VIDEO - Officers threatens to execute Ohio CCW holder

[Jake46184]

T.Lex is a lawyer, dude.

Then that makes 2 of us, henktermaat

 

[GuyRelford]

Then something will have to be done to defuse the situation!!
I've stated this before.
Officers in this country are looking at the worst year in recent history for Officer LODD caused by some nut case with a firearm.
At the current rate, the number could easily double last years three year high.
Self preservation is a strong instinct, especially among all of the "Type A" people in Law Enforcement.
I'd say, as gun owners, that we all share the responsibility to use level headed thinking when it comes to situations involving firearms.
Calling for "A pound of flesh" from this Officer without the nicety of a trial will do nothing but set the resolve of many LEO's that the Public is out to get them. (The paranoia door swings both ways)
As I've stated here earlier. This Officer has blackened the image of Law Enforcement and set back relations with the Public by at least a decade.
That's no excuse however for radicals to condemn all LEO's out of hand because this idiot ****ed up big time.

I understand your point, which is valid IMO. But the best way for LEOs to limit the fall-out from this situation is to stop making excuses for this idiot.

Do LEO's face stressful situations on the job? Absolutely!

Have there been a series of tragic shootings of officers ITLOD? Yes, which breaks all of our hearts.

Does any of that justify this lunatic's behavior? ABSOLUTLEY NOT.

LEOs and non-LEOs need to join together on that point. Any more excuses offered by LEOs for Officer Harless' conduct will just make this public-relations nightmare that much worse.

Guy

 

[Jack Burton]

Read post #150, Jack. I think it'll help.

Let me quote from several people... the first is, I believe, you...

I spend about 5 days a month in litigation. Usually as the plaintiff but sometimes as the defendant.

And now from someone else...

Again...it's easy to be anyone you want to be on the Internet.

Oh... I'm sorry... I was still quoting you questioning the legal credentials of someone else. My bad...

 

[EnochRoot43]

No offense T. Lex but any LEO stop is a "law enforcement purpose." Probably best to leave the interpretation of such things to those who live it.

^^^^LOLOLOL

 

[Hammerhead]

Also, if you watch the video, the comments inserted by OHCC says that he tried to inform the officer who was illegally searching his car and he was told to shut up then too. They state that the partner's mic was never as loud as the other officer's.

I watched the video without emotion, until I saw what the deal was. I did faintly hear the initial offering of notification while the illegal search was being conducted.

Being told repeatedly to shut up would make me want to exercise my right to not say anything.

 

[Jake46184]

Let me quote from several people... the first is, I believe, you...



And now from someone else...



Oh... I'm sorry... I was still quoting you questioning the legal credentials of someone else. My bad...

What would be of more use to the thread would be for you to read post #150 and tell all of us if you agree or not? I'm not trying to humiliate or belittle you. Just discussing the facts as presented. Surely you can do the same. We'll all thank you in advance.

 

[singlestacksig]

For those who can't see the video, and who may not have found Ohio's relevant code, here is a summation of both:

Ohio Code 2923.126: "If a licensee is the driver or an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped as the result of a traffic stop or a stop for another law enforcement purpose and if the licensee is transporting or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle at that time, the licensee shall promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the licensee has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the licensee currently possesses or has a loaded handgun...."

In the video, a LEO removes a passenger and places him against the car. LEO then enters the back seat of the vehicle and conducts a 5-minute search. AT NO TIME during this does the driver notify. He only attempts to do so 6 minutes after an LEO has approached the vehicle, when another LEO approaches his driver's window. Read the code again and then ask yourself these questions:

1. Did an LEO approach the stopped vehicle?
2. Did the driver immediately notify?
3. Had the driver immediately notified the LEO searching the rear seat of the car that he was carrying a loaded handgun, do you think the LEO may have stopped and disarmed him?

#1 is easy. Of course an LEO had approached. HE WAS IN THE CAR.
#2 There is no evidence that the driver attempted to notify until first approached at his window. The code says nothing about only being approached at the window.
#3 If you answered yes, you have no choice but to agree that the driver was in violation of the codified language.

I spend about 5 days a month in litigation. Usually as the plaintiff but sometimes as the defendant. It's amazing how courtroom proceedings are nothing like TV. There's no emotion. It's just presentation of codified law, precedents, relevant facts to the case at hand, and then someone looks at all of it and decides if the plaintiff (the State of Ohio in this matter) proved their case. And, if so, what aggravating or mitigating circumstances existed.

when the cop gets in the back of the car the driver turns to talk to him, cop shines flashlight in his face and tells him to be quiet..

 

[UncleMike]

I'd sort of buy into that as an explanation for an overreaction to a current threat or perceived threat, but in THIS case?

No!
This Officer breachedone of the most important tenants of Law Enforcement.
"Remain calm and in control of yourself when interacting with The Public."
He went ballistic over a "perceived" potential threat.
Just as some posters here go ballistic over the "perceived" notion that all LEO's are JBT's and out to strip them of their rights.
That's not true, as any reasoning individual knows.

 

[Dwight]

Holding the card up and clearly visible (the cop saw it immediately and commented about it) should count as notification. What happens if a law abiding, gun carrying, citizen is a deaf/mute. Not too many other options.

 

[Scutter01]

Then something will have to be done to defuse the situation!!
I've stated this before.
Officers in this country are looking at the worst year in recent history for Officer LODD caused by some nut case with a firearm.
At the current rate, the number could easily double last years three year high.
Self preservation is a strong instinct, especially among all of the "Type A" people in Law Enforcement.
I'd say, as gun owners, that we all share the responsibility to use level headed thinking when it comes to situations involving firearms.
Calling for "A pound of flesh" from this Officer without the nicety of a trial will do nothing but set the resolve of many LEO's that the Public is out to get them. (The paranoia door swings both ways)
As I've stated here earlier. This Officer has blackened the image of Law Enforcement and set back relations with the Public by at least a decade.
That's no excuse however for radicals to condemn all LEO's out of hand because this idiot ****ed up big time.

Mike, I hear what you're saying and I agree with it. However, I just do not see any changes being made.

I do not believe that I called for this officer's "pound of flesh", and if I did then I was wrong. I am a staunch proponent of Due Process as shown by my recent comments in the Casey Anthony threads right here on INGO.

Nevertheless, at this moment, I have seen video that scares the hell out of me. I've seen comments from LE that lead me to believe that CPD (or the Prosecutor) tried to sweep this under the rug and even extort the driver into complying. I have personally seen with my own two eyes and heard with my own two ears what some officers do when they think they won't get caught or when they think "it's just a little thing that doesn't matter". I've been the victim right here on INGO of officers who demanded my support and then turned on me or disappeared when I needed them to back up the position that THEY ASKED ME to take. My patience for this sort of thing is at an end. I have certainly had good interactions with officers and I have publicly applauded that officer (and even written letters to his supervisor) when it's happened. However, I do not believe I can trust ANY officer now.

The Thin Blue Line needs to end and I'm asking all LEOs to clean up their own houses. You're allowing this sort of thing all the time whether you realize it or not. It starts small. For example, maybe during traffic duty your partner chastised a driver who wanted to turn left and he wanted them to go right, and you stood by and did nothing. Any time you allow your personal feelings to interfere with your job. When other officers don't stop it RIGHT THEN AND THERE, it will grow and grow until it's a cancer within the entire department. It becomes an entrenched philosophy that feeds on itself and becomes almost impossible to eliminate. I hold THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT from the lowliest beat cop to the highest Chief 100% responsible.

 

[henktermaat]

No!
This Officer breachedone of the most important tenants of Law Enforcement.
"Remain calm and in control of yourself when interacting with The Public."
He went ballistic over a "perceived" potential threat.
Just as some posters here go ballistic over the "perceived" notion that all LEO's are JBT's and out to strip them of their rights.
That's not true, as any reasoning individual knows.

I'm sorry - you're equating us rightly concerned citizens with that nutjob of an officer?

 

[EnochRoot43]

Stark County is also the home of the infamous "Phil Davison For Treasurer"....perhaps it is something in the water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMgyi57s-A4

 

[Prometheus]

With all due respect, Mike, I disagree wholeheartedly. They're ALREADY circling the wagons. You can see it in the comments on the OHCC website, the CPD Facebook page (before it was taken down) and in the quoted comments in the news articles. This is not the first time we've had an issue like this and these stories continue to surface over and over again. When Rodney King was dragged from his car and beaten almost to death almost 20 years ago, it didn't stop the "rogue cop" behavior even though the officers involved (eventually) went to prison. It didn't even slow it down. I believe that legitimate gun owners are rapidly approaching the point where they will refuse to be treated like common criminals anymore and things will get ugly.

This story has gone viral on FB. below is a quote from a very serious man who is a former LEO:

"Here's a perfect example of a man who has no business being in a position to exercise the police powers of the state. He also seems to be one of those morons who believes only cops should have guns. Now imagine if in the middle of his abuse of the this citizen a couple of rifle rounds came out of the dark and ended the abuse."

Criminals expect to be treated like... well, criminals. You turn the law abiding into criminals, don't be surprised at the consequences.

 

[Jake46184]

when the cop gets in the back of the car the driver turns to talk to him, cop shines flashlight in his face and tells him to be quiet..

The problem singlestack is that the text added by the Oho website doesn't match what happens in the video. We can all view it again together. It's on page 10 of this thread. Take a look from about 2:45 to 3:30. The "sane" LEO enters the back seat of the car. There is no discernable audio from the driver. The LEO never shines a light at him. Everything you're quoting is from the text that was added by a biased source.

Now read post #150 again. Tell us if you agree (especially with #3.)

 

[Bunnykid68]

MISDEMEANOR- not notifying that douche is just a misdemeanor. SO what? Said douche threatened him over a frickin misdemeanor.

 

[UncleMike]

I understand your point, which is valid IMO. But the best way for LEOs to limit the fall-out from this situation is to stop making excuses for this idiot.

Do LEO's face stressful situations on the job? Absolutely!

Have there been a series of tragic shootings of officers ITLOD? Yes, which breaks all of our hearts.

Does any of that justify this lunatic's behavior? ABSOLUTLEY NOT.

LEOs and non-LEOs need to join together on that point. Any more excuses offered by LEOs for Officer Harless' conduct will just make this public-relations nightmare that much worse.


Guy

Yup!
And I haven't seen any LEO's here, active or retired, defend this jerk.

 

[Expat]

I agree. Here's an interesting thought - wouldn't you like to know if Officer Harless has been involved in ANY officer-involved shootings during his career, and whether there were any other witnesses to such shootings.

IOW, why was he so confident in saying his partner "would be a really good witness while I executed your ass."

Very scary stuff.

I erased part of what I wrote before I posted. But since you bring it up, he did make me wonder if he had killed someone before that ticked him off and got off with a good shoot.

 

[UncleMike]

I'm sorry - you're equating us rightly concerned citizens with that nutjob of an officer?

No i'm not, and I'm sorry you see it that way.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The problem singlestack is that the text added by the Oho website doesn't match what happens in the video. We can all view it again together. It's on page 10 of this thread. Take a look from about 2:45 to 3:30. The "sane" LEO enters the back seat of the car. There is no discernable audio from the driver. The LEO never shines a light at him. Everything you're quoting is from the text that was added by a biased source.

Now read post #150 again. Tell us if you agree (especially with #3.)

From the way that officer was acting I don't think he would have acted much differently towards the stupid man with the gun had he been notified. He wanted to stalk and kill him he was so hot.

 

[singlestacksig]

The problem singlestack is that the text added by the Oho website doesn't match what happens in the video. We can all view it again together. It's on page 10 of this thread. Take a look from about 2:45 to 3:30. The "sane" LEO enters the back seat of the car. There is no discernable audio from the driver. The LEO never shines a light at him. Everything you're quoting is from the text that was added by a biased source.

Now read post #150 again. Tell us if you agree (especially with #3.)

@ 3:25 driver turns & gets flashlight in face..