Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 96

Thread: Short and sweet with Ashland PD.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203

    Short and sweet with Ashland PD.

    Wife and I were doing laundry. Apparently, someone made a MWAG (or possibly WWAG) call. Ashland PD entered, one on each side of us, through two separate doors. Conversation went something like this: (ps, recorder battery ran out, must have been not 5 minutes before this happened... lesson learned? Check your batteries!)

    Officer: Can I talk to you?
    Me: No, I'm busy doing my laundry.
    Officer: You're not in any trouble, we just want to talk to you.
    Me: Well, what is this regarding.
    Officer: Well, we just got a call about somebody with a gun. You may get some strange looks.
    Me: Well, other people's looks are not my concern. The safety of my children is my concern.
    (Wife turns and officer notices that she's carrying as well)
    Wife: And mine.
    Me: We aren't breaking any laws, we have explicit permission from the owner of the laundromat to carry, so we just...
    Officer: That's fine, we just want to check... do either of you have any felonies?
    Wife: We don't even have to answer that without reason, but no, neither of us are under disability.
    Officer: How old is the little one?
    Wife: 3 weeks.
    Officer: Well, you folks have a nice day.
    Me: And you as well, officer.

    Right after the officers left, i went outside to grab a smoke, and saw some weaselly little butt munch on the phone, i overhead "...worthless cops barely even talked to them..." he then shut up as i started smoking, then he left with soaking wet clothes from the washer... i kinda had to laugh...

  2. #2
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz View Post
    Officer: That's fine, we just want to check... do either of you have any felonies?
    Wife: We don't even have to answer that without reason, but no, neither of us are under disability.
    Great story. Um what does 'under disability' mean wrt felonies?

    I do find it hard to believe they'd not ask for IDs and would expect a felon to self-incriminate.

    Too bad your recorder ran out.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Glad it went well.

    The fishing expedition question about a felony was absurd.

    You did, however, miss a golden opportunity.

    When you first said, "No,...laundry", the cop said, "You're not..."

    My next question would have been, "Why am I detained?" You clearly did not consent to an encounter with him, yet he wanted to play weasel games with you to try to get you to waive your rights. And, even though he could see you were just a husband and wife doing laundry and carrying for your child's protection, he wanted to fish for a felon-in-possession.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203
    I realize that I could have been a little more brusque, and could well have ended (or escalated) the convo right after I made it clear that laundry concerned me more than talking with him... I was about to go into a pro 2a/4a tirade, but chose not to in front of my children... perhaps if there is ever a similar encounter, I will respond dif. Note that Mrs. Kuz DID let the officer know that she did NOT feel COMPELLED to answer... I can't TYPE a tone, but the way she said it, she was making it PERFECTLY clear that that was the LAST question she would be answering... Only way she would've made the officer MORE uncomfortable at that point was to whip one out and feed our son... they already realized that there was nothing wrong, and I think they realized that any more fishing was going to lead nowhere good, so they chose to disengage at that point. I'm still a little surprised that they never even asked for names or IDs or anything... that there tells me that they were well trained in the legality of open carry, and determined VERY quickly that there was NO RAS for any further discussion.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz View Post
    I'm still a little surprised that they never even asked for names or IDs or anything... that there tells me that they were well trained in the legality of open carry, and determined VERY quickly that there was NO RAS for any further discussion.
    I'd like to know how you found out the name and contact info of the owner of the laundromat. I mean that's really thinking ahead, lol.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz View Post
    I realize that I could have been a little more brusque, and could well have ended (or escalated) the convo right after I made it clear that laundry concerned me more than talking with him... I was about to go into a pro 2a/4a tirade, but chose not to in front of my children... perhaps if there is ever a similar encounter, I will respond dif. Note that Mrs. Kuz DID let the officer know that she did NOT feel COMPELLED to answer... I can't TYPE a tone, but the way she said it, she was making it PERFECTLY clear that that was the LAST question she would be answering... Only way she would've made the officer MORE uncomfortable at that point was to whip one out and feed our son... they already realized that there was nothing wrong, and I think they realized that any more fishing was going to lead nowhere good, so they chose to disengage at that point. I'm still a little surprised that they never even asked for names or IDs or anything... that there tells me that they were well trained in the legality of open carry, and determined VERY quickly that there was NO RAS for any further discussion.
    Good points.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I'd like to know how you found out the name and contact info of the owner of the laundromat. I mean that's really thinking ahead, lol.
    Funny you should ask, as that's ANOTHER funny story. After a few weeks of doing our laundry there, a handwritten sign appeared on all of the doors. One of the "rules" was "No toy guns, bbs, airsofts, or lasers. No guns of any kind" Well, that COULD be taken as a ban on real weapons as well, so I dropped the owner a call, basically a verbal "NGNM". Come to find out, there's some busybody customer who keeps putting all sorts of ludicrous signs up. The owner says that he has no problem whatsoever with our carry. He also asked me to tear the signs down, but I respectfully declined, and the manager came and removed them (they were back in various form for a few weeks... the owners and/or managers keep taking them down)

  8. #8
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz
    ...I'm still a little surprised that they never even asked for names or IDs or anything...
    The goal is to get to the point where we are only surprised when they DO ask for ID.


    On other topics...

    ...would the Mrs. have been charged with "brandishing a gun" had she started breastfeeding in front of the LEO?

    ...If they have cameras, can the owners ID the vigilante sign poster and trespass them?

    ...Did you offer to help the weasel find a more liberally-minded laundromat?

    ...If he was afraid of your guns, why did he hang around for the LEO to arrive? Or maybe you unintentionally ID'ed the sign poster for them?
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203
    More like brandishing a Howitzer, MWSY... new baby, milk came back in with a vengeance, if you know what i mean! lmao

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Short and sweet with Ashland PD.

    Maybe the owner should put signs announcing that his private property is a lawful carry zone.

    Personally, I wouldn't want customers who try to make the rules for me. They can discuss them with me, complain about them, tell me what they think the rules should be, etc. But, if they are putting up signs that would be interpreted as coming from me, I want them off my property immediately and permanently.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    My next question would have been, "Why am I detained?"
    I don't see where there was any detention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen
    You clearly did not consent to an encounter with him, yet he wanted to play weasel games with you to try to get you to waive your rights.
    Not a consensual encounter?

    Encounters are consensual where the police merely approach a person in a public place, engage the person in conversation, request information, and the person is free not to answer and walk away. *** The request to examine one's identification does not make an encounter nonconsensual. *** The Fourth Amendment guarantees are not implicated in such an encounter unless the police officer has by either physical force or show of authority restrained the person's liberty so that a reasonable person would not feel free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. State v. Taylor (1995), 667 N.E.2d 60, 64-65, 106 Ohio App.3d 741, 747-748 (2d Dist.)
    Sounds to me like that's exactly what happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen
    And, even though he could see you were just a husband and wife doing laundry and carrying for your child's protection, he wanted to fish for a felon-in-possession.
    In Ohio, it's called "having weapons while under disability," just like BriKuz said. He handled it well; no reason to stir the pot. And I'm glad to see that he scared off the little wanker who was stirring the post.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The OP claims to have said a very clear "no" to an encounter. The officer ignored that "no" and continued the encounter. Many reasonable people would consider the ignoring of their refusal to participate in an encounter as the encounter not being voluntary.

    I wouldn't. I would have repeated the "no." If the officer persisted, I would have become more clear, more blunt, and what would be taken as ruder. I will NOT participate in an investigatory stop of my carry other than to establish that the encounter is a seizure of my person and to provide only the ID required by law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The OP claims to have said a very clear "no" to an encounter. The officer ignored that "no" and continued the encounter. Many reasonable people would consider the ignoring of their refusal to participate in an encounter as the encounter not being voluntary.

    I wouldn't. I would have repeated the "no." If the officer persisted, I would have become more clear, more blunt, and what would be taken as ruder. I will NOT participate in an investigatory stop of my carry other than to establish that the encounter is a seizure of my person and to provide only the ID required by law.
    The encounter would NOT have remained nearly as civil had the officer pushed the matter ANY further(farther) (which one is proper English?) That being said, Eye is correct, I DID allow the encounter to continue longer than was necessary. Even though I declined to be interviewed, I then partially threw out that decline by responding to more questions. I was willing to make VERY small concessions in order to spare my children the sight of an ugly encounter. I do believe that the officer's choice in ending the interview when he did saved some heated words. I also think part of his reason for extending the interview(interrogation) was to try to see if there was any obvious RAS for a detention. Upon observing that we we not visibly impaired by alcohol or drugs of abuse, or acting in a suspicious manner, I believe he chose to end the interview.

    One note: The entire time this was taking place, I still had my cell phone out, and was calling to my daughter to get back over by us. ( she did, then ran again. Any of you who met her at Ytown walk remember that she can be VERY insistent about walking when she wants to walk lol)

    Werz, I think that Citezen suggested the question "Why am I being detained?" to elicit either and statement that a detainment was taking place, or that no detainment was in progress and that I was free to go about my business without answering questions or making statements.
    Last edited by BriKuz; 06-25-2013 at 08:15 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Short and sweet with Ashland PD.

    Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your choices at all. I do not have the same concerns that you do.

    My goal was to point out that the citizen clearly saying "no," followed by the officer pressing the encounter, could reasonably be seen as the citizen not having a choice, i.e. being detained.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155
    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz View Post
    The encounter would NOT have remained nearly as civil had the officer pushed the matter ANY further(farther) (which one is proper English?)
    Farther is predicate only to linear distance subject. Further is predicate to all other separations.

    The cops initiating the encounter tactically, through two doors, and by more than one makes it arguably non-consensual.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    excellent encounter

    BriKuz, In my opinion, you handled the situation perfectly. A few agreed while a few wanted to give you pointers on how to handle it absolutely perfectly. It is time those who nitpick step back, and first, applaud open carriers like you who handle themselves very well. Kudos, my friend.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Farther is predicate only to linear distance subject. Further is predicate to all other separations.

    The cops initiating the encounter tactically, through two doors, and by more than one makes it arguably non-consensual.
    Hey, this is a good point. I missed that. Blocking the exits or the route to the exits.

    Note to self: If a cop appears in front of you, look behind you to see who's sneaking up.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Farther is predicate only to linear distance subject. Further is predicate to all other separations.

    The cops initiating the encounter tactically, through two doors, and by more than one makes it arguably non-consensual.
    re farther further... duh! I look at it now that I've had a pot of coffee, and it's obvious... thanks for the reply, though! lol

    As for the arguably non-consensual, that is a good point... we had two of our three freedoms of movement restricted (there was still a third direction that could have been taken) Another issue is that we were not really free to walk away, as we had laundry in the dryer, and we should not have been forced to abandon our property to avoid a conversation with officers. Since we never really HAD to do so, I would still say that I did not FEEL detained at that time. My wife tells me there was actually a little more said to end the encounter. Apparently, I in some way stated that we didn't feel like talking anymore, and have a nice day, officer. For some reason, I forgot that, and still only vaguely remember it now. Another reason to keep the batteries in your recorder fully charged! I could have gotten better feedback from y'all and from myself if I had a darn recording!

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz View Post
    SNIP Another reason to keep the batteries in your recorder fully charged! I could have gotten better feedback from y'all and from myself if I had a darn recording!
    Well, at least you had it with you.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346
    Hey, you know, if you quit smoking you would be able to afford a washer and dryer.

    Just kidding.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohio Patriot View Post
    Hey, you know, if you quit smoking you would be able to afford a washer and dryer.

    Just kidding.
    If i'd have never STARTED smoking, and saved all that money, I'd be able to pay cash for a Jag XF-R... ;-)

    (Or, a whole LOT of ammo!!!)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The cops initiating the encounter tactically, through two doors, and by more than one makes it arguably non-consensual.
    One can make many novel arguments. The law remains what it is:

    "The Fourth Amendment guarantees are not implicated in such an encounter unless the police officer has by either physical force or show of authority restrained the person's liberty so that a reasonable person would not feel free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter."

    What nobody seems to appreciate is that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the officers from being annoying. As long as they do not palpably restrict your freedom of movement or your opportunity for egress, there is no detention, and they can ask as many questions as they want. Whether or not you answer those questions is up to you.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    ...What nobody seems to appreciate is that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the officers from being annoying...
    What nobody seems to appreciate? You must be on the wrong website if you think that's the case here!

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Farther is predicate only to linear distance subject. Further is predicate to all other separations...
    "Linear distance subject"? "Predicate all other separations"?

    I appreciate your answer, since I've had the same question - further, farther? But... is there an English version of your reply?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Maybe the owner should put signs announcing that his private property is a lawful carry zone.
    I'm a bit puzzled. If it is private property and (presumably) the two carriers were inside, what gives the officers permission to go inside? I realize that anyone can walk into a laundromat, but the went in 'under color of authority'.

    I would -assume- that unless the owner called the police, they had no right to go inside the laundromat and 'investigate'. Yes, I know they could just 'wander in' and ask 'consensual questions', as any person could who was curious.

    I guess my question is: is this legal? Do cops actually go into a business on an anonymous 'complaint' (of a legal activity, no less).

    If the owner had such signs up, would that have been capable of dissuading the cops from entering and questioning clients. (Would have have said 'oh we didn't even notice'?).

    At any rate, I don't think owner-installed signs would have stopped this fishing-expedition. Further, I find it not credible that LEOs are routinely asking (expecting) felons to self-identify.

    If I was their Sergeant, they'd be up for remedial training. I'd be calling them in the office and it would go:

    * 'What was your cause for going in there like a tactical squad and harassing citizens with a baby, doing their laundry? This kind of thing is UNprofessional'.
    * 'They were OC-ing which is LEGAL, and they were on Private Property engaged in legal and ordinary activity, and you had no complaint by the owner'
    * 'Do you guys ask people on the street if they're felons, and then believe them? Are you living in a fantasy world?'
    * 'If you fail to meet your quota next month because you're wandering around in laundromats asking people about the age of their babies instead of DOING YOUR JOB, you're gonna get suspended for a week without pay'.

    ...something like that.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •