Little bit of a "why this, now" thing. The man in the video, Roy Call, is suing the department over false imprisonment and is seeing compensation of 3.6M USD.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siAqelKBUAA[/media]
The victim's story is contained within the video.
This is the prosecutions side:
[quote]DAYTON, Ohio — While openly carrying his Springfield XDM .40-caliber handgun, Tipp City resident Roy Call walked into a Riverside Speedway store at 4:30 a.m. Aug. 12, 2012 to buy a sports drink.
That's when — as claimed in a lawsuit against the city of Riverside, its mayor and two police officers — Call said he was illegally detained and briefly had his gun confiscated. Call is seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $3.6 million in a lawsuit field in the United States District Court/Southern District of Ohio in Dayton. But Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss said his officers acted correctly and all Call had to do was cooperate.
"Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two," Reiss said.
Open carrying a firearm without a license in Ohio is legal in most circumstances. Call does have a conceal and carry license (CCW), but Reiss said Call did not immediately provide police with his CCW, driver's license or admit that he drove to the gas station.
"Given the time of the day, the location, and the fact that convenience store/gas stations are typical targets for robberies in the middle of the night," Reiss said. "It would seem reasonable in the eyes of a police officer to ask someone who was carrying a gun if it was legally permissible for them to do so." Police reports show a citizen at the Speedway at 3201 Valley Pike was concerned that a man had a gun in the open and told Riverside police Sgt. Har-old Jones, who motioned to Call to come outside.
The lawsuit recounted that "After Call complied with Jones' request, which was made with no probable cause, or a warrant, and without legal authorization, Sgt. Jones questioned Call, 'Why are you wearing an open gun?' Jones continued to question Call even though Call asked, 'Am I free to go?' to which Jones told him no."
Call was charged with obstruction of justice, but Riverside City Manager Bryan Chodkowski said that charge was dropped Oct. 2.
"Based on the totality of the circumstances, we recognized that it was probably a viable charge at the time," Chodkowski said. "But recognizing what it meant in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't a charge that we felt was worth pursuing."
Jones' incident report said Call would not answer questions relating to his identity. "He eventually said he had no identification with him. This was actually a lie as his identification was approximately 50 feet away in his truck along with his CCW card," Jones' report said. "This was not found for several minutes. He told me he was exercising his Second Amendment rights to openly carry a gun."
Call had his gun taken from him, was handcuffed and placed in the back of a cruiser while Jones and Riverside police officer Matthew Jackson found Call's ID and searched to see if he was under any disability. Call's lawsuit also said he had a recording device which Jones found and turned off and that officers "falsely reported that Call had a history of initiating confrontations with police officers and recording the incidents." [/quote]
and the statutes cited in the video:
9.68 (Right to Bear Arms)
[url]http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68[/url]
2921.29 (Disclosure of Personal Information)
[url]http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29[/url]
2917.11 (Disorderly Conduct)
Too long to quote
[url]http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.11[/url]
This is 100% for you to decide. I'm not going to interject.
I broke no laws as far as I see. The lawsuit is way fucking over the top, but I believe that he's in the clear legally. I might just be a dumbass when it comes to things like this though.
Not saying whether or not anyone is right on the case, but holy shit do I fucking hate when people open carry just to get a reaction out of cops. There's countless videos of people doing it on YouTube and all they are doing is wasting people's time and probably scaring the shit out of others. I remember seeing one video of a guy open carrying an AK47 on the side of the road with the sole intention of having someone call the cops on him so that he could tell the cops how wrong they are for even talking to him.
Fuck those people, god forbid a cop asks you why you're carrying a god damn bazooka into the 7-11.
[editline]20th May 2013[/editline]
Fuck it, I'm taking the cops side on this one. Now I'm all riled up
To clear things up, I'm not saying this guy went into the store with the sole intention of causing a scene, but the fact he acted like a smartass when the cops did come is very similar to how people act when they do intentionally draw police attention. Had he just shown his CPL card he would have been free to go without any drama, but this guy insisted on taking the scenic route.
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;40720752]Not saying whether or not anyone is right on the case, but holy shit do I fucking hate when people open carry just to get a reaction out of cops. There's countless videos of people doing it on YouTube and all they are doing is wasting people's time and probably scaring the shit out of others. I remember seeing one video of a guy open carrying an AK47 on the side of the road with the sole intention of having someone call the cops on him so that he could tell the cops how wrong they are for even talking to him.
Fuck those people, god forbid a cop asks you why you're carrying a god damn bazooka into the 7-11.
[editline]20th May 2013[/editline]
Fuck it, I'm taking the cops side on this one. Now I'm all riled up[/QUOTE]
Yeah because everyone including this guy carry cameras with them 100% of the time and open carry just to cause alarm and bother the police 100% of the time.
