OH - LEO Notification goes BAD, really BAD.

[XinTX]

Been following this on another board. I too find this deeply disturbing on several fronts. First is the over-the-top actions of "Officer Crank" and his threats (not only to 'execute' the driver, but to beat up the alleged prostitute as well). But also, his partner did NOTHING to try to calm him down or intervene. IF (and we don't know this now) the partner didn't report this the moment they returned to the station, he should be fired as well. Agree with Charles that one, or perhaps both should be facing charges right now. Also, I wonder if any defense attorneys will go back and ask to re-open any cases where these were the arresting officers. But "Officer Crank" should NEVER be a LEO (or even be permitted to carry a gun) EVER again.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

When, pray tell, did he have time?

As soon as the supporting officer stuck his nose in the vehicle.

CHL: "Officer..."
LEO: "Shut up!"
CHL: (ASSERTIVE VOICE) "FOR YOUR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM YOU THAT AS A LICENSED CHL HOLDER I CURRENTLY HAVE A FIREARM IN MY POSSESION"


Simple as that, really. Are they going to charge you with using an assertive voice in order to COMPLY WITH THE LAW? If so, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

While, as I posted before, I do NOT support the unprofessional conduct of the LEO's, I DO believe the CHL holder could have informed them EARLIER than he did. As a juror given the circumstances, however, I would NOT believe he was guilty of failure to notify in accordance with the law.

This video, and similar vids, once again emphasizes the importance of contingency planning and rehearsals prior to a use of force incident, or an LEO contact. Whether it's a simple LEO encounter, reaction to threat without the use of deadly force, or a reaction to threat including the use of deadly force, planning ahead can help a CHL holder develop viable courses of action BEFORE they happen. With this frame work already in mind, it affords the opportunity to act more decisively, effectively, and in accordance with the law with simple adjustments needed for each unique situation, rather than having to develop a whole plan on the spot.

Some of those contingencies we have discussed on this very forum, including actions taken during an LEO stop. Granted, hookers and pimps weren't part of the equation though.

[RottenApple]

As soon as the supporting officer stuck his nose in the vehicle.

CHL: "Officer..."
LEO: "Shut up!"
CHL: (ASSERTIVE VOICE) "FOR YOUR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM YOU THAT AS A LICENSED CHL HOLDER I CURRENTLY HAVE A FIREARM IN MY POSSESION"

At which point he becomes guilty of not following the orders of the "peace" officer which, as has been noted already, is a 1st Degree Misdemeanor and may even get himself in worse trouble with the officer.

[tbrown]

There was TWO officers involved but only one relieved of duty. The second officer although not the main aggressor is still at fault, he did nothing to defuse the situation.

Unless the second officer was a trainee, not disciplining them sends the message that the department thinks the behavior is acceptable unless it's caught on camera and somebody sues. Maybe the second officer doesn't need to be fired, but there should be some meaningful disciplinary action and mandatory retraining.

[Beiruty]

The video is too long, in addition, I am afraid that I would not like what I see. So, I did not watched more than the first 2 mins.
I hope someone will watch it and learn form it.

[TrueFlog]

When, pray tell, did he have time?

As soon as the supporting officer stuck his nose in the vehicle.

CHL: "Officer..."
LEO: "Shut up!"
CHL: (ASSERTIVE VOICE) "FOR YOUR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM YOU THAT AS A LICENSED CHL HOLDER I CURRENTLY HAVE A FIREARM IN MY POSSESION"


Simple as that, really. Are they going to charge you with using an assertive voice in order to COMPLY WITH THE LAW? If so, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

Let's put 20 seconds on the clock and see how many holes I can poke in that idea.
1) The driver had already tried twice to notify the officer before he was told to shut up. How many times does he have to try to be acceptable in your book? If two's not enough, then how many?
2) The officer was clearly trying to dominate the situation. If the driver had tried yet a third time to identify, I have no doubt the cop would've yelled at him again to shut up. Subsequent tries weren't going to change anything.
3) Do you really think trying to be assertive against this cop would've had a happy ending? It would only enraged him further. Trying to be assertive often comes across as being aggressive, especially with then other person wants to see it that way.
4) Given this officer's mindset, if the driver had said "I have a gun" in an assertive voice, the cop probably would've taken that as a threat. Again, things get worse from there.
5) The video clearly shows that the cop thinks the driver should've notified at the start of the stop. He rants on and on about how the driver had a gun while they were searching his car - well before either officer approached him. By the time the office was at the window, it was too late. Even if the driver had notified right then, the cop still would have blown up on him.
6) Ohio law requires the driver to obey all of the officer's command. Once the cop told him to shut up, he had no choice. If he had pressed the issue and notified (for yet a third time), he could've been arrested and charged with disobeying the order to shut up. It's lose-lose.
7) Finally, since when does someone have to be assertive to exercise their Constitutional rights? I agree it helps, but it's not a mandate. Many people find it difficult to be assertive even in day-to-day, non-life-threatening encounters, and it's even more difficult when dealing with authority figures. It only gets worse when they're faced with an intimidating bully who also happens to be carrying a gun.

[Beiruty]

At least at the end of the video, the crazy cop liked that "stupid, little gun" and called it "a nice gun too!"

The officer should be fired and never be on duty ever. "At least for threatening pull up his gun and pump 10 rd in the driver...." This is clearly a deadly threat punishable by the law.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

Let's put 20 seconds on the clock and see how many holes I can poke in that idea.
1) The driver had already tried twice to notify the officer before he was told to shut up. How many times does he have to try to be acceptable in your book? If two's not enough, then how many?

The video does not support this as the audio can not be clearly heard when the supporting officer starts to conduct his search of the rear of the vehicle.

2) The officer was clearly trying to dominate the situation. If the driver had tried yet a third time to identify, I have no doubt the cop would've yelled at him again to shut up. Subsequent tries weren't going to change anything.

While I won't argue against the manner in which he "dominated" the situation, I will argue that it IS his duty to dominate the situation. Any weakness displayed during a potentially violent encounter could incite actions that may require the use of force or deadly force. "Dominating" a situation can temper the behavior of those who may be "on the edge" of either compliance or resistance. Compliance is safer for all involved.

3) Do you really think trying to be assertive against this cop would've had a happy ending? It would only enraged him further. Trying to be assertive often comes across as being aggressive, especially with then other person wants to see it that way.

Yes, I do. The statement would have been caught on the dash cam, and heard by both officers.

4) Given this officer's mindset, if the driver had said "I have a gun" in an assertive voice, the cop probably would've taken that as a threat. Again, things get worse from there.

I agree. That is why I believe it is necessary to come up with a plan about such contingencies before they happen. The statement I used in my previous post is far less likely to be construed as a threat, and more as a simple statement of fact in accordance with the law. Used in conjunction with non-threatening body language and behavior, it would be far less likely to instill fear.

5) The video clearly shows that the cop thinks the driver should've notified at the start of the stop. He rants on and on about how the driver had a gun while they were searching his car - well before either officer approached him. By the time the office was at the window, it was too late. Even if the driver had notified right then, the cop still would have blown up on him.

The CHL holder failed to inform the supporting officer. And when the primary officer finally approaches him, he failed yet again, and instead starts talking about being a cabby / looking for a business or whatever.

6

) Ohio law requires the driver to obey all of the officer's command. Once the cop told him to shut up, he had no choice. If he had pressed the issue and notified (for yet a third time), he could've been arrested and charged with disobeying the order to shut up. It's lose-lose.

No, it's not a lose lose. His command to "shut up" is trumped by the CHL's requirement to notify.

7) Finally, since when does someone have to be assertive to exercise their Constitutional rights? I agree it helps, but it's not a mandate. Many people find it difficult to be assertive even in day-to-day, non-life-threatening encounters, and it's even more difficult when dealing with authority figures. It only gets worse when they're faced with an intimidating bully who also happens to be carrying a gun.

People don't have to be assertive at all... if they want their rights trampled on by others.

I agree that we disagree. No worries.

[Beiruty]

Why does it take more than 1 month to investigate this case? At least the bully crazy LEO should be fired by now. Why it is not the case? Why State troopers or FBI is not on this case for civil rights violations?

[speedsix]

At least at the end of the video, the crazy cop liked that "stupid, little gun" and called it "a nice gun too!"

The officer should be fired and never be on duty ever. "At least for threatening pull up his gun and pump 10 rd in the driver...." This is clearly a deadly threat punishable by the law.

...you sneaky devil...you DID watch the whole thing...curiosity's an awful thing, ain't it!!!

[Beiruty]

I could not resist, I waited until all video has been buffered and forward to 5 min or so. but WOW, even skipping the the insecure search of the vehicle while the driver is still in his seat!. I could not believe it. This is the worst search I ever saw. Both cops should be disciplined for this non-procedure search. Also, why in the world the driver was not asked for DL and Insurance from the get go? why the cop did not ask if there are any weapons in the car?

[speedsix]

...ah, confession is good for the soul!!!


...seriously...they did NOTHING right...they're the kind who give the term "jack-booted thugs" credence...both are as guilty...both need to go...hope this plays out fairly...

[esxmarkc]

For proper reference, here is how I believe a GOOD LEO should control the situation, verify it is safe and handle an encounter with an individual carrying a firearm.

IMHO the guy in this video did everything he could to get a rise out of the LEO but that cop was TOTALLY professional.
Kudos to this LEO.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now as far as the other video in discussion, there is NO WAY I would attempt to "OUT-SHOUT" the abusive officer in an attempt to FORCE him to listen. You would end up with your teeth down your throat. This guy needs to be permanently relieved of duty and sent packing.

This REALLY stinks. We carry because there are "bad guys" out there and the "good guys" just can't have our backs 24/7. When the guys that are supposed to be the "good guys" turn out to be evil and dangerous what the heck are we supposed to do.

[speedsix]

...rare up and bark loud...growl louder, and bite if we have to...roll over and play dead don't work in this kind of event...

[Jumping Frog]

Lived in Ohio for 5 years. I am not anti- LEO at all but cops up there tend to be a different breed...especially the state troopers. I had one who lived a couple doors down from that refused to talk to me...even wave for that matter, despite the fact he would bring his kid by the house regularly to sell items to fund the little guy's various sports teams. (Which I did. The kid was a neat little guy).
Anyway, the Ohio cops fought the state's "new" CHL law with a vengence. They lobbied to disallow a CHL to carry unsecured in your own car. ( since repealed I believe). Your CHL was tied to the tags on your car and the cops would pull over CHLs regularly just to harass them. Needless to say, the wife and I did not bother to apply for a CHL while we lived there.

Since I was the original poster, for the record, I lived in Ohio for years before moving to Texas, had my CHL there for years, and have been very active in OFCC at the political level as well as in their forums (almost 9000 posts). I would NOT characterize Ohio LEO's like your description at all.

LEO notifications have been tracked on OFCC's forums for years. Ninety-nine percent of the time they are a complete non-event. The overwhelming majority of Ohio LEO's are very supportive of CHL's. In fact, 3 of the original 4 founders of Ohioans For Concealed Carry were police officers. Pulling people over just because they have a CHL does not sound accurate to me at all.

It is true that the top brass at the Ohio State Highway Patrol originally opposed concealed carry, as well as the police union leaders (FOP). However, that attitude has never been reflected in the everyday rank and file.

This particular circumstance is so disturbing precisely because it is so non-typical.

Oh, one more thing, in Ohio if you have an AR15 and a mag that holds over 30 rounds, state law classified your semi auto AR as an "illegal machine gun". Ohio is definately not a gun friendly state unless said gun is a skeet shotgun, unloaded, locked up and completely inaccessable at all times. God bless Texas ( and KY too).

The magazine restriction is correct, and a disappointment. However, it is difficult to rank states as gun friendly or un-friendly. In Ohio, unlicensed open carry is in the Ohio Constitution as a fundamental right and state level preemption means it is not able to be restricted at the county or city level. I regularly open carried all around Columbus and never had an issue. And for the record, I did so while around LEO's from various agencies and never had a single issue.

That all said and done, thank God I am in Texas now!