Concealed Carry, Politics, Current events and friendly discussion
https://ohioccwforums.org/
They meant Gary was just being Gary.SeanC wrote: The officers write that OC was "argumentative." What does that mean? I don't know.
This. Very much, this.mreising wrote:They meant Gary was just being Gary.SeanC wrote: The officers write that OC was "argumentative." What does that mean? I don't know.
That is correct.Suckerspawn wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong. If Dressler had heard the guard ask him to leave and disarm, and entered the store anyway he could very well have been convicted of the criminal trespass.
Sean, where is that authority?SeanC wrote:There's authority for the proposition that an officer can arrest someone on suspicion of a misdemeanor committed outside of the officer's presence when the officer has reason to believe that the person's mental state is such that the person may harm himself or others if not taken into custody...
Werz wrote:...
He was confronted by police inside. An act of Criminal Trespass is completed once all the elements have been established. The offense is completed when "eing on the land or premises of another, [a person] negligently failor refuseto leave upon *** being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either." R.C. 2911.21(A)(4)...
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Werz wrote:...
He was confronted by police inside. An act of Criminal Trespass is completed once all the elements have been established. The offense is completed when "eing on the land or premises of another, [a person] negligently failor refuseto leave upon *** being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either." R.C. 2911.21(A)(4)...
It doesn't show in this complaint, but the charge against Dressler was 2911.21(A)(1), not (A)(4). As a very wise attorney once pointed out to me, this section includes the phrase, "without privilege to do so".
While I can't speak for Mr. Dressler, Kroger constantly sends me invitations to visit their store.
Try doing it without your shirt and shoes.MyWifeSaidYes wrote:While I can't speak for Mr. Dressler, Kroger constantly sends me invitations to visit their store.
I can post a picture if it will help.Werz wrote:Try doing it without your shirt and shoes.MyWifeSaidYes wrote:While I can't speak for Mr. Dressler, Kroger constantly sends me invitations to visit their store.
And now everyone is going to be upset with me for putting that image in their heads.
That doesn't apply under 2911.21(A)(1).JediSkipdogg wrote:
But said privilege can be revoked which it sounds like they did when they told him to leave.
Nope. I believe the judge, prosecutor AND one of the police officers all have "past experiences" with Mr. Dressler and just had it out for him.JediSkipdogg wrote:And looking at the court's website, I would venture this was dismissed just to get the case over with. I've never seen so many motions filed on a single misdemeanor case before.
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:That doesn't apply under 2911.21(A)(1).JediSkipdogg wrote:
But said privilege can be revoked which it sounds like they did when they told him to leave.
How does it not apply? if privilege is revoked the element is met. When he entered he had privilege, when he was asked to leave he no longer had privilege to remain. What am I missing?2911.21 Criminal trespass.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;