting rear ended. I believe I have at least some control over what happens in front of me, avoidance wise. If Im setting at a traffic light, for example, and someone behind fails to stop, there isnt a whole lot I can do to avoid it.

Regarding violating our rights, I was talking in general, not this particular stop.

Police officers are human. I dont expect them to know everything. I dont expect them to know every law. I DO expect them to know the law that they are arresting/citing me for. Again, the courts will expect me to follow every aspect of the law. We should expect those enforcing it to know every aspect of it before arresting us for it.

[AmendII71]

Probably not a good idea to continue a discussion about shooting police officers. Just sayin'.

When something like this happens we always assume the officer is ignorant of the law and needs more training. I am starting to question that assumption. CC has been the law for a decade now and I have to believe encountering CHL holders is not a rare occurrence for most officers. I also question why no citation was issued in this case if the officer felt so strongly about the issue.

I believe my thought process is the same. I have a hard time believing that after 10 years of Conceal Carry in Ohio, that there would be that many Ohio State Patrolman out there that do NOT understand the law. Once again, maybe I am assuming here, but it sure seems like it is mainly the Ohio State Highway Patrol that instigates most of these bad encounters.

If the local county and municipal law enforcement officers are getting it right, and I think most of the time they are, how would it be that the State Officers are not............don't they have a larger budget for training than most county and local law enforcement have access to?

[SMMAssociates]

Several things going on here....

It's not a good idea to argue points of law at the curb. However, asking the Officer to request a read of the pertinent ORC segments should result in an apology, or at least the Officer backing down. They don't like to be wrong....

OSP was allegedly teaching their Troopers that "must notify" still applied if your gun was in China for service - if you have a CHL, you must notify or you're cooked. That this is wrong doesn't seem to have quite sunk in everywhere.

LEO's are immune from good faith actions that turn out to be wrong in most cases - the Courts have recognized that the legal system is just too thick for Officers to know all of the details. However, the ORC with respect to Licensed Concealed Carry is so full of little tricks and traps that we have to know about every bit of it to keep out of jail and/or retain our licenses (sometimes on a "lifetime" risk). Very serious traffic offenses can cost you big bucks, and may even involve jail time, but almost none of them result in a permanent loss of your driving rights (or your CHL), whereas not interrupting an LEO fast enough can cost you your CHL (and, potentially, your life).

Anybody else see the problem with this?

Regards,

[Tweed Ring]

From my observation, most older LEO's see the benefit to Ohio's Concealed Carry Law. Many younger officers seem to view Ohio's Concealed Carry Law as a burden which they must bear. Small town/county LEO's seem supportive. Most police administrators seem to follow the direction of their appointing authority, or in the case of elected sheriffs, their political party.

BUT...I have yet to meet an active duty OSP officer/supervisor/administrator who is supportive of the law. They may be out there; I have not met one. I recall how they lobbied Governor Taft (R-OH) against the proposal, and then tried to submarine it with number of poison pills. He was the governor, but would not stand up to their lobbyist.

[deanimator]

BUT...I have yet to meet an active duty OSP officer/supervisor/administrator who is supportive of the law. They may be out there; I have not met one. I recall how they lobbied Governor Taft (R-OH) against the proposal, and then tried to submarine it with number of poison pills. He was the governor, but would not stand up to their lobbyist.

Voinovich was an even more craven lapdog. His "explanations" for opposing legal concealed carry contemptible. He was purely the OSP's hand puppet.

[Tweed Ring]

I respectfully disagree with your statement.

Governor Voinovich was a Cleveland Republican, and a moderate. He was always against concealed carry, back to the time he served in the OGA. He was always against concealed carry. Always, and he was not shy in sharing this position with voters, the media, lobbyists, and other pols.

I was present in Columbus, Ohio when then candidate Taft announced his candidacy for governor. During the Q&A, Taft gave his full-throated public support for an Ohio concealed carry law. However, upon being inaugurated, he began to backstroke like a rabid weasel. The Troopers Coalition, the OSP chief lobbyist, and the Ohio FOP (a group which seems to serve as a mouthpiece for the Ohio Democrat Party) scared Taft to death regarding potential support for his reelection. Put that fear of God into the man.

Also, I was present at a fund raiser whereat a pol, talking to a lobbyist, said Ohio voters, including those damned gun nuts, would believe anything if it was sold correctly. Lots of logrolling, lots of politics, and lots of promises made and delivered. Had it not been for those Republicans in the OGA (attention single issue voters) the Ohio Concealed Carry Law would still be in committee.

Voinovich didn’t need pressure from the police lobbyists; his position against concealed carry was well-known. Conversely, Taft weasel-mouthed, backstroked, and supported poison pills, e.g. notification. While Taft was good to me, he wasn’t a very good governor.

[deanimator]

I respectfully disagree with your statement.

Actually, it doesn't seem so much that you're disagreeing as drawing a non-contradictory distinction.

What you seem to be saying is that whereas Taft BECAME a lickspittle shill for the OSP, Voinovich was ALWAYS a lickspittle shill for the OSP.

They were still BOTH lickspittle shills for the OSP, and its desire to protect violent criminals from their victims.

[Tweed Ring]

Gov. Voinovich and his siblings grew up on Corning Drive, in Bratenahl. I grew up on Burton Avenue, in Bratenahl, albeit below the salt. Went to school with his younger siblings. He was always an anti-gun person. Nothing lickspittle about his position – it was obvious, apparent, and long-standing. When one voted for George Voinovich, one was voting for an ethnic, moderate Republican. I posit he would have been against concealed carry even if the OSP/Ohio FOP had signed on to the proposal.

Conversely, Governor Taft always thrust a dampened finger in the air, testing the political winds. He signed a Bill which tossed a bone to all interested parties.

[CroManGun]

BUT...I have yet to meet an active duty OSP officer/supervisor/administrator who is supportive of the law. They may be out there; I have not met one. I recall how they lobbied Governor Taft (R-OH) against the proposal, and then tried to submarine it with number of poison pills. He was the governor, but would not stand up to their lobbyist.

Voinovich was an even more craven lapdog. His "explanations" for opposing legal concealed carry contemptible. He was purely the OSP's hand puppet.

I interacted with George socially for many years. My kids went to school with his. Ran into him at all the ethnic festivals where he was always stumping for a vote. I called him on his politics many times. It got to where he would go the other way to avoid me rather than hear me tell him what a "courva" he was. His efforts to avoid me still bring a smile to my face.

[deanimator]

Gov. Voinovich and his siblings grew up on Corning Drive, in Bratenahl. I grew up on Burton Avenue, in Bratenahl, albeit below the salt. Went to school with his younger siblings. He was always an anti-gun person. Nothing lickspittle about his position – it was obvious, apparent, and long-standing. When one voted for George Voinovich, one was voting for an ethnic, moderate Republican. I posit he would have been against concealed carry even if the OSP/Ohio FOP had signed on to the proposal.

Conversely, Governor Taft always thrust a dampened finger in the air, testing the political winds. He signed a Bill which tossed a bone to all interested parties.

I recall his series of comments about concealed carry, and remember him frequently wrapping himself in the OSP's flag. If I'm not mistaken, his asinine comments regarding legal CCW and Chyne(sp?) and Chevy Keyhoe were specifically entwined with the desires of the OSP.

His idiotic anti-gun comments were routinely wrapped up in references to the OSP and other LE orgs. That makes him a lickspittle shill.