Ordered to ground at gunpoint for open carrying by cleveland heights ohio police - Page 5
Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 219

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Close to Reading, PA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by PascalFleischman View Post
    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.

  2.   
  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by rayven View Post
    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.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Close to Reading, PA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    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.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    44
    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!

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    20
    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.

  7. #46
    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.

  8. #47
    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.
    Reality, DEAL with IT!

  9. #48
    Please note the OP has only posted 2 times on this forum. He was virtually pushed out of another.

    Gotta ask why.

    knighted4

  10. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by rayven View Post

    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.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  11. #50
    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!
    "You must prove you feared for your life. Pee in your pants."
    -Someone on this site!

Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast