Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would you ever grab an OC persons gun ??

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Would you ever grab an OC persons gun ??

    There is a case ongoing in Ohio right now, I will not name when/where...but here are the events.

    A man who was OC (in an IWB holster with no garment covering the gun) a High Point pistol was walking down the sidewalk.

    Another man walked past him, and turned and grabbed and pulled the OC persons gun from it's holster, when he spun to strike the man he backed off and said he was a cop. He then placed the OC person in handcuffs, and at that time provided proof that he was in fact an LEO.

    The OC person was arrested and charged.

    I hope the case goes to court with a good lawyer because than we will have a legal precedent about whether a gun in an IWB holster with no covering garment is "concealed". I would think cross examination about "concealed" could get a bit intensive, as the officer was able to see the gun to begin with, and to draw it from the holster slick as a whistle as the man walked down the sidewalk.

    Personally I think if the carrier had been better trained(and using a retention holster) and prepared the LEO sadly would be dead or seriously injured...and the OC person would be charged with murder of an LEO.

    Some say they would rather be lucky than good anyday........

    Bill
    Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

  • #2
    I do not think either way it is going to set a legal precedent abut IWB. If memory serves me correct a concealed weapon is defined as a weapon that is not easily identified as a handgun, now in his case if the officer says he walked past and seen it then his lawyer could probably get him off because obvious it was easily recognized as a pistol therefore it could be argued it was OC. General rule of thumb we use in Michigan is do not carry IWB without a CPL unless you wanna be a test case and if carrying IWB do not refuse to ID yourself because if carrying concealed you cannot refuse to ID yourself if asked.

    I do think that grabbing anyone's gun is a bad idea and I do not think it would result in a murder charge if you did shoot to stop the threat on someone that was not in uniform. A successful argument could probably be made that someone grabbing your gun is a threat to your life, thank god that did not happen but I do think the issue of a un-uniformed grabbing someones gun should be addressed on a complaint.

    Just out of curiosity, are you sure he wasn't charged with carrying a Hi-point

    Comment


    • #3
      I do not think either way it is going to set a legal precedent abut IWB. If memory serves me correct a concealed weapon is defined as a weapon that is not easily identified as a handgun, now in his case if the officer says he walked past and seen it then his lawyer could probably get him off because obvious it was easily recognized as a pistol therefore it could be argued it was OC. General rule of thumb we use in Michigan is do not carry IWB without a CPL unless you wanna be a test case and if carrying IWB do not refuse to ID yourself because if carrying concealed you cannot refuse to ID yourself if asked.

      I do think that grabbing anyone's gun is a bad idea and I do not think it would result in a murder charge if you did shoot to stop the threat on someone that was not in uniform. A successful argument could probably be made that someone grabbing your gun is a threat to your life, thank god that did not happen but I do think the issue of a un-uniformed grabbing someones gun should be addressed on a complaint.

      Just out of curiosity, are you sure he wasn't charged with carrying a Hi-point

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't this so! Consider this: if the man had covered the IWB with a shirt, no one would have known he was armed. As long as he was a solid, law-abiding citizen, he would not have been challenged and would have gone on his way without delay. Since he chose to carry a semi-concealed weapon he was not in fact "OPEN CARRY" and was in violation of law. Although there is no legal or definitive explanation for the term, it is generally accepted that "OPEN CARRY" is simply that - a weapon being carried in a holster in the open. That is the interpretation most law enforcement agencies and courts accept. If it is tucked into a waistband, it is partially concealed!

        For example, California Penal Code Section 12025(A)(2)(f) states:

        (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
        within the meaning of this section.
        That has been clarified as being carried in a holster outside of the waistband. Open carry permits others to see the shape and design of the weapon even when it is holstered. If it is tucked into a waistband, it is indistinguishable except for the grip and hammer mechanism. Inside the waistband is NOT a belt holster!

        Don't misinterpret my post to be anti-open carry. I have no legal opposition to 2A. I have issues with those who attempt to bend or modify the law to suit their personal agenda without proper background and avenues of legal authority.
        Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

        [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by opencarry View Post
          Just out of curiosity, are you sure he wasn't charged with carrying a Hi-point
          Nawwww.. That doesn't even count as an actual weapon.
          Sure, that badge will get you midgets, but those midgets will get that badge!

          The more I learn about people, the more I prefer the company of my dogs.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SgtCHP View Post
            I don't this so! Consider this: if the man had covered the IWB with a shirt, no one would have known he was armed. As long as he was a solid, law-abiding citizen, he would not have been challenged and would have gone on his way without delay. Since he chose to carry a semi-concealed weapon he was not in fact "OPEN CARRY" and was in violation of law. Although there is no legal or definitive explanation for the term, it is generally accepted that "OPEN CARRY" is simply that - a weapon being carried in a holster in the open. That is the interpretation most law enforcement agencies and courts accept. If it is tucked into a waistband, it is partially concealed!

            For example, California Penal Code Section 12025(A)(2)(f) states:



            That has been clarified as being carried in a holster outside of the waistband. Open carry permits others to see the shape and design of the weapon even when it is holstered. If it is tucked into a waistband, it is indistinguishable except for the grip and hammer mechanism. Inside the waistband is NOT a belt holster!

            Don't misinterpret my post to be anti-open carry. I have no legal opposition to 2A. I have issues with those who attempt to bend or modify the law to suit their personal agenda without proper background and avenues of legal authority.
            The fact that you use California's gun laws as the "example" just proves how absurd the interpretation is. If a person walking by is easily able to notice, recognize, and seize the weapon in a matter of seconds, it is not concealed. Seeing the grip of a pistol sticking out of someone's pants is pretty distinguishable; you can very clearly tell that it is a handgun of some kind.

            The pistol was in plain sight; I don't understand how that can be interpreted as "concealed." If you saw a baggie of crack sticking out of someone's pocket it would be considered to be "in plain sight" and you would have probable cause to search them. But, based on your interpretation, that should not be the case. According to your statements the baggie was partially concealed and therefore it was legally "concealed".

            As for IWB not being a belt holster, that completely depends on your holster! There are some that use the belt for support and some that only use the pants to support the weight of the pistol. This fact alone should indicate how ridiculous it is to use the mounting method as a determining factor. Concealment has to do with visibility, not how the weight of the pistol is supported.

            Personally I don't think openly carrying is the best idea.
            Last edited by Fëanor; 06-16-2010, 09:42 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's my understanding as long as parts of the weapon as exposed and in plain view than it's legal. The right IWB doesn't conceal any more of the weapon than a OWB holster. I would love to see a legal definition of "belt holster". What about shoulder holsters? If you wear a jacket over a traditional holster than it's concealed, right? The holster doesn't necessarily determine anything, it's how it's worn.


              Here's an example of what I'm talking about...

              Comment


              • #8
                Well Ohio law works on legal precedents, if something is not defined, it CAN BE defined if it comes up in a case and a precedent is set.

                There WAS a man charged with CC because he had his pistol in a usmil flap holster that was worn in the usual OC fashion....he plead guilty to a lesser offense.

                I am more concerned with the gun grabbing than the IWB vs OWB aspect.

                I do myself would not push it by OC with an IWB holster.

                Bill
                Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                Comment


                • #9
                  If that's not the issue then the officer was justified. Disarming a suspect while in the process of placing him under arrest. What's the problem? I question the smarts of his decision, but he's still justified. Does Ohio allow for off duty officers to arrest for such offenses?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    All legal mumbo jumbo and hair splitting aside..

                    How the hell does one decide to "open carry" with a zero retention holster? ....and then let someone grab it right out of their waistband?

                    He should be shamed into hiding. Had it been some criminal rather than an officer he would be DEAD! ....his family too if they were with him and any body else the the psycho who got his gun decided to shoot..... WITH HIS GUN!....WTF!
                    Last edited by mvill203; 06-16-2010, 10:28 AM. Reason: spelling

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      good point! I agree with that too

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wow.....the asshat that was OFF DUTY is lucky he isnt dead......

                        Someone grabbing my firearm is going to be treated as if he intends to kill me.......and if he isnt in uniform or displaying LEO ID, I am NOT going to assume that he is an actual cop.....

                        Grab my gun, and I WILL defend myself with deadly force.....no questions asked
                        The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

                        "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

                        "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As I understand it the Officer was an Undercover not necc. off duty.

                          And I did not say the Officer was not justified to disarm the person, however in some cases he would have been shot dead where he stood before he could ever say "I'm a cop". The case where the security gaurd tried to disarm the OC person and got the tar beat out of him comes to mind.

                          And the courts will decide I suppose if the OC person was breaking the law or not.

                          Bill
                          Last edited by willbird; 06-16-2010, 10:13 AM.
                          Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by willbird View Post
                            As I understand it the Officer was an Undercover not necc. off duty.

                            Bill
                            Even if he is ON DUTY, he isnt in uniform, and is not readily identifiable as being a LEO......he would have bought a multi-week suspension here for those actions.........the viewpoint is that if you wouldnt do it while in a fully marked uniform, you sure as HELL wont do it while in plainclothes......never mind while off duty.......off duty would fall under the 'Ye SHALL NOT' catagory......
                            The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

                            "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

                            "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This sounds like a procedural failure. Why would the first thing you do, in a peaceful situation where there is no threat or crime in progress, and you're in civilian clothes, be to try to take a weapon from someone's waistband rather than to put yourself in an advantageous position, ready your weapon and identification, then hail them, and order them to comply with [whatever you feel is necessary and appropriate commands for the situation].

                              Think about it - If someone in civvies suddenly out of the blue tries to wrench your weapon from your person, they could yell at you that they're a cop/astronaut/superman/whatever, and you wouldn't just magically stop defending yourself and trying to retain your weapon. The most important thing at that moment for the person whose weapon is in danger of being taken by an unknown assailant is survival and there's no reason good reason that would be anything other than self-defense.

                              If you're a police officer and you notice someone has a gun on their person, i'd imagine you should position yourself, identify yourself (draw your weapon at the same time if you want), and command them, before you try to physically engage them and wrest the weapon from their person. In that case, you would be completely justified in your actions, including shooting the person if they went for their not-very-well-concealed weapon, because you've clearly identified yourself and given them instructions with which they chose not to comply but instead to put your life in danger by reaching for their weapon.
                              Last edited by w8ing2hear; 06-16-2010, 10:37 AM.
                              Applied USSS 1811 0809, TEA 1009, Initial 1109, BQA'd 1209

                              Applied Federal Agency 0083 0310, Phone 1010

                              Comment

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4334 users online. 233 members and 4101 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                              Working...
                              X