[QUOTE=Tippmann357;40720807]Yeah because everyone including this guy carry cameras with them 100% of the time and open carry just to cause alarm and bother the police 100% of the time.[/QUOTE]
Not sure if you actually read what I wrote... I was talking about the people that do. 100% of the people that open carry to bother the police open carry to bother the police. That's all I was saying, and I find them annoying and they should be charged with obstruction. This guy also had a "recording device" and consistently answered with "am I free to go", which is very characteristic of those types of videos. That is all I'm getting at here, no need to lash out at me for whatever reason.
[editline]20th May 2013[/editline]
Maybe I worded my first post wrong, it was meant to be somewhat off the topic of this particular issue.
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;40720843]Not sure if you actually read what I wrote... I was talking about the people that do. 100% of the people that open carry to bother the police open carry to bother the police. That's all I was saying, and I find them annoying and they should be charged with obstruction. This guy also had a "recording device" and consistently answered with "am I free to go", which is very characteristic of those types of videos. That is all I'm getting at here, no need to lash out at me for whatever reason.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey]Fuck it, I'm taking the cops side on this one. Now I'm all riled up[/QUOTE]
No need to make judgments based on unrelated videos.
I'm not disagreeing with how annoying people who carry weapons for attention are, I'm just saying it's completely stupid to jump on the side of police because you assume he's one of them.
dude is making us do his homework get this police ass out of here seriously,come back with a normal account with out being a snitch as well,why do you inform us you're a cop?
w/e lol these threads are stimulating though i must confess lol
and if you ask why i care is becaause i dont like funny business
Are your Jimmie's seriously that rustled
[QUOTE=Tippmann357;40720885]No need to make judgments based on unrelated videos.[/QUOTE]
Well, this video and the other videos I had mentioned both center around some Joe Schmoe with a gun who refuses to ID himself, so I would consider the "unrelated videos" to be quite related after all. Both this guy and people out to annoy police handled their respective situations the same way, that is, being incredibly uncooperative at their own expense. Both people wish to be seen as the victim. However, I believe that both this man and the people out to annoy the cops are wrong in doing this, and while charging them with obstruction of justice might not be legal, I do believe that the action the cops took in this particular case were warranted, and the man definitely should not be awarded 3.6 million for being an ass.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this guy went to the store to cause a scene, but he handled the situation the same way someone looking for trouble would have and that is where he was wrong.
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;40720951]Well, this video and the other videos I had mentioned both center around some Joe Schmoe with a gun who refuses to ID himself, so I would consider the "unrelated videos" to be quite related after all. Both this guy and people out to annoy police handled their respective situations the same way, that is, being incredibly uncooperative at their own expense. Both people wish to be seen as the victim. However, I believe that both this man and the people out to annoy the cops are wrong in doing this, and while charging them with obstruction of justice might not be legal, I do believe that the action the cops took in this particular case were warranted, and the man definitely should not be awarded 3.6 million for being an ass.[/QUOTE]
Not identifying yourself has nothing to do with being an ass. If you're not breaking the law then there is no reason why you should have to feel obligated to talk to police. As soon as you start talking the greater your chances of incriminating yourself are. There's a reason why you're told "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law." What you say can only hurt you.
I know what you're saying, but it's best that you keep to yourself especially if you're already sitting in the back of a squad car. It's for your own benefit.
[QUOTE=areolop;40720919]Are your Jimmie's seriously that rustled[/QUOTE]
im one emo duck that needs to cheer up since 2005 when i was middle school,i have no life.
typing from my moms laptop so i cant bang on it to show my rage.
but when i get on my other computer that's like my life( non existent shitty old thing :( ...) i shall type away my anger with a wall of text
roy call broke no laws.
He's in the clear, unnecessary stop and frisk. I question the lawsuit but hey that's america for you.
I'm going to side with the cops on this one, if he would have just gotten his I.D and everything, nothing would of happened, instead he had to argue. As far as the cops were concerned they did not know if this man had his CCW, or what he was doing at the gas station with a gun at 5am. If he had robbed the place right after the cops let him go, and he shot people then everyone would jump on the cops for not enforcing any laws. Now, I'm confused on this bit though, after they found his license did they still detain him? Or did they let him go?
I don't agree with the lawsuit, and I partially agree with the charges, the guy was trying to make the officers lives harder by not giving him ID, and he also said he did not have I.D on him at all, when he did in his truck. He had no reason to lie except to try to make the cops lives harder.
[QUOTE=quacles;40721587]I'm going to side with the cops on this one, if he would have just gotten his I.D and everything, nothing would of happened, instead he had to argue. As far as the cops were concerned they did not know if this man had his CCW, or what he was doing at the gas station with a gun at 5am. If he had robbed the place right after the cops let him go, and he shot people then everyone would jump on the cops for not enforcing any laws. Now, I'm confused on this bit though, after they found his license did they still detain him? Or did they let him go?
I don't agree with the lawsuit, and I partially agree with the charges, the guy was trying to make the officers lives harder by not giving him ID, and he also said he did not have I.D on him at all, when he did in his truck. He had no reason to lie except to try to make the cops lives harder.[/QUOTE]
"if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear"
right
[QUOTE=butre;40721653]"if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear"
right[/QUOTE]
That's not the point I was trying to make though I could see how it would seem that way, I just don't see what's so bad about proving you have the right to carry your weapon. No the 2nd amendment isn't enough proof, our forefathers didn't realize how many nutters would be carrying around guns.
[QUOTE=quacles;40721812]That's not the point I was trying to make though I could see how it would seem that way, I just don't see what's so bad about proving you have the right to carry your weapon. No the 2nd amendment isn't enough proof, our forefathers didn't realize how many nutters would be carrying around guns.[/QUOTE]
yeah except literally everyone carried a gun back then because we didn't have wal mart to go buy our beef from
not to mention one of the signers predicted semi-automatic firearms
[QUOTE=quacles;40721587]I'm going to side with the cops on this one, if he would have just gotten his I.D and everything, nothing would of happened, instead he had to argue. As far as the cops were concerned they did not know if this man had his CCW, or what he was doing at the gas station with a gun at 5am. If he had robbed the place right after the cops let him go, and he shot people then everyone would jump on the cops for not enforcing any laws. Now, I'm confused on this bit though, after they found his license did they still detain him? Or did they let him go?
I don't agree with the lawsuit, and I partially agree with the charges, the guy was trying to make the officers lives harder by not giving him ID, and he also said he did not have I.D on him at all, when he did in his truck. He had no reason to lie except to try to make the cops lives harder.[/QUOTE]
is "making their lives harder" a crime in itself? according the the o.r.c. it seems he was pretty much within his legal rights.
I personally saw nothing wrong here, the guy wasn't being a douche. He wasn't carrying around anything to get a reaction like an assault rifle. Hand guns are completely reasonable. It's not like he was aiming it around for fun. He was just being an average citizen.
In regards to the ORC, he is in the clear. He did not create grounds for ORC's requirement to provide ID and a lawful activity does not clear for DOC. It's hard to get obstruction to stick when he's not obstructing anything.
I have interacted with several OCers in the state of Ohio. While I do not agree with OC entirely ( I think handguns are OK as long as they are in a secure holster) I certainly do not think OC of rifles is OK. But it's still legal. It's just one of those things I say "It's your right to do it but not really intelligent to do." Kind of thing.
I have encountered 1 OCer who was obviously baiting and ended up posting a story on a OC site in which he completely twisted the story around and said he was surrounded by officers, detained, and all sorts of madness. Far from the truth of what happened...
I always ask for ID, even for OCers. I have the freedom to ask for it as much as they have the right to refuse to show it. I never demand, I just ask. If they furnish...then fine. If not. Their right (as long as they have not committed and offense.)
I think the officers were good in their intentions and concern but they probably should have known the firearms law a bit more in regards to the situation and left it at that. I think the $3.6M lawsuit is a huge joke, though. There is no way this incident created $3.6M in 'damages'.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;40722007]In regards to the ORC, he is in the clear. He did not create grounds for ORC's requirement to provide ID and a lawful activity does not clear for DOC. It's hard to get obstruction to stick when he's not obstructing anything.
I have interacted with several OCers in the state of Ohio. While I do not agree with OC entirely ( I think handguns are OK as long as they are in a secure holster) I certainly do not think OC of rifles is OK. But it's still legal. It's just one of those things I say "It's your right to do it but not really intelligent to do." Kind of thing.
I have encountered 1 OCer who was obviously baiting and ended up posting a story on a OC site in which he completely twisted the story around and said he was surrounded by officers, detained, and all sorts of madness. Far from the truth of what happened...
I always ask for ID, even for OCers. I have the freedom to ask for it as much as they have the right to refuse to show it. I never demand, I just ask. If they furnish...then fine. If not. Their right (as long as they have not committed and offense.)
I think the officers were good in their intentions and concern but they probably should have known the firearms law a bit more in regards to the situation and left it at that. [B]I think the $3.6M lawsuit is a huge joke, though. There is no way this incident created $3.6M in 'damages'[/B].[/QUOTE]
It's a common civil practice to request more in damages than what was actually caused, so as to force a settlement. In all likelihood he won't even get half of that in the settlement.
He's legally in the clear but he has no good reason to randomly walk about open carry just to scare people, which makes him a complete dickwad. Police should've handled the situation better though. And the 3.6M is ridiculous.
Legally, he is in the clear. But that's the problem. This Second Amendment crap is really a huge issue and needs to be revised for modern day living. Back when the second amendment was written up it was for the safety of the people and they exercised that right with responsibility. In today's world, people carry around guns "just because" and it's actually made it more dangerous of a place to live in.
I'd want to see a crime report first to get a balanced account.
3.6m is clearly ridiculous though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
