Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Arrogant Toledo Police

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    I called Toledo Police to inform them that in view of the total number of Police layoffs, it was my intention to exorcise my right to open carry my firearm. I was switched to different offices 3 times and finally talked to a member of the Operations Division whereupon I was informed that police would arrest me, and that court costs and legal fees would be quite expensive,and could I afford the arrest record, and all the expenses, and is it worth all that troubleto be a "vigilante."

    Hmm, such is the mind set of our Toledo Police.



  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Perhaps you should have pointed out to who ever you talked to over the phone , that your expense for OC wouldn't be anywhere near as high as the City of Toledo's expensive if they arrest you.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    "Arrogant police" is redundant.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Please tell me you wanted to "exercise" your right, and not "exorcise" it.

    Sorry. I'm in my proofreading mode.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Combat Veteran wrote:
    I called Toledo Police to inform them that in view of the total number of Police layoffs, it was my intention to exorcise my right to open carry my firearm. ..Snipped

    exorcise

    Main Entry:ex·or·cise
    Variant(s):
    also ex·or·cize ˈek-ˌsȯr-ˌsīz, -sər-
    Function:
    transitive verb

    1 a: to expel (an evil spirit) by adjuration b: to get rid of (something troublesome, menacing, or oppressive)

    2
    : to free of an evil spirit

    I am not sure that exorcising a demon that is preventing you openly carrying a gun is illegal either.


  6. #6
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553

    Post imported post

    Why did you contact the PD for a discussion, instead of just going about your everyday business while OCing?

    What were you hoping would result from the discussion?



  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Maybe you should have left out the "in the light of...," because that could be misconstrued into you being a vigilantly. Just tell them you're going to OC purely because it's legal to do soand they can suck a dick if they don't like it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Combat Veteran wrote:
    I called Toledo Police to inform them that in view of the total number of Police layoffs, it was my intention to exorcise my right to open carry my firearm. I was switched to different offices 3 times and finally talked to a member of the Operations Division whereupon I was informed that police would arrest me, and that court costs and legal fees would be quite expensive,and could I afford the arrest record, and all the expenses, and is it worth all that troubleto be a "vigilante."

    Hmm, such is the mind set of our Toledo Police.
    More to the point is the "mind[less]set" of your short bus mayor, Carty Finkbeiner. He's Ralph Wiggum from "The Simpsons" promoted lightyears beyond his level of incompetence.

    The Toledo PD are just his stooges.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    They may have interpreted your words as intent to act as a police officer, "in light of police layoffs, i'm going to ....". It's rarely a good idea to have a conversation with police, unless you need them for something.

    Next time, just ask them what their current department policy is on OC, and how they would respond to a MWG call, where no crime is being committed.

    Power has the tendancy to make anyone arrogant.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I think it's revealing that they threatened you with an "arrest record" as opposed to even the possibility of a conviction.

    Nice allusion to the Peter Principle, deanimator.

    -ljp

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    They may have interpreted your words as intent to act as a police officer, "in light of police layoffs, i'm going to ....". It's rarely a good idea to have a conversation with police, unless you need them for something.

    Next time, just ask them what their current department policy is on OC, and how they would respond to a MWG call, where no crime is being committed.

    Power has the tendancy to make anyone arrogant.
    I agree with you.

    Why tell them you are going to do is and it is because there are fewer cops.

    It does have the tone of... since there are no cops I am going to go out armed and take up the slack.

    It seems the call was made not to solicit information but to inform the police he was going to do it and they were forewarned.

    Best option would have been to ask how they felt about it and what response would be made if someone called on him.

    This would give him some insight on carrying may be fine or may be problematic. Then he can prepare for any contact that he knows will be negative.

    Before HR218 I traveled out-of-state and visited the local police department. I asked the supervisor how they felt about out-of-state cops CCing. He said they were fine with it and I could do it if I had my credentials.

    I asked because I knew that some localities would arrest cops and not recognize them as a cop if they were from out-of-state. The codes can be vague on this when giving a LEO exemption. This is why HR218 was probably pushed forward.

    If I go back, I am certainly not going to call up and warn them that I am going to do something that is otherwise legal. What is the point?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    I called Toledo Police to inform them that in view of the total number of Police layoffs, it was my intention to exorcise my right to open carry my firearm.



    Before you told them that, did you inform them that you are exercising your right to free speech? Did you tell them you exercised your right to vote?


    Why bother? If it is a right, you don't have to ask permission. Just do it. If they arrest you, sue their pants off. At this point, with the layoffs that may actually be a real threat.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I’m sorry but I don’t see the point of calling the police before hand to let them know that you’ll be OCing if it’s legal do it there’s no point in deliberately antagonizing the police

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    codename_47 wrote:
    I called Toledo Police to inform them that in view of the total number of Police layoffs, it was my intention to exorcise my right to open carry my firearm.



    Before you told them that, did you inform them that you are exercising your right to free speech? Did you tell them you exercised your right to vote?

    Why bother? If it is a right, you don't have to ask permission. Just do it. If they arrest you, sue their pants off. At this point, with the layoffs that may actually be a real threat.
    There is no "right to vote" ... just saying ...

    I do agree with the point of the above (and others) that I do not see any point in calling LE to inform them of your intent to perform a legal act. There are also several good points about "tone" of the comments that may have meant something different to LE than intended.

    My 40 years of life experience tell me that about 90% of the time that a generally law abiding citizen gets into trouble with some gov't authority is when s/he has the right to remain silent but not the ability.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Combat Veteran wrote:
    I called Toledo Police to inform them that in view of the total number of Police layoffs, it was my intention to exorcise my right to open carry my firearm. I was switched to different offices 3 times and finally talked to a member of the Operations Division whereupon I was informed that police would arrest me, and that court costs and legal fees would be quite expensive,and could I afford the arrest record, and all the expenses, and is it worth all that troubleto be a "vigilante."

    Hmm, such is the mind set of our Toledo Police.

    Were youjust trying to start trouble? It sure sounds like it. Go about your normal activity while legally exercising your rights, but don't antagonize the cops, if they violate you, then take them to court.

    We need level headed citizens in this cause, not people itching for a fight. I'm not accusing you of that, but it seems that you are trying to get the local PD to hassle you.:quirky

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    leesburg, va, ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    Carty Finkbeiner.
    That's a made up name, right?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post



    Is this a pre-call photo, before said exorcism?

    Sorry, I couldn't resist (like most folks so far lol). Anyhow, if it's legal to do so, just do so. Calling to tell them like that is just baiting, like you're looking to pick a fight.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    DrMark wrote:
    Why did you contact the PD for a discussion, instead of just going about your everyday business while OCing?

    What were you hoping would result from the discussion?

    Indeed, that is just challenging them. There is no reason to notify them of your intent to exercise your rights.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    DrMark wrote:
    Why did you contact the PD for a discussion, instead of just going about your everyday business while OCing?

    What were you hoping would result from the discussion?

    SNIP There is no reason to notify them of your intent to exercise your rights.
    I know this was not necessarily the gist of you comment, SV. I'm using it as a springboard to explore further.

    I wonder if it is inappropriate in all cases to notify.

    I could see a formal letter laying out all the legal points if one is going to OC in an area where maybe police don't know better.

    One, it gives the cops a chance to come up to speed and saves the possible legal expenses of a lawsuit, or worse a trumped up charge.

    And, it might also serve a purpose sorta like an about-to-be-libeled person notifying a newspaper that the story they are about to run contains libelous information. AsI understand it,if the newspaperstill prints the libel despite good evidence provided on notice, itadds support to the libel suit.

    Ideas?

    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
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    And, it might also serve a purpose sorta like an about-to-be-libeled person notifying a newspaper that the story they are about to run contains libelous information. AsI understand it,if the newspaperstill prints the libel despite good evidence provided on notice, itadds support to the libel suit.

    IMHO, no. That has no bearingon anything. In a lawsuit, all that matters is if the other side did it or not. You have no duty to attempt to avoid having your rights violated.

    It doesn't add support or damages to the libel suit. If it is libelous, then it is libelous, period. If you are damaged, you are damaged. Notifying them in advance doesn't make it any worse.

    I could see a formal letter laying out all the legal points if one is going to OC in an area where maybe police don't know better.

    One, it gives the cops a chance to come up to speed and saves the possible legal expenses of a lawsuit, or worse a trumped up charge.



    IMHO, the formal letter is already written. Just send them a copy of the constitution and hilight the 4th, 14th, and 2nd amendments.



    If the cops are going to trump up the charges, they are going to do it, letter or no letter. That's like telling them "I am going to sue you" when they are illegally searching you or whatever. They are still going to do it.



  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    codename_47 wrote:
    And, it might also serve a purpose sorta like an about-to-be-libeled person notifying a newspaper that the story they are about to run contains libelous information. AsI understand it,if the newspaperstill prints the libel despite good evidence provided on notice, itadds support to the libel suit.

    IMHO, no. That has no bearingon anything. In a lawsuit, all that matters is if the other side did it or not. You have no duty to attempt to avoid having your rights violated.

    It doesn't add support or damages to the libel suit. If it is libelous, then it is libelous, period. If you are damaged, you are damaged. Notifying them in advance doesn't make it any worse.

    I could see a formal letter laying out all the legal points if one is going to OC in an area where maybe police don't know better.

    One, it gives the cops a chance to come up to speed and saves the possible legal expenses of a lawsuit, or worse a trumped up charge.



    IMHO, the formal letter is already written. Just send them a copy of the constitution and hilight the 4th, 14th, and 2nd amendments.



    If the cops are going to trump up the charges, they are going to do it, letter or no letter. That's like telling them "I am going to sue you" when they are illegally searching you or whatever. They are still going to do it.

    I understand.

    I don't know enough about federal civil rights lawsuits to discuss further on a letter helping a lawsuit. Maybe it helps establish that they knew they were in the wrong, cancelling a good-faith exception or something. I just don't know. Maybe a lawyer like Adamesq or Gunslinger can chime in.

    With regard to savinglegal expense, I can see some potential OCers not having enough money to risk legal expenses. I was thinking a letter more as an option for them. If we stop and think about it, we've heard stories about how a perfectly legal activity can be twisted by a DA and the cops. Just ask Legba. He fought it, and is still stuck with restrictions.
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    Good faith is no defense to a 1983 claim. Good faith relates to the exclusionary rule, not 1983 defenses.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception

    http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

    States and state agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court,[64] but local governments have no immunity from damages flowing from their constitutional violations, and may not assert the good faith of its agents as a defense to liability.[65] Further, state law sovereign immunity and state law limitations on damages do not protect local governments from liability under section 1983,[66] and state laws requiring pre-suit notification prior to initiating an action against the state or its subdivisions similarly do not apply.[67] Therefore, local governments are left in the unique and unhappy situation of being subject to suit without the benefit of any form of immunity.

    http://www.lawmdr.com/docs/42_USC_1983.pdf

    Here's an appeals case on a 1983 claim:

    http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/041969P.pdf

    The key thing that I think you are getting at is Qualified immunity, which the officer MAY have, but in a lot of these cases, it is pretty clear that they don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

    [ A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his actions violated clearly established law.

    As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."


    In an OC perspective, cases where you have officers saying "yeah, OC is legal, but..." are pretty much erasing their main defense to a 1983 suit and qualified immunity.

    Further, you or I saying case XYZ allows this or that is irrelevant. Qualified immunity rests on the laws in place and court decisions.

    It is a 2 prong test:

    1. was the act a constitutional violation?

    2. Would a reasonable person have known that the actions taken violated clearly established laws.

    The clearly established bit can get a bit murky.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Combat Veteran wrote:
    I called Toledo Police to inform them that in view of the total number of Police layoffs, it was my intention to exorcise my right to open carry my firearm. I was switched to different offices 3 times and finally talked to a member of the Operations Division whereupon I was informed that police would arrest me, and that court costs and legal fees would be quite expensive,and could I afford the arrest record, and all the expenses, and is it worth all that troubleto be a "vigilante."

    Hmm, such is the mind set of our Toledo Police.

    Again, why do people continue to call police for legal or personal advice? This always leads to bad advice.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Again, why do people continue to call police for legal or personal advice? This always leads to bad advice.
    Yup. Same goes for asking people you know.

    Advice is worth what you paid for it.





  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Again, why do people continue to call police for legal or personal advice? This always leads to bad advice.
    Yup. Same goes for asking people you know.

    Advice is worth what you paid for it.



    +10

    Just for kicks I asked the (5 by 5 BOTH WAYS) gate guard on base how I should go about bringing my firearm on base.

    She promptly responded, "You CANNOT bring a Gun on Base, are you crazy"?

    Mind you the sign that informs civilians HOW to bring their firearms on base to go to the PUBLIC RANGEis about :

    10 FEET IN FRONT OF HER !!!

    ROFL !

    Unloaded and Seperate in the Vehicle.

    So instead of educating the LE Officer, I let her remain ignorant and just drove off.







Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •