Ohio police respond to man with a gun call

Cross-X

Shooting at the big range in heaven
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
8,528
Likes
250
Location
Metrowest, MA & Points South and West
From the pages of www.glocktalk.com:

10-88 man with gun video OHIO

I pulled this off of packing.org. Just wondering what input you all have regarding the way this went down. I'm an officer so don't rag me I just wanted to post it for your input. I think a (10-88 man with gun) the officers did as they were trained end of story. Handgun or assult rifle they will both kill you.

He was upset at the rifle but said nothing of the handgun the other officer had.

I don't know the whole story as the mic was in and out but the guy stated both doors were jammed? That would raise a danger alert sign in my head and I would without doubt pull him out at gun point till I could verify who he is and if he is legally carrying. I don't know him from the next guy and we go home at night.

Also he was mad they called in the tag on his vehicle to see if it was his or came up stolen and he was mad? Last I checked we do that with everyone we stop. The video is about 10 min long and can be boring in spots but bear through it and let me know what you think of the situation. Don't get me wrong I love responsible ccw carriers out their.

Thanks guys.

Be safe out there

p.s. All writing below this ps was taken directly from the poster who posted this on packing.org and is not my wording.

Dan Sayers, a licensed permit holder of Oregon, OH, was unlawfully detained at gunpoint (AR-15) after a "man-with-a-gun" call outside of a gas station.

Dan was open carrying at a gas station with two pistols on his hip, when a citizen called him in. No details of the 911 call are available yet, but nonetheless, Dan had a felony traffic stop executed on him and was forced out of his vehicle for embracing his rights.

http://ohioccwforums.org/files/dashcam.asx

That link is for the dashcam of the stop. It is really horrifying to see the way he was treated. Granted, his attitude wasn't the most complacent (which, in my opinion, shouldn't have mattered after the first 10 minutes in which it should have been ascertained that he commited no crime), but neither were the actions taken by Officer Costanza and his lacky.


__________________
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
10,089
Likes
834
Location
New Ipswich, Finn-Land
Did this happen in Oregon, OH? If so, I think we should all email the COP on their website:

http://www.ci.oregon.oh.us/ctydpt/police/police.htm

And let them know that we've seen this video on the net, and that we intend to spread the link to as many different places as each of us individually can, and that they've lost the comfort of anonymity, and the eyes of the world are now on them.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.4%
61   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
52,604
Likes
10,944
Location
90% in NH
C-pher, just wait until you get home.

Security will often cause problems for accessing many sites or pics/videos.
 
J

JellyFish

Hmmm...seems like the guy wasn't breaking any laws. The cops definitely seemed to over-react a bit though maybe they were following procedures?

The guy was definitely upset and I don't blame him, who'd want to be treated that way? He probably didn't help the situation by behaving somewhat aggressively and angrily though. Perhaps a less aggressive attitude might have helped?

Seems like you should be prepared if you are going to open carry for some kind of run-in with the police. I mean attitude-wise, he's behaving very angrily and that probably doesn't help his situation any either.

The cops though also seemed unprepared to properly and politely handly this kind of situation. One has to wonder about the extent of their training as well.
 
J

JellyFish

Also, the guy keeps using the term "assault rifle" which as we all know was created by the antis. As a responsible gun owner he should never use that term. It only reinforces what the antis want reinforced.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,721
Likes
37,363
Also, the guy keeps using the term "assault rifle" which as we all know was created by the antis. As a responsible gun owner he should never use that term. It only reinforces what the antis want reinforced.
Well, this isn't entirely true. Maybe "Assault Weapon" is a vague and
specious term created by the antis, but "Assault Rifle" as a nomenclature
has existed long before it was even fashionable for people to hate
guns. There is some debate as to wether or not an "Assault Rifle"
must or must not be a rifle capable of fully automatic fire, but IMO thats
splitting hairs. IIRC, a commonly accepted definition of assault rifle
is any rifle designed for combat which fires an intermediate
cartridge.

I won't let the fact that the name "sounds scary" stop me from using
the nomenclature. ("Assault Weapon" however, is a vague, specious
piece of crap as a term).

Even some gun sites use the term "Assault Rifle" with much validity, including
Max Popenkers' site (world.guns.ru) and others.


-Mike
 
J

JellyFish

EDIT: I APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT MY COMMENT BELOW. I BLAME DEREK FOR IT EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT WHATSOEVER. DAMN YOU DEREK!!! DAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOUUUUUUUU!!!!!!! [laugh]

There is no such thing as an assault rifle and there never has been. If you mean semi-automatic rifle then fine. But call it what it is. Using the vocabulary of antis is a very bad idea.

Whoever controls the language also controls perception of the issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,721
Likes
37,363
IMO I think they overreacted a bit...

The only thing I'll give them a free pass on is their level of suspicion
arising that he was unable to get out of his vehicle cause the doors
were stuck..... admittedly, I can see how a LEO would interpret that
as being strange, strange enough to warrant using extra caution.

I don't really see what his beef was with the rifle, either.... a gun is a
gun is a gun. I think that was more due to him being upset/scared/etc
though than anything else. Having to go through something like that
is just a bit harsh, so him being upset isn't exactly unexpected. Although, I'll be
the first to say that getting irritated at a LEO is probably not the
best idea, because it doesn't help affirm your case... if you're visibly
agitated twoards them, then it is very easy for an officers to justify
mentally what they just did.

The problem with "man with a gun" calls is that often times not enough
information is supplied to the officers who are responding, so they automatically
have to assume the worst, until proven otherwise, which
sucks hardcore, especially if the "sky is falling pants wetter" type refuses
to stay on the phone with police or provide additional
information. It also would not surprise me if some of these callers
are drama kings/queens and embellish the situation to be more than it
actually is, which certainly doesnt help matters.

Theres a BIG difference between a guy that's standing around with a gun
in his holster.... and a guy thats actually brandishing it or acting
strangely.

-Mike
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
4,175
Likes
187
Location
Augusta
There is no such thing as an assault rifle and there never has been. If you mean semi-automatic rifle then fine. But call it what it is. Using the vocabulary of antis is a very bad idea.

Whoever controls the language also controls perception of the issue.


JellyFish,

The rifle the police officer had was most likely an M-16. Probably obtained from the U.S. Gov. as part of the antiterrorism aid that has gone out to law enforcement. If that is indeed what it was, then it is most assuredly a select fire assault rifle. Even if it was a semi auto only, it still would have also been a legally defined assault rifle.

I don’t believe that the antis ever coined the term. It was a military term. Civilians decided to adopt the term for semi auto military firearms, since they couldn’t get the real thing in most cases with out going through the hoops to obtain class three firearms and pay the tax. The gun store commandos and marketing types in the industry liked the idea of using the term and who could argue with sales that skyrocked in the 80s. The antis were more than happy to utilize our own adoption of the term to very effectively fan the anti gun flames.

In the debate over assault rifle legislation, the NRA stood very firm on the definition of an assault rifle, and gave the people writing the legislation fits when they trapped them in situations during testimony, where the people writing the legislation clearly didn’t know what the hell they were talking about. Howard Metzanbaum from Ohio was caught using pictures of guns to add to the banned list on his bill. He was shown to be a complete nitwit when he had a single shot trap shotgun added to the list because it looked dangerous.

If you look at NRA safety courses they mostly require that instructors use less sensational words like gun instead of weapon. [grin]


B
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,721
Likes
37,363
There is no such thing as an assault rifle and there never has been. If you mean semi-automatic rifle then fine. But call it what it is. Using the vocabulary of antis is a very bad idea.
My point is though, that "anti gun" persons did not invent the term, period, regardless of wether or not it's "technically sound". It's been
frequently used in military and industry circles to describe a particular type/category of rifle, and has been for many years, long before jim brady ended up in a wheelchair,or those kids shot a bunch of people at columbine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

There is considerable debate amongst pro-gun types though, about
the issue of "select fire" but personally I think that's splitting hairs- and
all harping about select fire accomplishes, is to further demonize a
another class of guns (machineguns). The NRA and others think it's
"okay" to say "Our guns are only semiautomatic, so they're not BAD like
the Assualt Rifles which are MACHINEGUNS are!" Which IMO, creates
exactly the same "image" problem they were trying to prevent by
clarifying the definitions.

I suppose I should keel to political correctness and call my kalashnikov-
derived rifle the "tool I use to stop other people from assaulting me rifle"
as that better describes its intended use for most american gun owners,
but I seriously doubt that will change the way other people feel about
it- to those that hate guns, "it's still a gun, and those are bad.".

I guess my problem is I have issues with destroying commonly
used terms to appease a sense of political correctness. I don't really
think it accomplishes anything in trying to reduce the impact that the
media has on the issue. The media can still spin bias while using
terms properly. I've noticed in print media that news articles involving
guns have often become far more "sanitary" than they were a few years
ago, probably due to pro-gunners complaining. Sanitation in reporting
still won't stop an anti-gun, "the sky is falling" type of person from inferring
that guns are bad from these articles. Nor will it compensate for
the severe LACK of reporting of the use of firearms as a legitimate
means of self defense. (eg, the media goes to great lengths to
prevent the perception of firearms being useful to save lives) That's a
bigger problem than wether some asshat like michael moore calls a
matchlock rifle an "assault weapon. "

-Mike
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,571
Likes
7,777
Location
Near Framingham
There is no such thing as an assault rifle and there never has been.
I'm afraid that you are mistaken. There is indeed such a thing as an assault rifle. An assault rifle is, by definition, a selective-fire, magazine-fed rifle that uses an intermediate caliber. The name "assault rifle" comes from the first rifle that had those characteristics, the STG-44 Sturmgewehr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44

The translation of "Sturmgewehr" is, in fact, "assault rifle."

The STG-44 set the pattern for assault rifles. The M16 and AK47 both meet the definition of assault rifle.

What you are confusing is the anti-gun term "assault weapon." 1) that term was, indeed, created by antis. 2) Calling a semi-auto AR15 an assault rifle is not correct, since it is not selective fire.
 
J

JellyFish

Yes, I appear to have been wrong. It has been known to have happened once or twice in my life. [wink]

I will edit that message appropriately as I do not wish to mislead people. However, I still do not like the use of that term at all. It is much too easy for the antis to use it to demonize certain kinds of guns.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. There is indeed such a thing as an assault rifle. An assault rifle is, by definition, a selective-fire, magazine-fed rifle that uses an intermediate caliber. The name "assault rifle" comes from the first rifle that had those characteristics, the STG-44 Sturmgewehr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44

The translation of "Sturmgewehr" is, in fact, "assault rifle."

The STG-44 set the pattern for assault rifles. The M16 and AK47 both meet the definition of assault rifle.

What you are confusing is the anti-gun term "assault weapon." 1) that term was, indeed, created by antis. 2) Calling a semi-auto AR15 an assault rifle is not correct, since it is not selective fire.
 
J

JellyFish

Okay, I have edited my message about "assault" weapons and appropriately pointed the finger of blame at...Derek. [rofl]

(No, he had nothing to do with it but he does serve well as a convenient scapegoat [smile] )
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
3,176
Likes
84
Location
Watertown
Did this happen in Oregon, OH? If so, I think we should all email the COP on their website:

And let them know that we've seen this video on the net, and that we intend to spread the link to as many different places as each of us individually can, and that they've lost the comfort of anonymity, and the eyes of the world are now on them.
I disagree. [grin]

Old school, before the CCW law in OH, we would have taken him out of the car at gunpoint (shotguns, I don't believe ARs are good urban weapons).

Yes, he was allowed to carry CCW. Then why wasn't he? "Open carry" is all well and good, until someone else is ruffled and then we have - at least - Disorderly Conduct, in Ohio. He caused "inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another."

I thought they acted in a manner to which they had been trained and were as polite as you can be when facing an unknown armed individual.

I really dislike the description of the stop, especially the "lackey" part.

RJ
 
J

JellyFish

Hmmm...but RJ is it the guy's fault who is carrying or the people that were alarmed by it? In other words, if he's exercising his constitutional rights and they are offended by them...aren't they the problem and not him?

Seems to me that you might be blaming the victim here.

That said, maybe the state of Ohio needs to start sending pamphlets out to people to educate them about open carry? So they don't panic every time they see somebody with a gun?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,721
Likes
37,363
I disagree. [grin]

Old school, before the CCW law in OH, we would have taken him out of the car at gunpoint (shotguns, I don't believe ARs are good urban weapons).

Yes, he was allowed to carry CCW. Then why wasn't he? "Open carry" is all well and good, until someone else is ruffled and then we have - at least - Disorderly conduct, in Ohio. He caused "inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another."
The logic bomb with all of this is OH law does NOT allow for 110% concealed
carry. Your gun MUST be unconcealed whenever you are in a vehicle. This
means at one point or another the person must transition their mode of
carry, which sucks. It defeats the purpouse of concealing a gun. This
one provision essentially makes OH CCW completely unuseable. (They're
supposedly working on changing this, but I havent seen anything saying it
did actually change, yet.).

I don't think that was the case here, but what would happen if the guy
was just getting into his vehicle, and he removed his cover garment
before driving away, and someone sees him? Then you get a "man with
a gun call" with a "perpetrator" who was just trying to stay within the
law... so then at that point, putting him on the pavement is
appropriate because he "upset" someone... hmm.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
3,176
Likes
84
Location
Watertown
Hmmm...but RJ is it the guy's fault who is carrying or the people that were alarmed by it? In other words, if he's exercising his constitutional rights and they are offended by them...aren't they the problem and not him?
Because, that's not how the laws read. There is no "open law" carry in Ohio, there just is no statute which prohibits the carrying an unconcealed firearms, on your person.

In most counties, Police officers are advised that they should not consider an individual openly carrying a firearm as an "automatic arrest." Officers must exercise their judgment and only make an arrest in cases where probable cause existed to believe that the person carrying the firearm is violating the law. Openly carrying a firearm does not mean that the person is automatically guilty of Disorderly Conduct (R.C. 2917.11) or Inducing Panic (R.C. 2817.31). Each case must be judged on it's own set of facts.

Seems to me that you might be blaming the victim here.
Yep, it seems that way. And if he had a CCW, then he should have been carrying that way. It ain't Dodge City, for pete's sake. Why carry the damn thing in the open. Its gonna cause trouble. Your fault, my fault, nobodies fault... its gonna cause a problem.

That said, maybe the state of Ohio needs to start sending pamphlets out to people to educate them about open carry? So they don't panic every time they see somebody with a gun?
Good luck with that. The various counties are trying to educate the cops first, but people will be people.

Being responsible with weapon means the handling of said weapon in public. You know - or should know - that not everyone understands the laws (even those amoung us don't) and that the unenlightened fear a weapon.

A "Man with a gun call" (coding depends on your department) is just that. If you are a cop, then you take the worst case scenario. The minute you assume - you know what that word does - then its a BG and he shoots you.

As any cop knows, the most important duty of the day is to go home at the end of your shift.

RJ
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
3,176
Likes
84
Location
Watertown
The logic bomb with all of this is OH law does NOT allow for 110% concealed carry. Your gun MUST be unconcealed whenever you are in a vehicle. This means at one point or another the person must transition their mode of carry, which sucks. It defeats the purpouse of concealing a gun. This one provision essentially makes OH CCW completely unuseable. (They're supposedly working on changing this, but I havent seen anything saying it did actually change, yet.).

I don't think that was the case here, but what would happen if the guy was just getting into his vehicle, and he removed his cover garment before driving away, and someone sees him? Then you get a "man with a gun call" with a "perpetrator" who was just trying to stay within the law... so then at that point, putting him on the pavement is appropriate because he "upset" someone... hmm.

-Mike
A valid argument, and all the police have to go on is what they are dispatched on. I never assumed anything more into the call than what was dispatched. Adding what I found arriving on scene added to the data, but if there was a "man with a gun", now there were two and I planned on going home at end of shift.

A simple fact of life.

RJ
 
Last edited:

JonJ

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
13,068
Likes
340
Location
Plymouth, MA
Argue all you want over who twisted the Assault Weapon term. When someone is charged with MGL Chp140s131M the definition's origins will be trivial.
It is what it is.
 

Pilgrim

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
16,012
Likes
1,236
Location
RETIRED, at home or wherever I want to be
He caused "inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another."
This is illegal? By minding your own business, obeying the law, doing NOTHING wrong, how can you be charged with " causing inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another."

OHMYGOD ! I saw someone with green pants, and it alarms me that he would wear something like that in public and it annoys the hell out of me. I want that guy arrested !!!!

I wasn't aware that annoying, alarming or causing someone to be inconvenienced was against the law. Who knows what will annoy someone?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
873
Likes
1
OHMYGOD ! I saw someone with green pants, and it alarms me that he would wear something like that in public and it annoys the hell out of me. I want that guy arrested !!!!
I'd def have all those folks with piercings and other shit in their face arrested. That alarms the hell out of me. Especially when it's on a waiter or waitress.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
72,721
Likes
37,363
I wasn't aware that annoying, alarming or causing someone to be inconvenienced was against the law. Who knows what will annoy someone?

The problem is I'd place a fair wager some of these calls go beyond
that, with the caller telling a LIE to get the police to respond.

example:

Mary Hairnet Pants Wetter: "Hello, Police, I'm at the mall, and theres a
man here threatening people with a gun... "

When in reality, what she should have said is: " Theres a man here carrying a gun at the mall here and it FEELS threatening to me".

My personal feeling is the types of people that call this stuff in, at
least most of them, are going to be "sensationally dubious" in
that respect.

I can only imagine the amount of calls that have been made where it
essentially amounted to a false police report. And I'm sure all of ZERO
people have been fined for it or reprimanded about it, either. If they
find the original complaintant the most they might get told is that its
legal for the guy to carry his gun, etc.

This doesn't mean however, that MHPW won't call the police next time
she sees a guy with a gun.

And on the part of the PD, what are they going to do, not
respond? Even if the PD thinks that the call is 99.9999% dubious, they
still have to respond, otherwise on the off chance someone actually DOES
get shot, they don't want to have the crap sued out of them, nor does
the guy in charge want to lose his job over it, either.


-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
3,176
Likes
84
Location
Watertown
This is illegal? By minding your own business, obeying the law, doing NOTHING wrong, how can you be charged with " causing inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another."

OHMYGOD ! I saw someone with green pants, and it alarms me that he would wear something like that in public and it annoys the hell out of me. I want that guy arrested !!!!

I wasn't aware that annoying, alarming or causing someone to be inconvenienced was against the law. Who knows what will annoy someone?
I was using the Ohio verbage (from my LEO days) that constitute "Disorderly Conduct". It was an all encompassing violation (open to interpretation) that covered a multitude of things. As the comments from the local prosecutors states, its a judgement call and not automatic. Depends on what the person was doing.

As for basic annoying, that again, is catchall (at least in my day) that could be used for everything from loud noise, barking dogs, etc.

Its two points of view. You (collectively) as legal gun owners that have a modest to large knowledge of gun laws, and the local, small-town LEO that may or not be as knowledgeable, except for the routine laws he enforces.

RJ
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
3,176
Likes
84
Location
Watertown
The problem is I'd place a fair wager some of these calls go beyond that, with the caller telling a LIE to get the police to respond.
Exactly.

And on the part of the PD, what are they going to do, not respond? Even if the PD thinks that the call is 99.9999% dubious, they still have to respond, otherwise on the off chance someone actually DOES get shot, they don't want to have the crap sued out of them, nor does
the guy in charge want to lose his job over it, either.

-Mike
Outstanding. [smile] Exactly my point. The Police have to respond to these calls. And as I mentioned above, when going on a "man with a gun" call, its not about being fair, but being professional and going home at the end of the day. [thinking]

RJ
 
Top Bottom