Video: Ohio Man Illegally Arrested for Open Carry Sparks $3M Lawsuit

[internet troll]

Even though this is Ohio, I thought the video at the link was interesting. There is text for the audio and they stop it in a few places to give more info about what the OC is talking about and what the cop is talking about when citing sources. I know a lot of people wonder what they should do when stopped while OC and figure any video from any state can be a learning tool.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...rks-3m-lawsuit

An Ohio man has slapped local government with a $3.6 million lawsuit after policemen allegedly violated his Constitutional rights. Police detained Ray Call and confiscated his weapon because he openly carried his firearm into a store.
According to reports, Call entered a store late one night with his gun openly on display. The authorities were alerted, and fairly soon two policemen arrived on the scene. The police officers held Call in the back of the police car, took his weapon, and demanded that he identify himself.
Call refused to identify himself. According to Ohio Revised Code, an individual is not obligated to identify himself to a police officer unless the officer reasonably suspects that the individual is involved in a crime.
When police didn't get any answers out of Call, they threatened to charge him with reckless inconvenience and noise disturbances. Eventually, the strong-arm tactics intimidated Call into revealing his name, at which point police discovered that he had a CCW permit. Police returned his weapon and sent him on his way.
They also charged Call with obstruction of justice but later dropped those charges.
You can watch the video below and form your own opinions.

Call then filed a lawsuit asking for $600,000 in compensatory damages for “emotional trauma” and another $3 million in punitive damage for the “willful, callous and malicious conduct” of the police officers.
Call’s lawyer, Charles E. McFarland, said, “I normally do not comment on ongoing cases to the media, but believe that the complaint speaks for itself.”
It appears that Call has a solid case. Police cannot detain citizens and demand identification with no good reason. Call was well within his rights and Ohio laws clearly backed him up. Police could not have taken action against Call unless it appeared that he was about to commit a crime, and the mere presence of a firearm does not constitute suspicion.
Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss argued, “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.”
Technically that is true, but the only problem is that Call was under no legal obligation to pacify the police officers. Call’s refusal to identify himself was a Constitutional right.
After watching the video, what’s your take? Who was in the right during this late-night confrontation?

[Grey Bearded One]

WTF is "reckless inconvenience"?

[BimmerJon]

This is how you KNOW the incompetence goes ALL THE WAY to the top

Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss argued, “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.”

This quote alone should be enough for the Chief to be IMMEDIATELY terminated from his job

[internet troll]

WTF is "reckless inconvenience"?

He wrecked the conveniently easy night they were having up to that point? Honestly I was wondering that also.

[internet troll]

This is how you KNOW the incompetence goes ALL THE WAY to the top



This quote alone should be enough for the Chief to be IMMEDIATELY terminated from his job

Amazing how he is blaming a legal behavior by the OC to okay the illegal actions by his officers. And there are citizens who are okay with that logic as indicated by a couple of comments in that article.

[39flathead]

This is how you KNOW the incompetence goes ALL THE WAY to the top



This quote alone should be enough for the Chief to be IMMEDIATELY terminated from his job

On an unrelated note, the Chief's new uniform is on it's way:



Street cops will be getting new casual uniforms:

[NRA Member]

You know what is unbelievable that the officer's do not the LAW! Today every officer should know what and what they can not do in a situation like this.

Mr. Call walked into a store with his legally carried firearm nothing more!

Maybe the lawsuit will be a wake up call to Law Enforcement. Follow the laws of your state or you will be sued. Stunning behavior!

And then top it off with a PHONY charge!

[ideaman]

Let's see. Man with gun at a store, which probably was robbed sometime in the past. He tells police he's practicing his rights but refuses to give no ID.
Police needs to verify if he's carrying illegally. Once he gave is SS# and got cleared they gave his gun back. I don't see a problem with it other than what they wrote in the report. Probably b/c he pissed them off.

I think a good argument could be made for both sides.

[kpw]

Let's see. Man with gun at a store, which probably was robbed sometime in the past. He tells police he's practicing his rights but refuses to give no ID.
Police needs to verify if he's carrying illegally. Once he gave is SS# and got cleared they gave his gun back. I don't see a problem with it other than what they wrote in the report. Probably b/c he pissed them off.

I think a good argument could be made for both sides.

When was the last time you heard of a store being robbed with a holstered gun?

[Steve_NEPhila]

Let's see. Man with gun at a store, which probably was robbed sometime in the past. He tells police he's practicing his rights but refuses to give no ID.
Police needs to verify if he's carrying illegally. Once he gave is SS# and got cleared they gave his gun back. I don't see a problem with it other than what they wrote in the report. Probably b/c he pissed them off.

I think a good argument could be made for both sides.

By that logic any place that ever had a negative experience would then creat reasonable suspicion of any person at any time. That suspicion would then allow authorities to deny the rights of any citizen at any time. This would allow the police to stop and arrest anyone they wish at any time and confiscate their property because crimes have been committed in the past. That is such a great idea, it would solve every problem in the world, ever.