A facebook post from a local LEO.

[marshaul]

Selective recall, ENM?
"Detective McFadden ... observed the two proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. After one of these trips, they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly after a brief conversation. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up", detective McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store."
Although walking back in forth in front of a store is not a crime in Ohio, taken together with the other indicators, yes, it was suspicious enough to warrant a detention.

Exactly. "He was doing legal activity x" is a far cry from "He was doing activities x, y, z, and epsilon, which by themselves are legal, but together suggest a crime about to be committed."

It's the difference between "he was carrying a firearm" and "he was carrying a firearm, and every time somebody walked out the door he was watching he would move his hand as though he was about to draw, perhaps if he saw the right person" (<-- random made up example of the day).

 

[Big Daddy XD]

1) Regarding the wife, kids, family dog, etc., You could raise as much 'holy hell' as much as you wanted and even try take it to the Supreme Court just like Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro did when their flatmate was being raped and murdered downstairs and the District Police failed to stop it.
The Supreme Court ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that the police aren't responsible for your personal safety outside of certain situations that they create.

2) It doesn't matter to me if he's carrying the AK for protection, because he thinks it looks pretty, or because he thinks it will keep the lions, tigers, and aardvarks away. Unless he's carrying it for offensive purposes, and there is a reasonable suspicion of such it's a legal act. Last century you could just as easily and with the same logic said, "There's no reason for a purple man to be walking in a green neighborhood. He could be looking for green women to rape or a house to burglarize. He's got no reason to be there so he should be stopped so that the situation can be assessed."
- See Miller v. U. S., 230 F 486 at 489, "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime."


You're welcome to have opinions, but they shouldn't be used to blind one from facts or truth.

The last time I checked this is a forum and is full of opinions. I do believe people come here looking for OPINIONS, not laws. Hence their on OCDO not on KY page looking at KRS.

 

[DrakeZ07]

No, it's reasonable suspicion of a crime....

why don't you tell me which Ohio statute makes it illegal to walk back and forth near a business? because what was what was upheld as RAS for the officer's search discovering a concealed revolver leading to the esteemed Mr. Terry's conviction.....

let's think guy with gun outside of court house, easy RAS to detain, witness intimidation, jury intimidation, threats against elected officials, keep in mind we're talking rifle, not someone with a holstered pistol, I'm willing to bet the courts would back up any detention made to investigate on suspicion of those crimes...

remember, the "about to commit a crime" I just came up with three that can be reasonably inferred from the intent of carrying long guns outside a courthouse. remember, a terry stop is not an arrest, it's a detention for the purposes of investigation, investigation is certainly warranted in that case.

Read his words carefully, you DON'T have to be COMMITTING a crime to be lawfully detained, but you DO have to be REASONABLY SUSPECTED of committing a crime.

EMN; Let's NOT think, because if you was a LEO and you detained that dude for the reasons you typed, you'd most likely be sued personally, and reprimanded, because believe it or not, There is no RAS that the guy is about to, or is, committing a crime solely based on the fact that he is OPENLY CARRYING A FIREARM. He is OUTSIDE of the Courthouse building. There is no crime being committed, nor is there a chance that a crime is being committed because he was freely speaking, legally recording, legally carrying, legally standing. It's not a crime in this state to stand outside of a Courthouse building. If a Courthouse does not contain the Court of Justice, or it's offices like the Drivers Licensing office, etc, then he could have freely and legally walked into the building with a loaded openly carried M2 HMG and no one could legally say anything about it. I'm not disputing the facts laid out in Terry V Ohio, but you're talking as if exercising a constitutional, and judicially backed-up right, in a place not prohibited by state law, is somehow a crime, or should be treated as such. Please read our laws, and cases, and so on, before making an argument, it's really giving me a headache, and it gives off a conflicting view of Kentucky gun freedoms when viewed by someone who is not registered on these forums, and are doing a google search to know more about OC.

Fall; There is no crime being committed, nor about to be committed, read what I said to EMN, Please? I'm not hammering either of you about terry. Sure, you have to be reasonably suspected of committing a crime and whatnot, but, the guy in question WAS NOT committing a crime, he was free and clear.

Now, lets all get together and have a BIIIIIIIIIIIIG HUG! Because Huggles make the world go round~ <3

And for the record, Standing in front of a court house, openly carrying a firearm, talking to people, while recording audio/visual, while with friends who are audio and/or video recording, all together, does not suggest a crime is being occurred or about to happen. It suggests a LAC exercising every portion of his constitutional and legal rights.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

The last time I checked this is a forum and is full of opinions. I do believe people come here looking for OPINIONS, not laws. Hence their on OCDO not on KY page looking at KRS.

I can only speak for myself of course, but I come here primarily for the knowledge some of these folks have gleaned from hours of effort studying, and the fruit of their studies put to the test on the street and / or from supporting legal cases, laws, or specific incidents.

Personal opinions have some value, too. Mostly along the lines of entertainment. I mean, how could one possibly use a non-referenceable opinion harvested on this or any other forum in putting together a legal strategy to keep one's feet out of law enforcement's traps, or in a court if you wound up in one?

Please don't read that as a discouragement regarding conversation in gaining a workable plan of action / bag of tricks. We're all free to think whatever we think. And I think we all need to accept that what we post should be open to challenge.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The last time I checked this is a forum and is full of opinions. I do believe people come here looking for OPINIONS, not laws. Hence their [I'm sure you meant they're] on OCDO not on KY page looking at KRS.

I hope you're just expressing yourself poorly.

For instance, it doesn't matter a whit what one's opinion of how justifiable shooting the panhandler who washes your windshield without your express permission is. The law says you cannot do it and any opinion to the contrary is going to be as useful in court as trusting your defense to a chimpanzee.

Opinions are fine and dandy for "XD v. Glock" type arguments, but when it comes 'Will I go to jail if .......?" opinions are readily trumped by actual law.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I stated that you don't need to be committing a crime for the police to lawfully detain you under the Terry ruling.

I am going to ask again~where in TvO does the judges or the narrative give any indication that legal open carry of a firearm is RAS of a crime? Please do not go off on some other BS, we are talking about a individual that clearly was legally armed, and the officer even eludes to his legal carry. The officer in his Facebook simply goes off on claims of suspicion that have absolutely NOTHING to do with his legal carry. The officer was clearly annoyed, but I hate to break it to you, being annoyed is NOT RAS.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I am going to ask again~where in TvO does the judges or the narrative give any indication that legal open carry of a firearm is RAS of a crime? Please do not go off on some other BS, we are talking about a individual that clearly was legally armed, and the officer even eludes to his legal carry. The officer in his Facebook simply goes off on claims of suspicion that have absolutely NOTHING to do with his legal carry. The officer was clearly annoyed, but I hate to break it to you, being annoyed is NOT RAS.

If I may quote a member from another forum:

I'll say it again, Terry DOESN'T apply.
Terry applies when an officer makes a self-initiated investigatory stop based on his/her observations and belief that criminal activity has been/is being/is about to be committed.

So.... when a citizen calls to say that someone is performing a legal act and they're scared the whole Terry v Ohio argument just goes right out the window. No need for reasonable suspicion of illegality before detaining, no need for probable cause before arrest too, I guess since that's part of the Terry decision as well.

 

[WalkingWolf]

If I may quote a member from another forum:

So.... when a citizen calls to say that someone is performing a legal act and they're scared the whole Terry v Ohio argument just goes right out the window. No need for reasonable suspicion of illegality before detaining, no need for probable cause before arrest too, I guess since that's part of the Terry decision as well.

Well we know the ruling of the 4th district in Black, we know the judges comments in Debeary. So we know a lawfully possessed firearm is not RAS. So what I want from EMN where he comes up with that a lawfully firearm is RAS in Terry V Ohio, and he dances around it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Well we know the ruling of the 4th district in Black, we know the judges comments in Debeary. So we know a lawfully possessed firearm is not RAS. So what I want from EMN where he comes up with that a lawfully firearm is RAS in Terry V Ohio, and he dances around it.

I didn't come up with that, you did.

I stated the concept in Terry which is that legal acts when committed a certain way can be construed as RAS of a crime about to occur. everything else is stuff you inserted.

also you are claiming a "lawfully carried gun" which is entirely your presuppisition. in most states it is illegal to use a deadly weapon to threaten or intimidate other people or the judicial process or government officers. In many states it is unlawful to carry a firearm while intoxicated (this individual, if the FB post is to be believed, apparently is a frequent flier of the local LE for drunk and disorderly. it's illegal to use a firearm to steal property from others (apparently our intrepid hero of freedom is a thief too) so what do we have, we have an individual with a criminal history (possibly priors) who's known to be frequently intoxicated in public, possessing a deadly weapon near the court house (where he presumably has been standing as a defended or staying for free courtesy of the county, so possibly a grudge) I think that will equal just enough RAS to trigger QI, probably to sustain any detention too, we're not talking someone minding their own business going about their day being yanked by the stasi....

and for that matter, it doesn't even really sound like a detention, nothing indicates a search was performed, nothing indicates that mr rifle toter was prevented from leaving, so this is all a theoretical discussion anyway....

 

[WalkingWolf]

I asked you for a cite, you claimed Terry, without so much as a bit of FUQ to back it up. I keep asking you for references from Terry that indicate the lawful possession or carry of a firearm is RAS. You have failed to give a adequate answer just dancing. Are you planning on being a celebrity on DWTS?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I didn't come up with that, you did.

I stated the concept in Terry which is that legal acts when committed a certain way can be construed as RAS of a crime about to occur. everything else is stuff you inserted.
No, you stated a single, particular fact,"...which Ohio statute makes it illegal to walk back and forth near a business? because what was what was upheld as RAS..." and you conveniently forgot to mention the SEVERAL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES that were used in Terry v. Ohio. Why is that?

also you are claiming a "lawfully carried gun" which is entirely your presuppisition. in most states it is illegal to use a deadly weapon to threaten or intimidate other people or the judicial process or government officers.
Wait, what??? You mean there are states where it's NOT ILLEGAL TO USE A DEADLY WEAPON TO THREATEN SOMEONE?
:BS FLAG:


In many states it is unlawful to carry a firearm while intoxicated (this individual, if the FB post is to be believed, apparently is a frequent flier of the local LE for drunk and disorderly.
In many states it's illegal to do a lot of things, is there a shred of evidence that in THIS CASE, THIS PERSON was under the influence?

it's illegal to use a firearm to steal property from others (apparently our intrepid hero of freedom is a thief too) so what do we have, we have an individual with a criminal history (possibly priors) who's known to be frequently intoxicated in public, possessing a deadly weapon near the court house (where he presumably has been standing as a defended or staying for free courtesy of the county, so possibly a grudge) I think that will equal just enough RAS to trigger QI, probably to sustain any detention too, we're not talking someone minding their own business going about their day being yanked by the stasi....
I'm kinda worried about ENM's use of "close to a courthouse." If you look at laws they don't use language like "close to" or "nearby" they use language like "within 1,000 ft of a school building", or "within 150 ft of a polling place" or "on the grounds of".

and for that matter, it doesn't even really sound like a detention, nothing indicates a search was performed, nothing indicates that mr rifle toter was prevented from leaving, so this is all a theoretical discussion anyway....

And there's about the only point in which we are in agreement. No mention was made of a detention in the officer's facebook tale, only that he spoke with the individual. From the post, either the citizen or the officer was free to leave at any time.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> I stated the concept in Terry which is that legal acts when committed a certain way can be construed as RAS of a crime about to occur. everything else is stuff you inserted.

You seem to have stated what you want to believe Terry means, not what the stated opinion in Terry is.

also you are claiming a "lawfully carried gun" which is entirely your presupposition. in most states it is illegal to use a deadly weapon to threaten or intimidate other people or the judicial process or government officers. In many states it is unlawful to carry a firearm while intoxicated (this individual, if the FB post is to be believed, apparently is a frequent flier of the local LE for drunk and disorderly. it's illegal to use a firearm to steal property from others (apparently our intrepid hero of freedom is a thief too) so what do we have, we have an individual with a criminal history (possibly priors) who's known to be frequently intoxicated in public, possessing a deadly weapon near the court house (where he presumably has been standing as a defended or staying for free courtesy of the county, so possibly a grudge) I think that will equal just enough RAS to trigger QI, probably to sustain any detention too, we're not talking someone minding their own business going about their day being yanked by the stasi....

Without any facts to the contrary the citizen must be considered, by a/that cop, to be acting within the confines of the law. You disagree with this basic tenet it seems. You also attribute acts to the citizen that were not attributed by that cop during the described encounter. Past criminal behavior has zero bearing on the encounter described in the OP story.

and for that matter, it doesn't even really sound like a detention, nothing indicates a search was performed, nothing indicates that mr rifle toter was prevented from leaving, so this is all a theoretical discussion anyway....

Possible, I do not disagree with this statement. But, the story does not state whether or not the citizen requested to leave or to be left alone. We only have the cop's side of the story and the words used by the cop do not lead me to place his version of the story as the complete truth. You, unfortunately defer to the cop simply because he is a cop.

 

[WalkingWolf]

(snip) But, the story does not state whether or not the citizen requested to leave or to be left alone. We only have the cop's side of the story and the words used by the cop do not lead me to place his version of the story as the complete truth. You, unfortunately defer to the cop simply because he is a cop.

This! IMO the cop got his feelings hurt, nothing he claimed IF true had any bearing on the legal carry of a firearm. That is it, none of the other BS is relevent, no matter how some people who do not agree with the constitution wish to spin. If the cop did in fact post this caucau on facebook he deserves to face the ramifications set out in department policy.